Latest news with #HB249
Yahoo
07-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
These new Utah laws take effect Wednesday
Yahoo is using AI to generate takeaways from this article. This means the info may not always match what's in the article. Reporting mistakes helps us improve the experience. Yahoo is using AI to generate takeaways from this article. This means the info may not always match what's in the article. Reporting mistakes helps us improve the experience. Yahoo is using AI to generate takeaways from this article. This means the info may not always match what's in the article. Reporting mistakes helps us improve the experience. Generate Key Takeaways Two months after this year's general legislative session ended, many new laws are taking effect. The laws will impact Utahns' lives on a variety of issues, from health and safety to how much we pay in taxes to housing. Here's a look at what's changing starting Wednesday. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. speaks in Salt Lake City on April 7. Rep. Stephanie Gricius, R-Eagle Mountain, HB81 bill sponsor, and House Speaker Mike Schultz, R-Hooper, listen. | Kristin Murphy, Deseret News Health The Capitol is pictured in Salt Lake City, on Feb. 8, 2023. | Kristin Murphy, Deseret News Business and taxes Fatal doses of heroin and fentanyl are on are display at the Drug Enforcement Administration Salt Lake City District Office in Salt Lake City on July 25, 2024. | Kristin Murphy, Deseret News Crime and policing Signage from Oak Ridge National Labratory is displayed during The Advanced Reactors Summit XII and Technology Trailblazers Showcase held by the U.S. Nuclear Industry Council in Salt Lake City on Feb. 18. | Isaac Hale, Deseret News Transportation, energy and environment Nuclear energy : Utah is pushing to go nuclear. HB249, which takes effect Wednesday, is designed to lay the groundwork for bringing nuclear power to the state. It creates the Nuclear Energy Consortium to advise on nuclear development in Utah and recommend appropriate regulations for it, among other things. Water conservation: Municipalities in Utah now have to factor in water conservation when setting water rates under HB274. Road safety projects: SB195's one-year moratorium on road safety projects in Salt Lake City begins Wednesday, as the Department of Transportation studies the impacts of such projects. A voter drops their ballot in a drop box at the Utah County Health and Justice Building in Provo on Oct. 30, 2024. | Isaac Hale, Deseret News Elections, transparency and governance Protesters unfurl a 200-foot transgender flag during the start of a march down State Street starting at the Capitol for Transgender Day of Visibility in Salt Lake City on March 29. | Brice Tucker, Deseret News Social issues and education Flag ban: One of the most closely watched bills of the recent session, HB77, takes effect Wednesday, barring gay pride and 'Make America Great Again' flags from being flown in public school classrooms or at government buildings. Gender Inmates won't be able to initiate gender-related surgeries or hormone treatment while in prison. HB252 also requires inmates be housed in facilities matching their biological sex. It also prohibits staff in juvenile detention centers from engaging in sexual relationships with inmates in custody up to the age of 25. Hands-on education: Aimed at getting more high school students into career and technical education programs, HB447 will support 'catalyst centers' across the state. The new law championed by Utah's House speaker allocates $65 million to create or expand those centers in the next fiscal year, with an ongoing cost of $150,000 to manage the program. Isa Empey, left, and Haley Kline, center, both hold vigil candles during the annual Homeless Persons' Memorial Vigil in Pioneer Park in Salt Lake City on Dec. 19, 2024. | Brice Tucker, Deseret News Housing and homelessness
Yahoo
26-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Opinion: Utahns must think carefully about becoming the nation's nuclear hub
Utah's Legislature has put hope in nuclear energy as a key component of our state's future energy mix. At the start of the 2025 legislative session, Senate President Stuart Adams proclaimed that he wants Utah to be the 'nation's nuclear hub.' Governor Spencer Cox, likewise, included nuclear energy in Operation Gigawatt, an initiative aimed at doubling the state's energy production over the next 10 years. With the passage of HB249, the state created the Nuclear Energy Consortium to advise nuclear energy development in Utah. Now we must consider whether nuclear energy is right for our state. To ensure decisions about how we will power Utah's future are as democratic as possible, all Utahns should be part of the deliberation. We call on Utahns, including our Legislature, governor and the Nuclear Energy Consortium, to evaluate nuclear energy's cost, timeline and environmental impacts. We have already seen how costly nuclear development can be here in Utah. In 2015, Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems (UAMPS) partnered with NuScale on a small modular reactor (SMR) project, planned to be at Idaho National Labs and provide power to several towns in Utah by 2030. The project was canceled in November 2023 after cost estimates increased from $3 billion to $9 billion. This failed project reveals the risk of investing millions of taxpayer dollars in technology that's yet to be implemented on a large scale. The investment required to develop nuclear power plants is massive. The state has lauded microreactors and SMRs as the stuff of the future. They claim new technology will make nuclear energy safer, easier to produce and cheaper. However, the electricity produced by UAMPS/NuScale project would have been more expensive than that produced by the most recent traditional nuclear power plant to come online in the U.S. That project was not an exception. A 2013 Union of Concerned Scientists report shows that SMRs will be more expensive than traditional nuclear plants. Developing nuclear power is costly and time-intensive. A 2014 study by Dr. Benjamin Sovacool and colleagues demonstrated that a sample of 175 nuclear reactors took on average 64% longer than projected. Dr. Arjun Makhijani argues that nuclear power is too slow and too costly to meaningfully reduce emissions, especially when renewables like solar and wind are ready now and cheaper than ever. The state's call to become a nuclear powerhouse is another iteration of the nuclear renaissance we saw in the early 2000s. However, calls for nuclear development in response to climate change then did not result in an increase in nuclear power. Nuclear consistently provides about 20% of electricity for the U.S. Skeptical public opinion, accidents at TMI and Chernobyl, cost, and long construction times have meant that only three new reactors have come online since the 1990s. Now we're seeing a new version of a call for a nuclear renaissance. In Utah, Adams said we need nuclear energy to meet the energy demand of Artificial Intelligence (AI). AI requires massive amounts of power and water; experts expect power demand to skyrocket with the computing power needed for AI. Because tech companies have committed to reducing greenhouse gases, they are looking to nuclear power to supply the increased demand because, proponents argue, it can supply stable electricity that intermittent solar and wind energy cannot. However, there are other ways to provide baseload or surgable electricity, including battery storage and geothermal. Whether or not nuclear energy ends up powering AI, we should be asking ourselves if it is worth the cost and if Utah, already threatened by drought, should be seeking out such a water and energy-intensive industry. Our communities and our environment will continue to pay the price with our tax dollars, our water and our power. There is no one energy source that is inherently good. Each requires resources and has an impact on its surrounding communities and environments. If Utah is going to consider nuclear power, we call for state leaders and Utahns to engage in a nuanced and research-based analysis of its benefits and risks. Our own analysis makes us skeptical that it's the right energy source for Utah. And we're not alone — a former nuclear engineer also recently made the case against nuclear power for Utah.
Yahoo
26-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Who is driving Utah's energy future?
Thelma Whiskers of the Ute Mountain Ute tribe speaks in opposition of the White Mesa Uranium Mill during a protest outside the Utah Capitol Building in Salt Lake City on Friday, Oct. 4, 2024. (Kyle Dunphey/Utah News Dispatch) Our state leaders are calling for Utah to become the 'nation's nuclear hub.' Gov. Spencer Cox has claimed that his Operation Gigawatt 'puts Utah in a position to lead the country in energy development, secure our energy future, and remain a net energy exporter while diversifying and expanding our energy resources.' Deciding what energy technologies to pursue in a state involves weighing risks and benefits and determining what risks a community is willing to accept. This year, Utah's legislature passed HB249, which will create a nuclear energy consortium to guide the state's plans for nuclear energy. However, in the process of passing this bill, we have yet to see a robust discussion of the risks of nuclear energy or meaningful engagement of communities that this development will most impact. While new technology may present new opportunities, we must consider the critical risks of investing so much in nuclear energy. The dangers of nuclear power before and after its operation go beyond the risk of a meltdown and could have devastating consequences for our state. The uranium boom in the '50s and '60s had devastating impacts on Utah's people and lands, as well as for uranium miners in Navajo Nation. The largest nuclear accident in the U.S. happened in 1979 at the United Nuclear Corporation's Church Rock uranium mill site in New Mexico. A dam broke and released radiation into the Rio Puerco, contaminating drinking water, aquifers, and soil on Diné (Navajo) lands. Uranium mining and milling are not just a part of Utah's past. Today, the country's last remaining conventional uranium mill is near Blanding, Utah. The mill is owned by Energy Fuels, a company that specializes in uranium and rare earth mineral mining and milling. Recently, the mill accepted uranium from the newly reopened La Sal mine complex in Utah and the Pinyon Plain Mine near the Grand Canyon. Indigenous communities around the region, including the Havasupai Nation, Diné communities, and Ute Mountain Ute Nation, have spoken out on how the nuclear fuel chain disproportionately impacts their communities and lands. Milling, often overlooked, is a critical part of nuclear energy production. Like the history of nuclearism in this state, this mill disproportionately impacts Indigenous communities, in this case, the local White Mesa Ute community. Community members from White Mesa have fought for years against the mill's contamination of their air and water and desecration of sacred lands. White Mesa Concerned Community, a grassroots group, and the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe held a rally this fall at the state capitol. Yolanda Badback, leader of White Mesa Concerned Community, called on the state to regulate and shut down the mill. She stated, 'I want my community to have good air quality and good water resources. We live there, and that's our homeland. And I will never leave my homeland for anything.' State leaders have failed to listen to and represent the members of their state most impacted by the nuclear industry today. Just this fall, state legislators took a field trip down to the mill to see it for themselves. This visit allowed Energy Fuels direct access to the eyes and ears of state legislators. That same privilege was not offered to those just 5 miles down the road in White Mesa who are most impacted by its operation. Hearing from impacted communities adds a needed layer to discussions about the safety of nuclear energy, including its entire lifecycle. Nuclear power's lifecycle begins with uranium mining and ends with nuclear waste storage. State leaders claim that nuclear energy is clean and safe. For example, at the committee hearing for HB249, the bill's sponsor, Rep. Carl Albrecht, insisted that new nuclear technology was safe and highly regulated. Yet, the state of Utah recently joined a lawsuit to sue the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to reduce regulations on small-modular nuclear reactors. These regulations are necessary to protect our state, public health, and future generations. Will the state also seek to reduce regulations on uranium mining and milling, transport, and waste storage? Decisions we make about our energy future must be informed by the real lived experiences of members of our community, especially those who bear the brunt of its impacts. As state leaders seek to grow nuclear power in the state, we, as Utahns, must demand that our legislators not only listen to those most impacted but also evaluate the risks of nuclear energy, especially those within the entire lifecycle.
Yahoo
12-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Is Utah turning a new page to embrace nuclear energy? Poll shows many Utahns would support the move
It took some wrangling, many iterations and a flurry of action during the final night of the state Legislature, but a bill that sets Utah on an exploratory path to pursue small nuclear plants as a power source gained endorsement by lawmakers. HB249, sponsored by Rep. Carl Albrecht, R-Richfield, establishes a framework called the nuclear consortium made of top elected leaders, policymakers and experts in the nuclear industry, such as representatives from Idaho National Laboratory. It also sets up the Utah Energy Council and provides for energy zones. The pursuit, at this stage, has buy-in from the Utah public, with 49% who say they are in favor of the idea, while 31% are in opposition and another 19% are undecided according to a recent Deseret News/Hinckley Institute of Politics poll. Those numbers are based on the polling of 805 registered voters in an assessment conducted Feb.18-25 by HarrisX Interactive. It has a margin of error of plus or minus of 3.1%. Albrecht said the numbers reflected in the poll are about where he figured the state would land. 'I figured there'd be 50% in favor and about 25 to 30% opposed,' he said. 'I don't have a problem with that. You know, there's got to be a lot of education done.' Of course the measure does not mean a nuclear facility is going to pop up overnight. There's a lot of research to be done. There is site suitability, the costs involved, the fuel source has to be figured out and identifying energy development zones. All this is going to take time. There are safety considerations and the issue of waste. There is also a protracted and expensive regulatory process. It took over $500 million and millions of pages of documents for the NuScale project at Idaho National Laboratory to serve some Utah cities, but it ultimately failed because of costs and licensing duration. Last year, however, President Joe Biden signed a bipartisan piece of legislation into law called the ADVANCE Act. World Nuclear News reported the law is designed to accomplish an expedited process for advance nuclear technologies. 'The ADVANCE Act, among other things, directs the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to look for ways to speed up its licensing process for new nuclear technology,' it reported. " It will reduce regulatory costs for companies seeking to license advanced nuclear reactor technologies, as well as creating a 'prize' to incentivize the successful deployment of next-generation reactor technologies. It will also direct the NRC to enhance its ability to qualify and license accident-tolerant fuels and advanced nuclear fuels.' Again, all this is going to take time, but Albrecht emphasized during testimony at the state Legislature that Utah has to start somewhere. With data centers knocking on the doors of states looking to set up shop, legislative supporters say who gets it right to meet the energy demand will build a stronger, more diverse economic community. The Idaho National Laboratory has identified the Beehive State as one of a handful of states across the nation ideally suited to pursue nuclear as an energy source and as a vehicle for economic development. The Frontiers Initiative, established three years ago, seeks to marry the efforts of eight states that are creating economic development plans focused on the use of advanced nuclear energy. Utah is among half of those states designated as a state that is uniquely positioned and ahead of the game in this arena. 'We have strengthened our position with stakeholders in first mover states — Idaho, Utah, Wyoming and Alaska — while adding engagements where increasing interest in advanced nuclear energy intersects with industry needs, including in Louisiana, Montana, North Dakota, and South Carolina,' said Steve Aumeier, senior adviser at INL, has said.
Yahoo
10-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Glowing pains: Developing nuclear power could cost Utah tens of billions
Adding nuclear to Utah's energy mix has excited many, but firing it up by 2035 for the Operation Gigawatt goal may be a challenge. (Getty Images) The following story was reported by The Utah Investigative Journalism Project in partnership with Utah News Dispatch. Gov. Spencer Cox announced Operation Gigawatt in 2024 to double the state's energy capacity in 10 years. For the governor and state lawmakers an ambitious energy plan means big investments now in all energy options — including nuclear. For Utah to grow, Utah energy will need to glow. Since Utah has no nuclear infrastructure, lawmakers this legislative session passed bills to lay the groundwork for nuclear regulations, research and funding opportunities in the future. Rep. Carl Albrecht, R-Richfield, the former CEO of Garkane Energy, pitched HB249 to a Senate committee, where he and committee members talked excitedly about the future potential of nuclear and its ability to bring reliable clean power and thousands of jobs to the state. It crossed the finish line Friday, the session's final day, and now heads to Cox's desk. 'I'm not saying this bill is perfect,' Albrecht said. 'But it is a start to get us over the bridge from fossil fuels.' While starting toward nuclear might be easy, finishing a nuclear project is not. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX Research shows the projects are rarely completed on time. And while lawmakers have discussed future benefits of nuclear, they haven't focused much on future costs, which historically go well over budget. Scott Kemp is an associate professor of Nuclear Science and Engineering and director of the MIT Laboratory for Nuclear Security and Policy. He says that if Utah sought, for example, to double its energy capacity with nuclear (adding four new gigawatts) it would come with a hefty price tag. 'The rough number would be $40 billion,' Kemp said in a recent interview. Half of that amount, or two gigawatts, would likely be a little over $20 billion. By comparison Utah's total state budget for 2025 is around $30 billion. Those numbers track closely with estimates from other experts locally and out of the state. The Colorado Springs Utilities policy advisory committee released a report in February estimating that the costs for small modular nuclear reactor projects that could deliver 600 megawatts (60% of a gigawatt) would be between $7 billion and $12.9 billion. And the small modular nuclear reactor, or SMR, is still a concept that has not yet been successfully built or used. Tim Kowalchik is the emerging technology specialist with the Utah Office of Energy Development. While he recognizes the excitement about nuclear he cautions that Operation Gigawatt is about exploring all options and not just putting all of the state's energy eggs in one radioactive basket. 'We take the idea of let's look at the whole picture and use the right tool when it makes sense,' Kowalchik said. For MIT's Kemp, nuclear makes almost no sense, however, when compared to cheaper alternatives like renewable energy. He said this is especially true when considering the track record for rollouts of nuclear power projects. For critics of nuclear power, the specters of Chernobyl, Fukushima and Three Mile Island loom as tall as mushroom clouds. But Kemp notes that even before the March 28, 1979, meltdown at the Three Mile Island nuclear facility in Pennsylvania, most utility companies were canceling contracts for nuclear reactors because they couldn't afford them with the onset of a recession and oil embargo during the 1970s. '(Public perception) of course played a role, but once you get down to spreadsheets in the boardroom, it has always been economics that have sealed the fate of nuclear power,' Kemp said. The industry now is entering what many have dubbed a 'nuclear renaissance' as the growth of artificial intelligence is spurring demands for more reliable energy. Meta, the parent company for Facebook and Instagram, has put out requests for proposals to develop up to four gigawatts of nuclear energy to help it meet its AI and sustainability goals and has even suggested it could provide funding to help kickstart projects. Nuclear as green energy has also enjoyed bipartisan support in Congress, and the Biden administration's Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 provided generous incentives for nuclear production. Kemp, however, is not feeling the buzz. He presented research recently at the University of Utah noting that nuclear projects have always struggled with cost overruns. He reviewed 75 nuclear plants for which data was available from the Congressional Budget Office and found the cost of those projects was 207% over the start of construction estimates. In 2014 researchers studied hundreds of electricity infrastructure projects around the globe and found that almost all of the 180 nuclear reactor investment projects they analyzed suffered cost overruns with an average cost increase of 117% per project. (Public perception) of course played a role, but once you get down to spreadsheets in the boardroom, it has always been economics that have sealed the fate of nuclear power. – Scott Kemp, associate professor of Nuclear Science and Engineering and director of the MIT Laboratory for Nuclear Security and Policy Talk of new innovation through SMR, Kemp points out, is not new, and in fact government and industry have tried and failed over the decades to develop smaller reactors that could be factory produced. Those developments ultimately led to larger facilities that still had to be built all on-site and at tremendous cost. The Vogtle modular nuclear plant built in Georgia was estimated to cost $17 billion when it was started in 2009 but when it came online in 2024, it ended up costing over $30 billion. Kemp says the project is the nation's most expensive energy project. The complexity of technology and challenges from the market and safety and other regulations make it so hard to scale up a project that the industry suffers almost from a 'negative learning curve'— almost getting more expensive, the more it's undertaken. 'Learning from nuclear has been so slow that it has been basically unobservable,' Kemp said. Kemp sees nothing wrong with more research into nuclear technology and innovation but he does challenge nuclear cheerleaders out there who see it as the new solution to a greener future. 'You can buy nuclear power that will give you a gigawatt of carbon free energy for $10 billion or you can buy wind and solar that will give you four gigawatts of carbon free energy for $10 billion,' Kemp said. Kowalchik with the Office of Energy Development notes that the state's position is to use the right energy mix to keep providing reliable, safe and clean energy to Utahns. While wind and solar projects may be more affordable right now than nuclear, he doesn't see them providing the same reliability to the grid that is needed to keep up with Utah's growth. The state supports energy storage, which basically means technology to store up energy from solar and wind that can be deployed when the sun's not shining and the wind's not blowing. But it's not enough now to replace traditional fuel sources. 'It's not that solar and batteries and energy storage are bad, you just need to use them when they make sense,' Kowalchik said. With more local input, Legislature signs on to the beginning of Utah's nuclear future Even Albrecht's legislation, which creates a Nuclear Consortium staffed with experts from nuclear industry and scientific fields, also provides funding mechanisms for communities that want to develop energy projects that would include energy storage from renewable sources if they desired, along with other energy sources like nuclear. Kowalchik points out that it's hard to make predictions about reliability of renewable sources when considering extreme weather conditions and their impact on transmission or the fact that when the energy mix adds more renewables it can hit a point where expenses for certain types of generator technology make large jumps. 'Putting the whole grid on like 100% renewable is just going to be really expensive,' Kowalchik said. He worries that over-emphasis on renewables in the energy mix would in fact be more expensive than even the dire predictions on nuclear power. But he's careful to note that it's not a definite prediction. Kemp argues, however, that accounting for historical weather data, new transmission lines and energy storage 'over build' — which means 'you build more generating capacity than you need because the sun might not be shining as brightly and the wind might not be blowing as strongly' — could cover cover 95% of the grid's needs. The rest could be covered by cheaper fossil fuels 'for occasionally turning on once in a blue moon.' Even with those added costs, he says it would be cheaper than nuclear. Utah law, however, heavily favors the reliability of the grid over how clean the energy is. And Kowalchik points out that for some states that rely heavily on renewables that energy mix presents other challenges, as in California where rolling brownouts are used to help stabilize the grid. Uncertainty is part of the reason why Operation Gigawatt is exploring all options in what the office has described as not just 'all of the above' but 'more of the above.' Adding nuclear to the state's energy mix has excited many but firing it up by 2035 for the Operation Gigawatt goal may be a challenge. Besides typically running over on cost, nuclear projects also run over on time. Kemp estimated most nuclear projects need at least a decade, or even closer to two, to reach completion. The same study on global energy that found consistent cost overruns for nuclear projects also found they went over on construction time by almost three years on average. Other places are, however, already setting nuclear goals. South Korea has announced plans to develop SMR by 2035, alongside other traditional reactors. Could Utah do the same? Glenn Sjoden is a professor of nuclear engineering at the University of Utah and is director of the university's nuclear engineering program. He says it's possible – if Utah started building right now. 'With licensing and permitting and all of that it's going to take a decade to build a nuclear plant,' Sjoden said. Cox announces plans to double energy production in Utah starting next legislative session But not just any plant. Sjoden says if he had the power he would tell the state to order the same reactor used by the Georgia plant. Even though it more than doubled in cost he thinks it would be the only reactor in the country that could benefit from lessons learned in the first installation. He could see it only costing the state $8 billion to $9 billion for the one gigawatt of power it could provide. Currently the federal government's Nuclear Regulatory Commission is evaluating how to streamline regulations to more rapidly deploy nuclear reactors. That change came about from the ADVANCE Act which was passed in Congress with bipartisan support in 2024. But getting it completed in a decade, Sjoden says, would be contingent on the NRC finding ways to reduce the permitting and regulation process. Under those circumstances it could be done but that $8 billion would still not be the full price tag, Sjoden said. Nuclear plants require a lot of water which Utah might not want to spare. 'A nuclear plant can use — depending on the design — up to two times the water that say a normal coal plant would use,' Sjoden said. Plants can be designed to use air cooling but they are less efficient and will cost even more to build. There's also the issue of waste, which he says is not really a problem for the rest of the world, only the United States, which lacks a facility to recycle nuclear waste. 'Nuclear plants are really awesome, 90% of that fuel is recyclable. People don't realize that,' he said. 'But you have to recycle the fuel and we're not currently doing that.' Transmission lines are also a factor; those would need to be upgraded as well to handle distribution from nuclear facilities. And then you also need highly educated workers to run the plants, it's not an entry-level Homer Simpson position. 'Notwithstanding the business that I'm in, of training and educating nuclear experts, it takes some effort to do that and we need to create a lot more (jobs for people) that are going to stay in the state of Utah,' Sjoden said. In September 2024 the U.S. Department of Energy released a report about the future potential of nuclear power, noting that one of the biggest challenges to the cost and completion of the plant in Georgia was an 'untrained workforce.' Over the course of that project the plant ended up training approximately 30,000 workers. Utah would be starting almost from scratch. While Sjoden is an unabashed believer in nuclear he's also a believer in the wisdom of adopting a strong mix of energy sources like renewables with storage and natural gas for the medium term while also planning for nuclear further down the road. 'All technologies need to be looked at in the right proportion,' Sjoden said. With the right preparation it can happen here in Utah but it will take a lot of money, time and effort, he said. 'Nuclear is going to be, I think, very reliable, safe, and profitable eventually,' Sjoden said. 'But a lot has to happen in the next decade to make that work.' SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
