Small Modular Reactor Update Energy Innovations Summit 12 September 2016 Small Modular Reactor Update

Introductions Bruce Landrey - Landrey & Company Ted Rampton – UAMPS 40 years in the nuclear industry Held executive positions at Portland General Electric and the Tennessee Valley Authority Helped launch NuScale Power in January 2008. Led International Marketing, Government Affairs, Strategic Planning. Now advise nuclear companies on business strategy and technology commercialization. Clients include the U.S. Department of Energy, Sandia National Laboratory, Studsvik, and Energy Northwest.  Ted Rampton – UAMPS Chief Governmental Affairs Officer of Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems Represents 45 municipal electric utilities in Utah, New Mexico, Nevada, California Oregon, Wyoming and Idaho. Designated lead for the Carbon Free Power Project, consisting of energy efficiency, rooftop solar and small modular reactor technology for the UAMPS membership. Involved with issues surrounding Colorado River since 1976 and actively following the Grand Canyon Studies since 1989. From 2009 to 2012, Mr. Rampton was designated a member of the board of directors of the American Public Power Association Graduated from Weber State University, and is an honor graduate with distinction from Brigham Young University's Masters of Public Administration Program.

Introductions Marc Nichol – Nuclear Energy Institute Worked for Duke Energy, Toshiba America Nuclear Energy and Transnuclear, in the areas of used nuclear fuel management, operations and new plant projects. Joined the Nuclear Energy Institute in 2011 Senior project manager in new plant licensing. In this role, he l Leads industry’s efforts to resolve generic regulatory issues related to small modular reactors. Holds degrees in Nuclear Engineering from Purdue University and the University of California Berkeley, and an MBA from the University of North Carolina

Nuclear In The World Today

Reactors Under Construction

Nuclear Power Plants in the USA 6

Nuclear Power Plants - Global 7

U.S. Near-Term SMR Technologies

SMR Overview Characteristics Key factors for commercialization 300 MWe or less Factory-fabricated Modular / Scalable Major components transportable by truck, rail or barge Passive safety systems Key factors for commercialization Financing development and commercialization Developing, testing materials, fuels, fabrication techniques Securing NRC / other approvals, regulatory issues SMR Licensing Technical Support Program

SMR Benefits Modularity: factory fabrication & shipping of major components Lower total capital investment: time & expenditure to commercial operation less than for large nuclear plants Siting flexibility: smaller markets, isolated areas, smaller grids, limited water & acreage Efficiency: couple with other sources (renewables and fossil) to leverage resources and increase efficiency Enhanced safety and security: potential synergy between AFSPC and SMR operations, decreased vulnerability

U.S. SMR Technology Comparison   BWXT mPower Holtec NuScale Westinghouse MWe 195 160 50 225 Units per Plant 2 1 – 2 12 1 Total MWe 390 320 600 Refueling 24 months Design Life 60 years Site <40 acres 5 – 7.5 acres 40 acres 15 acres Overnight Cost / kw NA $4,062 $5,078

Current Incentives for New Nuclear Energy Policy Act of 2005 Risk Insurance Loan Guarantees Production Tax Credits First 6,000 MWe of new nuclear $18 MWh for eight years Up to $125 million / year per plant File COLA with NRC by 2008 Pour safety related concrete by 2014 Commercial operation by 12/31/2021 Efforts underway to extend the dates

Support for New Nuclear USDOE Licensing Technical Support Program – 50/50 cost share mPower NRC Design Certification Application (on hold) NuScale – NRC Design Certification Application (Dec. 2016) TVA – NRC Early Site Permit Application (May 2016) UAMPS – NRC Construction & Operating License Application Program ends in FY17 USDOE evaluating next steps for FY18 and beyond Bipartisan and bicameral support in the House and Senate for new nuclear and SMRs Washington State – two SMR studies New Mexico – SMR study underway Wisconsin – rescinded ban on new nuclear

Colorado and SMRs USDOE funded study on using SMRs to provide clean, secure energy to DoD installations. Completed March 2016. Case study on Schriever AFB, Colorado Springs, CO, and Clear AFS, Fairbanks, AK. Findings: No impediments to using SMRs to serve DoD installations Synergies exist between DoD installations and SMR operations Near-term SMRs produce more energy than needed by a single DoD installation Needs of multiple DoD installations can be aggregated to more fully use the output from an SMR – e.g., In Colorado: Schriever, Peterson, Fort Carson, Cheyenne Mountain, and Buckley.

Bruce Landrey Landrey & Company, Inc. 503-715-7900 brucel@landreyco Bruce Landrey Landrey & Company, Inc. 503-715-7900 brucel@landreyco.com