The Senate Committee on Business and Commerce convened on May 8, 2025, to discuss House Bill 14, which proposes funding for advanced nuclear reactor projects in Texas. The meeting featured a range of testimonies from industry representatives, public advocates, and experts, highlighting both support and opposition to the bill.

The session began with discussions on the intended uses of advanced nuclear reactors, which include providing heat for industrial processes, powering data centers, and treating produced water in the oil industry. Concerns were raised regarding the cost competitiveness of these reactors compared to other energy sources. For instance, the estimated levelized cost of electricity for advanced nuclear is $81 per megawatt hour, significantly higher than $64 for combined cycle natural gas, $32 for solar photovoltaic (PV), and $30 for onshore wind.

Several speakers, including Susie Belt Gosling and Carolyn Croome, expressed strong opposition to HB 14, arguing that it would allocate public funds to projects that are costly and slow to develop. They emphasized the historical issues of budget overruns and delays associated with nuclear projects, urging the committee to reconsider the use of grants in favor of loans that would require repayment. They argued that the immediate energy needs of Texas could be better met with more affordable and rapidly deployable energy technologies.

In contrast, proponents of the bill, including representatives from Texas A&M University and the nuclear industry, argued for the potential economic benefits of investing in nuclear technology. They highlighted the importance of Texas becoming a leader in nuclear development, which could create high-paying jobs and provide a stable energy source. The Texas A&M representative noted that their RELLIS campus is well-suited for testing advanced nuclear technologies and has already received positive responses from industry partners.

The committee also heard from David Patterson of Bridge to Nuclear, who proposed a dual-track approach that would involve constructing a natural gas power plant alongside an advanced nuclear reactor. This model aims to provide immediate energy generation while securing funding for future nuclear development.

As the meeting progressed, concerns about the timeline for nuclear projects were reiterated, with many speakers emphasizing that new reactors could take 5 to 10 years to come online, which does not align with Texas's urgent energy demands. The discussion concluded with a call for careful consideration of the bill's implications for taxpayers and the state's energy future.

Overall, the meeting underscored a significant divide between those advocating for the advancement of nuclear energy in Texas and those cautioning against the financial risks and delays associated with such projects. The committee is expected to deliberate further on the bill and its proposed amendments in the coming sessions.