Washington state is once again facing a push to embrace nuclear energy, this time fueled by the state's aggressive climate goals, advances in technology and the embrace of the energy source by the federal government.
But the industry still faces strong headwinds from tribal stakeholders and environmental groups concerned with safety and accountability.
The Washington state Senate Committee on Environment, Energy and Technology heard testimony on Senate Bill 5821 on Friday, Jan. 16. The legislation is sponsored by a bipartisan group including state Sen. John Braun, R-Centralia, and the committee’s chair, state Rep. Sharon Shewmake, D-Bellingham. The bill seeks to evaluate the necessary steps the state would need to take to embrace new nuclear fission technology in Washington state.
The proposed bill calls on the Washington state Department of Commerce to use non-state funds to develop a “nuclear power strategic framework.” The language lays out the requirements, reflecting that the framework should show the investments, policy changes, funding opportunities and other factors necessary for facilitating the growth of nuclear energy in the state. For additional information on the bill and previous reporting by The Chronicle, visit https://tinyurl.com/4ubzm7ay.
The ranking Republican on the committee, state Sen. Matt Boehnke, R-Kennewick, introduced the bill on behalf of Braun, its primary sponsor. In his testimony, he painted the legislation as a preparation bill for the state to begin considering nuclear power as an option to provide large-scale energy while still meeting the state's ambitious climate goals, including reducing emissions by 45% by 2030 and 95% by 2050.
“In the state of Washington, as we continue this clean energy transition, we need all options on the table,” Boehnke said. “We need to look at where we can find that efficiency and effectiveness in the planning, preparation and the guidance that leads to us in the next 20 years.”
During the hearing, the bill received relatively balanced testimony in favor and against. Those who weighed in on the bill without testifying skewed toward opposition with 331 against and 231 in favor of the bill advancing through the Legislature as written. The meeting of the commission also featured a roughly 20-minute work session led by the Washington State Institute for Public Policy to review existing state policies around the nation that support the implementation of small modular reactors (SMRs), which are mentioned in SB 5821.
Those opposed to the bill shared concerns with safety, accountability, tribal treaty rights, use of precious resources such as water and corporate involvement. Those testifying in favor of the bill frequently cited a need for the state to replace the power output lost by the retirement of many of the state's fossil-fuel power plants, including the coal-burning plant based in Centralia and owned by TransAlta.
Tribal leaders from the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR) led off the testimony opposing the bill, citing concerns that the bill does not do enough to highlight partnership with tribal leaders in the state.
A member of the CTUIR board of trustees, Lisa Gunuelas, cited concerns that the bill could help expedite the development of nuclear power without considering impacts to indigenous tribes. She referred back to the development of the Hanford nuclear facility near Richland and its past impacts on tribes in the region, including the CTUIR, the Nez Perce and the Yakama Nation. The site sits on ancestral lands and has contributed to significant contamination and pollution of the local environment in the past.
“We believe this bill puts the cart before the horse taking an overly optimistic view of advanced nuclear energy development and only once acknowledging challenges in achieving nuclear power objectives,” Gunuelas said. “Further, the bill mentions consultation with tribes only once in a laundry list of issues to consider, which follows a tradition of minimizing tribal rights protected and reserved through treaties signed in the 1850s.”
The Hanford site was originally developed as part of the World War II-era Manhattan Project to manufacture plutonium and now houses the state's only commercial nuclear reactor. That site is now also subject to significant cleanup efforts by the state. According to a state report looking at impacts from the 1940s to 1980s, the site is responsible for dumping 400 billion gallons of contaminated liquids into the ground in the area, contaminating groundwater and likely reaching the Columbia River. The report also cites that approximately 57 million gallons of the most hazardous radioactive waste was stored in 177 underground tanks and additional waste was stored underground in boxes and barrels buried in unlined trenches.
Chair of the CTUIR General Council, Lindsey Watchman, laid out changes necessary for the bill to receive support from the tribal government he leads. Steps include a state-funded third party study on nuclear energy development in the state with mandated tribal involvement at multiple stages.
Others opposed to the bill included environmental groups such as the Washington state chapter of the Sierra Club. Dr. Kathleen Saul testified on behalf of the organization, claiming that the proposed bill violates rules around developing impartial energy plans and is taking advantage of recently relaxed federal oversight of the nuclear industry. She referred to language in the bill that calls on the Department of Ecology to not use state funds and instead seek federal funding or gifts to fund the development of a nuclear framework.
“The bill contradicts the Ethics and Public Service Act by asking the Department of Commerce to seek gifts and other contributions to fund a study uniquely focused on nuclear deployment,” Saul said. “It runs afoul of the principles of implementation of the state energy strategy that indicate that the department remains impartial and objective in its analyses.”
Saul also questioned the viability of small modular reactors, claiming that they are unreasonably expensive to construct and operate and not more cost effective than green alternatives such as onshore wind and solar power.
Those in favor included a range of groups from public utility districts to self-proclaimed progressives who advocated for state development of nuclear power to supplement the state's power supply.
Steve Taylor, director of regulatory and regional affairs for Cowlitz Public Utility District, was the first to testify in favor of the bill. He advocated for support of the bill, sharing his organization’s concerns around access to reliable power in the coming years. He also cited a recent and prominent resource adequacy study that predicts Washington and Oregon together face a predicted 3-gigawatt gap between its power needs and power production capacity by 2030. Taylor referred to nuclear power specifically as his organization's preferred method to address power shortfalls.
“Failing to address this gap in a meaningful way increases the risk of rolling blackouts during extended extreme weather conditions and chokes off economic development opportunities,” Taylor said. “We are excited for the opportunity for advanced nuclear energy as part of the overall portfolio.”
The gap Taylor referred to in his testimony grows to 9 gigawatts when factoring in the needs and power production of a larger group of northwestern states including Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana and parts of Utah and Wyoming.
The bill is just one of many introduced to the Legislature this year that take a closer look at embracing nuclear power. A companion bill, House Bill 2090, received its first hearing in the House Environment and Energy Committee on Tuesday, Jan. 13. Neither bill has yet advanced out of committee or been scheduled for a vote. As a result, the willingness of lawmakers to embrace a new stance on nuclear energy remains to be seen.
