Joint committee approves feasibility study bill to prepare Arkansas for new nuclear technology

Representative Jack Ladyman, District 32, told the Joint Energy Committee that HB1572 would commission a technical feasibility study to help Arkansas prepare for new nuclear generation, including small modular reactors.

The measure, as amended, directs the Department of Energy and Environment to engage a qualified outside vendor to produce a report on site availability, siting criteria, design recommendations and other deliverables. Representative Ladyman said the amendment clarifies vendor qualifications and the study’s deliverables and that the bill itself does not include funding: "This does not ask for funding. It is not funded in this bill," he said.

Why it matters: supporters said the study would give Arkansas a blueprint to present to developers if companies seek to build small modular reactors or other new nuclear plants in the state. The bill estimates a study cost of about $380,000 based on experience in other states and sets deadlines for delivery, including a 15-month deadline for the final report after the act’s effective date when funding conditions are met.

Committee discussion focused on scope, vendor qualifications, funding and timeline. Representative Beck asked whether the study would limit technology choices or merely address site-related requirements such as transmission and water access. Beck summarized the distinction: "They're basically saying ... the all the stuff around the site selection, not necessarily what type of reactor would be put there." Representative Ladyman pointed to language in the bill directing conclusions and recommendations on optimal design specifications based on site characteristics.

Senator Hickey raised concerns about whether the Department of Energy and Environment would be required to proceed if the appropriation is not available. He noted the bill’s language that the department "shall engage" a consultant within a set period and asked whether that obligation would leave the department in violation of law if no funding were appropriated. Committee members asked legislative staff and counsel to confirm whether the implementation timing is tied to an appropriation; Ladyman and the chair said the amendment was intended to tie the obligation to available funding but that the committee would seek clarification from the staff attorney.

Senator Matt McKee, State Senate District 6, and other supporters argued the study is necessary for Arkansas to compete for new nuclear projects and associated supply-chain and workforce benefits. McKee, who described a recent trip to Canada to review small modular reactor development, said the study would help the state identify laws and frameworks that might need change so Arkansas can be an early adopter rather than fall behind other states.

Committee members also discussed whether state universities could perform the study. Ladyman said some states used academic partners (he cited Purdue University’s work for another state) but that the bill seeks a vendor with industry experience in nuclear power and nuclear law because those qualifications are not readily available at all universities. Members asked that the report address transmission and siting criteria so the state can prioritize locations with existing infrastructure.

The committee adopted an amendment that clarifies vendor qualifications and required deliverables, then gave the bill a do-pass recommendation as amended on a voice vote; no opposing votes were recorded during the recorded proceedings. Committee members asked staff to confirm language tying the study timeline to available funding before the bill advances further.

Procedure note: Representative Moore was absent and an unrelated bill (House Bill 1198) was not presented at this hearing and will be rescheduled.

What's next: staff counsel will review whether the bill’s timeline language is properly tied to an appropriation; if unchanged, HB1572 will move forward with the committee’s do-pass recommendation.