Legislators consider ways to repeal Measure 7, approve nuclear power plants

Presenter: Should the Oregon Legislature loosen restrictions that voters placed on nuclear power in 1980? The Senate Committee on Energy and Environment heard testimony March 5 and March 10 on Small Modular Nuclear Reactors (or SMNRs). Maxwell Woods:

Maxwell Woods (ODE): My name is Max Woods. I’m an assistant director at the Oregon Department of Energy, responsible for nuclear safety and energy security.

[00:00:25] Let’s begin with Oregon’s history. In November of 1980, Oregon voters passed Measure 7 which put into place the two significant requirements around nuclear power that still exist today.

[00:00:35] First, the requirement that any future nuclear power plant not be approved in our state before there’s a national permanent disposal location. And second, if the disposal facility exists, that any future power plant approval ultimately be put to a statewide vote of the people.

[00:00:52] This ballot measure came shortly on the heels of the Three Mile Island power plant accident in Pennsylvania, which occurred in 1979. At that time, there existed a nuclear power plant in Oregon, the PGE Trojan plant, which was in Columbia County. It operated from 1976 to 1992 and then was decommissioned in the late ’90s and the 2000s, and the reactor and other components were shipped for offsite disposal.

[00:01:15] The spent nuclear fuel from that facility still sits on site in Columbia County. It is in large concrete and steel casks. The spent nuclear fuel that comes out of commercial power plants are really the fuel rods used in the facilities to generate heat, create steam, turn a turbine, make electricity.

It has a lifespan of use in a power plant. After it has reached its lifespan, it is quite radioactive. That fuel comes out, goes into a cooling pond. It’s then taken out of wet storage and put into dry storage, which is really just encasing it in concrete and steel. And these are the size of the large car, I guess, maybe a small bus. And that’s what’s at the Trojan site today, Columbia County near St. Helens, is these large, concrete and steel casks sitting on an asphalt pad.

[00:02:05] PGE has security responsibilities at the facility. There’s a fence around it, there’s security procedures to keep people away from it.

[00:02:12] And I want to note that this configuration is the standard across the nation. All nuclear power plants, of which there are around 90 in our country, store the spent nuclear fuel on site, basically adjacent to where it’s generated.

[00:02:25] Maybe folks have heard of the Yucca Mountain Project, which was proposed in Southern Nevada. As I understand, that facility is no longer under consideration for the national disposal location for high-level waste, for various reasons. So there’s a process underway to identify a future location for centralizing all the nuclear waste.

[00:02:47] So moving on to today. Oregon gets power from nuclear. The region’s sole operating nuclear power plant is on land leased from the U.S. Department of Energy. That facility in Washington state produces about 3% of the electricity that we use, and that is actually more power than we get from solar energy by our own calculations.

[00:03:09] That facility is owned by a consortium of Washington State utilities. The ownership group is called Energy Northwest. The Columbia Generating Station is the name of the plant; the power is marketed by BPA and so that’s how we receive the slice of that generation. It’s the largest nonhydro power generation facility in the region.

[00:03:27] About 20% of all electricity in America is produced from nuclear power. Illinois has the most nuclear power plants in the country. They have 11 nuclear power facilities. And little New Hampshire gets the most, about 65% of their electricity comes from nuclear. In Pennsylvania, in Michigan, and in Iowa, it was recently announced that closed reactors, traditional reactors are being restarted.

[00:03:50] Those facilities that all have been closed for economic reasons that are now apparently being restarted. Interestingly, the Pennsylvania plant is the non-damaged unit at Three Mile Island and Microsoft is investing in that facility. So that tech connection is important for I think part of the story today is the tech sector’s needs for power is perhaps spurring a lot of private investment in nuclear power and interest.

[00:04:13] Will Ibershof: My name is Will Ibershof. I’m the city administrator for the city of Madras. I’m here to testify in support of Senate Bill 215 on behalf of the city and the League of Oregon Cities, which represents all 241 cities in Oregon. SMRs provide safe, reliable energy for cities, especially in time of increased energy demand and desire for energy-resilient communities.

[00:04:36] Presenter: Nikole Young:

[00:04:37] Nikole Young: I’m a 33-year-old mother and Columbia County resident whose parents worked at Trojan. I’m also a professional who works in the utility industry and I’m a U.S. naval officer. While the views and opinions expressed here are my own and not that of my employer or the Navy, I want to establish that my lived experiences inform my testimony.

[00:04:55] Several folks opposing small modular reactors base their arguments on untrue statements that they’re unproven technologies. The fact is that hundreds of noncommercial, small, pressurized water reactors exist across our oceans and at our ports in submarines and on ships, providing electricity to tens of thousands of American sailors. This proven technology is safe, reliable, and important in balancing Oregon’s decarbonization goals with the state’s need for reliable base load.

[00:05:23] It’s time we end the moratorium we never voted for. Oregon’s moratorium on nuclear power is an obsolete law that most of the state’s current population didn’t vote for. Our state’s population has nearly doubled since 1980, growing from 2.6 million to 4.2 million, and a large percentage of us weren’t even born yet, myself included.

[00:05:44] Heather Hoff: My name is Heather Hoff. I run an environmental nonprofit called Mothers for Nuclear launched on Earth Day in 2016. I also have a materials engineering degree and I’ve worked at Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant for 21 years, first as a reactor operator and now as a procedure writer in charge of our emergency and off-normal procedure guidance.

[00:06:05] While I now fully support nuclear energy, I used to be skeptical and even fearful at times. I understand that nuclear can be scary. I’d ask questions relentlessly for about six years before I started to realize that nuclear is actually pretty amazing.

[00:06:19] We must put aside fear and misinformation in favor of rational thinking and data, and I started my nonprofit Mothers for Nuclear specifically to help many of these concerns, address these concerns that don’t have easy answers, especially for those outside the nuclear industry. And I hope that we can be a resource for all of you going forward.

[00:06:38] I have so much hope for nuclear. And while I acknowledge that we have challenges in terms of cost, timelines, and despite my best efforts, public acceptance, I think it’s vital that we work through these and embrace nuclear as part of the solution. When we do, we’ll also find that the value of nuclear will be demonstrated over many decades after it’s built because it is so robust and powerful.

[00:07:02] Damon Motz-Storey (Sierra Club): My name is Damon Motz-Storey. I serve as director of the Sierra Club Oregon chapter. We already know the flaws and risks of nuclear power and do not need this costly, slow, and often unproven technology. Wind, solar, grid improvements, and battery storage are tried and true and available now with lower costs.

[00:07:19] The idea that we must have baseload power generators for a reliable energy grid is an outdated concept. In fact, a 2021 study of global nuclear outages showed that weather-related forced shutdowns at nuclear plants increased by over seven times in frequency over 20 years.

[00:07:35] Indeed, Fukushima in 2011 demonstrates that even in a wealthy industrialized country like Japan, nuclear facilities can be vulnerable to extreme natural events. There is no benefit from rushing or being the first to new small modular reactor designs. Better to take our time and learn from others’ successes and mistakes.

[00:07:53] Kelly Campbell: My name is Kelly Campbell, and I’m the policy director at Columbia Riverkeeper. Riverkeeper was founded on the concerns around the Hanford nuclear cleanup site on the banks of the Columbia River, the largest, most toxic and radioactive nuclear cleanup site in the Western Hemisphere.

[00:08:07] Since the dawn of nuclear technologies, we’ve faced the challenge of what to do with nuclear waste. This problem has still not been resolved. We still have no permanent federal waste repository. We’re no closer to having one than we were in 1980 when the voters passed Measure 7 here in Oregon.

[00:08:23] Nuclear reactors, including small modular nuclear reactors, produce radioactive waste that must be isolated from people and the environment for hundreds of thousands of years. Just let that time frame sink in. So please reject SB 215 and SB 216, and we also don’t need the study in SB 635.

[00:08:43] Max Menchaca: My name is Max Menchaca. I live in Portland. I strongly urge the committee to oppose and reject Senate Bill 215, 216, and 635. Nuclear energy like fossil fuels is an energy source whose time has passed.

[00:08:53] Professor Bent Flyvbjerg is at the University of Copenhagen in economic geography, and he researches megaprojects and the economics of them. Nuclear is consistently shown to be the worst in coming in on time and on budget. An average cost overrun of around 238%, so on average, a project of nuclear is expected to cost well over three times more than originally budgeted. I quote from him directly. This is purely for economic reasons.

[00:09:14] Many people think there’s something ideological being against nuclear power. It’s not even about nuclear waste. That’s not even taken into account. This is simply the economics of building nuclear power plants. On that criterion alone, nuclear power is losing out. I think we should take this moratorium as a blessing in disguise and not get bogged down in the past and look forward to the future. I urge the committee to reject these bills.

[00:09:30] Dave McTeague: My name is Dave McTeague. I was the chief petitioner for ballot Measure 9 in 1978, which was the first measure that called into question the economics of nuclear power in Oregon. And that passed, as 68% of the vote said ratepayers can’t be charged in advance for the costs of constructing thermal and nuclear power plants.

[00:09:53] I just want to focus on the cost. Trojan nuclear power plant cost to build $1.92 billion in 2023 dollars. Pebble Springs nuclear plant, have we forgotten about that? PGE sunk $250 million into that project before it was canceled and they had to write that down and whack their stockholders for that.

[00:10:17] WPPSS fiasco, $2.25 billion, largest U.S. municipal bond default in history. Sen. (Lew) Frederick mentioned that, and he was here when all that happened. Don’t forget the mess that was caused by WPPSS in this region, and that was based on faulty power-need projections.

[00:10:39] It really bothers me to hear the State Department of Energy go so far down this rabbit hole… Oregon has an opportunity here to say, ‘We’ll let all these other people do the SMRs. Let’s create a renewable energy future for Oregon. Let’s build wind. Let’s build solar. Let’s solve the storage problem.’ We can do this. This is our opportunity to be different, to be Oregon, the Oregon way.

[00:11:08] Peter Bergel: My name is Peter Bergel. I live in Salem. In 1980, I was the co-author and the campaign director of Ballot Measure 7, the one that you’re trying to repeal with these measures. It passed despite a 22-to-1 spending disadvantage. As politicians, I’m sure you know how remarkable that is.

[00:11:27] I’m going to just limit my comments to Senate Bill 635. I would like to see that not passed at all, but if you do pass it at all, I would hope that because it enumerates a number of items to be included in the study, many of which might be reasons to promote nuclear power, I would suggest that these topics also be added by amendment.

[00:11:51] How soon can small modular nuclear reactors realistically be brought online and at what cost? How expensive and how destructive have nuclear accidents been?

[00:12:00] How well and how poorly have SMNRs in Russia and China, the only ones currently operating on the planet, how have they been performing?

[00:12:10] Why did the UAMPS (Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems) consortium withdraw from its deal with NuScale to build an SMNR? How much water would they use and where would it come from?

[00:12:19] And since nuclear power releases radiation at every step of its cycle, what are the health effects of those radiation releases? How does providing uranium for nuclear power affect the populations near uranium mines?

[00:12:32] How often has this industry lied to the public and the government over the past 70 years? How well has the oversight of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission protected public health and welfare? What will be the effects of the Trump administration’s emasculation of the NRC on health and welfare?

[00:12:50] Is the need for future power as extensive as predicted? And last, but certainly not least, how will the public be protected essentially forever from the SMR’s deadly radioactive waste, which will be dangerous for a quarter of a million years?

[00:13:07] I would rather see you not move this bill forward, but if you do, I hope you will include those issues by amendment.

[00:13:15] Dirk Dunning: I’m Dirk Dunning. I’m a retired professional engineer with 25 years at the Oregon Department of Energy, overseeing Hanford cleanup and nuclear policy. I oppose Senate Bills 215, 216, and 635.

[00:13:27] You heard platitudes and advertising slogans supporting smaller nuclear reactors. The depth and array of technical issues is daunting. Volume is no measure of the hazard. Economic challenges make them nonviable. Fission reactors are prone to catastrophes, their fuel cannot be recycled other than in theory, and it remains is effectively forever.

[00:13:49] A one-sided analysis by proponents ill-serves Oregonians. The age of nuclear fission is over. It cannot compete, and it cannot come online in time to be meaningful. Modern warfare in Ukraine has demonstrated how sophisticated drone swarms overwhelm traditional defenses and have radically changed the threat environment. These drones are a threat now everywhere, with no realistic defense. Nuclear facilities require perfect security over their 60-plus-year lifespans against these rapidly evolving threats, deeply challenging their viability.

[00:14:24] Meanwhile, fusion energy is rapidly approaching commercial viability. This creates a valley of death for SMRs. They will likely be obsolete before completing construction resulting in billions of dollars wasted in stranded investments wasted onto the public’s back. We should heed the considered wisdom of the public. Any change in policy requires their deep consideration, input, discussion in a statewide, not county vote.

[00:14:48] Casey Kulla (Oregon Wild): I’m Casey Kulla, and I work for Oregon Wild, which for the past 50 years has been working to protect Oregon wildlands, wildlife, and water for future generations. And for that reason, Oregon Wild opposes SB 215, 216, and 635.

If ORS 469.586 was repealed, Oregon’s water’s wild lands and wildlife risk harm from the construction, operation, and long-term of nuclear reactors.

[00:15:14] My daughter was sitting with me while we were listening to the testimony last time and I wasn’t able to testify but I was here and I would have loved to have her here beside me because she was like, ‘Wait, they’re storing the spent fuel rods in Oregon still?’ She was like, ‘How is that possible?’

[00:15:30] Debra Higbee: My name is Debra Higbee. Reactors of any size are hugely expensive, but the high cost is welcomed by corporations because it offers the possibility of larger contracts and huge upfront profits. This happened with the recent Nukegate scandal of South Carolina’s V.C. Summer nuclear energy plant, where utility executives and shareholders made huge amounts of money at the expense of ratepayers. The plant was never built and ratepayers are still paying for it.

[00:15:59] Another recent nuclear plant is Georgia’s Vogtle that costs $35 billion, brought online in 2024, is the most expensive power plant ever built. It’s costing ratepayers $10,784 per kilowatt compared to $800 to $900 to $1,500 per kilowatt for wind, solar or natural gas.

[00:16:19] New reactors usually take 15 years or more to come online, but the long timeframe means the billionaires behind those industries and data centers will get the tax breaks and incentives while waiting for them to come online—if they ever do.

[00:16:35] Much of the money is made well before the facility is completed and before the first unit of electricity flows out of a plant. The ecosystem damage, the cost of storing the waste are foisted onto the public. A meltdown, the routine radioactive emissions are all socialized. The profits accrue to the companies, not the risks.

[00:16:56] So I urge you to follow the money and vote no on the 13 pronuclear energy bills.

[00:17:00] Dr. Theodora Tsongas: I’m Dr. Theodora Tsongas. I’m an environmental health scientist with a career in epidemiology and public health. I’m a member of Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility.

[00:17:09] I strongly oppose Senate Bill 215, 216, and 635. First, nuclear energy has been shown to be harmful to human health. Newborns, infants, and young children are especially vulnerable even when they are exposed to very low doses of radioactivity, resulting in adverse effects on their health, including increased risk of chromosomal instability leading to cancers and other serious illnesses into adulthood.

[00:17:34] We know that nuclear power plants release radioactive materials during normal operations. We need to take this seriously as we consider continuing to add more radioactive contaminants to our environment as byproducts of the false promises of this technology.

The rush to approve nuclear power as a solution to either climate disruption or increased power needs is unwise in the extreme without a real evaluation of its risks. And the truth is a lot of misinformation is being spread by entities that stand to make a profit by its development.

[00:18:04] Kathy Ging: Kathy Ging, Eugene, an Oregon realtor for 38 years, involved in renewable energy research and education since ’75. I oppose all three bills that could result in SMRs. Do not allow an American dream of low-impact nuclear energy via SMRs to become an American nightmare. Anticipating skyrocketing nuclear expansion, shortsighted parties seem willing to risk habitat sanctions, overlooking tragic nuclear energy risks, cyber- or human-caused attacks, natural disasters, and an absence of permanent waste storage. Short-sighted energy planning lacked circumspection.

[00:18:47] Fifty years ago, it was revealed that if the U.S. built all nuclear power plants planned, they would have used all fresh water without any for agriculture left over.

[00:18:58] One survey NuScale quoted does not accurately represent Oregonians, who for 50 years vehemently opposed nuclear energy. Read ‘How to Lie with Statistics,’ a book I read 45 years ago. It is doubtful a bona fide survey found 60% of respondents support nuclear.

[00:19:18] In the mid-‘80s, I initiated the revised version of the residential renewable personal income tax credit that passed the Oregon Legislature (22-0 in the Senate), boring up solar renewable energy industry for 30 years through 2017, after 85% of the solar industries went bankrupt due to sunset of state and fed tax credits.

[00:19:39] Follow the money trail, the primary reason nuclear supplies any electricity. A leadership vacuum, guided not by best consumer interests, led leaders who failed to educate consumers sufficiently that conservation and Amory Lovins’s ‘Soft Energy Paths’ should be paramount.

[00:19:56] Institute for Local Self-Reliance wrote in the ’70s at the dawn of solar cell that if the military had lobbied for solar electric cell R&D for Earth rather than outer space apps, similar to the way they pushed transistors replacing vacuum tubes, solar cells would have been cost-effective within a decade.

[00:20:16] Republican Gov. Tom McCall authorized the transition document, referring in no uncertain terms to a transition from fossil fuels and nuclear to conservation and renewables. Instead of recommending transition policy decisions, big energy and feds primed by central thermal generation guaranteed profit monopolies, hoodwinked thought leaders to focus on profit-generating fossil fuel and nuclear options rather than neighborhood and onsite generation.

[00:20:44] Dr. Andy Harris: My name is Dr. Andy Harris and I’m testifying for Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility in opposition to SB 215. I’ll focus on health-related issues.

Point one: Uranium mining and milling is done on Indigenous lands generally, exposing workers and communities downwind to ionizing radiation that can cause cancer, birth defects, damaged DNA, leukemia, cardiovascular disease, cataracts, and thyroid disease.

[00:21:17] Point two: Nuclear reactors of any size are at risk for human error, malfunction and radiation. Witness disasters at Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima.

[00:21:30] Three: All nuclear reactors, including small modular nuclear reactors, use a process of nuclear fission and all produce radioactive waste, some of which persist for hundreds of thousands of years.

[00:21:44] By contrast, the lifespan of on-site steel and concrete storage containers is generally about 100 years or at most a few hundred years. The U..S. still does not have a permanent underground waste repository.

[00:21:59] Fourth: Nuclear power technology may be subverted to the development of nuclear weapons by terrorists and rogue nations.

[00:22:08] Five: The earliest that SMRs could be developed and constructed is 10 to 15 years. By that time, we are running out of time on climate change as we have witnessed with wildfires, heat domes, severe storms, etc.

[00:22:26] Six: Renewable energy, especially solar and wind, are growing rapidly, accounting for 19% of electricity in Oregon. Wind and solar power can ramp up far more quickly and economically than nuclear power.

[00:22:42] Seven: Renewable clean energy projects are currently being delayed because of an outdated power grid. Updating the grid would bring many more solar and wind projects online at a fraction the cost of nuclear energy.

[00:22:57] Presenter: Passed by voters in 1980, Measure 7 requires a permanent disposal facility for spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste before Oregon can approve another nuclear power plant. Forty-five years later, the nation still lacks such a facility, so some Oregon legislators are seeking to repeal that requirement.

[00:23:18] Learn more about the current bills relating to nuclear power at the Oregon Legislature website.