Should WA embrace nuclear to meet clean energy goals? There’s a bipartisan push

Whether Washington should pursue nuclear power options to meet its ambitious clean energy goals is top of mind for a broad bipartisan group of state lawmakers — but the question is also generating debate among residents.

House Bill 2090 by Republican state Rep. Stephanie Barnard of Pasco received a hearing Jan. 13 in the House Environment & Energy Committee.

If the bill is adopted into law, the Department of Commerce would be directed to create a nuclear power strategic framework, supplementing the state’s energy strategy, by Dec. 15.

In other words, it’s a planning bill, Barnard noted during Tuesday’s hearing.

Supporters, including some Tri-Cities area officials, back nuclear power for its dependability, small land-use footprint and potential for adding safe, high-paying jobs. Others, though, raised questions about affordability and nuclear waste, plus the short timeframe that Commerce would have to publish the framework.

Barnard said that nuclear power provides low-impact clean energy at a time when Washington’s energy demand is increasing due to electrification, population growth and data-intensive industries. She argued in a Wednesday news release that without the proper planning, demand could overtax the energy grid and prompt families to pay higher power costs.

“If we’re truly committed to affordable, reliable decarbonization, we owe it to policymakers and communities to have the best available information about all clean firm options, including land impacts, timeliness and grid reliability,” Barnard said during Tuesday’s hearing. “House Bill 2090 provides that foundation.”

By 2030, the Northwest’s power supply deficit is projected to reach nearly 9 gigawatts, worrying state lawmakers about possible energy shortfalls, McClatchy previously reported.

Then-Gov. Jay Inslee in 2019 signed into law the Clean Energy Transformation Act, committing the state to a greenhouse gas emission-free electricity supply by 2045.

Multiple House Democrats have thrown their support behind Barnard’s bill, including Majority Leader Joe Fitzgibbon of West Seattle. Leading the charge in the upper chamber are Senate Minority Leader John Braun of Centralia and Sen. Sharon Shewmake, a Bellingham Democrat.

Commerce would be required under the bill to analyze factors including reliability, siting and permitting processes, workforce needs, costs and public input.

Some opponents made clear during Tuesday’s hearing that they didn’t support the bill.

Lisa Ganuelas, a board trustee with the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, cited an 1855 treaty securing first-food rights, adding that any development that could affect such resources needs to honor the confederated tribes’ sovereign rights. She also asked lawmakers to refrain from passing energy-development projects “without early, meaningful and true government-to-government consultation.”

The legislation asks Commerce to determine whether the state should prioritize setting up new plants in places where nuclear projects have already been evaluated and proposed, including the Hanford site near the Tri-Cities.

Among those testifying in the bill’s “pro” camp: Joe Schiessl, Richland’s deputy city manager, and Adam J. Fyall, the sustainable development manager for Benton County.

Fyall argued Tuesday that adding nuclear energy to the state’s strategy gives Washington the best shot of meeting its needs for decarbonization and more energy.

Yakima County Commissioner Amanda McKinney contends that the bill safeguards state taxpayers while leaning into the region’s strength. She said the Tri-Cities area already enjoys the skilled workforce and strong infrastructure to support a nuclear push.

“It is logically and fiscally responsible to build upon these existing assets,” she said at Tuesday’s hearing.

State dollars would not be used to cover the cost of developing the nuclear power strategic framework. Rather, non-state funds, such as grants, gifts or contributions, would be used — a point that Barnard emphasized given the state’s ongoing budget constraints.

Critics posited that the bill raises ethical red flags. Kathleen Saul with the Sierra Club said Tuesday that the environmental organization is concerned that the legislation runs afoul of state ethics law by asking Commerce to seek contributions and gifts to fund research solely focused on nuclear deployment.

“Although HB 2090 tries to assure us that it’s increasingly likely that new nuclear might be cost competitive, models from Idaho National Labs indicate that in 2030 the cost of small modular reactors will be more than double that of onshore wind, solar or solar with battery backup, and it won’t be until 2050 that they will be cost competitive,” Saul told lawmakers.

James Conca, an energy-system scientist for more than 40 years, testified that there isn’t a way to nix dependence on fossil fuels without accepting the large initial expense of nuclear and renewables. He said that the grid is overburdened — a need that can’t be filled by renewables.

“You have to tell everyone, ‘We need to invest in clean energy upfront. You’ll get it back later,’” he told lawmakers.

Conca also clarified that the Hanford site was originally created to make plutonium for bombs, which produces difficult-to-deal-with waste. He added that that shouldn’t be confused with waste from electricity-generating nuclear power plants, which is more manageable.

Still, state Rep. Sharlett Mena, a Tacoma Democrat who sits on the committee, referenced her own concern about a general lack of planning for the long-term storage of such waste.

The upper chamber’s companion bill, SB 5821, is scheduled for a hearing in the Senate Environment, Energy & Technology Committee on Friday at 10:30 a.m.

This story was originally published January 15, 2026 at 5:15 AM.

Simone Carter

The Olympian

Support my work with a digital subscription