Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Energy Nuclear topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Utah House approves resolution backing nuclear power after debate over costs and waste
Summary
After extended floor debate and failed amendment attempts on water and waste disposal language, the Utah House passed first substitute SJR 16, a joint resolution supporting nuclear power, by a 56–17 vote. Sponsors and opponents sparred over cost estimates, reprocessing feasibility and the lack of a permanent disposal site.
The Utah House on March 5 approved first substitute SJR 16, a resolution expressing support for nuclear power, after more than an hour of debate on costs, reprocessing technology and nuclear waste disposal. Representative Watkins, the House sponsor, framed the resolution as a step toward energy independence and economic growth and urged colleagues to consider nuclear as a source of low-cost, reliable baseload electricity.
Supporters argued nuclear energy offers a dependable baseload to complement intermittent renewables. "We must encourage all energy resources, including nuclear power, and that's what first substitute SJR-sixteen does," Representative Watkins said during her remarks. Proponents pointed to potential economic benefits for districts expecting large industrial demand and warned that Utah must plan ahead to meet future power needs.
Opponents focused on technical and environmental concerns. Representative Daskovsky told the chamber that "reprocessing is not a magic solution to nuclear waste," citing a 2007 consensus report he said found commercial reprocessing "uneconomical" and noting that only a few countries currently recycle plutonium into new fuel. He also emphasized that advanced reactor designs sometimes cited to solve recycling challenges are not commercially available today.
Cost estimates were a central point of contention. During debate a study cited in floor remarks put the high-end cost of nuclear electricity at about $0.30 per kilowatt-hour and noted lower estimates around $0.10 per kilowatt-hour; supporters and opponents disputed whether such figures included construction costs, operations, or both. Representative Daskovsky said the $0.30 figure "came out of a study that was published in Time Magazine," while other members argued the per-kilowatt figures could be lower depending on assumptions.
Several amendment efforts failed. Representative Allen moved to add a reference to "water resources," arguing the word "water" should be included to ensure consideration of adequacy of water supplies for nuclear plants; the sponsor did not accept it as friendly and the substitute motion on that amendment failed. Representative Reesen moved to add a clause requiring development of a "safe disposal site for nuclear waste" before supporting nuclear plants; that amendment also failed after sustained discussion about existing interstate compacts and current storage practices.
In final action the House passed first substitute SJR 16 by a roll-call vote of 56 yes to 17 no. The resolution will be signed by the Speaker and returned to the Senate for the President's signature. The floor debate underscored divisions over how to balance future power needs with unresolved questions about waste management, technology readiness and long-term costs.
