Legislature(2021 - 2022)BARNES 124
05/09/2022 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
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 | |
| SJR23 | |
| SB177 | |
| HB120 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SJR 23 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 177 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 120 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SB 177-MICROREACTORS
1:29:17 PM
CHAIR PATKOTAK announced that the next order of business would
be CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 177(RES), "An Act relating to nuclear
facility siting permits; and relating to microreactors."
CHAIR PATKOTAK noted that this is the committee's first time to
hear CSSB 177(RES) but that the committee has twice heard the
companion bill, HB 299, and taken public testimony on HB 299.
1:29:49 PM
CHRISTINA CARPENTER, Director, Division of Environmental Health,
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), introduced CSSB
177(RES) on behalf of the Senate Rules Standing Committee,
sponsor by request of the governor. She explained that CSSB
177(RES) would define a microreactor according to the federal
definition and would create a specific carve-out from the
ongoing study and legislative siting requirements. She related
that Senator Jesse Kiehl worked with DEC on language for two
amendments that were incorporated into the bill by the Senate
Resources Standing Committee. She explained that in lieu of the
current ongoing study requirements for six state agencies, CSSB
177(RES) would direct DEC to coordinate and submit comments from
those agencies to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission when an
Alaska sited microreactor license application is put forward.
She said a second amendment added language to the bill that
explicitly obtains legislative siting approval for unorganized
boroughs.
MS. CARPENTER deferred to Mr. Travis Million of the Copper
Valley Electric Association (CFEA) to provide further testimony
on CSSB 177(RES). She noted that CVEA is an electrically
isolated electric cooperative in Interior and Southcentral
Alaska, serving Valdez, Glennallen, and the surrounding Copper
River Basin, a vast service territory of 160 miles north to
south and 100 miles east to west. She said CVEA is currently
conducting a feasibility study of micro modular reactor (MMR)
technology with the Ultra Safe Nuclear Corporation (USNC).
1:32:37 PM
TRAVIS MILLION, CEO, Copper Valley Electric Association (CVEA),
provided a PowerPoint presentation [hard copy included in the
committee packet], titled "Looking into Nuclear." He displayed
the second slide, "AGENDA," and said he will review why CVEA is
looking at nuclear, what MMR is and isn't, the environmental and
safety concerns, the feasibility study, and what CVEA is doing
thus far for stakeholder engagement.
MR. MILLION proceeded to the third slide, "WHY NUCLEAR." He
stated that in June [2021] the CVEA board developed a strategic
plan for the cooperative, with one of the five major goals being
to develop a plan to reduce the cooperative's use of diesel fuel
for power generation on its system. He related that CVEA is
nearly 100 percent hydropower in the summer, with an annual
average of 70 percent hydropower. In the winter, he continued,
CVEA must rely on diesel fuel at its generation plants that use
either diesel or a fossil fuel called light straight run (LSR),
which comes from the Petro Star Refinery, and which puts CVEA at
the whim of what fuel prices do. He pointed out that in January
2021 CVEA paid under $2 per gallon for fuel and that in March
2022 CVEA paid nearly $4.50 per gallon, plus at times the fuel
cost spiked to over $5 per gallon for delivery to CVEA's power
plants. Mr. Million noted that this year winter came early,
resulting in CVEA going from an average 30 percent hydro spread
over the winter to 20 percent hydro, causing some of the biggest
increases seen in CVEA's history; normally the rate is about
$0.19 per kilowatt hour in the summer when on hydropower, but it
spiked to over $0.42 per kilowatt hour this winter. He said the
CVEA board wants to develop a plan to get off diesel fuel and to
find ways to get rid of the fluctuation of fuel cost so that
long term energy cost is stable for many years to come. He also
noted that reducing emissions from fossil fuel power plants is a
major concern of the CVEA board. The CVEA board has considered
wind power, he continued, but the CVEA service territory has
marginal Class 2 winds with high turbulence, so wind doesn't
work. Mr. Million said solar power works great in the summer,
but CVEA is already 100 percent hydropower then and that doesn't
solve the cooperative's wintertime issues. He said CVEA has
looked at geothermal, biomass, every hydro asset that could be
available in its region, and interties like the Railbelt
Intertie project.
1:36:02 PM
MR. MILLION addressed the two photographs on the fourth slide,
"MICRO MODULAR REACTOR (MMR)?" He said the light water reactors
depicted in these photos are currently deployed throughout the
U.S. and the world and they are typical in the gigawatt or
thousands of megawatt range. But, he continued, these are not
what is being talked about with micro modular reactors.
MR. MILLION moved to the fifth slide, "MMR SIZE COMPARISON." He
explained that the upper left picture shows the footprint of a
standard light water reactor, typically about a gigawatt in size
and taking up 50-plus acres. The reactor building, he added, is
the red cylindrical building in the middle of the picture. He
then drew attention to the blue rectangle on the lower right and
explained that it is the footprint of a micro modular reactor
like the one CVEA is looking at through Ultra Safe Nuclear
Corporation (USNC) and which takes up approximately five acres.
He said the yellow square is the reactor building, which is
about the size of a 40-foot Conex buried vertically in the
ground. To provide a size comparison, he noted that the green
rectangle to the left of the MMR is a football field, and that
the MMR is essentially the size of two football fields.
MR. MILLION turned to the sixth slide, "What is a microreactor
and why?" He stated CVEA is looking at this technology because
it fits the cooperative's system very well, which is about a 20-
megawatt summertime load, peaking at about 15 megawatts in the
wintertime. With CVEA's little bit of hydro, he said, a 10-
megawatt reactor would be about the perfect size to take care of
wintertime needs. A second benefit in addition to producing
electricity, he noted, is the microreactor's process heat, which
could be utilized for industrial applications, specifically in
the Valdez area. He specified that a microreactor meets CVEA's
needs by reducing carbon emissions from its diesel power plants,
by addressing safety with this newer technology, and by having a
long-time stable cost because the design that CVEA is looking at
has between 20 and 40 years between needing to refuel.
1:38:54 PM
MR. MILLION continued to the seventh slide, "Ultra Safe Nuclear
FCM Fuel," and stated that this microreactor uses TRISO fuel.
He explained that the blue dots in the picture are the uranium
pellets, which are about the size of a poppy seed. These poppy
seed pieces of uranium are triple coated in silicon carbide, he
continued, and then they are set in an array as shown in the
picture where they are again coated in more silicon carbide and
graphite. He said this keeps all the radiation intact and
prevents it from leaking out and from thermally "running away";
it keeps the temperature from coming up. It is called "walkaway
safe," he continued, because if there is a failure to the
cooling system, personnel can walk away since by physics it is
going to keep its temperature regulated on its own and that is
one of the nice things with this fuel design. Mr. Million
further noted that this fuel design was implemented in the
1970s, so it's not new technology. What is new, he said, is the
manufacturing technologies and the three-dimensional printing
that now allow mass production of this fuel.
TM
MR. MILLION displayed the eighth slide, "MMR Energy System REM
2-Unit Layout for Remote Energy Management." He stated that the
diagrammatic represents a generic layout of a two-reactor plant
of about 10 megawatts, like what CVEA is currently considering.
Regarding water used for steam generation becoming radioactive,
he said it's a closed water system. He specified that the two
reactors depicted on the left are cooled with helium, and since
helium is an inert gas, it cannot absorb any radiation. Heat is
taken from the reactor to a heat exchanger where one side of the
heat exchanger has helium and the other has molten salt, he
continued. The molten salt heats up from that reaction, then it
goes through another heat exchanger where the other side has
water or steam. Through this process, Mr. Million stated, there
is no way for the radiation to propagate down and get into the
water source. This closed loop totally contained system, he
added, doesn't require a river or any body of water for cooling.
MR. MILLION discussed the ninth slide, "Projects in
Development." He advised that if CVEA's feasibility study goes
through, the cooperative will not be the first one given USNC is
currently working on a project set to come online in 2026 at
Chalk River in Canada. He said USNC also has a project in place
with the University of Illinois where a test reactor will be put
in the middle of campus where it will be utilized and tested
through the university's radiological engineering department.
So, he continued, if it pencils out for CVEA to move forward
with this project, the cooperative would be number three of the
USNC deployed reactors. However, he noted, the project would be
the first commercial reactor potentially within the nation and
within USNC's fleet.
1:42:53 PM
MR. MILLION moved to the tenth slide, "CVEA/USNC Joint
Feasibility Study." He related that the economics is a big
driver as to whether this will work; it won't be as cheap as
CVEA's hydropower, but it would be far less than what CVEA is
presently paying for diesel. So, he said, CVEA is shooting for
something in between that will balance generation costs
throughout the year to be the same rate year round. The
feasibility study is looking at potential locations to determine
whether there is a mix that could work well there, he continued.
The only downfall, he noted, is that there is presently no
industrial application for the heat in the Copper Basin. He
related that the feasibility study is looking at benefits,
concerns, and issues for the community. He explained that given
USNC is the manufacturer of this technology and involved with
the feasibility study, CVEA brought in an Anchorage engineering
firm, Electric Power Systems (EPS), a firm that works with every
utility in Alaska, primarily designing generation distribution
transmission as well as installing, operating, and commissioning
these things. He said EPS is doing most of the feasibility
study from the standpoint of integration and cost, as well as
some of the environmental impact, and USNC is looking primarily
at the nuclear side of the feasibility study. Mr. Million
estimated that the feasibility study would be completed by the
end of summer [2022], at which time the CVEA board will take
public comment and then decide whether to move forward.
MR. MILLION continued to the eleventh slide, "CVEA & USNC
Engagement," and discussed stakeholder engagement. He explained
that CVEA normally wouldn't start talking to the public until a
feasibility study had been conducted and the results were in
hand; however, given the word "nuclear" can be a trigger point
for people, he said CVEA wanted to get out front and hear the
concerns of communities and what opportunities CVEA might be
overlooking that could be integrated into the feasibility study.
In Valdez presentations have been given to the city council, he
stated, and open public meetings have been held in Valdez and
with the Greater Copper Basin Chamber of Commerce. One-on-one
meetings with individual stakeholders have also been undertaken,
he noted. He related that most of the questions are similar,
such as how CVEA is dealing with the safety concerns, the
environmental concerns, and getting rid of the hazardous waste.
MR. MILLION addressed the issue of waste. He said CVEA has been
given a guarantee by USNC. Refueling would occur once every 20-
40 years, he related, and when the fuel comes out it will be
stored in a cask that is safe to be around and which is how most
nuclear waste is stored in the U.S. today. The fuel would sit
on site anywhere from six months to two years to allow it to
cool, he said, and once cooled USNC would transport it out of
Alaska and at that point it is USNC's responsibility to dispose
of the [spent] fuel at either an interim USNC storage facility
or through the U.S. Government to dispose of it in a long-term
storage solution. Mr. Million explained that the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission requires that funding be put in place when
licensing a nuclear reactor like this, such that if the company
were to go out of business there would already be funds in place
to get rid of the nuclear fuel waste at that point in time.
1:48:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER thanked Mr. Million for such an in-depth
presentation.
CHAIR PATKOTAK inquired about the dollar amount that would be
put aside at licensing for long-term fuel storage.
MR. MILLION replied that CVEA isn't far enough along into the
feasibility study to know what those costs might be.
1:49:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GILLHAM offered his understanding that HB 199 is
the companion bill to SB 177. He recalled that there wasn't
much opposition to HB 199, but said he is getting lots of
opposition to CSSB 177(RES). He asked whether there is a
difference in the two bills that is creating the current
opposition that wasn't there before.
MR. MILLION responded he isn't sure why the opposition would be
different given the bills are identical except for the two
amendments on the Senate side. He said most of the opposition
he has heard has been consistent on both the House and Senate
sides, and he personally hasn't heard any additional opposition.
REPRESENTATIVE GILLHAM stated that most of the opposition has to
do with storage. He related that he didn't get this opposition
when discussing HB 199, so he is curious as to why he is now.
1:50:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS asked whether CVEA is negotiating a ramp
down in prices with USNC assuming that as the company deploys
more of these across the U.S. it can achieve profitability at a
lower price point than in the initial negotiation.
MR. MILLION answered that this will be coming up through the
feasibility study since CVEA is looking at different options,
such as whether CVEA owns and operates or whether USNC owns and
operates and CVEA buys the power. So, he continued, CVEA will
look at that for a long-term contract if it buys power through
USNC. He allowed that Representative Fields has a good point to
keep in mind.
1:51:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN asked whether anything in existing statute
prevents CVEA from applying for permission and siting.
MR. MILLION replied, "Not necessarily anything that precludes us
from being able to do it, but definitely some ... hurdles." He
said having to bring a siting requirement to the legislature and
trying to get that approved could be difficult depending on who
is in the legislature in any given year. So, he continued, the
amendments to the bill would make it easier and more attractive
for the manufacturers to want to look at Alaska for deploying
these, especially in remote communities. While he won't say it
is a hindrance, he added, it could be potentially more difficult
to get siting authority as the statute is written today.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN asked whether Mr. Million can point to
where those challenges are in the existing statute or whether it
is something that an agency has said will be problematic.
MR. MILLION responded he has heard it through agencies and
through his knowledge of the process anything coming through
the legislature versus keeping it more of a local control is
going to be more time consuming and burdensome. He said he is
answering the question on the standpoint that anytime siting the
land must go through the state or federal government it can be a
very time-consuming process [as opposed to going through an
agency] like DEC or U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM).
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN asked whether Mr. Million was led to
believe that CVEA's project could not go forward without a
change in statute.
MR. MILLION answered no, CVEA wasn't told one way or another
whether it could go through based on statute.
1:53:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN presumed that because CVEA's feasibility
study is not yet done, there is not an exact site where CVEA
would want the project. She offered her understanding, based on
current statute and what CSSB 177(RES) attempts to do, that if
Mr. Million were here today with a specific site, the committee
could approve it. She said much of the hesitation from
legislators and the opposition being heard is that it would
throw out a requirement that any specific nuclear projects come
before the legislature along with the ability for everyone in
the state to engage on a project and get answers to their
questions about where the waste will be stored and what the
local hazards are from tsunami to earthquake, as opposed to it
being up to a local government, a utility, and state agencies
that have had no previous regulatory oversight with nuclear and
no additional dollars through staffing according to their own
fiscal note. That is the hesitation for many people, she said,
not CVEA's individual project. She asked whether she is correct
in understanding that CVEA is five to seven years from needing
it and that CVEA's feasibility study this summer should lead to
a specific location.
MR. MILLION replied that the feasibility study should give CVEA
a couple different potential locations and CVEA would make its
decision on whether to go ahead based on that and economics, as
well as other considerations.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN said she looks forward to hearing about a
specific project next year.
1:56:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS asked whether the Municipality of
Anchorage would have local control oversighting of microreactors
should this bill pass. He further asked whether there are
differences among the different types of jurisdictions apart
from the unorganized boroughs.
MS. CARPENTER responded that under [CSSB 177(RES)], organized
boroughs would have the ability to make that siting authority,
and if a borough is unorganized then the legislature would
retain that siting authority.
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS surmised that that means the Anchorage
Assembly would have the authority to say where such a facility
could be sited within the Municipality of Anchorage.
MS. CARPENTER answered that is correct, the Municipality of
Anchorage would be able to have that authority.
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS requested that the committee chair obtain
confirmation that this is also the interpretation of Legislative
Legal Services because that might provide some assurance for
Anchorage residents that there is a degree of public review.
CHAIR PATKOTAK confirmed he would do so. He said he thinks it
is like any other situation that comes up that unorganized
boroughs don't have the authority to determine for themselves,
and it runs through the House and Senate Community and Regional
Affairs Standing Committees.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN requested that Legislative Legal Services
advise the committee on whether first-class boroughs without
planning and zoning authority and second-class cities can have
their city councils [issue] permits.
1:59:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GILLHAM asked whether the reason behind
microreactors is for a more stable energy source or for cost.
MR. MILLION replied that the biggest thing for CVEA is lower
energy cost and long-term stability over at least a 40-year life
of the plant. He pointed out that a 40-year life of the plant
is the life of the license on a microreactor, and it can be
renewed after that, much like CVEA's hydropower plants typically
have a 40- or 50-year license and then CVEA renews the license
to extend it. Long-term, stable, lower-cost energy is the
primary driver, he added.
REPRESENTATIVE GILLHAM asked what CVEA will do with its
hydropower plants.
MR. MILLION responded that what is nice about this technology is
it doesn't have to come on and stay on, it can be turned off and
on as needed. He said CVEA would run 100 percent hydropower
when hydropower is available and bring the reactor down either
just to produce heat for industrial processes or shut it down
until it is needed at the beginning of winter, then ramp it up
with the wintertime generation. Doing that, he noted, would
extend the life of the fuel even longer, so if the fuel has a
10-year life when run at 100 percent for 24 hours a day, 7 days
a week, 365 days a year, then running it at half the time would
get almost a 20-year life out of the fuel.
2:01:18 PM
CHAIR PATKOTAK opened public testimony on CSSB 177(RES), then
closed it after ascertaining that no one wished to testify.
2:01:40 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 2:01 p.m. to 2:02 p.m.
2:02:28 PM
CHAIR PATKOTAK stated that the committee would conduct potential
follow-up on CSSB 177(RES) on 5/10/22.
[CSSB 177(RES) was held over].
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 177 Presentation CVEA 5.9.2022.pdf |
HRES 5/9/2022 1:00:00 PM |
SB 177 |
| SJR 23 Image of Family With Mountain 3.18.2022.jpg |
HRES 5/9/2022 1:00:00 PM SRES 3/18/2022 3:30:00 PM |
SJR 23 |
| SJR 23 Image of Mountain Aerial 3.18.2022.jpg |
HRES 5/9/2022 1:00:00 PM SRES 3/18/2022 3:30:00 PM |
SJR 23 |
| SJR 23 Image of Mountain From Deck 3.18.2022.jpg |
HRES 5/9/2022 1:00:00 PM SRES 3/18/2022 3:30:00 PM |
SJR 23 |
| SJR 23 Image of Mountain Location 3.18.2022.jpg |
HRES 5/9/2022 1:00:00 PM SRES 3/18/2022 3:30:00 PM |
SJR 23 |
| SJR 23 Letter of Support Cappelletti 03.16.2022.pdf |
HRES 5/9/2022 1:00:00 PM SRES 3/18/2022 3:30:00 PM |
SJR 23 |
| SJR 23 Letter of Support Judy Brady 03.14.2022.pdf |
HRES 5/9/2022 1:00:00 PM SRES 3/18/2022 3:30:00 PM |
SJR 23 |
| SJR 23 Letter of Support Kim Griffith 03.12.2022.pdf |
HRES 5/9/2022 1:00:00 PM SRES 3/18/2022 3:30:00 PM |
SJR 23 |
| SJR 23 Letter of Support Debardelaben 03.17.2022.pdf |
HRES 5/9/2022 1:00:00 PM |
SJR 23 |
| SJR 23 Letter of Support Ralph Samuels 03.16.2022.pdf |
HRES 5/9/2022 1:00:00 PM SRES 3/18/2022 3:30:00 PM |
SJR 23 |
| SJR 23 Sponsor Statement 3.18.2022.pdf |
HRES 5/9/2022 1:00:00 PM SRES 3/18/2022 3:30:00 PM |
SJR 23 |
| SJR 23 Letter of Support DeBardelaben 3.18.2022.pdf |
HRES 5/9/2022 1:00:00 PM SRES 3/18/2022 3:30:00 PM |
SJR 23 |
| SB 177 Sectional Analysis 5.9.2022.pdf |
HRES 5/9/2022 1:00:00 PM |
SB 177 |
| SB 177 Explanation of Changes Version B 5.9.2022.pdf |
HRES 5/9/2022 1:00:00 PM |
SB 177 |
| HB 120 Amendment Fields G.2 5.9.2022.pdf |
HRES 5/9/2022 1:00:00 PM |
HB 120 |
| HB 120 Amendment Fields G.3 5.9.2022.pdf |
HRES 5/9/2022 1:00:00 PM |
HB 120 |
| HB 120 Testimony Packet Three 5.9.2022.pdf |
HRES 5/9/2022 1:00:00 PM |
HB 120 |
| HB 120 Amendment Hannan G.7 5.9.22.pdf |
HRES 5/9/2022 1:00:00 PM |
HB 120 |