Antinuclear

Some members of the Board of Public Utilities voiced doubt about a possible investment in a small-scale nuclear power project Wednesday during a meeting with the Department of Public Utilities.

The board was expecting answers about what the risk would be to the county if the project went sour.

The project is proposed and designed by Nuscale and consists of 12 50-megawatt light water, nuclear reactor modules. The units would be installed in Idaho.

The Board of Public Utilities is expected make a decision about whether to invest $500,000 in the project in late March.
BPU member Stephen McLin wanted to know why they haven’t given them more definite answers, since the initial Jan. 25 meeting explaining the project.

“These cost commitments that we’re about ready to make… I think that the board members, I can’t really speak for them, but I think we had it in our mind that we were going to be voting on about $500,000 commitment for the next six months or so, and that was going to keep us in a kind of holding pattern until other costs could be fleshed out,” McLin said. “I’m really starting to question the wisdom of making even that investment based on tonight’s performance, these questions have not even been summarized. Why not?”

Deputy Manager Steve Cummins replied they were aiming for the Board of Public Utilities March 6 meeting.

“We are working very diligently, everybody is, for the March 6 meeting. As I mentioned during our introduction, one of the biggest concerns we heard was about cost, exposure and things like that to the county. So, we put a lot of time in the last couple of weeks on the resolution I talked about that’s going to be now made into a contract. Actually, we’re pretty happy about that. We see it as a huge step in the right direction,” Cummins said.

McLin then asked what happens to the county’s financial risk while it waits for the project to be approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. He said he would like to see those numbers at the March 6 meeting.

“The track record is very ugly… 12- to 15-year timelines from the license submission to approval,” Mclin said. “In my mind, I’m calling it the second step for the county. What kind of commitment are we making as we submit that application. I think that’s what got a lot of people concerned. It would be helpful to see a lot of these costs and options laid out. To see them in black and white would be very helpful.”

Board of Public Utilities member Kathleen Taylor feared cost overruns on the project would drive up the costs of the construction, which would then affect the rate they pay for the power from the plant, which is expected to be between $45 and $65 per kilowatt hour.

“I want to see cost overruns and what caused them,” Taylor said. We need to see it in black and white. That’s the stopper.  If they can’t build this plant in three our four years or whatever it’s going to take, then we’re off into Never Never Land. I’d like to see it in black and white.

Utilities Manager Tim Glasco said he would provide her slides NuScale provided, but said it would be up to her to decide “if they’re all wet or if they’re any validity to the claims of what they did different” in other projects.