Fifty-plus New Hampshire public school superintendents and hundreds more school board members are opposing a fast-moving legislative effort to enact universal open enrollment throughout the state.

The bill, if it becomes law, would allow students to attend public school in any New Hampshire community, no matter where they reside. If a Somersworth student, for example, chooses to attend school in Portsmouth, Somersworth would have to send the money it spends per student to Portsmouth, too.

Funding, budgeting and staffing concerns are cited by the coalition of school leaders in an open letter sent to Republican Gov. Kelly Ayotte and state lawmakers.

Christine Boston, superintendent of the Dover school district, pointed out that New Hampshire is ranked last in the nation in state public education funding per pupil, and this bill adds to dire funding issues.

Gov. Kelly Ayotte announced her intentions to put New Hampshire “at the forefront” of nuclear energy to loud applause last week. In her annual State of the State speech, Ayotte directed energy officials to find ways to foster a new generation of nuclear power in the state, which already has the second-largest nuclear plant in the region.

“I’ve asked the department to bring together stakeholders, lawmakers and organizations focused on nuclear generation to ensure we have everyone at the table and that we are on the forefront of adopting this new technology,” she said.

Nuclear power has gained new attention in recent years, particularly due to interest from technology companies in small, advanced reactors that could power data centers and artificial intelligence.

New Hampshire lawmakers have made efforts to support the power source with legislation that would allow utilities to own nuclear reactors and include nuclear in the state’s definition of “clean energy.” A state commission investigated the potential of nuclear technology, concluding that advanced nuclear generation would be necessary to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The commission recommended policy changes, including conducting feasibility studies for reactor sites, streamlining permitting, and implementing workforce programs.

Survey data from the Pew Research Center shows interest in nuclear from both sides of the aisle is growing, and nuclear power has the smallest partisan gap in support compared to coal, oil, fracking, wind power and solar power.

But advanced nuclear technology is still in early stages, and the process to bring that power to the state could require years of planning.

“It’s an interesting time in the industry, and there is lots of stuff happening. It’s just that none of it is near-term and none of it is in New England,” said Sam Evans-Brown, who leads the advocacy group Clean Energy New Hampshire.

NextEra, the company that owns the Seabrook nuclear facility, has said they are interested in expanding their nuclear resources at sites they already manage.

“NextEra Energy Resources is evaluating new nuclear technologies as potential long-term generation solutions, however there are currently no plans for another reactor at Seabrook,” the company said in an e-mailed statement.

Can nuclear power reduce energy costs?

In the State of the State speech where Ayotte described her vision for nuclear energy, she focused on fixing high electric rates, blaming neighboring New England states and a distracted Public Utilities Commission for driving up the cost of power.

But according to Evans-Brown, nuclear power likely isn’t a solution for high energy costs in the short-term.

“It really is kind of the shiny object as opposed to the hard work, the nuts and bolts of really sweating the details – that is the thing that is actually going to provide some sort of rate relief here in New England,” he said.

Evans-Brown suggested programs to reduce demand on the electric grid, revise energy efficiency programs to focus on savings during peak hours, and improve battery storage as shorter-term fixes.

According to federal data, nuclear is more expensive than almost every other power source to build and operate. And future cost projections are uncertain, because advanced nuclear technology is so new.

Can nuclear power clean up the energy grid?

Research shows combining nuclear with other sources could be a way to more cost-effectively clean up the power grid.

Nuclear power isn’t without issues. Uranium mining comes with environmental justice concerns, constructing plants involves using concrete, and safely managing nuclear waste is an ongoing challenge. But nuclear power holds a unique status as an energy source with limited atmosphere-warming emissions that is also “dispatchable,” meaning it can run whenever it is needed.

A study by New England’s grid operator showed adding small modular reactors, a kind of nuclear power generator, would reduce the amount of new wind, solar and storage needed by 57%.

“If you’re a climate person, you can’t help but notice that there’s an increasing consensus that what’s referred to as ‘clean firm,’ so any sort of dispatchable technology, results in a lower-cost grid overall,” Evans-Brown said.

Other clean-energy-focused analysts say new nuclear technologies are too expensive, slow to build, and risky, and they could take away resources from other technologies in the transition away from fossil fuels.

But climate change is one of the things that changed Armond Cohen’s mind about nuclear power. Cohen is the executive director of the Clean Air Task Force. As a young lawyer, he helped lead efforts to prevent the Seabrook nuclear reactor from being built in New Hampshire.

That project sparked massive protests in the 1970s led by the “Clamshell Alliance,” with thousands of people gathering to protest at the site during several different events.

“A lot of experience changed my view on that. In New England in particular, we have very few choices for decarbonizing the grid,” he said. “Eventually we do have to find a dispatchable, always-on, always-available source.”

How has nuclear power changed?

Over time, Cohen said, he also became convinced that nuclear power was safe, and that a permanent solution for nuclear waste could be achieved.

“The operating experience of the U.S. nuclear fleet has improved dramatically,” he said. “I believe that compared to the environmental concerns around climate change and not having an always-available zero-carbon resource on the system, the safety and social or environmental impacts are really much less worrisome than the alternative.”

New nuclear technology is in the works, including smaller versions of traditional nuclear reactors and new “advanced” reactors that haven’t reached commercial scale, said Spencer Toohill, chief of staff for nuclear energy innovation at The Breakthrough Institute.

“For a state like New Hampshire that is starting to look into new nuclear as an option for their energy mix, you’re thinking at the earliest five to six years from now,” Toohill said.

The barriers to building new nuclear power are significant, given that it has been unpopular in the past in New Hampshire, and siting a new facility would need to involve community support.

“New Hampshire hasn’t built a nuclear plant in a long time,” Toohill said. “You’ve got to bring in the workforce to construct the plant, to operate the plant. You’ve got to stand up the supply chain.”

The newest nuclear plant in the U.S. was built in Georgia and completed in 2024. It was the first nuclear project to be completed in the country in three decades, and it finished several years late and billions of dollars over budget.

The U.S. Department of Energy has focused on nuclear energy in recent months, announcing support for projects to build advanced reactors and asking states to make proposals for managing nuclear waste. In fast-tracking the construction of reactors, the Trump administration has side-stepped oversight from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and loosened safety directives.

That concerns Sarah Abramson, the executive director of the C-10 foundation, a watchdog group focused on the Seabrook nuclear station.

“Any new plants that are built under those highly relaxed rules do give me a lot of concern,” she said.

Abramson said she’d like to see a process to “obtain consent” from communities who might host nuclear projects. During that process, a community could hire their own experts and negotiate agreements for benefits, like real-time radiation monitoring and cancer incidence reviews.

“We just don’t know enough about these advanced nuclear and small modular reactors,” she said.