04/07/2025
Tuesday, there's a work session on HB 2410. Here's the Oregon Conservancy Foundation letter to Chair John LIvely (D-Springfield):
To Rep. John Lively ,
We write urging you to keep HB 2410 (work session on April 8) from advancing beyond your Committee, based on the reality that proposed Small Modular Nuclear Reactors (SMNR's) are clearly not ultimately cost-effective for ratepayers in Oregon.
HB 2410 would open the door to counties across Oregon pursuing an expensive, nascent energy resource that would surely continue the pattern of rising electricity rates for consumers in Oregon, an important issue recently addressed as a concern by Oregon's Governor Tina Kotek.
The Oregon Capital Chronicle reported in a recent article that Oregon Governor Kotek outlined expectations in a March 20 letter to the Public Utility Commission, regarding keeping utility rates affordable for consumers amid pressures that the utility sector faces. Affordability was one of three areas she identified as key, her office having "heard from thousands of Oregonians concerned with utility rate increases that have gone up for most by about 50% in the last five years."
“It is imperative to balance these pressures with smart policy choices that ensure reliable energy while not breaking the bank for consumers,” Kotek wrote.
It is clear that nuclear power is the least cost-effective of energy resource options to consider for utility planning. This is relevant to the question of whether your committee should advance HB 2410 out of committee. All evidence points to high costs and unaffordable rates remaining the case, based on the history and current trends for nuclear power in the United States. Viable alternatives remain less expensive as well as available much sooner than "new nuclear" in the form of not yet proven SMNR's, which is what HB 2410 would approve as the proposed demonstration project in Umatilla County.
The two nuclear power plants in Georgia (Vogtle) that are the most recent to come online in the United States, were supposed to use modular components from factories, in theory making these less costly to build, similar to claims made by advocates for proposed SMNR's. That proved not to be the case, as predictably cost overruns and delays have resulted in ratepayers now paying the highest rates in the country for electricity from those two plants. This is documented in a recently updated report that details the impacts of building the Vogtle Plants on Georgia ratepayers: PLANT VOGTLE: The True Cost of Nuclear Power in the United States This report is well worth reading, and also includes a section "What are some myths versus truths about nuclear energy."
An Information Session was provided to the Senate Committee on Energy and Environment on 3/05/25 by Chris Hansen, former Colorado state legislator, a nuclear engineer with an economics PhD from Oxford who spent 10 years in the private sector working on energy system planning all over the world. Mr. Hansen noted significant delays and cost overruns that show a high cost profile for nuclear (with "exceptionally high costs compared to some of the other alternatives in the marketplace"). He told the Committee that nuclear will only play a "marginal role" in energy portfolios "based on the cost profiles of these new technologies, especially on the small modular reactors."
Another economic source tracking nuclear costs is the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA). It's May, 2024 report Small Modular Reactors: Still too expensive, too slow and too risky concludes:
Experience with operating and proposed SMRs shows that the reactors will continue to cost far more and take much longer to build than promised by proponents.
There are no SMNR's that have gone beyond the design stage to be built and successfully operating in the United States, and the few in other countries that have been built have been under performing. This clearly points to a time and cost curve that does not bode well for electricity ratepayers in Umatilla County or in Oregon.
An additional factor that enters into the cost profile for new nuclear is nuclear waste management and disposal, adding to the expense ratepayers will end up shouldering, should proposed nuclear plants eventually operate. There is no permanent waste disposal repository, so the spent fuel waste would remain on site, and it is worth your Committee's time to understand what is facing nuclear waste disposal in our country. These two sites have extensive information on the expensive challenges of radioactive waste management: Spent Nuclear Fuel Fact Sheet and Radioactive Waste.
For these reasons, our Oregon Conservancy Foundation urges you to keep HB 2410 from advancing out of Committee on April 8.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide input on this bill scheduled for a work session on April 8.
Sincerely,
Cathryn Chudy, Board Member
Lloyd Marbet, Executive Director
Oregon Conservancy Foundation
CC: Committee Members
