Energy - Joint
Video
Transcript
1 document
Bills discussed (3)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
HB1572
Act 707
· 4 mentions in agenda, chapter, transcript
Matched: “…WL CONSERVATION IN THIS STATE; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY. HB1572 Ladyman TO CREATE A TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY STUDY ON NEW NUCL…”
|
TO CREATE A TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY STUDY ON NEW NUCLEAR ENERGY GENERATION; AND TO DECLARE AN … | Ladyman | Notification that HB1572 is now Act 707 |
|
HB1073
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “AGENDA (Revised 3/31/2025 @ 7:00 PM) Moved HB1073 to Deferred Joint Committee on Energy Tuesday, April 1, 202…”
|
TO CREATE THE ADVANCED ENERGY JOBS TASK FORCE. | Ennett | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1198
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…er Rep. Randy Torres REGULAR AGENDA Number Sponsor Subtitle HB1198 J. Moore TO PROHIBIT CERTAIN HEIGHTS OF WIND POWER DEVICES…”
|
TO PROHIBIT CERTAIN HEIGHTS OF WIND POWER DEVICES FOR WATERFOWL CONSERVATION IN THIS STATE; AND … | J. Moore | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
Machine transcript
May contain errors. Verify important quotations against the official video.
About transcript accuracy
- Source
- Whisper
- Model
- ggml-large-v3-turbo.bin
- Processing date
- October 8, 2026
Unknown speaker
0:00
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I'm sorry, I didn't have my mic on. Joint Energy will come to order. Chair sees a quorum. I don't see Representative Moore, Representative Ladyman.
Are you ready to run your bill? I'm ready. I understand you have an amendment. I do. You'd like to take
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
3:46
the seat and introduce yourself, and I'll recognize you to run your amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representative Jack Ladyman, District 32, Today, I have HB 1572, which creates a technical feasibility study of new nuclear energy.
The amendment is some stockholders in this bill have added some language to clarify, and all parties agreed to this added language. it basically talks about qualifications of a proposed vendor and the deliverables of a in the report so that's basically what the amendment does
just change language so i appreciate the vote any questions for representative layman on
the amendment if not you're closed
for your amendment i'm closed okay was the will of committee
as motion do pass do we need a second in joint we do need a second by representative gramley any other comment if not all in favor say aye
opposed you've adopted your amendment representative layman you are now recognized to
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
5:00
present your bill as amended thank you
committee This bill calls for a feasibility study for new nuclear energy.
What this does, and I've seen a few other states. I was in France with a senator from Indiana on a trip there to look at nuclear plants, and he shared with a report that they had gotten done to make the state ready for new nuclear small modular reactors. So if we have a company come here and is interested in building one of those in Arkansas, we'll have the blueprint.
We'll have the data that they need to site, to build, to design, and that's basically what this report does. Now, I can go into it in detail, but basically what it does is it talks about the qualification of the company to do the study, what the deliverables are, which is, you know, site availability, site location, type of design. There's a number of things in here, but that's basically what it does. This does not ask for funding. It is not funded in this bill.
The estimated cost is around $380,000 based on what some other states have done. We think we can get that in the interim through the committee process, the council process. So that's pretty much the bill. I'd
be happy to take questions. Okay.
Speaker 15
6:32
Any questions for Representative Layman? Mine is not coming up. Oh, okay. Who's first? Okay.
Representative Beck, you're recognized
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
6:45
for questions. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So just maybe some clarification points. You talked about site, and obviously site means the logistics around the site as well as the community's acceptance of the concept of the new nuclear solar. By the way, I like the concept of the bill. The concern was, you said, the design and the blueprint of the nuclear.
So my question is this. Are they going to say, okay, as you well know, there are probably 12 different designs out there, probably not even more than that now. So they're not picking out which way we would go with this. they're basically saying these are this is the sites these are the the the transportation water so on so forth for that site and you know the excuse me the all the stuff around the site
selection not necessarily what type of reactor would be put there exactly yeah if you
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
7:53
look on i think it's page two i may i've got a marked up copy here but line six and seven what it talks about is conclusions and recommendations on optimal design specifications based on site characteristics. So I think that's what you're saying, Representative Beck. That's where that's. I just
don't want to limit, I want to make
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
8:11
sure that we're not limiting ourselves to any one design. There's a lot of great designs out there, and I don't know which one we'll end up with.
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
8:20
It does say, and reactor technology. So there may be, as you said, there's different designs, And there may be some that may not even work here in Arkansas, but there are some that will work. And that's what we want to do is choose those that will work and be prepared and tell the companies that come here, hey, we believe these list of designs will work here in Arkansas. Good question. Thank you for that question. Okay. Thank you, Representative Beck.
Senator Hickey, you're recognized for a question. Thank you.
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
8:54
Representative lady, mine's just on your funding, and I heard
what you said. So I'm not saying I'm against your bill or anything. And maybe we might need to get staffed here. So your bill, it says that the Department of Energy shall engage with the outside consulting firm. So there's no ands, ifs, buts about it. We're going to require that within this law or this legislation. And then I see back here on fines 36 on page 2, so we're actually put a time in there.
So the time is would be before our next regular session because it has to be delivered 15 months after the effective date of this if it goes all the way through. And, again, maybe this is a staff question. If additional funding was not put in here, the way I see this is the Department of Energy Environment would have to take this out of their current funds by the way it's written. And again, I don't know if that's something you can answer
or if that's something that we need to, I just want to make sure that it's written correctly that if funding was not found, that we're not going to require the Department of Energy and Environment that they have to do this unless they've got the existing funds and are prepared to,
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
10:15
which they may need to testify to. Yeah, we had discussions
about that. And I can't find it here right now, but on the front page it talks about 60 days after the effective date of the act, they shall engage.
I think that's been... Yes, sir. It's on 23. Of course, if the appropriation is not there, they can't act. Well, that's why I want
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
10:43
to get staff. Before I vote on this, again, I don't have a problem with your bill. I want to get staff to make sure that we're not putting them in a situation since we've got shall in here and we've got these dates in here so that they're required to act or
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
11:01
they're in violation of the law. Well, I know this is not written in the bill, but we talked about this with BLR and about the budget, the council budget, and there is funding in council's budget for these type of reports.
And I was told that, yes, that funding
Speaker 37
11:20
is available. It's a matter of approving it.
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
11:25
But if they don't fund it, then we've got a wall in the books that says the Department of Energy and Environment will do this, not contingent upon getting funding from AOC or getting funding. It literally says that they will engage, they shall engage within 60 days. I don't know if we could get one of our senior staff down here to just make sure or what we need to do if that's available.
Senator Hickey, staff is going to try to check with the staff attorney that wrote the bill and see if we can get an answer on that. I think
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
12:04
that's a good point and something that
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
12:06
we should look at. There was discussion about, and I've got to, with the amendment, I thought maybe
it was in the amendment, There was discussion about changing that 60 days after the effective, after funding, after funding, not date of this act. And I don't see that as being changed on here.
It might be something that we missed. Okay. Well, I don't know. I can't find it either, but I thought we made that change where it said after funding because this question came up before. But I don't see it
in the amendment. I thought it was in there. Well, that might be something we missed in the amendment.
I thought it was in here. Where does it say that? it says after funding. I've got an old copy. Sorry about that. I must have an old one, too. But we did change that because it did say after the act, and we changed it to
after funding of the act. It says at the effective date that this act is funded. Is funded, okay.
Speaker 50
13:26
That's 22 and 23, yes, sir. I guess I'm looking
at an old copy here. Senator Hickey, will that take care of it? Does that? Okay. The attorney's on her way. Yeah, that's a good question, Senator. The attorney is on her way, but for the time being, We'll move forward, and Senator Hickey, thank you for bringing that up. And I think we've got it with that on page 1, line 22 and 23 will suffice for now, but we'll clarify when the attorney gets here. Senator Stubblefield, you're recognized for a question. I'm sorry.
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
13:59
Punch in again, Senator Stubblefield. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We've got you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representative Ladeyman, have you talked to anyone in our state, higher ed institutions, that have the expertise or the capability to do
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
14:20
one of these studies? We've talked about engaging higher ed universities.
We have not found anyone that says they're capable of doing this. The Indiana study that I referred to was done by Purdue, Purdue University. Purdue is an engineering school. They're well-positioned to do this. This is something they do all the time. We don't really have that type of university that works like Purdue does. And we want to go out and get a company that actually is in the business. If you look at the requirements of the company that we're looking for,
it's someone who has experience working in nuclear power. So this bill calls for an experienced group that has qualified nuclear people that have worked in the industry. If you'll look at that on the front page where it talks about the requirements of the vendor. So there's some things in there that the university, our universities just
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
15:32
can't meet. Are the electric cooperatives, are they interested in participating in this type of project?
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
15:38
This is agreed upon language with the electric providers. And you're talking about $380,000
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
15:44
to do this study? Well, it seems to me like they would be one of the ones that would be willing to participate in it financially. There's going to be one benefiting. Well, we
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
16:02
don't know where they're going to be the ones benefiting. As a state, we want to be prepared and ready to go if we have an interest of a company
which may not be associated with Intergy or Arnsol Rural Electric. It may be a private provider like the one I worked for for 30 years that builds power plants and then they sell the power. So they may not be involved in this. As a matter of fact, they probably would
not be. Are you following what I'm saying there? Yeah, I'm following you. They might buy the power. Correct. You know, but they probably would not build the plant.
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
16:39
Well, I'm not talking about them building the entire plant.
I'm just talking about them contributing to the building of the plant. You're talking about a drop in a bucket to do this feasibility study. Have you talked to the U of A at all about whether they – Oh, you have talked to them? We've talked to a number of
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
16:56
universities about this. But the thing is, and we really need to move forward, and we need good, qualified people to do this because other states around us, I mean, we're losing ground on nuclear power. Do you mind if I join in? No, come on in. You might even be able to answer this question.
But now that's my take on that. We need qualified people. And if you look at that, it talks about having experience in nuclear power and nuclear law. We don't have people at universities that have that
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
17:27
experience. Well, I mean, I'm fully behind the bill. I like the bill. There are just some questions I have
about how to go about all this. But anyway, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you. Vice Chair McKee, do you have a comment or response to the question?
Okay, fine. Representative Beck, you're
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
17:55
recognized again. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Wouldn't you agree, I'll start out that, that the companies that would potentially come and could build the new reactors, and there are several of them out there, would be more comfortable with someone in the nuclear field right now?
There are many states right now that are doing this. Arkansas needs to have a very good plan or we will simply be left in the dust of these other states. And I was actually with Jack Ladyman, excuse me, Representative Ladyman, when some of the discussions with the university because the university did have a role in that several years ago, but they are far past this new technology, and there's a lot of companies out there that are developing this stuff now,
and there are some companies that do it. I don't like spending $380,000, but it's worth it to have a well-made plan that we could actually move forward with and present to a company that they would look at and say, yeah, we're willing to invest into Arkansas. Wouldn't you agree? Matt
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
19:16
McKee, State Senate, District 6. Representative Beck, I would definitely agree with that. I don't know how much Representative Ladyman got to talk about our trip to Canada, but Canada did 10 years ago what the United States of America is doing today.
And with their net-zero plan, they tried to do away with all of the carbon-generating sources of electricity that they had. And they realized very quickly that you can't do that, okay? Without a baseload power generation source, you can't do that and have reliable power. And so for the past seven years, they've been hitting hard and heavy on the nuclear front. And they have reliable old-generation nuclear technology, but they have really gone fast and furious into the SMR, the small modular nuclear reactor technology space,
and they are the fastest developing country that I know about. And so there is going to be a gold rush for sure in the United States once these SMRs have been the technology has been demonstrated and Arkansas must put itself in a position to be the beneficiary of that gold rush. I believe that through workforce through supply chain and through early adopters we need to be that state and we can be that state and nuclear
is the cheapest cleanest and safe one of the safest forms of electricity that we can we can have and we can produce and this study is simply meant to put us in that position to know what laws if any that we need to change what what frameworks we need to put into place to make to take best advantage of those technologies as they develop so I would definitely agree with your statement representative Beck just to
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
21:02
add what senator McKee said when we were in Canada both of us reviewed
the construction site for the first SMR that will be built on the American continent. And it's my old company that's building that. It's a downsized water reactor. I'm trying to think of a term. But anyway, it's a water reactor. So it is coming and we are losing ground and we
definitely need to do this and we need to do it correctly with the right people. Okay.
Is that Representative Beck, anything else on that one?
Thank you. I'm sorry. I didn't know you had
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
21:44
been turned off. I apologize. And I know we're kind of just tossing back and forth here a little bit, and I apologize for that. But would this study also include another issue that we have that we're having around the country is transmission? And so the placement of the sites might very well consider the location in Arkansas where Arkansas would be best served in terms of having a reactor at this location
because there's a transmission lines there that can handle the power from that reactor and take it to the and deliver it to where it's needed would that also
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
22:21
be included in this yeah again it's that line I was looking at a while ago where it talked about the
best design for site selection or site availability for the best design and what they would look at is, you know, water, the power lines coming in, and that you'd pick a site like that,
which is what you do when
you build a power plant. I might add, Representative Beck, that on page two of the bill, you have, on page,
on lines nine and ten, it talks about the land and siding criteria, including specific areas that are best suited for the new generation, which would certainly transmission would be part of that and also down on 21 through 23 timeline for development including areas of potential acceleration or efficiencies I guess which would include existing
transmission already being in place so anyway thank you gentlemen I have a question either one of you or both of you can answer the whole purpose of having a standard design modular reactors that the timeline is compressed on if we say go we like this here's the spot that it could be built quickly and efficiently what kind of ballpark timeline would we look at once one of these plants had been approved approximate of course
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
23:46
so when we were in canada they wouldn't give us a timeline so there's no way
on earth i could okay Well, I wouldn't pin you down, but certainly it
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
24:03
would be faster than what ANO was. I'm very hopeful.
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
24:07
Everyone's nodding. Yes, I can definitely say it would be faster than
that. And faster than Vogel, right? Okay. Okay. We're hoping that federal nuclear regulatory pressures are going to be lessened or streamlined in such a way that this technology can be developed quickly.
Obviously, if you're the first adopter, your timeline is extended. So we don't want to be the first adopter, but we do want to be early adopters because if you're building the first one, you're going to be paying more for everything and your timeline is going to be extended. If you are an early adopter, you can eliminate some of those things as commercialization takes over and the supply chain is put into place. Yeah, and
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
24:49
the timeline would vary depending on where it goes. I mean, if you could put one of these at a closed coal plant,
and you've got the infrastructure there, so that should shorten the line. But the
delivery of some of the components would be the
controlling factor there. My, Representative Leidyman, what a novel idea. Thank you both. Representative Beck, you have another question.
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
25:14
I'll start out with, wouldn't you agree that X power already has a contract with with Google for Seattle Washington to put a system in and that system is
scheduled to be starting around the 29 timeframe yeah that might
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
25:31
be the first one you're right you're
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
25:33
right about that and you're whether it's traditional or SMR you're looking at ten years from start to finish no matter what okay yeah delivery
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
25:42
on some of these components are way out there okay
well perhaps a new administration might help expedite that with some incentives and
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
25:51
that's why we need to start
the process now yes sir okay does anyone else have any questions
yeah are they anyone in the audience like to speak for against this bill okay then if not then one of you gentlemen are welcome to close on your
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
26:17
bill this has been a long time coming we appreciate the opportunity to present this bill we think that this is extremely important for the future not just of Arkansas but of our nation to be able to produce reliable dispatchable
power and for our national security there are a lot of different things that just rely on reliable power and if we can get to a place in the United States where we've got safe nuclear technology producing that power I think we're all better off so this is the first step in the process we do have to invest a little bit of money but it'll be a drop in the bucket and
it'll be well worth it so we appreciate a good vote and that'll make a motion and he can
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
26:56
finish just let me add a few things that you know in arkansas one of our strongest things that we have here to draw industry into is low power reliable power
and this will help us maintain those
low rates and that availability and you know we we don't want to be left in the dust we have to be a leader in this and i think we can be so with
that if you're closed you could second his motion representative lady yes i second and with this remind the motion would be do pass as amended as amended yes and second by representative ladyman any discussion
If not, all in favor say aye. Opposed? Passed your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, committee. I don't see Representative Moore, so we have nothing more. Anyone that came to speak on House Bill 1198, he will not be running it today. He's not here. So if there's no other business, we'll stand adjourned.
Agenda
REGULAR AGENDA
HB1198 J. Moore TO PROHIBIT CERTAIN HEIGHTS OF WIND POWER DEVICES FOR WATERFOWL CONSERVATION IN THIS STATE; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
HB1572 Ladyman TO CREATE A TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY STUDY ON NEW NUCLEAR ENERGY GENERATION; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
DEFERRED BILLS
HB1073 Ennett TO CREATE THE ADVANCED ENERGY JOBS TASK FORCE.
Documents
| Title | Type | Pages | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agenda — ENERGY - JOINT, Apr 1, 2025 | Agenda | 1 | Official source ↗ |
Speakers
Senator Mark Johnson Chair
Unverified
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
Speaker 15
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
Speaker 37
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
Speaker 50
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified