Committee advances bill to permit siting of small modular reactors with large industrial users; critics urge caution

House Bill 27‑74, advanced by the Committee on Natural Resources, directs utilities to give 30 days’ notice to the Arizona Corporation Commission before constructing a small modular nuclear reactor (SMR) collocated with a large industrial energy user, and allows replacement of existing thermal electric units with SMRs in certain circumstances without a certificate of environmental compatibility. The measure limits the outlined regulatory flexibility to counties with population under 500,000.

Sponsor Representative Carbone described the bill as an effort to begin a statewide conversation about SMRs and to provide a pathway for rural economic development and data‑center energy needs. “This bill is intended to start a conversation regarding energy, data centers and … small modular reactors which are safe, use low water,” Carbone told the committee.

Witnesses were split. Jacob Emmett of the County Supervisors Association said counties need local land‑use and planning authority to ensure community input and to manage infrastructure and emergency services near any new nuclear facility. The association urged removing a section that would exempt local review when reactors are collocated with industrial users.

Sierra Club Director Sandy Barr opposed the bill, calling SMRs unproven and expensive and warning of safety, waste‑management and proliferation risks. Barr said capital costs and long time horizons make SMRs a poor substitute for near‑term clean energy options.

Industry and economic development witnesses urged further study and said SMRs could provide reliable, low‑carbon baseload power, and could be sited at retiring thermal plant locations. Russell Smolden of the Arizona Municipal Power Users Association called SMRs a promising next‑generation baseload resource and urged beginning preparations for workforce and siting decisions.

Committee members exchanged questions about whether SMRs currently operate in the U.S., how long licensing and federal approvals would take, and whether exemptions from county planning or the environmental compatibility certificate (CEC) process were appropriate for a technology not yet deployed at scale. Several senators said they supported exploring SMRs but were uncomfortable exempting local review and the CEC process at this stage.

The committee gave the bill a due‑pass recommendation by recorded vote (5 ayes, 3 nays). Several senators stated on the record they opposed removing review steps; supporters said legislation is needed to keep Arizona in the conversation on SMR siting and to prepare for potential opportunities.

Why it matters: SMRs are promoted as a potential source of carbon‑free, dispatchable power that may be important to future grid reliability and economic development in areas with retiring thermal plants or large industrial electricity users. Opponents say costs, waste and siting risks remain unresolved and that county land‑use and environmental review should not be bypassed.

What’s next: The measure will proceed through the Legislature for further debate and possible amendment, including potential edits to preserve county planning input and clarify definitions such as “small modular reactor” and “large industrial energy user.”