Energy - Joint
Video
Transcript
4 documents
Machine transcript
May contain errors. Verify important quotations against the official video.
About transcript accuracy
- Source
- Whisper
- Model
- ggml-large-v3-turbo.bin RTX5060
- Processing date
- October 6, 2026
Unknown speaker
0:00
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
6:00
the joint committee on energy will come to order chair sees a quorum the first item of business is consideration of the minutes from the july 28th meeting and those are part of your packet is Exhibit B. We have a motion from Representative Gonzalez. Is there a second? Second. Representative
Ladyman. Any discussion? All in favor of approval, say aye. Any opposed? The minutes are approved. Next item in business is the consideration of a consulting contract with Excel for a technical feasibility study on new nuclear
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
6:49
energy generation. And I will I'll recognize Jill Thayer with the Bureau for the presentation. Thank you,
Speaker 6
6:58
Mr. Chair. Jill Thayer, Bureau of Legislative Research.
Speaker 8
7:02
You should all have in your meeting packet a copy of a draft contract for nuclear energy consulting services. This is a draft contract I was directed at your last meeting to discuss with Excel the possibility and the terms that would be included in a contract for them to provide this committee with a feasibility study related to nuclear energy consulting. I'll just hit some of the high points of the contract.
There are a couple of things I do want to point out to you all. And then Mr. Meadors with Excel is here and can answer any technical questions you may have about the scope of work. So this is loosely based on Act 707 that was passed during the legislative session. That act, which I believe you also have a copy of in your packet, directed the Department of Energy and Environment to conduct a feasibility study. and it set out parameters for hiring a consultant but was based on funding being provided to the
department for that purpose because they do not have that funding in place this committee is deciding to go forward on your own so we have included the scope of work in this contract mirroring what was going what was required for the feasibility study in the act but because that act doesn't control what you are going to do if you have changes you would like to make to the scope of work let me know and we can do that another point in the act is it did require an independent evaluator to take a look at the final report by the consultant that conducts the feasibility study
that also is not something that's required of you there is a provision in this contract at section 3.2 that discusses review of that independent evaluators report I will just need to know today whether or not that's something you want to do if you are not going to hire an independent evaluator I need to remove that provision from the contract so this contract is for a one-year term it would be effective upon approval by the legislative council at its meeting on Friday and the process
for approval here would be that if this committee decides to move forward the contract would then go to the executive subcommittee at its meeting tomorrow and then legislative council for final approval on friday section six of the contract on page three talks about the cost of the contract this has a maximum contract amount of three hundred and five thousand dollars the maximum amount is based on the fees actually billed to us which those fees are set out in attachment a
and just like all bureau consulting contracts um we pay up to the maximum amount but the consultant would bill us based on actual hours worked at those fee rates and then actual travel expenses to be reimbursed it looks like under the schedule set forth and again mr matters can speak to this more it would be 10 months from the outset of this contract before you received a final report that's the time frame set forward um all the rest of the provisions in here are standard
contract terms that we always include and again I would defer
Speaker 11
10:27
to Mr. Meadows to answer any questions about the scope of work but I'd be happy to answer any other questions are
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
10:40
there any questions and just just to be clear because i know that there was as this has been talked about it the act
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
10:49
has been referenced but i think you made it very clear given that the department of energy and environment did not undertake the study
while we are referencing the act we're under no obligation this is just a essentially a decision that the legislature can make just as we could decide to study really anything we
want to correct i did include that um scope of work that was set
Speaker 8
11:10
out in the act again you can change that i think if you adopt that and approve it then that would be the scope that you would have going forward and I guess then the are there any other questions I guess the only
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
11:31
other question would be this the act referred to the an independent auditor or
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
11:35
review and you've got that in 3.2 if we chose I know you indicated we could remove that from the contract if we didn't want to because we don't know what that review would cost correct correct that would be separate and we would have
Speaker 8
11:56
you're uncertain that that's something you want to do at this point you might go ahead and remove it approve it without that in there and that's the decision
you could make later you would have until the final report came in to make that decision we could hire someone if you do want an independent evaluation and if
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
12:13
we approved it based on this if we later decided we don't want an independent review i mean it wouldn't necessarily be fatal to the agreement? No, we
Speaker 26
12:25
could amend that out. Okay. Representative Beck, you're recognized
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
12:28
for a question. I think this is more a question of the chair. So the funds for this study would flow exactly out of this committee or how would that work? So that's, it's a good question. I asked
about this earlier and I'll let Jill or Marty, one of them can answer, but my understanding is this comes from the bureau from the bureau budget and it's not necessarily our committee budget per se no it would be
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
12:55
the bureau budget and I've been advised that we have that we do have plenty of funds to be able to pay for that but I think that's a it's a fair point and that's why I wanted to make the point just so everybody understands that you know we're not required to do this and i'm all for doing it but just going forward as we have uh requests for things and
particularly something like this where we pass legislation asking the department to do it if they choose not to we're not compelled to but we're i mean obviously there seems to be support to do that all
Speaker 31
13:30
right thank you represent bladyman you recognize for
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
13:34
a question thank you um talking about 3.2 you know I discussed that with some other members of the committee and not only of the cost but who would who would we get you know there was some discussion about who would be able to actually do that and have the
qualifications to do that so I think we should remove that we can't week as was said we can always do that at a later date if we feel like we need to put that back it is that correct Jill we could do that later on yes this committee you would go
Speaker 8
14:07
through the same process you did with this where you would have a discussion and vote on whether or not you want us to seek a contract with someone for that that service
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
14:18
well and I guess the only the only distinction to
that is that as drafted right now if we were to get that
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
14:24
third that independent review excel is required to review it and to revise based on that review so i just want everybody would need to understand that if we strike that they're going to go do their work they're at least under the contract unless we amended it in the future they would then present their report but there would be no obligation for them to review anything else that we presented to them that's correct yeah well i
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
14:53
i think we just got to weigh the balance here but i've got a
Speaker 13
14:57
motion at proper time senator johnson you recognize
thank you mr chairman uh i concur with where we are on this my only question is since it appears that anything we get out of this study we'll be looking at actions in the 27 session uh by the time that we uh uh september 26 of 2026 so you know basically a year from now uh we'll have this and if we uh need to do something we would have
time between that date and the beginning of the regular session in 27 to to have someone again it's not a full investigation it's a review of the work that they've done so if and of course as things develop, we might choose to reinstate that 3.2 provision sometime between now and next year at that time. I'm just saying, we have timetable-wise, that would not be a problem should we need to reinstate that 3.2 review.
Is that correct? Yes. Okay. All right. Thank you, ma'am. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
16:04
Representative Beck, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. If we leave 3.2 in the process, then
we're going to be able to do that. if we leave 3.2 in there and
just choose after we receive the report we choose not to have an independent review of it by it seems to me like by leaving it in there it doesn't cause us anything to leave it in there at this point and it gives us the option later on if we looked at the report
and say well we might want to have someone else look at this at that time we could do that and and then Excel would still be responsible for updating based upon that review. So what would it hurt to leave it in
as it is right now? Because we would have the option to do the report or not. My suggestion would be if we were going to take that
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
16:56
approach as maybe we change upon receipt of the draft evaluation to say upon receipt of any draft evaluation because, I mean, the way it's written right now,
it even if we ignore it it seems to it's it seems the intent is to get this report so maybe some language just to say you know if essentially if there is a separate report they would review it and would make adjustments accordingly my only concern
Speaker 8
17:25
is the way it's written right now the trigger for them providing you their final written report is having reviewed this independent evaluators report i wouldn't want there i don't think we would get into that but i just always
like the wording to be more clear that they are going to provide us with that regardless of whether or not we have an independent evaluator well and
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
17:47
i guess i guess we could leave it in and give notice that we're not going to provide that report at a later
date but i'll leave that any anything further represented back i think i'm gonna leave it
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
18:01
the legal people i think if we can leave it in there and gives us that option later on i think that's a good a good approach for the community to take i think um changing the language i have no
concerns about changing that language uh to make it legal and make sure that that we're not uh but we're not bound to actually having the report done all
right any other questions representative ladyman you're recognized i don't have a
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
18:33
question i've got a motion let's hear your motion uh well based on what representative beck said i i tend to agree with what he said so i i move that we approve the contract uh for this consultant as
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
18:46
as it's written and for clarification with regard to this uh independent evaluation that would be determined at a later date yes
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
18:54
that's my understanding that it could be
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
18:57
and i believe representative beck's correct that we should leave it in there and we can use it if we want to or we cannot use it so my motion would be to approve
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
19:10
it as is okay we have a motion we have a second I'm going to ask for from I guess from BLR and staff is is that motion clear enough that we can
Speaker 8
19:20
accomplish that should it pass yes my understanding is it's just going
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
19:27
to go through as it is and we'll make a decision if if there's a desire to have an independent evaluation it would be decided at a later date I guess it would have to come back to energy and then ultimately to full ALC for that determination yes okay all right so we have a motion by representative ladyman a second by chairman johnson is there
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
19:50
any discussion on the motion if not all in favor say aye any opposed motion passes
thank you And I believe that's all that we have on our agenda. Is there any other business? Chairman Johnson, you're recognized.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You realize, folks, many of you have
seen we have, I don't think it's quite clear yet, there is a meeting scheduled Monday in Wynn. This is in conjunction with the, I don't know if dedication is the right word,
but the opening of some wind generation facilities in Cross County. Senator Caldwell requested that we have a meeting there to see that and tour that and look at it, and that's why we have it on the agenda. So I hope you all can make it, but there won't be any other. To my knowledge, my House co-chair has another idea of adding something, That's all that we would have on the agenda and we'll has have we gotten you the address yet, Michelle?
We will it'll be it'll be on the website. Hopefully by the end of today I'll make sure that we get that to you, but it will be in in Wynn, Arkansas So it's that much we'll have it to you in plenty of time and make sure that But Senator Caldwell, since you're here, do you have an address for it? Could he be recognized? Thank you,
Senator Ronald Caldwell
Unverified
21:27
Mr. Chair. I still have trouble speaking from my surgery. So if you don't understand me, please find me.
I will get that address to you in just a moment. But they have started generating electricity, and they are having a tour of some of the windmills. And that's one reason we asked to have a meeting there that legislators wanted to come it would encourage them to come and look at the project and see what they're doing that way you again I'm not promoting windmills as much as I promote private property rights but but again this is 32 windmills
that are up in and producing electricity and it's the first in Arkansas and so if you wanted to see firsthand what it's like what they do how much noise they make things of that nature it would be a prime opportunity just to come look and touch and feel there's there's no sales gimmick or anything going on so we're not twisting anybody's arms to come but they did want the legislators who had questions about windmills to have the opportunity to come and and look and see and touch so the meeting itself energy meeting itself will
be very short but the rest of the afternoon will be the presentation of Cordelia energy and the tour of the windmill site itself thank you mr. chair all right
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
22:53
anything else from the committee seeing none we're adjourned
Agenda
A. Call to Order
B. Consideration to Approve the Minutes from the July 28, 2025, Meeting [Exhibit B]
C. Approval of Consultant Contract with EXCEL for a Technical Feasibility Study on New Nuclear Energy Generation [Exhibits C1-C2]
D. Other Business
E. Adjournment
Documents
Speakers
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
Speaker 6
Speaker 8
Speaker 11
Speaker 22
Speaker 26
Speaker 31
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
Speaker 13
Senator Mark Johnson Chair
Unverified
Senator Ronald Caldwell
Unverified