Hawaii report recommends against nuclear development

A nuclear energy working group convened by the Hawaii State Energy Office (HSEO) and tasked with investigating the feasibility of bringing nuclear to the state recently released a report that concluded that-for now-nuclear is not right for Hawaii.

The bill: The HSEO was ordered to convene a nuclear energy working group by state Senate Concurrent Resolution 136, which was passed during last year's legislative session. The task force was specifically charged with investigating the feasibility of advanced nuclear power technologies in the state, along with identifying barriers to and risks associated with deploying those technologies. Those benefits and risks were far reaching in scope, including regulatory, statutory, financial, social, and environmental factors.

That resolution emphasized that nuclear-being firm, reliable, and clean-could potentially replace the state's current reliance on imported fossil fuels. The resolution also highlighted Hawaii's current goal of achieving 100 percent clean energy by 2045, saying that, on the path to that goal, "it is important to consider the feasibility of all energy options."

The working group: As designated by SCR 136, the working group included members representing the following organizations, among others:

• Hawaii State Department of Health
• Department of Land and Natural Resources
• Hawaii Public Utilities Commission
• Hawaiian Electric Company
• University of Hawaii at Mānoa
• U.S. Navy
• Nuclear Energy Institute
• Earthjustice

The report: The HSEO's report focused on the viability of 1-20 MW microreactors and 20-300 MW small modular reactors. It quickly wrote off gigawatt-scale light water reactors for Hawaii, saying that typical systems are far too large for the state's power needs and that land use, high upfront capital costs, and grid reliability risks further disqualify larger reactors.

To facilitate new, smaller-scale nuclear development, two modifications to Hawaii state laws would be required. The first modification would be in a section of the state constitution that requires nuclear projects to be approved by two-thirds of the legislature. The second would change the current definitions in the state's renewable portfolio standard.

However, the HSEO proposed no new legislation in this report and ultimately recommended against any advanced nuclear development in the state. The report put forward seven key reasons for this recommendation that broadly fall into two groups: design uncertainty and waste concerns.

On uncertainty, the report argued that-as of now-advanced nuclear technologies are neither commercially viable nor technically proven. As such, a reliable timeline to operations, cost projections, and grid integration concerns all linger as unanswerable questions.

On waste, the report noted that Hawaii currently lacks the facilities, workforce expertise, regulatory framework, and emergency-response capabilities to handle, process, and store radioactive waste. The current lack of a national permanent waste repository was cited.

These uncertainties, in the view of the HSEO, also complicated another key element of nuclear development: community engagement. According to the report, without concrete answers to questions on cost, waste, and design, "early community engagement risks generating unnecessary fear or concern, potentially heightening mistrust, or, conversely, creating unrealistic expectations and unwarranted optimism about advanced nuclear reactor technology that has not yet been proven commercially viable."

The upside: The HSEO's report did not shut the door on a nuclear-powered Hawaii forever. Instead, it concluded that the state should "continue to monitor global advancements and revisit this assessment periodically, particularly if commercially proven, right-sized technologies emerge that address the concerns outlined in this report."