SB 194-ADVANCED NUCLEAR REACTORS  3:34:28 PM CHAIR BISHOP announced the consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 194, "An Act relating to advanced nuclear reactors." He noted that there was a committee substitute (CS) to consider. 3:34:41 PM SENATOR MICCICHE moved to adopt the CS for SB 194, work order 31-LS0878\M, as the working document. CHAIR BISHOP objected for discussion purposes and explanation of changes. 3:35:03 PM CODY GRUSSENDORF, Staff, Senator Click Bishop, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, paraphrased the following explanation of changes from version A to version M for S 194: • Page 1, lines 10-13: o Adds a 300-megawatt (MW) ceiling exemption to the amount of power generated for an advanced nuclear reactor classification. o The ceiling exempts a reactor from the land designation requirement by the legislature in Section 1(b). • Page 2, line 2: o The CS removes language referring to the most recent generation of reactors. o The CS inserts a date: January 1, 2020. • Page 2, line 19: o The CS inserts a date: January 1, 2020. 3:35:28 PM SENATOR GRAY-JACKSON joined the committee meeting. SENATOR MICCICHE asked what the significance is for the 300 MW ceiling. MR. GRUSSENDORF answered that 300 MW is the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) standard definition of a small modular reactor. The bill is about small reactors and does not intend to exempt gigawatt reactors from the legislative site designation. SENATOR MICCICHE asked what would happen if DOE changed the 300 MW definition to a larger size. MR. GRUSSENDORF conceded that he did not know if the 300 MW will hold true in the future, but the designs and definitions by DOE are for small reactors below 300 MW. SENATOR MICCICHE remarked that the legislature could always change the MW ceiling if there is a reason to do so. 3:37:27 PM CHAIR BISHOP opened public testimony for SB 194. 3:37:37 PM GEORGE ROE, Research Professor, Alaska Center of Energy and Power (ACEP), University of Alaska Fairbanks, Seattle, Washington, testified in support of SB 194. He said the definition of a small reactor and the magnitude Mr. Grussendorf described is very consistent with DOE. Analysis by ACEP indicates that the scale of small reactor utilization might be best matched for private, federal, and community applications in the state for combinations of heat and power. He detailed that the University of Alaska received state funding to complete a study in 2010 on small modular reactor capabilities that identified applications within the state that could warrant future investigation. ACEP believes that an updated study may be appropriate to refine and enhance the 2010 roadmap. An updated study would provide an assessment of current technology as well as the evolution of the energy systems in Alaska. 3:39:10 PM SENATOR HOFFMAN pointed out that the committee discussed the need for an updated study during the previous bill hearing. He suggested that the committee send a letter outlining this need to the capital budget chair for consideration. He said an updated study would fit hand in glove with what U.S. Senator Murkowski is doing on the national level. SENATOR MICCICHE said the capacity or generating potential for many Alaska communities would be much smaller than 300 MW. He asked Mr. Roe if there is a break below 300 MW that would have a different definition in the future. MR. ROE agreed that most applications in Alaska would require a smaller reactor. However, the 300 MW demarcation in the bill is useful to avoid the need for continuous revisions. In many situations, a reactor on the order of 3-10 MW would be appropriate for Alaska Railbelt and U.S. Department of Defense applications. Updated analysis would identify the best capacity alignment for possible community analysis. Larger reactors that require infield refueling could serve the Railbelt. However, containerized microreactors with a 1-10 MW threshold could serve as a complete system without infield fuel replacement for possible community applications. 3:42:28 PM SENATOR MICCICHE asked about FERC's position on the change to the requirement for a legislative siting permit for a 300 MW reactor and if there would continue to be a site requirement for any sized nuclear reactor. MR. ROE answered that he did not know, but ACEP was willing to do research on the inquiry. CHAIR BISHOP advised that the Senate Resources Standing Committee was the next committee of referral and the question could be answered there. 3:43:32 PM CHAIR BISHOP removed his objection to the CS for SB 194 and closed public testimony. 3:43:45 PM SENATOR MICCICHE moved to report the CS for SB 194, work order 31-LS0878\M, from committee with individual recommendations and attached zero fiscal note. CHAIR BISHOP found no objection and CSSB 194(CRA) was reported from the Senate Community and Regional Affairs Standing Committee.