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
- SliQ live captions
- Model
- SliQ live ASR
- Processing date
- October 2, 2026
Sorry, I didn't have my mic on. Joy will come to order, uh, chair sees a Quorum. Uh I don't see representative More Representative Ladyman, are you ready to run your bill? OK, and I understand you have an amendment, uh, you'd like to. Take the seat and introduce yourself and I'll recognize you to
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
3:51
run your men, man. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, Representative Jack Ladyman, District 32.
And today I have uh HB 1572, uh, which, uh, creates a technical feasibility study of new nuclear energy. The amendment is uh some uh 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 deliverables of a In
the report. So that's basically what the amendment
does is change language, so I appreciate it both. Any
questions for Representative Laman on the amendment? If not, your clothes for your amendment I'm close, OK. Was the will of the committee? There's motion do pass. Do we need a second in joint. We do need a second, but Representative Grahamly in the other comment. If not, I'll favor say aye, opposed. You've adopted your amendment. Representative Lehman, you are
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
5:03
now recognized to present your bill as amended.
Thank you committee. Uh, this bill, uh, calls for a feasibility study. For new nuclear energy, what uh, what this does, uh, and I've seen a few other states, um, I was in France with the senator from Indiana. Uh, on a trip there to look at nuclear plants and uh He shared with a report that they had gotten done.
To um 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, you know, we'll have the data that they need uh to site, to build, to design, and that's basically what this report does. Now, I can go into it in detail, but, but basically what it does is it talks about the qualification of persons 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, uh, but that's basically what it does. This does not ask for funding. It is not funded in this bill. Uh, the estimated cost is around $380,000 based on what some other states have done. Uh, 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.
Speaker 15
6:36
OK, any questions for Representative Ladyman. Mine is not coming up. OK. Who, who's
first? Representative Beck, you recognized
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
6:50
for question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, so just some maybe some clarification points, uh, you, you talked about site and uh and obviously sight means. The logistics around the site as well as the community's
acceptance of the concept, uh, I, uh, of, of the new nuclear so, which I, by the way, I like, I like to build. It's, uh, I like the concept of the bill. The concern was you said that the, the the design and the blueprint. Of the of the nuclear and what I, so my question is is this are we, are they gonna say, OK, as you well know, there are, there are probably 12 different designs out there probably not even more than that now, so we're, 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. Uh The transportation, water, so on and so forth for that side and, you know, the, the Uh, excuse me, the, the, all the, all the stuff around the site selection not necessarily what type of reactor would be put there. Exactly, yeah, if
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
7:58
you look on, I think it's page 2. I may, I've got a marked up copy here, but lines 6 and 7, 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
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
8:16
don't want to limit. I, I wanna make sure that we're not limiting ourselves to anyone's under there's a lot of great designs out there and I
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
8:24
don't know which one to end up with say it does say reactor technology So there may as you said, there's different designs, and there may be some that may not even work here in Arkansas. And, but there, 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, these kind of these, we believe these lists of designs will work here in Arkansas.
Good, good question. Thank you. Thank you, Representative Beck, uh. Senator
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
8:59
Hickey, you're recognized for question. Uh, thank you. Uh, Representative lady, mine's just
on your funding, and I heard what you said, uh, um, so I'm not saying I'm. Against your bill or anything,
and maybe we might need to get staff here so your bill. It, 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 gonna require that within, within this law or this legislation and then I see back here on finds 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, if it goes
all the way through. And again, maybe this is a staff question. If, 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. Out of their current funds by the way it's written. And again, I don't know if 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
10:20
which they may need to testify to. Yeah, we had
discussions about that, uh. And I, I can't find it here right now, but, um, 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
around 23, uh, of course, is the if
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
10:48
the appropriation is not there, they can't act. Well. That's why I want to get staff before I vote on this. Again, I don't, don't have a problem with, with your bill. I just, I want to get staff to make sure that we're not putting. Them in a situation since we've got shell in here and we've got these dates in here so that they're required to act or they're
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
11:06
in violation of the law. Well, I know this is not written in the bill, but uh, we talked about this with BLR and about
the budget, the council, uh, budget. And uh there is funding. In council's budget for these type of reports and I was told that yes, that funding is
Speaker 37
11:25
available. It's a matter of proving it. But
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
11:30
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 are getting funding, it literally says that they will engage.
They shall engage within 60 days. I 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, that's available, but
Senator Hickey, uh, staff is gonna try to check with the staff attorney that wrote the bill and see if we can get an answer on that. I think that's a
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
12:09
good point and something we we should we
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
12:11
look at it. There was, there was discussion about, and I've got a 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, I don't see that as being changed on here. It might be something that we missed. the OK. Well, I don't know. I, 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. Yeah Where does it say that? Yeah, I've got no on It says after funding, I've got an old copy sorry. 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 is at the effective date
Speaker 50
13:32
that this act is funded. That's 22 and 23. I'm
looking at copy here. Sa Hickey, will that take care of it? OK. Yeah, that's a good question, Senator. Attorney is on her way, but, uh, for the time being, we'll, we'll move forward and, and Senator Hickey, thank you for bringing that up, and I, I think we've, 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, uh. Senator Stubblefield, you're recognized for a question. I'm sorry, I'm. Uh
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
14:03
But Punch in again, Senator thank you Mr. Chair. We've got you thank you Mr. Chairman. Representative Lady, uh. Have have you talked to anyone, uh, in our state, uh, higher ed institutions that have the uh expertise or the capability to To
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
14:25
do one of these studies. Uh We've talked about engaging, uh, Harriet, uh,
Universities I don't We have not found anyone that says they're capable of doing this. Uh, the Indiana study that I referred to was done by Purdue in uh 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, that works like Purdue does. And this is, we, 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 look at that on the front page where it talks about the requirements. Uh, of the vendor. So there's some things in there that the university, our universities just can't meet.
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
15:34
OK. Uh Or the electric cooperatives, are they interested in participating in this, this type of project? This
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
15:44
is agreed upon language with the, the electric providers. And you're talking about $380,000 to
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
15:49
do this study. Well, it seems to me like they would be they would be, uh, One of the ones that would be willing to participate in it financially.
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
16:05
Is there gonna be one benefiting well. We don't know whether they're going to be the ones benefiting. What we just want as a state we wanna be prepared and ready to go, if we have an interest of a company which may not be associated withy or sole. It may be a, a private provider like the one I worked for for 30 years at Bill's power plants and then they sell the power so it may not, they may not be involved in this. Matter of fact, they probably would not be. Are you following what I'm
saying there? I mean, you know, I'm following you they might buy the power, you know, but they probably would not
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
16:44
build the plant. Well, I'm, I'm not talking about building the entire plant. I'm just talking about. I contributing to the building of the plant. That's, that's a you're talking about a drop in a bucket, a bucket to do this feasibility study, uh, have you talked to the UFA at all about whether they, oh, you have talked
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
17:01
to them? We've talked to a number of universities about this. Uh, but the thing is we
and 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. You mind if I join you? No, come on in. You might even be able to help answer this question. Um, but now that's my, uh, take on that. We, 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
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
17:32
that experience. Well, I'm, I mean, I'm fully behind the bill. I, I, I like the bill I there are just
some questions I have about uh. How to go about all this, but anyway,
thank you, thank you Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Um Vice Chairman McKee, do you have a comment or, or response? To the OK. Right Uh, any Uh
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
18:00
Representative Beck, you're recognized again. Thank you, Mr. Chair. uh
Wouldn't you agree? I'll start out that that the companies that would potentially come in could build the the the new reactors are and there's several of them out there. would be Ah would be more comfortable with someone in the, the, the nuclear field right now. There, there are many states right now that are doing this. Arkansas needs to have a very good plan. Uh, we
will simply be left in the dust of these other states and that's I, I do and I was actually with Jack Lightman, uh represent excuse me, represented lightingman when the 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 a lot of companies out there that, that are developing this stuff now and and are some company to do it. I don't like spending 300 and how much 80,000 $3,080,000 but, but it's worth it to have a well, a well-made
plan that that we could actually move forward with and present to a company that that that they would look at and say yeah
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
19:21
we're we're willing to invest into, uh, Arkansas. Wouldn't you agree? Matt 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, OK? Without a base load power generation source, you can't do that and have reliable power. And so for the past 7 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, 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 in 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, uh, what, what, uh, 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 Jack Ladyman
Unverified
21:07
Representative Beck. Just to add what Senator McKee said when we were in Canada, both of us reviewed the 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, uh, uh. Water reactor. Try to think of the term. But anyway, it's a water reactor, um, so it is coming and we are
losing ground and we, we definitely need, uh, to do this, and we need to do it correctly with the right
people. So Representative Beck, anything else on that one? Thank.
my my back I'm sorry, I didn't know you,
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
21:49
you had been turned off. I apologize and I, I know we're kind of just tossing back and forth here a little bit and I apologize for that, but With this study also include, uh, another issue that we have, uh, 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
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
22:26
it's needed. Would that also be included in this? Uh. Yeah, uh, again, it's that line I was looking at a while ago where it
talked about the best design for sight. Selection or site availability for the best design and what they would look at is, you know, water, um, um, the power lines.
coming in and that you'd pick a site like
that, which is what you do when you build the power. I might add, uh, Representative Beck and on page 2 of the
bill, you have, uh, uh, on page on lines 9 and 10, it talks about the land and sighting criteria including specific areas that are best suited for the new generation, which would certainly transmission would be part of that and also uh down on 21, 2. through 23 timeline for development, including areas of potential acceleration or
efficiencies I guess which would include existing transmission already being in place so uh. Anyway, thank you, uh, gentlemen, I have a question. Either one of you or both of you can answer, um, uh, the whole purpose of having a, a standard design modular reactors that that the timeline is compressed on if we say go we like this, here's the spot, uh, that it could be built quickly and efficiently. What kind of ballpark timeline would we would
we look at once one of these plants had been approved
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
23:55
approximate, of course. So when we were in Canada. They wouldn't give us a timeline, so there's no way on
earth I could, well, I would, I wouldn't pin you down, but certainly it would be faster than
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
24:08
what ANO was. I'm very hopeful nodding, I can definitely say it
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
24:12
would be faster than that. Um, and that faster than Vogel, right? OK. We're, we're hoping
that uh federal nuclear uh 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 gonna be, uh, paying more for everything and your timeline is gonna be extended. Uh, if you are an early adopter, you can eliminate some of those things as commercialization takes over
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
24:53
and the supply chain is put into place. OK. Yeah, and the timeline would vary, uh, depending on where it goes, it, I mean, if you could put one of these at a closed coal plant and you 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 lady, what a novel idea. OK, thank you both, uh, Representative Beck, you have another question. Uh
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
25:24
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 time
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
25:36
frame. Yeah, that might be the first
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
25:38
one. You're right. You're right about that. And you're, I mean whether it's traditional or SMR, you're looking at 10 years. From start to finish no matter what,
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
25:47
at least. Yeah, delivery on some of these components are
way out there. OK, well, perhaps the new
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
25:55
administration might help expedite that with some incentive
and that's why we need to start the process now. Yes, sir. OK. Is anyone else have any questions? Or anyone in the audience likes to speak for or against this bill. Uh OK, then if not, then, uh, one of you gentlemen are welcome to close
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
26:22
on your 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. Uh, not just of Arkansas but of our nation to be able to produce reliable dispatchable power and uh 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, uh.
And it'll be well worth it. So we'd appreciate
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
27:01
a good vote and that I'll make a motion and he can 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, uh, you know, we, 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 close you could second his
motion representative, yes, that motion is. And and with this remind the motion would be do pass as amended. Yes, and second by Representative Ladyman and discussion. Not all in favor, say I opposed. You passed your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Uh, I don't see Representative Moore, so we have nothing more than when it came to speak on uh uh House Bill 1198, uh, 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