Legislature(2021 - 2022)ADAMS 519
02/15/2022 10:15 AM House ENERGY
Note: the audio
and video
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB247 | |
| HB299 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 247 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 299 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 299-MICROREACTORS
10:32:41 AM
CHAIR SCHRAGE announced the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 299, "An Act relating to microreactors."
CHAIR SCHRAGE opened public testimony on HB 299.
10:33:09 AM
PAUL ROEGE, Executive Director, The Advanced Nuclear and
Production Experts Group (ANPEG), shared that ANPEG is a public
and private collaboration affiliated with the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology. He stated that the charter exists to
enable a new generation of abundant resilient energy for remote
communities, value-added industries, and state and national
security. He argued that the proposed legislation could move
Alaska into a leadership role for next-generation energy. He
stated that ANPEG is ready to work through the Alaska Center for
Energy and Power to help communities understand opportunities
microreactors offer.
10:34:27 AM
MARY WOOLLEN, Director of Stakeholder Engagement, Ultra Safe
Nuclear Corporation (USNC), stated that USNC has manufactured a
micro modular reactor (MMR) specifically designed for remote
applications which are difficult to support using conventional
or renewable power. She expressed the opinion that this reactor
would be well suited for an application in Alaska, and, because
MMR is an advanced reactor, it would [align] with the proposed
legislation. She expressed excitement that USNC and Copper
Valley Electric Associate (CVEA) are jointly conducting a study
to determine the technical feasibility, social acceptance,
location cost, and operating specifics of deploying a
microreactor in the Copper Valley service area. In the
feasibility study a local Alaskan engineering firm has been
consulted to ensure there is insight into the particular
challenges in Alaska. She stated that, before entering into the
formal permitting process, USNC and CVEA are concurrently
engaging Alaskans by explaining the technology to them and
requesting their input.
MS. WOOLLEN stated that technical analysis is combined with
public engagement to begin the process of earning a "social
license," but to build and operate the reactor, a regulatory
license would be required. If the results of the feasibility
study are favorable and a financial agreement is found with
CVEA, USNC will pursue a regulatory license with the U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). She cautioned that the
process is long, expensive, and rigorous, but it would ensure
the nuclear reactor system is safe and well-designed before it
would be sited. She explained that the current law in Alaska
requires legislative preapproval for siting a reactor, and this
creates a risk for any company considering the deployment of an
advanced reactor in the state. If any nuclear reactor is to be
sited in Alaska, she reiterated that it would require a
regulatory license from the NRC and support from local
communities. She said that [the passage of] HB 299 would serve
to open the door for possibilities, but it would not ensure
success. In order for success, UNSC is committed to working
with Alaskans to find solutions that would support a zero-carbon
energy system which is safe, economical, sustainable, and
embraced by the local communities.
10:37:56 AM
RICHARD THEILMANN, representing self, said that he is a "huge
advocate" for having a microreactor in Alaska. Referencing air
pollution problems, he stated that microreactors would produce
heat and electricity "at almost zero risk." He added that there
would be no refueling for 10 or 20 years, and then the
manufacturer would take "the material back out." He said, for
example, the coal-fired Aurora Plant in Fairbanks, which has a
built-in hot water tapping network for the local building, could
be eliminated, reducing the particulates in the air. He stated
if Eielson Air Force Base were to acquire [a microreactor]
another coal plant would be "out of the mix." He argued that
the idea of replacing one coal plant with a microreactor puts
Alaska "on the map" by providing heat and eliminating air
pollution.
10:40:08 AM
TRAVIS MILLION, CEO, Copper Valley Electric Association, stated,
as testimony has indicated, CVEA is considering a feasibility
study to potentially bring an advanced micronuclear reactor to
the area. He stated that over the last couple of decades CVEA
has been searching for a way to resolve wintertime energy needs.
He said the community has nearly 100 percent hydropower from May
to around the end of October, before "hydro assets freeze." He
described the summertime electricity rate as low, or less than
20 cents a kilowatt hour, but the community is "at the whim of
whatever the costs of fossil fuels are in the wintertime." For
example, he said that between December and January of this year
there was a 44 percent increase of fuel costs. He continued
that there is no predictability from month to month, and,
unfortunately, those rates are passed on [to the customers].
Currently residents are paying just over 40 cents a kilowatt
hour in the Copper River Basin and just a small percentage less
in Valdez. To stabilize and reduce energy costs for the winter,
he said CVEA has looked at wind, solar, biomass, tidal, and
other hydro opportunities, but nothing solves the problem. He
indicated that technological advancements with micronuclear
reactors could possibly be the solution, and this is why the
feasibility study is going forward. He provided that each of
Alaska's delegates in Washington D.C. has expressed excitement
about this opportunity. He stated that U.S. Senator Lisa
Murkowski has been very vocal in support of Alaska having one of
the first [microreactor] deployments in the nation.
10:43:01 AM
PAMELA MILLER, Executive Director, Alaska Community Action on
Toxics (ACAT), testified in opposition to HB 299. She argued
that micronuclear reactors are not subject to nuclear reactor
siting and permitting regulations in Alaska, which could result
in reactors being constructed on lands which have not been
designated by the legislature. She offered that ACAT holds the
belief that nuclear reactors are a serious health and safety
concern and provide a false solution for energy needs and the
climate crisis. She expressed the opinion that nuclear power is
destructive throughout its life cycle with uranium mining, the
process of enrichment, and radioactive waste disposal. She
continued that the mining process is done predominately on
Indigenous lands, and waste disposal is an untenable problem.
She stated that NRC determined Oklo Inc., a manufacturer of
micronuclear reactors, has failed to provide sufficient
information concerning potential accidents and safety systems.
She stated that microreactor vendors are pushing to reduce
personnel, such as operators and security officers. She cited a
safety report by the Union of Concerned Scientists which
determined that leaving microreactors without human guards would
be not safe. She argued that none of these reactors have
demonstrated they would be safe enough to function without
operators. She expressed the opinion that even a small nuclear
reactor would contain enough radioactive material to cause
problems. She expressed concern that the primary proponents of
the proposed legislation are representatives from the nuclear
power industry who have a vested interest. She stated that the
state is still addressing the radioactive contamination from the
experimental nuclear reactor at Fort Greely. She opined that
opening the door to nuclear power in Alaska again is unwise and
dangerous.
10:45:25 AM
CHAIR SCHRAGE closed public testimony on HB 299.
[HB 299 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 247 Sponsor Statement (Version I).2.pdf |
HENE 2/15/2022 10:15:00 AM |
HB 247 |
| HB 247 Differences between the B and I Drafts.pdf |
HENE 2/15/2022 10:15:00 AM |
HB 247 |
| HB 247- Ver I CS Draft.pdf |
HENE 2/15/2022 10:15:00 AM HENE 3/3/2022 10:15:00 AM |
HB 247 |
| HB 247 ver B.pdf |
HENE 2/15/2022 10:15:00 AM |
HB 247 |
| HB 247-2021.12.02 REF Presentation.pdf |
HENE 2/15/2022 10:15:00 AM |
HB 247 |
| HB 247-AEA Shovel Ready Projects.pdf |
HENE 2/15/2022 10:15:00 AM |
HB 247 |
| HB 247-FY11-FY23 PCE Expenditures Operating (by Approp).pdf |
HENE 2/15/2022 10:15:00 AM |
HB 247 |
| HB 247-LFD PCE 10-Year Lookback.pdf |
HENE 2/15/2022 10:15:00 AM |
HB 247 |
| HB 247-PCE History.pdf |
HENE 2/15/2022 10:15:00 AM |
HB 247 |
| HB 247-PCE Statutes 2.pdf |
HENE 2/15/2022 10:15:00 AM |
HB 247 |
| HB 247-REF_EvaluationProcess_Overview.pdf |
HENE 2/15/2022 10:15:00 AM |
HB 247 |