Legislature(2021 - 2022)BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
03/08/2022 03:30 PM Senate COMMUNITY & REGIONAL AFFAIRS
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 | |
| SB177 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 177 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
SB 177-MICROREACTORS
3:31:00 PM
CHAIR HUGHES announced the consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 177
"An Act relating to microreactors." She stated that the old
legacy nuclear reactors or much different than microreactors.
She noted that this was the third hearing of this governor's
bill. The intention was to hear an update on the feasibility
study for a microreactor in the Valdez area. She highlighted the
safety features of the new microreactors that are very different
than the legacy reactor in Ukraine that is in jeopardy after the
recent Russian invasion of that country. She urged the
presenters to speak to that as well.
3:33:11 PM
TRAVIS MILLION, Chief Executive Officer, Copper Valley Electric
Association (CVEA), Glennallen, Alaska, stated that CVEA has
been working with the Ultra Safe Nuclear Corporation on the
feasibility study for using a micronuclear reactor as a solution
to wintertime energy issues in the Copper River Basin and
Valdez. CVEA enjoys abundant hydroelectric power during the
summer and is able to provide power at about $0.18/kWh. Most of
that water source freezes in the fall and winter, so about 80
percent of the power generated during that time comes from
fossil fuels.
He relayed that CVEA has kept an eye on the smaller reactors,
but the technology wasn't sufficiently advanced to make any
sense in this application until a few years ago. This spring
CVEA held a planning session to look at how to eliminate its
dependence on liquid fossil fuels and further reduce its carbon
footprint and greenhouse gas emissions. This spring they started
working with Ultra Safe in hopes that the new microreactor
technologies will be the solution so that CVEA can provide
predictable rates so members can plan on stable energy rates
year around. He opined that the feasibility study will provide
answers to many of the questions.
3:37:42 PM
CHAIR HUGHES asked what communities and areas the Copper River
Valley Association covers.
MR. MILLION answered that CVEA is not interconnected to any
other utility, so it generates all its own electricity and has
its own transmission and distribution systems. The service
territory stretches along the Richardson Highway from Valdez in
the south to just short of Paxson Lake in the north. The service
area runs out the Tok Cutoff Highway to about Mile 13, which is
just past the HAARP facility, then to Caribou Creek. The service
area also goes out the Edgerton Highway about 17 miles close to
Kenny Lake. The communities of Glennallen, Tazlina, Copper
Center, Gakona, Gulkana, Valdez and the surrounding area are
within CVEA's service territory.
3:39:10 PM
CHAIR HUGHES asked for the estimated number of Alaskans that
live in the CVEA service area.
MR. MILLION estimated the population was 8,000 with 3,900 meters
on the CVEA system.
SENATOR MYERS asked whether CVEA rate payers are eligible for
the Power Cost Equalization (PCE) Program.
MR. MILLION answered no. When the state acquired the Solomon
Gulch Project and transferred it to the Four Dam Pool Power
Agency (FDPPA), it eliminated eligibility for CVEA to
participate in PCE.
SENATOR MYERS asked if he had an estimate of what the electrical
rates would be if a microreactor were to be put online.
MR. MILLION answered that it was too early to tell, but the
rough numbers are in the neighborhood of $0.20 to $0.30/kWh
range. That's more than the cost of the hydroelectric power, but
less than the cost of diesel generation.
CHAIR HUGHES asked if shifting from diesel to a microreactor in
the winter, would decrease the cost of generation in the winter
from about $0.40/kWh to about $0.20/kWh.
MR. MILLION answered that is correct. The plan would be to avoid
running diesel except for outage restoration. CVEA would
maximize the cheapest power generation resource, which is hydro,
then utilize nuclear in the winter months when there is
insufficient hydro power.
3:41:21 PM
SENATOR GRAY-JACKSON asked him to talk about the difference in
safety between the legacy reactors and these new microreactors.
MR. MILLION deferred the question to the technical experts to
discuss during their presentation.
3:42:14 PM
SENATOR D. WILSON asked, if a decision is made to move forward
with a microreactor, would CVEA consider an intertie with
another power grid to offset the cost.
MR. MILLION answered that SJR 11 advocates for the development
of a Road Belt electrical intertie from Palmer to Glennallen to
Tok, then on to Delta to provide a new feed to the existing
transmission infrastructure in the state. CVEA supports such an
intertie, he said.
CHAIR HUGHES asked when CVEA first engaged with vendors to look
at microreactors as a potential electric power source, when the
feasibility study started, the timeline for making a decision,
and when a microreactor potentially could be installed. She
noted that this could be the first microreactor installed in a
community in the state.
3:44:30 PM
MR. MILLION answered that CVEA began working with USNC and the
Alaska firm Electric Power Systems early last fall to develop a
plan for the feasibility study. The study itself should be
completed in June or July. The study will be reviewed and
brought before the board if it pencils out. If the board is
comfortable and passes a resolution to move forward with the
project, the best case scenario is that the project could come
online in 2027.
CHAIR HUGHES asked when the community engagement will take
place.
MR. MILLION answered that it has started already and Mary
Woollen will discuss that in her part of the presentation.
CHAIR HUGHES thanked Mr. Million and welcomed the presenters
from Ultra Safe Nuclear Corporation.
3:47:02 PM
At ease.
3:48:06 PM
CHAIR HUGHES reconvened the meeting.
3:48:26 PM
CRISTIAN RABITI, Director of Technology Strategy, Ultra Safe
Nuclear Corporation, Idaho Falls, Idaho, began the presentation
by introducing Dr. Francesco Venneri, the CEO of Ultra Safe
Nuclear Corporation. He explained that in 2011, shortly after
the Fukushima nuclear disaster, Dr. Venneri began to wonder
about the possibility of creating a fuel that would withstand
the chain reaction like was seen in Fukushima. This led to the
creation of the prototype fully ceramic micro-encapsulated (FCM)
fuel, which is based on the TRISO fuel technology where the
uranium is layered in silicon carbide and carbon. What makes
this fuel a standout is that TRISO fuel is fully encapsulated in
a dense matrix of silicon carbide, the third hardest material
known.
MR. RABITI stated that the FCM fuel is the basis for the Micro
Modular Reactor (MMR) technology. He directed attention to the
2-unit schematic for a nuclear plant and adjacent non-nuclear
plant on slide 7. The footprint is just 150 by 200 yards. He
explained that the MMR technology is different than a classic
light water reactor because the fission products are locked
inside the fuel. The reactor core has a low power density and a
high heat capacity resulting in very slow and predictable
temperature changes. Furthermore, refueling isn't needed for 10-
14 years, which makes the whole installation much safer
MR. RABITI highlighted the two projects under development
depicted on slide 8, the first of which is the Chalk River
project in Canada. USNC will build its first reactor using the
MMR technology on this site. It is projected to come online in
2026. The picture on the right illustrates the site on the
University of Illinois campus where the MMR technology will be
demonstrated in a fully commercial application. He said the fact
that the reactor will be on campus is a clear sign of its level
of safety.
MR. RABITI advanced to slide 9, "Why the MMR is Right for
Alaska." He explained that the MMR technology was designed to
address the energy needs for remote mines, and those needs are
in line with the need for remote power in Alaska. He highlighted
that the price of electricity is very stable when the reactor
only needs to be refueled every 10-14 years. The construction
time also fits the Alaska niche. The reactor is assembled
primarily on site and generally can be completed in one season.
Further, multiple units of this reactor can be stacked as the
need for additional electricity grows.
3:55:39 PM
MR. RABITI advanced to slide 10 and reviewed the questions the
CVEA/USNC feasibility study will answer:
[Original punctuation provided.]
• Is there anything that would prevent siting an MMR
here?
• What are the preferred sites and their
characteristics?
• What are the cost parameters and decision points?
• What are the benefits, concerns, and issues for the
community?
• What operating specifics might apply in locating an
MMR here?
MR. RABITI advised that the expectation is to finish the
feasibility study by the end of summer 2022, after which
discussions will continue with CVEA.
He yielded to Mary Woollen to continue the presentation.
3:56:53 PM
MARY WOOLLEN, Director of Stakeholder Engagement, Ultra Safe
Nuclear Corporation (USNC), Minneapolis, Minnesota, advanced to
slide 11 to discuss the important points about stakeholder
engagement, particularly on the polarizing topic of nuclear
energy:
What is engagement?
Early: Stakeholder Engagement is a core competency for
USNC
Identification of range of stakeholders
Outreach- contact, establish best means of connection
Meet, listen, 2-way dialogue
Ability to hear 'No'
MS. WOOLLEN directed attention to the chart she uses to inform
public engagement from the International Association for Public
Participation. She spoke to the five categories that define the
public's role in any public participation process:
Public Participation Goal
Inform
To provide the public with balanced and objective
information to assist in understanding the problem,
alternatives, opportunities and/or solutions.
Consult
To obtain public feedback on analysis, alternatives
and/or decisions.
Involve
To work directly with the public throughout the
process to ensure that public concerns and aspirations
are consistently understood and considered.
Collaborate
To partner with the public in each aspect of the
decision including the development of alternatives and
the identification of the preferred solution.
Empower
To place final decision making in the hands of the
public.
4:04:17 PM
MS. WOOLLEN advanced to slide 12, CVEA & USNC Engagement, to
emphasize the importance of early, meaningful, and sustained
engagement. She relayed that she and Mr. Rabiti come to Alaska
last summer and talked to any of the potential stakeholders who
would listen about having a microreactor in the state. This was
a unique experience because the person who does stakeholder
engagement is usually brought in late in the process after the
major decisions have been made. She relayed that they also made
a trip to Alaska in the winter to look at and try to understand
the very different landscape and to inform people about the
feasibility study. She pointed to the list of entities she and
Mr. Rabiti spoke with:
Valdez
City Council
Ports and Harbor
Police, Fire
School Board
Prince William Science Center
Valdez Fisheries Development Association
Alaska Native Corporations (3)
Alaska Federation of Natives
Alaska Native Village Corporation Association
ANCSA Regional Association
4:07:20 PM
MS. WOOLLEN advanced to slide 13, Federal Pathway to Deployment.
She explained that the chart is intended to show the rigorous
process to get licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC), starting with the feasibility study. She noted that the
opportunities for formal and informal public engagement, from
the feasibility study to the regulatory consultation and beyond,
are represented by the yellow boxes on the chart. Meaningful
engagement involves communities in order to build support for
development and co-create mutually beneficial plans and
solutions.
4:09:32 PM
SENATOR GRAY-JACKSON asked what the difference in safety is
between microreactors and traditional nuclear reactors.
MR. RABITI answered that there are two main differences. First,
the fuel is an entirely new type that has two layers of safety.
It uses the very safe TRISO fuel that is encapsulated in a
silicon carbide matrix. Second, microreactors operate at a much
lower level of power and temperature. The MMR reactor is a walk-
away safe reactor because all the heat dissipates passively so
it cannot melt down.
4:11:31 PM
CHAIR HUGHES relayed that SB 177 and the presentations by
several companies on microreactors are sending a market signal
that Alaska is open for business and that this might be a good
place to debut microreactors. It puts the state on the cutting
edge of innovation, which she likes.
CHAIR HUGHES noted that she had several questions that she was
asking on behalf of a concerned citizen who lives in the CVEA
service area. First, could the high-assay low-enriched uranium
(HALEU) fuel that is used in some microreactors be captured by
bad actors and weaponized. She also asked him to talk about how
TRISO fuel compares to HALEU fuel, and if there is a risk
associated with the use of either of these fuels.
4:13:45 PM
MR. RABITI clarified that TRISO is a form in which HALEU is
contained; a TRISO particle may have HALEU inside. HALEU is
uranium that is laboratory enriched, but deemed safe.
Furthermore, it is virtually impossible to gain access to the
fuel inside an MMR reactor. The silicon carbide is an ultra-hard
material and trying to break each TRISO fuel particle
individually makes that uranium unattractive for most any
purpose other than in the reactor.
CHAIR HUGHES asked if he agreed with the Alaska Center for
Energy and Power that the estimated spread of nuclear material
would cover a 10-mile radius if an accident occurred at a
microreactor site.
4:15:57 PM
MR. RABITI answered that a feature of the micro modular reactor
technology is that the emergency planning zone will be the
footprint of the plant. USNC has every confidence this can be
achieved due to the small size and low power density of the
reactor. To the question about a bad actor potentially attacking
the plant, he pointed out that the reactor is sited underground
and the FCM fuel is blast safe. This means that no dust or plume
would be released even if a pellet of fuel is broken because the
TRISO would still be intact.
CHAIR HUGHES asked if the feasibility study includes the
consideration that the terminus for the Trans Alaska Pipeline
System in Valdez is in the Copper Valley Electric Association
(CVEA) service area.
MR. RABITI answered all possibilities related to the plant have
to be considered for licensing. He yielded to Ms. Woollen for
further response.
4:18:09 PM
MS. WOOLLEN said that while she and the other presenters could
begin to respond to the questions from the concerned citizen in
this venue, she would suggest sending those and other questions
directly to a portal on the USNC website.
She deferred the question about the terminus at the Port of
Valdez to Mr. Million.
4:19:04 PM
TRAVIS MILLION, CEO of Copper Valley Electric Association stated
that the entire Dayville Road area in Valdez is an industrial
facility and CVEA/USNC would be engaging with Alyeska Pipeline
Services Company and the other entities along that corridor both
before the feasibility study is underway and after if that
location is selected as a top site for this project. He agreed
with Mr. Rabiti that the safety concerns for locating the
microreactor in this area were very low. He also highlighted
that in addition to the electrical benefits of the microreactor,
the heat could also be used for industrial processes or other
applications like a residential heating loop.
4:20:56 PM
CHAIR HUGHES asked Ms. Woolen if there already was a website or
portal that Alaskans, particularly those in that service area,
could submit questions directly to USNC.
MS. WOOLLEN answered that her thought originally was to create a
website specific to the project once it moved forward to
licensing. However, it's clear that something needs to be done
sooner than that. She committed to provide a site either through
the USNC site or CVEA for those and other questions. She said
she would communicate the progress through Mr. Million.
4:22:28 PM
At ease.
4:23:00 PM
CHAIR HUGHES reconvened the meeting and opened public testimony
on SB 177.
4:23:52 PM
JUDI GREENWALD, Executive Director, Nuclear Innovation Alliance
(NIA), Washington D.C., testified in support of SB 177. She
stated that NIA is focused on creating successful conditions for
advance nuclear energy to be a climate solution. Microreactors
provide the opportunity to reimagine nuclear energy. Their small
size and suitability for use in remote locations can help reduce
Alaska's dependence on carbon-emitting energy while still
ensuring a reliable and resilient source for energy and heat.
She said microreactors can readily integrate with other zero
carbon energy sources as part of a broader, cleaner energy
strategy in Alaska. With incremental additions, small reactors
are also capable of meeting communities' growing energy needs
over time. They can be manufactured in factories and shipped to
remote sites, which reduces the onsite time needed for
installation compared to conventional nuclear energy.
MS. GREENWALD stated that the inherent safety of microreactors
reduces the burden on surrounding communities and justifies the
simplification of siting requirements. She pointed out that
microreactors are subject to review by the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, so they will meet or exceed the safety standards for
nuclear energy in the US. She said SB 177 makes siting of
microreactors more efficient while ensuring that they will be
subject to robust safety reviews and regulatory oversight. She
opined that the microreactors currently under development will
be ready for commercial deployment this decade. SB 177 removes
barriers to these technologies. This is a signal that Alaska is
ready to lead on nuclear energy innovation and will make it
possible for Alaskans to explore the economic and environmental
benefits of microreactors.
4:26:21 PM
MICHAEL WELCH, Mayor, North Pole, Alaska, stated support for
exploring the use of microreactor technologies in Alaska, given
the more relaxed regulations proposed in SB 177. However, for
the City of North Pole he advocated for a coal and natural gas
fueled centralized heat plant as a less expensive alternative.
He related that he had been working on this since November 2020
and the cost would be a fraction of a microreactor. It would
also provide CO2 for greenhouse use that would offer the
potential to market byproducts as well as provide a sustainable
food source. He said redundancy is another consideration; any
microreactor that is installed in Alaska would still need to be
backed up with a fossil fuel plant. The coal/natural gas heat
plant for North Pole is being designed for reliability and
redundancy to ensure power is available under all conditions.
This design will allow the production of electricity for sale by
the local electric cooperative at $0.10-$0.12/kWh in any season
and waste heat can be sold for $15/MMBTU, which is half the
current cost of diesel.
4:29:43 PM
JAMES GEIB, Representing Self, Copper Center, Alaska, testified
in support of SB 177. He grew up near Three Mile Island and in
spite of that accident he supports the new microreactor
technologies. The advanced fuels used in the new microreactors
are safer and cleaner and many times more efficient than
anything he'd experienced in the past. His belief is that that
the extensive work done by the Department of Energy provides an
energy roadmap for the future of Alaska. Microreactors show
specific characteristics to stand the region's harsh winter
climate and they generate very little waste. Because fossil fuel
is a finite resource, it would be unwise to let this technology
and opportunity pass the state by. He acknowledged that some
people were worried about accidents like Chernobyl and
Fukushima, but microreactor facilities are as different from
legacy reactors as today's automobiles are compared to
automobiles manufactured in the '40s. He urged the committee to
support SB 177 and the installation of microreactors as a much
needed option to supply Alaskans with the reliable power they
need.
4:31:27 PM
BENJAMIN COOK, Representing Self, Anchor Point, Alaska, stated
that he did not support SB 177.
4:32:11 PM
ALAN AHN, Senior Resident Fellow, Climate and Energy Program,
Third Way, Washington D.C., testified in support of SB 177. He
stated that Third Way is a national think tank that champions
the zero emissions goal. Third Way's Climate and Energy Program
designs and advocates for policies that seek the fastest and
fairest path to net zero emissions. They firmly believe that it
will be necessary to employ all available low-carbon solutions
and technologies, including nuclear. He opined that nuclear will
play an essential role in combating climate change and reducing
emissions from power generation, industry and the economy
overall.
MR. AHN highlighted the large financial and logistical advantage
of deploying microreactors in off grid and remote communities in
Alaska compared to relying on shipments of diesel and fuel oil,
and the local environmental benefit of not exposing these local
communities to fossil fuel emissions and air pollution. He noted
the detailed oversight of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission
and related Third Way's support for the advanced microreactors
currently under development. They represent significant
improvements over the conventional nuclear power plant
technology in terms of deployability, flexibility, economics,
passive safety, uranium, and resource utilization. He urged
anyone with questions to visit Third Way's website.
4:35:28 PM
CARRIE HARRIS, Representing Self, Anchor Point, Alaska, stated
that she was a big no on SB 177. Major questions that need to be
answered include: exactly what fuel is being used, what is the
half-life of that fuel, and how far will it spread if there is
an accident. She suggested that it would be better to test this
cutting edge technology in China. She pointed out that the HALEU
that will be used in the fuel is limited to just 19 percent and
the half-life of uranium 235 is 705.8 million years. That's how
long it would take for the environment to clear if an accident
were to occur. She said it's time to look at the big difference
between what is "green" and what is cheap. Green would be to
turn off your lights at night and tamp down on consumerism. She
reiterated that she was a no on SB 177.
4:38:45 PM
ALLISON NATCHER, State Liaison Officer to the U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Department of Environmental Conservation,
Anchorage, Alaska, stated that she was available to answer
questions.
4:39:12 PM
MICHAEL ROVITO, Deputy Director, Alaska Power Association (APA),
Anchorage, Alaska, stated that APA is the statewide trade
association for electric utilities throughout Alaska, and one of
its members is Copper Valley Electric Association. He urged
passage of SB 177 so that electric utilities considering
microreactors will be able to move forward with confidence that
a portion of the permitting process has been streamlined. He
said APA's members are continually innovating and integrating
new technologies in support of their mission to provide safe,
reliable and affordable power. He posited that microreactors
have the potential to reliably lower the cost of energy for
Alaskans, decrease dependency on diesel, position the state for
economic development opportunities, and raise Alaska's profile
as a hub of energy innovation and independence.
MR. ROVITO pointed out that electric utilities seeking to permit
microreactors will still have to satisfy state, federal, and
local permitting requirements before the projects can be
constructed. SB 177 helps to streamline the process by exempting
microreactors that are smaller than 50 megawatts from
legislative siting authority and the numerous ongoing study
requirements. He said the electric utilities in Alaska provide
power amid harsh conditions, vast distances, and a lack of
interconnection to Lower 48 grids. He concluded that passing SB
177 will make it easier for the state's electric utilities to
access a viable option for providing safe, reliable and
affordable power in the Last Frontier.
4:41:10 PM
CHARLES PERRETT, Representing Self, Glenallen, Alaska, stated
that he was leaning toward no or undecided on SB 177. He
expressed concern about the speed that nuclear energy was being
pushed on Alaska and instead urged a cautious and more
responsible approach. He said one of his largest concerns is
about the amount of nuclear waste that would be generated
because the US is already producing 2,000 tons a year. He
recounted the following questions: how will we dispose of it,
where will we dispose of it, what's the half-life of the waste,
and how will we transport it.
MR. PERRETT said it's easy to call something safe and green, but
these microreactors are untested so caution is warranted. Before
SB 177 passes he'd like to see regulations that state that the
waste must be dealt with in a responsible manner. He highlighted
that the federal government currently is so far behind the eight
ball in its attempts to deal with nuclear waste that's being
generated that is not even funny. He concluded his testimony
saying that without a plan in place to deal with the waste,
microreactors are neither green nor easy.
4:43:21 PM
CYRIL DRAFFIN, Senior Fellow for Advanced Nuclear, US Nuclear
Industry Council (USNIC, Bethesda, Maryland, stated that USNIC
strongly supports passing SB 177 and other initiatives to
facilitate the deployment of micro and other reactors in Alaska.
He opined that the advanced innovations in nuclear technology
are a key to address climate change and provide reliable, cost-
competitive, safe zero-carbon energy 24/7. The isolated and
remote communities in Alaska that rely on high-cost fuels will
benefit from the installation of microreactors both in terms of
environmental costs and reliability. Advanced reactors are
important in terms of security and can help support military
bases like Eielson. He said USNIC represents more than 80
companies that are engaged in nuclear innovation and supply
chain development, many of which use TRISO fuel. He concluded
his testimony relaying that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
expects more than 2,000 people to attend the upcoming regulatory
information conference, which suggests that nuclear is important
worldwide.
4:45:34 PM
MARGARET TARRANT, Environmental Justice Organizer, Alaska
Community Action on Toxics (ACAT), Anchorage, Alaska, stated
opposition to SB 177 because it exempts microreactors from
certain siting and permitting regulations, which allows them to
be constructed on land that has not been designated by the
legislature. She described microreactors as a false solution for
current energy needs and the climate crisis. She pointed out
that nuclear power is destructive throughout its lifecycle from
the mining of uranium, through the enrichment process, to the
untenable problems of disposal of the radioactive waste.
MS. TARRANT highlighted that on January 6 2022 the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission determined that Oklo failed to provide
sufficient information on potential accidents and certain safety
systems. She also noted that microreactor vendors were
advocating the reduction or elimination of nuclear operators and
security officers. None of these reactors have demonstrated they
are safe and the Union of Concerned Scientists determined that
it is unsafe to leave a microreactor without a guard.
CHAIR HUGHES asked her to wrap up her testimony.
MS. TARRANT stated that the UCS report found that nuclear
technology has fundamental safety and security disadvantages
compared with other low-carbon renewable sources. She said it is
unwise and dangerous to reopen the door to nuclear power in
Alaska. The state is still adjusting to the massive radioactive
contamination from the failed SM-1A nuclear reactor at Fort
Greely. As the Union of Concerned Scientists noted in its report
that evaluated advanced nuclear technologies, "Advanced isn't
always better."
4:48:54 PM
SPENCER NELSON, Managing Director of Research and New
Initiatives, ClearPath, Washington D.C., said ClearPath is an
advocacy organization that is focused on advancing clean energy
policy. It receives no funding from industry. He said he
supports SB 177 because he believes that microreactors can
provide significant benefit to the state, including
significantly reduced emissions. Alaska has long been on the
leading edge of clean energy innovation and it now has the
opportunity to benefit from early deployment, which can cut
costs.
MR. NELSON said it's well known that reliance on diesel
generators has made heating and electricity costs in Alaskan
villages among the highest in the country. These costs are also
volatile due to the global oil market. Microreactors offer a way
to decouple high oil prices from high electricity prices and
ensure that the volatility in the oil market doesn't lead to
volatility in people pocketbooks. He said this bill gives
Alaskan communities the opportunity decide whether or not to
choose nuclear. It also ensures that all reactors are developed
under state and federal regulatory requirements that adhere to
the NRC gold standard. It doesn't reduce any regulations on the
construction or operation of the microreactors. It simply allows
communities to make a decision without a paternalistic
legislature.
4:51:09 PM
GARY NEWMAN, Representing Self, Fairbanks, Alaska, stated that
he had a long history working in and closely following energy
technology and policy. He relayed that he serves on the Golden
Valley Board of Directors, but he was speaking for himself. He
focused his comments on SB 177 to three areas:
First is removing the legislature from site approval for
microreactors that are smaller than 50 megawatts. He supports
that because it's more logical for that authority to reside with
the appropriate state agencies in conjunction with the
Regulatory Commission of Alaska. He said that should be clear.
Second is removing the requirements for ongoing studies
otherwise required in AS 18.45.030. He said that is problematic
for several reasons and he would suggest just modifying the
applicability by removing the term "ongoing" from that
description.
Third is the definition of microreactor, which is housekeeping.
MR. NEWMAN said he hadn't seen any discussion of what AS
18.45.030 contains, but he would urge the committee to take a
look at it. The micro and small modular nuclear industry is in
its infancy and most of the proposed designs are conceptual.
There are no commercially available units and none are expected
for six to seven years. He agreed with Gwen Holdmann and other
experts who indicated that there are many questions and issues
with deployment of the micro nuclear units that are yet to be
resolved. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) will evaluate
these units from the federal perspective, but the state has a
responsibility for the health and welfare of the state and its
citizens. Clearly, the State of Alaska should exercise due
diligence and build expertise and knowledge across the relevant
departments on this conceptual technology as it moves to
experimentation. For example, the state should have the
expertise to weigh in on the Department of Defense pilot project
at Eielson that is estimated to be functional by 2027.
MR. NEWMAN pointed out that state and local government bodies
have not dealt with microreactors so he didn't know what
permitting might be required by current state statutes or
regulations. Legislative committees have focused predominately
on industry promises and beliefs. He suggested that instead of
treating micronuclear as a shiny new penny, the committees
should focus on the text of the bill and what it does. In
addition to there being no proven designs, he said there are
issues of transportation, refueling security, workforce and
operational capacity, and what to do with spent fuel. Many of
these are state responsibilities that could be tailored to work
with the NRC licensing process. He suggested the Department of
Defense provide some transparency with the pilot project at
Eielson, Copper Valley Electric continue to pursue a feasibility
study, and the state take part in the evaluation and operation
of this still conceptual power generation.
CHAIR HUGHES asked the last testifier to submit his testimony in
writing because the committee was up against the clock.
4:55:26 PM
At ease.
4:55:40 PM
CHAIR HUGHES reconvened the meeting and advised that written
comments could be submitted to [email protected]. She asked Ms.
Holdmann and Ms. Carpenter to give closing comments.
4:56:47 PM
GWEN HOLDMANN, Director, Alaska Center for Energy and Power
(ACEP) University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF), reminded the
committee that ACEP works with Alaskan individuals, communities,
and businesses to explore options for sustainable energy
development. They strive to provide neutral and unbiased
information to all Alaskan stakeholders. At the legislature's
request, ACEP has been studying microreactors and the
application for this type of reactor technology for more than
ten years. A number of studies on this technology have been done
and those reports are on ACEP's website. She suggested that a
number of the questions asked today could be answered by looking
at those reports. ACEP also held a workshop last month that
answered many questions about the state of the technology, the
safety features, the economics, and whether this would be a
responsible technology to deploy in Alaska. The workshop
sessions are available on ACEP's YouTube site. She noted that
ACEP also has a working group that interested parties are
welcome to join. She encouraged Alaskans to participate.
4:58:31 PM
CHRISTINA CARPENTER, Director, Division of Environmental Health,
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), Anchorage,
Alaska, reminded the committee that SB 177 updates the existing
statutes on nuclear technology to reflect the needs of these new
microreactors. She stated that she looks forward to continuing
the conversation in the next committee of referral.
CHAIR HUGHES stated that the Senate Resources Committee would be
a good venue to discuss questions brought up today such as the
half-life [of uranium 235] and waste disposal. She encouraged
open discussions on these and other topics related to deploying
microreactors in Alaska.
CHAIR HUGHES found no questions or comments and solicited the
will of the committee.
4:59:55 PM
SENATOR MYERS moved to report SB 177, work order 32-GS2503\A,
from committee with individual recommendations and attached
fiscal note(s).
CHAIR HUGHES found no objection and SB 177 was reported from the
Senate Community and Regional Affairs Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 177 Govenor Dunleavy Transmittal Letter.pdf |
SCRA 2/15/2022 3:30:00 PM SCRA 2/17/2022 3:30:00 PM SCRA 3/8/2022 3:30:00 PM |
SB 177 |
| SB 177 Research UAA CED Microreactors in Alaska.pdf |
SCRA 2/15/2022 3:30:00 PM SCRA 2/17/2022 3:30:00 PM SCRA 3/8/2022 3:30:00 PM |
SB 177 |
| SB 177 Research ACEP Nuclear Report 1.1.2021.pdf |
SCRA 2/15/2022 3:30:00 PM SCRA 2/17/2022 3:30:00 PM SCRA 3/8/2022 3:30:00 PM |
SB 177 |
| SB 177 Presentation Gwen Holdmann 2.15.2022.pdf |
SCRA 3/8/2022 3:30:00 PM |
SB 177 |
| SB 177 Testimony - Received as of 02.07.22.pdf |
SCRA 2/15/2022 3:30:00 PM SCRA 2/17/2022 3:30:00 PM SCRA 3/8/2022 3:30:00 PM |
SB 177 |
| SB 177 Sectional Analysis Version A.pdf |
SCRA 2/15/2022 3:30:00 PM SCRA 2/17/2022 3:30:00 PM SCRA 3/8/2022 3:30:00 PM |
SB 177 |
| SB 177 Presenation Dr. Ashley Finan 2.17.2022.pdf |
SCRA 2/17/2022 3:30:00 PM SCRA 3/8/2022 3:30:00 PM |
SB 177 |
| SB 177 Research Response to Committee Question from 2.15.2022.pdf |
SCRA 2/17/2022 3:30:00 PM SCRA 3/8/2022 3:30:00 PM |
SB 177 |
| SB 177 Testimony - APA Support 2.16.2022.pdf |
SCRA 3/8/2022 3:30:00 PM |
SB 177 |
| SB 177 Testimony - US Air Force Letter of Support 2.24.2022.pdf |
SCRA 3/8/2022 3:30:00 PM |
SB 177 |
| SB 177 Research Response to Committee Question from 2.17.2022.pdf |
SCRA 3/8/2022 3:30:00 PM |
SB 177 |
| SB 177 Testimony - Received as of 03.07.2022.pdf |
SCRA 3/8/2022 3:30:00 PM |
SB 177 |
| SB 177 Presentation USNC 3.8.2022.pdf |
SCRA 3/8/2022 3:30:00 PM |
SB 177 |