Print 🖨

The PUC’s Texas Advanced Nuclear Reactor Working Group held an organizational meeting on September 28 to discuss the goals of the working group & solicit public input. A video archive of the meeting is available here.

This report is intended to give you an overview and highlight the various topics taken up. It is not a verbatim transcript of the discussions but is based upon what was audible or understandable to the observer.

 

Opening Comments

Jimmy Glotfelty, PUC Commissioner

  • Link to presentation
  • Glotfelty – First of many discussions in trying to develop roadmap for small modular nuclear reactors in the state; all items will be filed under Project #55421
  • Goal is to inform audience about where PUC stands in the process, a lot needs to be stood up internally
  • Created a new Advanced Nuclear Working Group link on the PUC website
  • Excited about the Dow/X-Energy project, but need more in TX
  • Have projects at many universities, compiling a document listing all projects and programs at higher education institutions
  • Looking to find barriers and develop recommendations for implementation, goal is to show why TX should be the leader in this space via supply chain, workforce, academic community, reactor operators, etc.
  • DOE Liftoff Report is a gov report, need to be more specific for TX, e.g. where reactors can be sited, market design, insurance, financials, etc.
  • Goals (Slide 2):
    • Study technological advances in nuclear energy production, particularly regarding
    • the safety of all Texans
    • Map the State’s role in deploying and using advanced nuclear reactors
    • Identify existing and potential federal and state incentives
    • Determine nuclear-specific changes needed in the ERCOT market
    • Identify any specific federal and state regulatory impediments to development
    • Consider possibilities for the State to streamline and accelerate permitting
    • through the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
    • Encourage development of a robust supply chain
  • TX’s market design is a challenge, have been studying the design for 2.5 years to solve some problems & solutions may not be available yet to solve this issue, but will do this
  • Nuclear reactors are great for the power business, also good for industry, supply chain, and economic growth of the state
  • Trying to get a broad list of members for the working group, looking for the following sectors (Slide 3): Industrial, State Government, Electric System, Local Government, Higher Education, Supply Chain, Nuclear Knowledge, End Users – Chips – Data Centers, Construction, Financial, Nuclear Knowledge, Economic Development / Workforce, SMR Companies Oil / Gas
  • Cyrus Reed, Sierra Club – With traditional nuclear the community concerns have been cost, water use, and waste, just want to make sure PUC keeps this in mind; Consulting with TCEQ and NRC on permitting and waste disposal is important
    • Glotfelty – Great point, expect you to bring this up throughout this process
    • But don’t want process to focus on fuel or the waste, two parts that are squarely at the federal level
  • Reed – Some of this is state level, uranium with the RRC, etc.
    • Glotfelty – PUC won’t be the only entity involved, all agencies will have a seat at the table
    • If we get down to siting and the community complains at the back end, we have failed; need to have community involved up front
  • Derek Haas, University of Texas – Advanced nuclear has the opportunity to produce dramatically more clean water than it uses, can engage with local utilities
    • Glotfelty – Absolutely, your responsibility is to keep bringing these issues back up
    • Clearly have an issue with what to do with water resources in the state going forward, if this tech can help then need to explore this
  • Glotfelty – All of the people who will represent the sector on Slide 3 will be community members, we will be asking the hard questions on behalf of the citizens to make sure that these investments make sense going forward
  • Working group structure outlined on Slide 4; willing to consider all ideas, but need to be realistic about how to pair that with federal support & funding
  • Expecting that NRC will be moving quicker soon
  • Goal is to look at the entire state for siting, within and outside ERCOT; need to look at big sites that are closing, transmission capability, existing reactor permits in abeyance for new sites, etc.
  • Reed – Legislature passed a study bill on coal-to-nuclear? Not sure who was required to study
    • Member in the audience comments this was vetoed
  • Reed – Then PUC can do the study
  • Glotfelty – On workforce/supply chain, want to look at all classification codes needed to build reactors & will pair these with companies in TX, then can figure out if they are interested in being part of the supply chain and what they need to participate
  • David Carter, Temple Resident – Plants in the Temple area had a major investment but needed to find the workforce outside of the state, in-state workforce couldn’t meet the reqs to work on these types of environmental sites
    • Glotfelty – For workforce, I look at the large companies involved in building LNG terminals, all in this space and all have deep connections with employees; expect them to be able to get this, but need to understand that construction and operations are very different in the nuclear industry
  • Andrew Van Chau, Fort Bend County Precinct 3 – When thinking about workforce, need to also think about workforce for other techs SMR enables, like water, hydrogen, etc., but also nuclear medicine; workforce could be very broad once systems are in place
    • Glotfelty – If we get the reactor component sited properly in the state, can benefit a lot of industries; public input can help shape this
  • Clayton Scott, NuScale – On supply chain, presumption is you would be looking to build a robust supply chain to not only support Texas but also the US
    • Glotfelty – Yes, globally; if we can lead, we will & expand where we can
  • Glotfelty – On end users/chips/data centers, thinking about this differently than we have in the past; if they want solid power supply, wondering if they can be part of the solution; know that Google and others have signed contracts with renewable facilities
  • Discussion with data center industry has been focused on expectation of growing data centers; expecting roughly 1k megawatts more and would love to do this in TX
  • Data centers think of their facilities more like manufacturing; to make more revenue they need to build bigger facilities, meet clean energy goals, etc.
  • Initial discussions have been great, but need to start talking specifically about reactors rather than generally
  • ON O&G/Chemical/Industrial, biggest industries in the state & would be remiss not to bring these folks to the table; question becomes who are the ones we haven’t spoken with & how to bring them to the table
  • Can also look at things like micro reactors for offshore locations or Permian Basin; looking into processing steam & heat for industry products
  • Van Chau – You also have efforts in Corpus Christi & Houston around hydrogen hubs and hydrogen tech
    • Glotfelty – Federal gov has funded hydrogen hubs & we would be remiss to not discuss this tech in producing hydrogen
    • Hydrogen is in its infancy, question is if it is a viable industry; need to consider it now; but not currently generating cashflow like other industry sectors
  • Glotfelty – On R&D/Higher Ed/National Labs, this is an area where TX leads, interested in what higher ed and private industry is doing and how to utilize national labs to help
  • Have a list of all state programs in the universities on nuclear energy and it shows TX is very deep; there are federal dollars to help promote ecosystem of nuclear energy and we should get all of them
  • Safety & security, community involvement will be present in all of these areas
  • Reed – On financial incentives, one of the reasons renewables have been so successful is through the REC trading program and someone assuring these are real; making sure megawatts are real in the electric market is important for those that want to trade or invest
    • Glotfelty – Good point, needs to be a process for ensuring tax credits are certified
  • Reed – As ERCOT is its own market and does this for renewables, maybe there is a way to do something similar for energy that doesn’t create carbon
    • Glotfelty – This is our hope, need to work through this
  • Glotfelty – Also on financial incentives, have seen a handful of banks and equity firms putting up their own equity to be part of small reactor firms & want to know what we can learn from them
  • Public Comment – Atlantic Council recently had an event talking about this, everyone wants a reactor but no one wants to be the first; so state could support the first so everyone will start to build
    • Glotfelty – Need to learn from other areas, but will go about this in the TX way
  • Sean McDevitt, Texas A&M Nuclear Science Center – Across the A&M system, Texas system, etc., all the different end users are active; A&M was talking about how close to 800 megawatts was needed just for the microchip fabs; all of these work together
    • Glotfelty – Have seen this at a bit of a loggerhead as industry wants projects not research; goal is to work on this together, have to be successful in utilizing universities expertise, but need deployments
  • McDevitt – All of these entities create a good network of ability and let all of this benefit the state together
    • Glotfelty – This is the goal
  • Glotfelty – Hoping that public will sign up and help in these different areas & help develop a vertical report to inform the working group report
  • Working group meeting timeline on Slide 5, public meeting timeline on Slide 6; expecting to have minutes, comments, etc. put together after each meeting
  • General thought on meetings on Slide 7, future meetings will not be like this one, will hopefully be soliciting public feedback & members of the public will be talking to PUC
  • Glotfelty highlights the support staff for the working group (Slide 8), contact info will be on the web; working group will be backed by the PUC and other agencies
  • Glotfelty highlights initial major questions from PUC on Slide 9:
    • Is Texas willing to put forth financial resources to attract a SMR? Is HB 5 enough? What other resources?
    • How do we incentivize industry to invest in SMR technologies?
    • Should the Texas electricity market be modified to promote SMR’s and other dispatchable resources?
    • Will/could the Texas Power Program help attract SMR’s?
    • Can Texas permit a site and transfer it at a later date?
    • Should the state consider using state or other public lands (ports/universities) for a site?
    • What financial resources are needed to attract the nuclear supply chain?
    • Should Texas develop a plan for 20 SMR’s?
    • What must state agencies do to attract supply chain?
    • Should the state consider developing a new nuclear development agency? Precedent of
    • Superconducting Super Collider.
    • How does Texas help bridge the valley between licensing and operation?
    • What can the Texas federal delegation do to help the state?
    • What are university roles? Can they build a new reactor?
    • What legislation is needed or modified for next session?
  • Big question is how to deploy; seem to have a lot of support from the legislature, many federal entities interested; incumbent on PUC to develop the road map

 

Questions/Public Comment

  • David Carter, Temple Resident – On the placement of the nuclear power plants, would they be placed near windmills? Building robust reliable energy?
    • Glotfelty – Question is evolving, e.g. what we need the resource for will drive where the reactors are
  • Carter – Amazon Web Service runs other peoples projects for them so they would really want reliable energy
    • Glotfelty – And we want them to be a part of the solution, e.g. would they pay to lower risk of first reactors to lower cost of entry; this is what happened with renewables
  • Public Comment – Understand schedule to put this in front of the Governor; what is the bigger schedule on building these?
    • Glotfelty – Some of these questions can only be answered by the legislature, e.g. incentives; PUC is acting on Gov directive to develop a roadmap
  • Public Comment – Also on behind-the-meter, this is somewhat of a sensitive issue around the grid in other states; where this sits in the power market needs to be considered
    • Glotfelty – Will throw that into the market design
  • Ben Reinke, X-energy – Appreciates PUC’s leadership on this and framing of this issue is just right; at core of verticals is the question of what makes a customer move; reference of project with Dow is useful and indicative for the market; fundamental question is what it takes for industrials to decide & how to get industrial owners to stand in the middle
    • Glotfelty – Teeing up this question is important for us to do; all of theses questions probably have two or three layers down that we may need to dig into
  • Andrew Van Chau, Fort Bend County Precinct 3 – A lot of this is about installed SMRs, idea is the cost will drop because there would be a manufacturing approach to these; question becomes how to build out the manufacturing side
    • Glotfelty – Part of the supply chain vertical, how to incentivize industry with the NAICS code to do this

 

Closing Comments

Jimmy Glotfelty, PUC Commissioner

  • Looking for public input & expecting to put out meetings on this soon according to the schedule
  • Doing this for the Governor & the people of the state, big task