State Capitol Week in Review
August 14, 2026
The Joint Committee on Energy of the Arkansas General Assembly recently reviewed a technical feasibility study on new nuclear generation in Arkansas which concluded that nuclear power is both feasible and advisable for the state’s future energy needs. Directed under Act 707 of 2025, the study cites rapidly rising electricity demand, retiring coal-fired generation, strong federal support, and modest state-level legal changes necessary to enable development.
Arkansas’s power demand is projected to increase more than 35 percent over the next five years, according to Entergy Arkansas, with long-term growth expected to more than double as technology, lithium production, steel manufacturing, aerospace, defense, forestry, and other industries expand their presence in the state. The Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation is evaluating roughly 4,000 megawatts of potential new load, which far exceeds its current system peak of about 3,000 MW. At the same time, Entergy is scheduled to cease coal operations at White Bluff by 2028 and Independence by 2030.
The report argues that nuclear power is uniquely suited to fill this gap. Nuclear plants operate around the clock, posting a 91 percent capacity factor in 2025—far above solar and wind. Nuclear generation produces no operational carbon emissions, requires the smallest land footprint of any major energy source, and has one of the lowest mortality rates per unit of energy. The study also stresses fuel security: nuclear plants can store 18 to 24 months of fuel onsite, unlike natural gas facilities vulnerable to supply disruptions. Modern reactors also deliver major economic benefits. Small modular reactors (SMRs) create about 237 permanent jobs, while large reactors employ up to 800 workers, support thousands more during construction, and generate hundreds of millions of dollars annually in local economic activity. Arkansas Nuclear One already illustrates the impact, supporting more than 1,000 jobs and serving as an economic cornerstone of Pope County.
To keep costs manageable, the study recommends Arkansas prepare candidate sites now and wait to build reactors once “nth-of-a-kind” (NOAK) prices become available. Early units of any new design are costly and slow to build, but costs drop sharply as more units are completed. Arkansas could secure low-cost opportunities by identifying and permitting sites ahead of time.
Six candidate regions were evaluated based on transmission capacity, seismic conditions, water access, flood risk, and population. Southwest Arkansas near Camden and Central Arkansas south of Little Rock scored highest. The existing Arkansas Nuclear One site also ranks well, though transmission upgrades would be required for larger projects. Retiring coal plants and military bases present additional siting opportunities.
The report outlines a financing strategy involving sponsor equity, state bridge loans, federal programs, export credit financing, and cost-overrun protections. It also recommends legal changes, including activating the long-unused Atomic Coordinator position, defining nuclear as clean energy under state law, creating a development fund, preparing a waste management plan, and authorizing in-state low-level waste disposal.
Next steps would include passing proposed legislation, supporting Arkansas companies in entering the nuclear supply chain, and working with willing counties to prepare and permit potential reactor sites.