OKLAHOMA CITY – State regulators are proceeding with a study of possible nuclear development in this state, but voiced their doubts and criticism during an Oct. 9 meeting.
All three Oklahoma Corporation Commissioners expressed dismay that the study required by Senate Bill 130, a bill passed by the Legislature and signed into law by Gov. Kevin Stitt, did not include any funding for hiring a consultant.
The legislation directs the OCC to “start the process” to engage an outside consulting firm “well established in the nuclear industry” to conduct a technical and legal feasibility study on nuclear energy generation in this state. The agency was instructed to “retain expert witnesses on behalf of the agency to ensure the ability to timely conduct the study…” The feasibility study must “evaluate and consider:”
• Advantages and disadvantages of generating nuclear energy in this state, including, but not limited to, the economic and environmental impacts.
• Methods to maximize existing workforce and products made in this state for the construction of nuclear energy generation facilities.
• Design characteristics, including recommendations for design specification and site selection.
• Environmental and ecological impacts.
• Land and siting criteria, including specific geographic areas that are best suited for new nuclear generation, as well as cities near military bases that may use new nuclear electric generation to meet military resiliency requirements.
• Safety criteria.
• Engineering and cost-related information.
• Small modular nuclear reactor and microreactor capability.
• Socioeconomic factors. Public Utilities Division Director Mark Argenbright said his unit is relying on volunteers from the Hamm Energy group and declared, “It’s gonna be challenging.”
The commissioners agreed that lack of funding from the Legislature would be costly to the agency. It not only is required by the law to carry out the study, but to do so with no additional funding for hiring a consultant. The commissioners also pointed out they are expected to dig into the agency’s budget – which was cut by the Legislature.
“The language in the law states ‘shall employ,’” Argenbright noted, “and we’re not sure how to address it.”
“I don’t know if the Legislature thinks we’re over here twiddling our thumbs when we issue 10,000 to 12,000 orders a year,” Commissioner Todd Hiett said. “We’ll have to drop a lot of things to do this.”
“I don’t think the Legislature is serious about it,” said Commissioner Brian Bingman. “It’s not funded. They didn’t give us any money, and I hate to see the staff spend a lot of time on it. Let’s not spend any money. Our budget’s been cut.”
Commission Chair Kim David, who arrived in Oklahoma City at midnight after touring the Palo Verde nuclear power plant in Arizona, offered a plan.
“I do not want to use Public Utility Division money. The Legislature should have given us money, and I don’t want ratepayers to pay for it,” she said. David suggested the commission ask for a supplemental appropriation of $125,000.
A request for $125,000 would “send a message to the Legislature,” said Hiett, a former Speaker of the Oklahoma House of Representatives. “They must think we have a big slush fund over here. But this is an assessment on ratepayers. It really goes against my grain.”
David and Hiett voted to ask for a supplemental appropriation but Bingman voted against the proposal.
Rep. Brad Boles, R-Marlow, House sponsor of SB 130, said there were companion bills calling for the study and he had funding included in the House version. But Boles told OK Energy Today the Legislature had “other priorities” and “the budget didn’t work out for us,” so he withdrew the funding after discussing it with some Corporation Commission leaders. “They said to go ahead and run it. I’m aware and sensitive to them but they were good with us,” he said.
The commission scheduled a technical conference on the nuclear development study, led by the Public Utilities Division, at 1:30 p.m. on Oct. 21.
A nuclear power plant was proposed in Oklahoma 52 years ago, but the plan was scrapped nine years later.
Public Service Co. of Oklahoma wanted to build the Black Fox Nuclear Power Plant approximately three miles southwest of Inola in 1973. The plan was canceled in 1982 because of economic considerations – the initial estimated cost for the project was approximately $450 million, but by the late 1970s, the price tag had ballooned to an estimated $3.4 billion – public safety concerns about radiation exposure and the potential effect on water supplies, and public opposition that intensified after the partial meltdown of a reactor at Three Mile Island nuclear power plant in Pennsylvania in 1979.