Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Nuclear Energy Study topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Appropriations panel hears testimony on study of small modular nuclear reactors; committee ultimately votes do-not-pass
Summary
Lawmakers heard hours of testimony on House Bill 10‑25, a proposal to fund a study of microreactors and small modular reactors; proponents emphasized potential for data centers and carbon-free baseload power, opponents questioned the scope and cost. After an amended funding reduction, the committee adopted a do‑not‑pass on the bill.
Chairman Vegasaw opened the Appropriations Committee hearing on House Bill 10‑25, a request to appropriate $500,000 from the general fund (and a matching $500,000 in grants/donations) to study advanced nuclear technologies, including small modular reactors (SMRs) and microreactors.
Representative **** Anderson, who introduced the bill, told the committee the study would examine regulations and readiness for siting advanced nuclear units in the state. "I'm pretty excited about small modular reactors and microreactors," Anderson said, arguing they are passive systems that can be factory‑assembled and brought online faster than large plants.
Why it matters: proponents said SMRs could provide carbon‑free baseload or local power for data centers and industrial users, reduce transmission costs and complement the state's energy mix. Witnesses and members pressed for specifics on timelines, waste handling and interaction with existing coal and natural‑gas infrastructure.
Committee discussion and testimony: Members from across the committee asked about commercial deployments, timelines and regulatory barriers. Anderson and other supporters said microreactors can be installed in a few years and cited examples worldwide; opponents and some members questioned whether the state needed to fund a separate study or could rely on existing agencies and interim committee work. Representative Murphy and others pressed on whether utilities and industry partners had committed to participation; Anderson said private utilities (Xcel was named as interested) had shown interest.
Technical and fiscal questions included how the study dollars would be used, whether Century Code contains statutory impediments (the bill directs review of Century Code), and whether the study should focus narrowly on statutory/regulatory barriers rather than a broader consulting engagement. Several members argued existing state entities (Public Service Commission, Industrial Commission, legislative staff and university research centers) could provide much of the needed evaluation.
Amendment and final action: Representative Steeman moved to reduce the requested state general‑fund appropriation (and the matching grants/donations line) from $500,000 to $300,000; that amendment passed. Later in the meeting Representative Gebbels moved a due‑pass as amended, which failed. Representative O'Brien then moved a do‑not‑pass recommendation; that motion carried. The committee recorded the final outcome on HB 10‑25 as do‑not‑pass (motion carried; committee vote recorded as 15 yes, 7 no, 1 absent). Representative O'Brien will carry the committee's do‑not‑pass recommendation to the floor.
Ending: With the committee split over whether the state should fund a standalone consultant study and concerns about redundancy with existing work, HB 10‑25 will advance to the next stage with a do‑not‑pass recommendation from the Appropriations Committee. The transcript records proponents urging further review, but the committee majority opted not to fund the study as written.
