Ron McNair — Said he would push against any proposal that would require the state to cover a large cost overrun.
Ron McNair — Raised the concern that a cost overrun backstop could create risk for taxpayers.
Ron McNair — Praised for raising financing concerns from a banker perspective.
Ron McNair — His earlier concerns about taxpayer exposure are echoed.
Ron McNair — Senator McKee was invited to ask a question and then argued that the early projects should be built by private investors first so the market can reach NOAC pricing without the kinds of cost overruns seen in Georgia. He added that once those NOAC prices are reached, consumers would ultimately pay through their rates rather than through taxes.
Richard McGrew — Mr. Meadors is referenced as someone who will be recognized shortly; the transcript is unclear on the exact name.
Richard McGrew — Representative Richard McGrew was recognized to speak and then asked questions about the projected 35% increase in demand, the infrastructure needed to support it, preferred reactor types, and whether Arkansas companies are interested in participating.
Richard McGrew — Richard McGrew is mentioned in the course of a continuous discussion about project funding and related concerns. The exchange invites Mr. Murphy to comment, notes that Mr. Meadors has already raised supply chain development, and then continues with references to earlier concerns about project uncertainties and lessons learned, including a remark attributed to Mr. Meador about the Gen 2 fleet.
Richard McGrew — Representative McGrew was recognized by the chair and then thanked the chair and committee for the opportunity to speak, noting that he is not a member of the committee and asking a question about the list of already operational plants.
Mr. Paul Murphy — Mentioned as joining the meeting remotely or by video.
Natalie Rogers — Natalie Rogers was noted as being in attendance and then introduced herself to the committee as a civil engineer with Half Associates.
Natalie Rogers — Referenced as someone who could speak to the water and transmission constraints.
Jack Ladyman — Representative Jack Ladyman is recognized to introduce the witnesses and provide background.
Jack Ladyman — Jack Ladyman is recognized by the chair and begins speaking, saying he has a couple of questions prompted by the earlier discussion.
Jack Ladyman — Referenced as having raised the issue of seismic areas.
Brian Meadows — Brian Meadows of Excel Services Corporation is introduced as the consultant who completed the study and report, is briefly praised for doing a good job, and is then identified as the person who will present the summary of the report.
Mr. Meadows — Mr. Meadows is introduced as the person who prepared the report and will provide the details, and he is later praised for doing a good job addressing the bill’s requirements before being invited to introduce himself and speak.
Mr. Meadows — Answered that he would provide directories and email information on operational plants.
Mark Johnson — Senator Johnson is repeatedly thanked and acknowledged by name during the meeting, likely in his role as chair or presiding senator.
Mark Johnson — Senator Johnson begins with a light joking exchange, then transitions into substantive remarks about nuclear and utility regulation. He asks whether cutting-edge nuclear technology would face slower regulatory approval, references his electric bill to illustrate that CWIP charges are already appearing on customers’ bills, notes he voted against the prior CWIP bill because it changes the investor-owned utility system, explains that CWIP shifts costs to customers before generation is received, and contrasts investor-owned utilities with co-ops while saying he is not an equity owner in Entergy.
Brian Meadors — Brian Meadors introduces himself as an Arkansas native from Fort Smith and notes his long family ties to the state. He explains that working on the report is personally meaningful because he believes in the promise of nuclear power, citing its demonstrated safety and emission-free baseload value. The chair then interrupts to ask him to proceed with the full presentation after another colleague introduces themselves.
Mr. Patterson — Opened with housekeeping remarks about the draft and final versions of the report.
Paul Murphy — Paul Murphy was introduced and identified as part of the report team and his consulting firm, then took the floor to discuss slide nine and explain nuclear project financing. He described how nuclear plants have been built successfully before but financing must now account for changed market conditions and higher risk across three phases: development, construction, and operations. He emphasized that long-lead-item purchases, cost overruns, and construction risk make early-stage financing difficult, that government support is necessary but should be targeted, and that states compete for projects. He noted investors are reluctant to fund development and construction but become more interested once a plant is operating, and he referenced possible financing sources such as export credit finance, DOE support, and supply-chain-linked funding from Japan and Korea. He also explained that deregulated markets, subsidized renewables, dispatch preferences, and cheap natural gas make nuclear economics harder, while larger industrial or energy hubs, data centers, and heavy industry could serve as off-takers. He concluded that the project should be framed as part of a broader economic, industrial, and export strategy and structured to refinance later once de-risked.
Brian — Explained C-WIP and said it allows utilities to bill ratepayers during construction.
Mr. Meadors — Mr. Meadors continues his presentation on legislative and regulatory steps to support nuclear development. He recommends possible financing tools such as bridge loans, guarantees, tax incentives, and assistance securing long-term power buyers, then discusses organizational options including a nuclear agency, tying the effort to economic development, or expanding the existing atomic coordinator role. He notes Arkansas already has an atomic coordinator framework, suggests defining nuclear as clean energy, staffing the coordinator and possibly creating a development fund for site identification and pre-permitting, and argues that the low-level radioactive waste land-ownership restriction should be removed. He also raises the need to clarify or possibly repeal Public Service Commission requirements for plants over 50 megawatts, including how modular reactors would be counted, and invites stakeholders to weigh in before concluding his presentation. In the follow-up exchange, he agrees that any proposal must be not only technically feasible but also economically proven, emphasizing supply chain readiness and design maturity as key concerns.
Mr. Meadors — Mr. Meadors and his company are referenced as the contractor hired to conduct the study.
Mr. Meadors — Addressed as someone familiar with the study and site considerations; the speaker noted Mississippi County's steel industry and future power needs.
Mr. Meadors — Referenced as having prepared a study that will provide more information.
Mr. Murphy — Invited to answer questions about C-WIP if desired.
Mr. Murphy — Mr. Murphy is thanked for candid testimony about the need for modeling and support levels.
Mr. Murphy — The speaker asks whether Mr. Murphy can address a question about financing and the state bridge loan amount, and Mr. Murphy responds that the amount depends on the reactor type and how many are built.
Paul — Paul is invited to respond to a question about financing and capital markets, accepts the invitation, and begins explaining that the issue requires detailed modeling.
Jimmy Hickey — Senator Hickey is recognized to speak next.
Jimmy Hickey — Representative Beck said Senator Hickey had already covered the cost-overrun issue well.
Jimmy Hickey — Jimmy Hickey was referenced as asking about the amount of money that would be needed and about funds being established, including how such funds are being set up in other states.
Zack Gramlich — Representative Gramlich warned that using taxpayer funds for nuclear projects could bankrupt the state, citing Georgia’s cost overruns, and then asked which states or entities should be watched as potential first movers if Entergy does not take the lead.
Rick Beck — Mentioned by name in the chair's recognition of a committee member; likely a transcription error for the member being recognized.
Rick Beck — Referenced in a light remark about bringing a 'legal eagle' to the table.
Blake Johnson — Representative Blake Johnson pressed the witness on nuclear safety beyond the plant itself, asking about off-site safety and the history of accidents or potential off-site effects across decades of U.S. and global nuclear operation. He then argued that nuclear power is far safer than other industrial activities, especially fossil fuels, framing it as a comparatively low-risk energy source.
Brad Simon — Representative Rye was recognized and asked follow-up questions about how Arkansas should compare to other states in terms of funding needed to start a nuclear site, what startup costs might look like for a site in Arkansas, and related early site permitting considerations. The exchange concluded with a thank-you after the response.
Ms. Rogers — Asked whether she had anything to add.
Mr. Rogers — Said he was present to answer additional questions, especially about the water availability study.
Mr. Meador — Thanked the committee and said he appreciated their time and interest.
Shane Corey — Identified himself as Secretary for the Arkansas Department of Energy and Environment.
Amanda Land — Identified herself as Chief Counsel for Energy and Environment.
Mr. Secretary — Thanked by the committee after the letter was accepted.
Matt McKee — Senator Matt McKee is recognized and thanks the presenters, then explains that the study and bill are intended to remove barriers and encourage development, not to put Arkansas in the utility business.
Matt McKee — Senator McKee is referenced in a question about how Arkansas could strengthen reactor construction and related supply chains.
Ron McNair — Representative McNair is thanked for seconding the motion.
Ron McNair — Asked how a state bridge loan would be structured and whether the state would have a first lien position.