Bill would let Umatilla County voters decide on small modular reactor demonstration; tribes and environmental groups oppose

House Bill 2,410 drew an extended informational hearing Feb. 27 in the House Climate, Energy and Environment Committee after the Oregon Department of Energy briefed lawmakers on the state's nuclear history and regulatory context.

The measure would allow the Energy Facility Siting Council (EFSC) to issue a site certificate for a small modular reactor (SMR) demonstration project within Umatilla County if EFSC finds specified criteria are met, require ODOE and partners to prepare a report on SMR demonstration projects, establish the Umatilla County SMR Demonstration Project Report Fund and refer the measure to the voters of Umatilla County for approval; if approved by a majority of registered Umatilla County voters the act would take effect.

Max Woods, assistant director for nuclear safety and energy security at the Oregon Department of Energy, told the committee that Oregon’s current regulatory posture traces to Measure 7 (1980), which requires a federally approved permanent repository for spent nuclear fuel before new plants can be approved and, if that condition is met, that a statewide vote be held. He also briefed members on regional context: Oregon receives about 3% of its electricity from a single out‑of‑state plant (Columbia Generating Station), and federal and state regulators — including the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and EFSC — would play central roles in licensing and oversight.

Supporters included Umatilla County officials and elected representatives who said SMR demonstration projects could help address local energy needs, economic development and resilience. Commissioner Dan Dorn testified that Umatilla County has been studying SMRs for more than two years and argued that long lead times for transmission and renewables make alternative clean baseload options worth examining. Maureen McGee, government affairs attorney for Umatilla County, summarized the bill’s intent and mechanics: "The bill does 3 things. First, it creates a narrow exemption from the provisions of measure 7 to allow for a small modular reactor demonstration project to be sited in Umatilla County... Second, it honors community consent by referring the measure to the people of Umatilla County for their approval or rejection. And third, if the bill is approved by the people of the County, it sets in motion a process for the appropriate state regulatory agencies to prepare a regulatory report to the legislature."

Opposition came from environmental organizations, public‑health groups and the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR). Kelly Campbell of Columbia Riverkeeper said the organization opposes using legislative time to advance what it called a biased approach to nuclear development and urged that attention remain on cleanup at Hanford. CTUIR representatives, including tribal board member Lisa Gonuelos and community member Kathy Sampson Kruse, said the bill as written does not require meaningful tribal consultation and raised concerns about siting a demonstration project on or near ceded treaty lands and the prospect that temporary on‑site storage would become effectively permanent absent a federal repository.

Independent consultants and analysts urged caution on costs and timelines. Energy consultant David Schlissel told the committee that SMR projects have not reached commercial scale in the United States and warned that experience with nuclear construction shows "it takes longer to build, much longer to build, and costs much more than is originally estimated by proponents." Sierra Club Oregon opposed the bill on the grounds that renewables, grid improvements and storage are faster and lower‑risk options.

League of Oregon Cities representatives and some local leaders said they support a narrowly tailored demonstration and stressed the bill’s requirement that local voters approve any project. The bill’s proponents and county officials said they will continue to refine language, including technical fixes and tribal consultation provisions.

Ending: The committee closed the informational hearing and said the bill will be subject to amendment; if advanced it would require local voter approval in Umatilla County and further regulatory work by state agencies.