Transcript Highlights:

• large nuclear years ago.
• , oh, nuclear engineer.
• U.S. nuclear industry.
• So what is used nuclear fuel? What is used nuclear fuel? It's very much like new nuclear fuel.
• the disposal of nuclear waste.

Summary: The Advanced Nuclear Energy Committee met to hear a series of presentations on the economics, financing, workforce, and community impacts of advanced nuclear deployment in North Dakota. William Bridge of Nucleon Energy presented the committee’s economic impacts and private-sector financing report, estimating construction and operating job impacts, local spending, and state/local tax effects for hypothetical SMR projects. He said the report assumes first-of-a-kind costs are still high, used a $6 million per megawatt nth-of-a-kind proxy, and estimated peak construction workforces of about 500 for a 200-MW plant and 1,000 for a larger facility, with roughly 100 operating jobs for a 200-MW plant. Committee members questioned security costs, capital cost assumptions, water and transmission siting constraints, and whether the model included fuel and waste; Bridge said the report included initial fuel in capital cost and that waste disposal is funded through existing federal mechanisms. Lori Brady of the Nuclear Energy Institute then outlined national nuclear workforce needs and NEI’s strategic workforce planning efforts. She described declining labor-force participation, retirements, and the need for a much larger future workforce, and said NEI has organized recommendations around career awareness, pipelines, training and qualification, policy support, retention, and nontraditional recruitment. She highlighted tools such as the Nuclear Works career website, the Nuclear Energy Academic Roadmap, the new federal Energy and Natural Resources career cluster, and the Nuclear Uniform Curriculum Program for community colleges. Members asked about AI, timing for training relative to plant development, and whether advanced manufacturing would reduce staffing needs; Brady said AI is not expected to replace workers and that training timelines depend on the specific project and staffing plan. The committee also heard from Gary Yaco, mayor of Red Wing, Minnesota, who described Prairie Island’s role in his community. He said the plant provides a large share of local property tax revenue, supports well-paid jobs, contributes to emergency preparedness funding and training, and is broadly supported by the city despite periodic protests and public concerns. He emphasized the plant’s security, regular drills with local and federal responders, and the absence of problems with dry cask storage. Later, Benton Arnett of NEI discussed the current financing landscape for advanced nuclear, explaining how tax credits, federal loan support, off-take agreements, and new business models are helping projects move forward. He said early projects face high upfront costs and long lead-time procurement, but that investor confidence is improving as federal policy and regulatory streamlining continue. The committee asked about waste funding, comparisons with natural gas, the effect of political shifts on investor confidence, and whether the market will narrow to a few winning technologies; Arnett said the industry is still sorting that out, but expects clearer winners in the late 2020s and early 2030s. The meeting concluded with an introductory presentation from Julie Kazeraki of DOE’s Office of Energy Dominance Financing, who said the office is focused on accelerating nuclear deployment through financing support.

Transcript Highlights:

• , the Texas Advanced Nuclear Development Fund to support nuclear development through the Texas Advanced
• Nuclear Development Fund to support nuclear development through reimbursement-based grants; third, a
• We don't really with nuclear.
• I want us to do nuclear.
• waste produced by small modular reactors is as much nuclear waste, and as bad nuclear waste, as that

Bills: HB 11 , HB14 , HB132 , HB1584 , HB1606 , HB5061 , HB 1041 , HB2286 , HB132

Committee: Senate Business & Commerce

Summary: The committee first took up pending business and quickly reported several measures favorably, including HB 12, SB 1361, SB 1705, SB 1749, SB 1897, SB 2344, SB 2566, HB 3809, and HB 4215, with most sent to the Local and Uncontested Calendar. HB 12’s substitute clarified a limited midterm review of regulatory agencies tied to Sunset Commission recommendations. SB 2696’s substitute changed med spa regulation from a license to a certificate, with training instead of an exam, plus background checks, continuing education, and two-year renewals. HB 3809 dealt with battery energy storage decommissioning and recycling, and HB 4215 was reported without a substitute. SB 1978, concerning interconnection of electric facilities in ERCOT and federal jurisdiction concerns, was reported out on a 5-3 vote after debate, but then the chair later announced the bill was withdrawn and left pending subject to the call of the chair. HB 1899 was also reported favorably, with one nay. A major portion of the meeting focused on HB 14, the advanced nuclear energy bill. Senator Schwertner described it as creating a Texas Advanced Nuclear Energy Office, a nuclear permitting coordinator, a development fund, a completion grant program, and a workforce development program. Testimony was sharply divided. Supporters, including representatives from Fermi America, Dow/X-energy, CPS Energy, Paragon Energy Solutions, Bridge to Nuclear, Aalo Atomics, and the Texas Association of Business, argued that Texas should lead in advanced nuclear, citing future baseload demand, data centers, industrial power needs, supply-chain development, and long-term energy diversification. Opponents, including Public Citizen, Texas Nuclear Watchdogs, Sierra Club, and individual citizens, argued the bill would subsidize unproven, expensive technology, create grants rather than loans, and expose taxpayers to major risk while doing little to meet near-term energy needs. Several members questioned whether the state should fund projects that may not produce grid power for years, and whether the bill’s grant structure and new office were justified. The committee also heard HB 5061, which Senator Schwertner said would prohibit unethical surveillance and misuse of confidential information by state contractors, create a confidential reporting system through the State Auditor’s Office, authorize Texas Rangers investigations, protect whistleblowers, and impose penalties including contract termination, fines, and contracting bans. No public testimony was offered, and the bill was left pending. HB 132, sponsored by Senator Hughes, would extend confidentiality protections for sensitive information to hostile acts by foreign adversaries; it was also left pending after no testimony. HB 1584 was then laid out, with Senator Schwertner explaining it would require utilities to maintain and update priority restoration lists for critical facilities after Hurricane Beryl exposed communication failures, but the transcript cuts off before any action on that bill.

Transcript Highlights:

• I mentioned nuclear to power AI.
• So it's kind of interesting, nuclear for AI and AI for nuclear.
• to used nuclear fuel.
• nuclear fuel.
• So we have used nuclear fuel from the reactors that use nuclear fuel.

Committee: House Environment, Energy and Technology

Transcript Highlights:

• A quick look at nuclear energy in Minnesota as it stands now: the state's two nuclear plants generated
• build new nuclear and there are build new nuclear and there are legislators<00:15:25.120><c> on</c><00
• Humans are worried about nuclear.
• small modular nuclear.
• small modular nuclear.

Transcript Highlights:

• , the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
• Nuclear energy is clean, no CO2.
• Nuclear energy is clean, no CO2.
• Nuclear insulates against that volatility. Nuclear also brings... ...by half.
• And so otherwise nuclear power will come at a huge cost that is generational. ...otherwise nuclear power

Summary: The committee heard public testimony on Senate Bill 5821, which would direct the Department of Commerce, if funded by gifts or grants, to develop a nuclear power strategic framework and integrate it into the state energy strategy. Supporters, including Sen. Braun, Energy Northwest, public power representatives, and several pro-nuclear advocates, said Washington needs to keep advanced nuclear on the table to address rising electricity demand, reliability concerns, and clean energy goals. Opponents, including the Sierra Club, Columbia Riverkeeper, tribal representatives, and other environmental advocates, argued the bill gives nuclear special treatment, lacks sufficient guardrails on waste, safety, cost, and public process, and was rushed without adequate tribal consultation. Several tribal testifiers said the bill should require early, meaningful government-to-government consultation and stronger protections for treaty rights and cultural resources. The committee then held a work session on a Washington State Institute for Public Policy report reviewing state policies supporting small modular reactors. Staff and researchers explained that the report surveyed 79 policies in 35 states and found most states are still in preliminary planning stages, with policies focused on feasibility studies, siting, workforce development, permitting, financial support, and market integration. Members asked about water use, waste, footprint, and whether the report covered fusion; the researchers said it was limited to fission and that water needs vary by reactor design. Some senators noted the need to consider lifecycle impacts and compare nuclear with other energy technologies. The committee also heard Senate Bill 6010, which would change FSEC tribal consultation procedures by exempting most government-to-government consultations from the Open Public Meetings Act when there is no deliberation or commitments, requiring all FSEC members to participate in consultation, and giving tribes a chance to review and correct the consultation summary before it goes to the governor. Tribal witnesses and environmental groups supported the bill as a way to improve confidentiality and meaningful consultation, while the Association of Washington Business opposed it, saying it could add delays and suggesting timelines. Finally, the committee heard Senate Bill 6004, which would update contracting statutes so public entities can contract for renewable or non-emitting generation capability under CETA definitions; utilities supported the update as a modernization, while consumer and environmental opponents warned it could shift financial risk to ratepayers, especially for nuclear projects. No votes were taken in the transcript.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> constant a direct contrast to nuclear constant a direct contrast to nuclear which<00:03:11.519><
• </c> that are not exposed to nuclear that are not exposed to nuclear radiation<00:05:05.240><c> um</c
• Humans are worried about nuclear.
• </c><00:08:52.560><c> bombs</c> nuclear uh we've had nuclear bombs nuclear uh we've had nuclear bombs
• nuclear.

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm a nuclear engineer. I've been around nuclear for a very long time.
• for nuclear.
• Yes. nuclear navy. Their fuels and materials are tested there as well as civilian nuclear.
• I’m the one that signs the license for the DOE nuclear facilities here, including all the new nuclear
• of Nuclear Energy bent the action items into 38 action items for the Office of Nuclear Energy that we

Committee: Joint Advanced Nuclear Energy Committee

Summary: The meeting was a presentation and Q&A at Idaho National Laboratory focused on the state of nuclear energy, advanced reactors, and the lab’s role in testing, regulation, and commercialization. Speakers described INL’s broader mission beyond nuclear, including cybersecurity and critical infrastructure, but emphasized its major nuclear capabilities: the Advanced Test Reactor, TREAT, the Materials and Fuels Complex, and other test beds used to accelerate fuel and materials testing. They also highlighted the lab’s size, workforce, internship pipeline, and partnerships with DOE, DHS, DOD, and private companies. A major topic was the federal push to speed up nuclear deployment through executive orders and regulatory reform. Speakers said DOE and the NRC are reducing unnecessary bureaucracy, streamlining environmental reviews, and working toward a goal of having three new nuclear systems achieve criticality by July 4, 2026. They discussed the difference between microreactors, small modular reactors, and traditional gigawatt-scale plants, arguing that advanced reactors can be factory-built, safer, and better suited for data centers, military bases, remote communities, industrial heat, and other nontraditional uses. They also said the U.S. is rebuilding its nuclear supply chain, including enrichment and fuel fabrication, and that states willing to host parts of the fuel cycle could see major economic benefits. The speakers addressed questions about cost, safety, waste, and international competition. They said advanced reactors rely on passive safety features, TRISO fuel, and natural circulation, and that the industry’s challenge is often cost uncertainty rather than a precise fuel or materials limit. They argued used nuclear fuel should be viewed as a resource rather than waste if recycling becomes policy, and said microreactors should produce relatively small amounts of spent fuel. They also noted that China and Russia continue to build aggressively, with China on pace to surpass the U.S. in total nuclear generation, while U.S. projects such as Palisades, Crane Clean Energy Center, Duane Arnold, Oklo, Aalo, MARVEL, and Project Pele are moving forward under DOE and private-sector partnerships.

Transcript Highlights:

• solar, and very small for nuclear.
• Nuclear is in the last group.
• I am Farishti Bank with Mothers for Nuclear.
• Washington's existing nuclear ecosystem, wealth of knowledge, and local advanced nuclear companies provide
• nuclear reactors.

Summary: The committee heard testimony on several bills. House Bill 2272 would update state park inspection language for ski lifts and related equipment to better match current equipment and federal standards; the sponsor and State Parks said it was a simple modernization bill, and there was no opposition. House Bill 2245 would expand Clean Energy Transformation Act coverage to port districts that distribute electricity, utilities with a single customer, and certain affected market customers such as data centers; supporters said it closes loopholes and applies clean-energy rules more fairly, while ports, business groups, and some utilities warned of unintended consequences, added reporting burdens, and impacts on cogeneration and rural economic development. Ecology and Commerce supported the goal but raised concerns about allowance allocation, fiscal impacts, and possible double counting, and WAPUDA asked that existing single-customer PUDs be grandfathered. House Bill 2215 would lower Climate Commitment Act thresholds for gasoline, diesel, biodiesel, and propane suppliers and extend coverage to some purchasers; supporters said it would prevent entities from gaming the system and cover significant emissions now below the threshold, while Ecology, fuel distributors, propane suppliers, grocers, and business groups warned of compliance costs, supply-chain impacts, possible linkage issues, and the need to preserve existing reporting authority for natural gas. Ecology estimated about 50 additional covered entities could be brought in, and several opponents argued the bill would sweep in small family-owned businesses not intended to be regulated. House Bill 2090 would direct Commerce to develop a nuclear strategic framework for inclusion in the state energy strategy, contingent on outside funding. The sponsor and supporters argued the bill is only a planning measure to ensure Washington considers advanced nuclear as a firm, low-carbon, small-footprint resource amid rising demand, grid constraints, and land-use concerns; supporters included Energy Northwest, local governments, labor/environmental Democrats, and pro-nuclear groups. Opponents, including the Sierra Club, Columbia Riverkeeper, tribal representatives from the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, and several environmental advocates, said the bill gives nuclear special treatment, relies on private funding that could bias the study, and risks advancing projects at Hanford without early, meaningful tribal consultation. Tribes requested explicit consultation, independent and publicly funded analysis, and attention to treaty rights and historic nuclear impacts. Testimony also sharply divided over cost, waste, and land use, with supporters emphasizing reliability and footprint and opponents citing high costs, unresolved waste disposal, and the immaturity of small modular reactors. No votes or final actions were taken in the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm a nuclear engineer. I've been around nuclear for a very long time.
• for nuclear.
• I'm the one that signs the license for the DOE nuclear facilities here, including all the new nuclear
• of Nuclear Energy bent the action items into 38 action items for the Office of Nuclear Energy that we
• So big tech is going toward nuclear.

Committee: Joint Advanced Nuclear Energy Committee

Transcript Highlights:

• develop to support nuclear.
• Historically, nuclear...
• . nuclear with nucleon that groundwater probably isn't a good source for nuclear.
• Okay, so nuclear fission.
• How did you become interested in nuclear, and what would you like to do in the area of nuclear?

Committee: Joint Advanced Nuclear Energy Committee

Summary: The committee met to review advanced nuclear energy issues in North Dakota, beginning with approval of the April 21, 2022 minutes. Nucleon presented an overview of the advanced reactor landscape, distinguishing light-water SMRs, advanced Gen 4 reactors, and microreactors. The presentation emphasized that light-water SMRs are the most near-term deployable and use familiar low-enriched uranium fuel, while many Gen 4 designs may require high-assay low-enriched uranium (HALU), which is not yet supported by a mature U.S. supply chain. Nucleon also noted that advanced reactors are being developed primarily for industrial heat applications, while microreactors are niche, higher-cost systems for remote or mission-critical uses. Committee members asked about fuel availability, safety, recycling, and whether large reactors such as AP-1000s were evaluated; the presenter said fuel development is proceeding in parallel but remains a bottleneck, and that siting and grid capacity often make SMRs more practical than gigawatt-scale plants in North Dakota. Representatives from the National Association of State Energy Officials described how other states are supporting advanced nuclear through task forces, roadmaps, regional coordination, grants, tax incentives, workforce and supply-chain efforts, and pilot programs. They highlighted the Advanced Nuclear First Mover Initiative and said states are focusing on multi-state coordination, demand aggregation, regulatory coordination, waste management, workforce readiness, and community engagement. They also discussed affordability tools such as construction work in progress (CWIP), financing incentives, and consumer protections, citing examples from Kentucky, Texas, Virginia, Illinois, Missouri, Utah, Tennessee, and others. In response to questions, they explained that pilot programs often involve site-readiness and feasibility studies, and that the federal Nuclear Innovation Campus process is moving forward with multiple submissions while broader waste and recycling policy may require congressional action. The Public Service Commission said it would likely have a major role in any North Dakota nuclear project through certificate-of-public-convenience-and-necessity review, siting, and rate regulation, but noted gaps in current law for small reactors, co-located facilities, NRC coordination, and long-term site stewardship. The commissioner said the commission has no authority over a private, self-contained reactor not connected to the grid. The Department of Environmental Quality explained that the state regulates radioactive materials under its agreement-state authority, but NRC retains primacy over fission reactors; DEQ would likely assist with emergency planning and could have a larger role if fusion reactors emerge. The Department of Emergency Services said it would serve as the lead off-site preparedness agency, requiring a dedicated radiological emergency preparedness program, training, drills, public outreach, and likely additional funding and staffing, with industry expected to bear much of the cost. The Department of Water Resources said North Dakota’s water laws and prior-appropriation system are adequate for nuclear siting, that the Missouri River is the best likely source, and that no statutory or budget changes are currently needed from a water perspective. The committee recessed for lunch after these agency presentations.

Transcript Highlights:

• So before we delve into specific nuclear energy and advanced nuclear policies and advance across the
• Historically, nuclear...
• The advanced nuclear technologies being discussed present encouraging opportunities, but nuclear comes
• . nuclear with nucleon that groundwater probably isn't a good source for nuclear.
• Okay, so nuclear fission.

Summary: The Advanced Nuclear Energy Committee met to review prior minutes and hear a series of presentations on advanced nuclear technology and state readiness. The committee approved the April 21, 2022 minutes. Nucleon’s William Bridge outlined the advanced nuclear landscape, distinguishing near-term light-water SMRs from more advanced Gen 4 reactors and microreactors, and emphasized that fuel supply, especially HALEU, remains a developing supply chain. He said light-water designs are the most deployable in the near term, while advanced reactors may be better suited for industrial heat applications and could face a 2- to 3-year delay from fuel availability. Representatives from NASEO described how other states are supporting advanced nuclear through task forces, roadmaps, pilot programs, financing tools, workforce and supply-chain efforts, and regional coordination. They highlighted the Advanced Nuclear First Mover Initiative and stressed that states are focusing early on emergency preparedness, community engagement, waste management, affordability, and consumer protections. They also noted that some states are creating nuclear-ready community programs and cost-recovery guardrails, while public utility commissions are examining long-term lifecycle costs and rate impacts. North Dakota agencies then outlined their potential roles. The Public Service Commission said it would likely be involved in public-interest review, siting, and rate regulation, but noted current statutes may not fully address long-term nuclear projects, co-location, or decommissioning. The Department of Environmental Quality said it would continue to regulate radioactive materials and likely support emergency planning, while fission reactor oversight remains federal. The Department of Emergency Services said it would serve as the lead off-site preparedness agency, needing a radiological emergency program, training, exercises, equipment, and possibly industry funding. The Department of Water Resources said North Dakota has sufficient surface water, especially from the Missouri River, but that water planning would be important; it did not recommend statutory or budget changes at this time. The committee recessed for lunch after these presentations, with no additional votes or actions taken.

Transcript Highlights:

• Historically, nuclear... ...risk associated with advanced nuclear development.
• The advanced nuclear technologies being discussed present encouraging opportunities, but nuclear comes
• In 1982, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act created a tax on every kilowatt hour of nuclear-generated energy
• Okay, so nuclear fission.
• How did you become interested in nuclear, and what would you like to do in the area of nuclear?

Committee: Joint Advanced Nuclear Energy Committee

Transcript Highlights:

• Do we go with nuclear?
• Nuclear power.
• nuclear power.
• Just say civilian nuclear power, not small modular reactors. Civilian nuclear power.
• you're doing nuclear.

Summary: The meeting focused on finalizing recommendations from the Delaware Nuclear Energy Task Force, with most of the discussion centered on how the state should organize itself to evaluate and potentially pursue nuclear power. Public commenters strongly supported nuclear energy, emphasizing energy reliability, economic competitiveness, data center demand, and the need for Delaware to act quickly. Several speakers argued that Delaware is falling behind neighboring states and should not delay if it wants to attract developers and preserve access to federal tax incentives. Members then worked through revisions to the recommendations, especially the section on state actions moving forward. There was broad agreement that Delaware needs a clearly empowered leadership structure, but disagreement over the best form: a cabinet-level energy agency, an expanded existing agency such as DENREC, a dedicated coordinator, an expanded Sustainable Energy Utility, or a separate quasi-independent authority. Some members favored a nimble, one-off entity with bonding and financing authority; others cautioned against creating a new body outside state government and stressed the need for coordination with existing agencies, public oversight, and cost discipline. The group also discussed adding responsibilities such as site identification, public engagement, coordination with PJM and federal agencies, and financing tools, while removing or folding in items that seemed duplicative or too broad. The committee also revised earlier modules to broaden the focus from small modular reactors to nuclear power more generally, while keeping the task force’s original SMR work in view. Members agreed to keep recommendations on state and local regulatory readiness, financial mechanisms, permitting coordination, and public engagement, and to add a recommendation for Delaware to participate as an observer in the Advanced Nuclear First Mover Initiative through NASEO and NARUC. The committee approved the revised Module Four recommendations by vote, with one abstention from Tom Noyes. Minutes from the prior meeting were also approved with minor corrections.

Transcript Highlights:

• I just, I've been around; I'm a nuclear engineer. I've been around nuclear for a very long time.
• for nuclear.
• for nuclear.
• I'm the one that signs the license for the DOE nuclear facilities here, including all the new nuclear
• So, the nuclear executive orders...

Summary: The meeting was an extended briefing from Idaho National Laboratory officials on the lab’s mission, its role in nuclear energy research, and the federal push to accelerate advanced reactor deployment. Speakers described INL’s size and capabilities, including test reactors, fuel and materials facilities, cybersecurity and critical infrastructure work, and partnerships with DOE, the NRC, the Department of Defense, and private companies. They emphasized that the lab is supporting both commercial nuclear development and national security work, while also training a large intern workforce. A major theme was the current federal effort to streamline nuclear regulation and speed up licensing and demonstration. The speakers said recent executive orders and DOE/NRC coordination are reducing redundant requirements, shortening environmental review timelines, and aiming for three new nuclear systems to reach criticality by July 4, 2026. They argued that regulatory uncertainty has been a major driver of nuclear cost and that the administration’s actions, along with DOE’s pilot and demonstration programs, are intended to rebuild the domestic supply chain and industrial base. The discussion also focused on advanced reactor types, including small modular reactors, microreactors, molten salt concepts, and liquid-metal designs. Officials said these technologies are being developed for data centers, military bases, remote communities, industrial heat, hydrogen production, and other nontraditional uses. They highlighted several projects and companies, including Oklo, Aalo, Radiant, X-energy, TerraPower, Kairos, and DOE’s MARVEL and Project Pele efforts, and said some reactors are expected to reach criticality or operation in the next few years. Questions from attendees covered safety, public health impacts, materials and heat management, waste or used fuel handling, costs, and whether nuclear could remain competitive against other energy sources; the speakers responded that advanced reactors are designed with passive safety features, that used fuel should be viewed as a resource, and that cost remains highly design- and supply-chain-dependent.

Transcript Highlights:

• Imagine the interest accumulated on a nuclear, on a modular nuclear generator that's been in construction
• And then we have, because we're dealing with nuclear, outside forces with nuclear regulatory policies
• We have to build nuclear, whether that's traditional nuclear or SMRs. I think you're spot on.
• It was not eliminated for nuclear.
• of it is nuclear.

Committee: House Utilities

Transcript Highlights:

• but nuclear is a piece of that.
• pursuing nuclear power now.
• ...nuclear power.
• you're doing nuclear.
• To nuclear energy more broadly.

Transcript Highlights:

• What that substitute does is it clarifies that the nuclear generation needs to be new nuclear, not existing
• nuclear.
• just because if you add nuclear into this, that is not Energy credits, just because if you add nuclear
• Then ultimately, we would have nuclear in Missouri.
• And likewise with the nuclear asset in later years.

Committee: House Utilities

Transcript Highlights:

• And then we have, because we're dealing with nuclear, we have, you know, outside forces with nuclear
• We have to build nuclear, whether that's traditional nuclear or SMRs. I think you're spot on.
• It was not eliminated for nuclear.
• It was not eliminated for nuclear.
• of it is nuclear.

Committee: House Utilities

Summary: The Committee on Utilities first met in executive session and adopted a House Committee substitute for House Bills 2658, 2147, 2472, and 2546 by a roll call vote of 20 ayes and 1 no. The substitute expanded telephone solicitation language to include unsolicited real estate solicitations, adjusted reassigned-number compliance language, and refined spoofing-related definitions to focus on intent to cause harm or wrongfully obtain value. Members also discussed how the no-call list, existing business relationships, and political fundraising calls would be treated under the substitute. The committee then heard House Bills 1626 and 2122, both relating to nuclear energy and construction work in progress (CWIP/QIP) financing for nuclear projects. The sponsors argued the bills would remove an outdated barrier to nuclear construction in Missouri, especially for small modular reactors, by allowing utilities to recover construction costs during construction and thereby reduce interest and overall project cost. They emphasized ratepayer protections through clawback provisions, the role of the Public Service Commission, future energy demand, economic development, and keeping Missouri competitive with other states. Several members raised concerns about higher utility rates, the risk of cost overruns, the possibility of ratepayers paying for projects that are delayed or never completed, and whether the proposal was premature given that SMRs are not yet widely deployed in the United States. In response, the sponsors and supporters said the bill would include refund protections similar to Senate Bill 4 and that the PSC would oversee prudence and timing. Public witnesses in support included business, utility, and municipal representatives, as well as Missouri S&T’s chancellor, who stressed workforce development and the growing national and global move toward nuclear power. The hearing on House Bills 1626 and 2122 was then closed.

Transcript Highlights:

• What that substitute does is it clarifies that the nuclear generation needs to be new nuclear, not existing
• nuclear.
• Nuclear hasn't been defined in the renewable space.
• It doesn't actually include nuclear in the renewable standard, but in a new nuclear energy credit, which
• Then ultimately, we would have nuclear in Missouri.

Committee: House Utilities

Summary: The Committee on Utilities heard testimony first on House Bill 2807, which would lower Missouri’s renewable energy standard from 15% to 7.5% and add nuclear generation as an eligible source, with the sponsor saying the goal is to give utilities more flexibility and support dispatchable power. The sponsor and several witnesses discussed a Senate companion and committee substitute that would clarify the bill to apply only to new nuclear and, in the Senate version, add battery storage credits. Support came from Renew Missouri, Ameren Missouri, Missouri Farm Bureau, and Associated Industries of Missouri, who emphasized grid reliability, dispatchable generation, and the need to adapt to growing energy demand. Opposition from the Consumers Council of Missouri focused on ratepayer impacts, warning that the bill could increase the RESRAM surcharge and urging explicit language to prevent nuclear costs from being passed through to consumers. The committee then heard House Bill 2598, a more complex proposal to create a Missouri Advanced Nuclear Office and a grant program to help finance a “power campus” pairing a natural gas plant with a small modular nuclear reactor. The sponsor and supporters described the bill as a way to attract large data centers, provide near-term power, and use gas plant profits to help fund future nuclear development, while also positioning Missouri to compete with other states and federal nuclear incentives. Witnesses from Bridge to Nuclear and the Missouri Chamber of Commerce supported the concept as innovative and pro-reliability, though committee members repeatedly questioned why the state should put general revenue at risk, how profits and grants would be structured, and whether private markets could do the work without state involvement. Opposition to HB 2598 came from a consumer advocate and an environmental/community witness, who criticized the bill’s potential effects on electric rates, transparency, water use, and local communities affected by data centers. They objected to confidential grant applications and argued that the proposal would further favor large corporations over residents. No votes were taken on either bill during the hearing. Before adjournment, the chair announced that a committee substitute for Representative Banderman’s solar bill would be heard at a later, committee-only session, with the public allowed to attend but not testify.

Transcript Highlights:

• Support the preservation and expansion of America's nuclear fleet. I move adoption.
• H.J.R. 8 by Harris, a constitutional amendment providing for the creation of the Texas Nuclear Development
• Fund to support the development, construction, and operation of advanced nuclear reactor projects.
• Speaker, members, this ACR just sets up the Texas Nuclear Fund.
• Support the preservation and expansion of America's nuclear fleet. I move adoption.

Bills: HJR98 , HJR8 , HJR133 , HB23 , HB33 , HB144 , HB 109 , HB 103 , HB148 , HB3809 , HB1686 , HB2217 , HB2156 , HB220 , HB2421 , HB2363 , HB3773 , HB421 , HB2584 , HB2615 , HB2455 , HB3711 , HB2559 , HB3747 , HB2775 , HB2886 , HB3126 , HB3666 , HB3595 , HB3260 , HB3506 , HB1638 , HB3376 , HB3826 , HB3628 , HB1349 , HB3770 , HB1831 , HB1762 , HB2614 , HB3113 , HB267 , HB322 , HB431 , HB869 , HB 1203 , HB 1201 , HB 1244 , HB1875 , HB1950 , HB2152 , HB2290 , HB2341 , HB2436 , HB2809 , HB2856 , HB3012 , HB2954 , HCR56 , HCR102 , HB 107 , HB1587 , HB3684 , HB658 , HJR99 , HB1399 , HJR5 , HJR2 , HJR6 , HJR31 , HB1971 , SJR3 , HB1775 , HJR72 , HB502 , HB3109 , HJR98 , HJR8 , HJR133 , HB 118 , HB388 , HB 114 , HB205 , HB2789 , HB2791 , HB499 , HB2960 , HB3163 , HB3135 , HB2427 , HB1618 , HB1672 , HB1722 , HB1338 , HB787 , HB2618 , HB879 , HB 1126 , HB4134 , HB3513 , HB718 , HB1536 , HB1445 , HB1640 , HB1893 , HB1734 , HB3229 , HB3306 , HB 1276 , HB3272 , HB3276 , HB3516 , HB4145 , HB1585 , HB4810 , HB2989 , HB2558 , HB3014 , HB2742 , HB1695 , HB23 , HB33 , HB144 , HB 109 , HB 103 , HB148 , HB3809 , HB1686 , HB2217 , HB2156 , HB220 , HB2421 , HB2363 , HB3773 , HB421 , HB2584 , HB2615 , HB2455 , HB3711 , HB2559 , HB3747 , HB2775 , HB2886 , HB3126 , HB3666 , HB3595 , HB3260 , HB3506 , HB1638 , HB3376 , HB3826 , HB3628 , HB1349 , HB3770 , HB1831 , HB1762 , HB2614 , HB3113 , HB267 , HB322 , HB431 , HB869 , HB 1203 , HB 1201 , HB 1244 , HB1875 , HB1950 , HB2152 , HB2290 , HB2341 , HB2436 , HB2809 , HB2856 , HB3012 , HB2954 , HCR56 , HCR102

Keywords: Article V, federal government, fiscal restraints, constitutional amendment, term limits, nuclear energy, electric generation, funding, Texas nuclear development fund, advanced reactors, HJR 133, Texas constitutional amendment, ad valorem tax, property tax exemption, homestead exemption, surviving spouse, veteran, veterans benefits, service-connected death, presumed service-connected condition