Senate Committee on Business & Commerce Chair Senator Schwertner convened a hearing on Senate Bill 29‑67, the Texas Advanced Nuclear and Innovative Energy Technologies Act, inviting industry developers, utilities and consumer groups to testify on whether and how the state should support advanced nuclear projects.

Why it matters: witnesses said the state can influence where companies build manufacturing and reactor supply chains and can reduce project risk by supporting permitting, workforce development and early, milestone‑based grants. Opponents warned that taxpayer grants for early‑stage nuclear projects risk large public expense if projects fail or face cost overruns.

What happened: Jimmy Glotfelty, former commissioner at the Public Utility Commission of Texas, opened the invited testimony and said, “I’m here to support, senate bill 29 67.” He summarized the Advanced Nuclear Reactor Working Group’s recommendations and urged state backing for permitting support, supply‑chain grants and early project development assistance to reduce private developers’ risk. Doug Robinson, founder and CEO of Natura Resources, described his company’s recent Nuclear Regulatory Commission construction permit for an advanced demonstration reactor and urged milestone‑based state programs to close a private financing “valley of death.”

Industry requests and examples:
- Permitting support: witnesses told the committee that state help coordinating federal, state and local permitting would lower developer risk and reduce the cost of early development work that otherwise has no guaranteed payoff.
- Milestone‑based grants: several companies asked for grants tied to commercial milestones (for example, NRC docketing or successful demonstration reactor tests) rather than unconditional payments.
- Supply‑chain investment: witnesses said Texas’s existing oil, gas and manufacturing base could be leveraged to fabricate modular reactor components; several private companies (Natura, X‑Energy, Dow, General Matter, Repro Power, Shepherd Power and others) described plans to site work and manufacturing in Texas if incentives and permitting are favorable.
- Timeline: witnesses said demonstration reactors could be operating in the mid‑to‑late 2020s, with commercial deployment possible in the late 2020s to early 2030s depending on NRC approvals, capital and market conditions. The NRC review timeframe was described as variable — “anywhere between 18 months and 5 years” depending on license type and technology.

Concerns and tradeoffs:
- Cost risks: the committee discussed Vogtle (Georgia) as an example of cost overruns and schedule delays; senators asked witnesses how Texas could avoid similar outcomes if it supports state money for advanced nuclear.
- Market vs. state choice: several senators pressed witnesses on whether the state should pick winners or let the market decide. Witnesses generally recommended seed‑style programs with commercial co‑investment and strict eligibility tied to demonstrated technical progress.
- Waste and safety: proponents emphasized passive safety designs for many advanced reactors and NRC oversight. Opponents, including the Sierra Club and Public Citizen, warned that new reactor designs will still generate radioactive byproducts and that taxpayer funding risks expensive failure. Those groups urged loan‑style instruments and strict guardrails rather than open grants.

Selected claims and clarifications from testimony:
- Doug Robinson (Natura Resources): said his firm has a demonstration reactor NRC construction permit and recommended milestone funding tied to NRC progress; he described private capital raised for some developers and the need for demonstration to secure commercial allowances.
- Kreshka Young (Dow): said Dow filed a construction permit application with the NRC for an X‑Energy design at its Seadrift site and described industrial demand for combined power and high‑temperature steam at petrochemical facilities.
- Scott Nolan (General Matter): emphasized the fuel‑supply bottleneck (enrichment) and said U.S. capacity for HALEU is presently limited; General Matter seeks to build domestic enrichment capacity and flagged that large projects consider state incentives when choosing a site.
- Rudy Garza (CPS Energy): as CEO of a large municipal utility, described nuclear as a long‑term option that could complement a diversified generation portfolio; he said the timing and price point will determine whether municipal utilities order reactors.

Opposition testimony: representatives from the Sierra Club and Public Citizen testified against direct taxpayer grants for permitting or construction. They suggested loan programs, completion‑based grants or taxpayer protections (matching requirements, repayment timelines and limits to projects that ultimately supply ERCOT) as safer alternatives.

Committee response and next steps: Chair Schwertner invited written suggestions and stakeholder proposals for refining SB 29‑67. He said the bill is a “shell” to facilitate discussion and that, while he was not yet disposed to recommend large‑scale state grants without further refinement, he is open to being convinced with stronger guardrails and more detailed proposals.

Ending: The committee left SB 29‑67 pending and asked staff and stakeholders to provide additional drafting language, including options for milestone‑based incentives, addressing NRC licensing timelines, and precise eligibility and accountability measures. The hearing combined technical testimony on design, permitting and supply chain with public policy questions about how far the state should go in using public funds to catalyze a nascent industry.