Legislature advances study of advanced nuclear energy; adds small modular and water resources representation

House Bill 1025, a measure to create a legislative study on advanced nuclear energy in North Dakota, cleared the House Energy and Natural Resources Committee on a voice/roll vote after amendment on Thursday.

The study, sponsored in testimony by Senator David Hogue, would create an interim legislative committee to evaluate the feasibility, costs, community readiness and other implications of advanced nuclear development in the state. "House Bill 1025 is essentially a product of the interim Energy Development and Transition Committee," said Senator David Hogue, a state senator from District 38.

Committee members adopted two amendments before passing the bill. Representative Anderson added language to require the study to examine small modular and micro nuclear reactors — lower-capacity designs that proponents say can be sited and constructed more quickly than very large nuclear units. Representative Anderson described small modular reactors as "usually considered under 300 megawatts" and said they may be suitable where faster, smaller deployment is desirable. The committee also approved adding a Department of Water Resources representative to the study panel at the department's request, so water-use implications are included.

Why it matters: supporters and several energy stakeholders told the committee they want a formal, statewide assessment because nuclear projects have long lead times, complex permitting and substantial water and waste-storage implications. "The complexity of trying to develop nuclear energy ... and just the amount of time that it takes ... is such a long and complex process that the interim committee really couldn't do it justice," Hogue said in testimony supporting the bill.

Testimony and technical context: Tony Greenberg, state director for Xcel Energy, said the company would "welcome" participation in an educational study and could provide staff and financial support as the legislature directs. Pam (Pamela) Gorman, Xcel Energy general manager for fleet operations with a nuclear emphasis, told the committee Xcel operates two sites in the Upper Midwest (three units) and expects existing plants to remain an important part of its portfolio. Gorman noted licensing and first-of-a-kind construction timelines can be long and said pilots for new technologies will help refine cost and supply-chain expectations. "The pilots are important because it's gonna demonstrate not only the technology, but it's gonna demonstrate cost, supply chain, licensing," she said.

Water and spent-fuel concerns came up repeatedly. Reese Haas, director of the Department of Water Resources, asked for inclusion on the study panel and provided water-use context: citing Nuclear Energy Institute figures, he said a reactor can require large volumes of water and compared those totals to an existing state pipeline project. Josh Lewis Moore, who identified himself as president of Pershukon LLC with 20 years in nuclear work, described state regulatory steps and urged the committee to create channels to engage the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Legal and regulatory context: witnesses reiterated that federal processes — NRC licensing, spent-fuel disposition and court challenges over away-from-reactor storage — will shape any future projects. Pam Gorman noted private proposals and DOE consent-based siting work are in motion nationally.

Committee action and vote: Representative Dockter moved a "do pass as amended and re-refer to Appropriations" recommendation; Representative Haggart seconded. The committee recorded the roll call; the committee vote as recorded on the transcript was unanimous in favor (13 yes, 0 no). The committee also adopted the two amendments (adding small modular and micro reactors; adding a Department of Water Resources representative).

What's next: The bill, as amended, will go to the Appropriations Committee for review of the study appropriation and then may proceed to the full House if funded. Supporters said an early, structured study is needed to give the state options given long project timelines and rapidly evolving technology.

Ending: Committee members said the study would allow the legislature to examine technologies, siting, costs, water usage and community readiness before any specific project proposals reached the chamber for an up-or-down vote.