- [Breanna] Coming up on "Impact", Colstrip is now being considered for a new generation of nuclear reactors.

- If somebody wants to come and spend a bunch of money in our state and build us some nuclear power, we could sure use it.

- [Breanna] We'll examine the complicated considerations when it comes to bringing nuclear power to our state.

And lawmakers are looking at how Montana decides when to step in to remove abused kids from their homes.

- We know that removing children from their home is a traumatic experience.

- [Breanna] Should Montana judges intervene sooner on the decision to move children into state care?

Those stories coming up on "Impact".

- [Narrator] Production of "Impact" is made possible with support from the Otto Bremer Trust, investing in people, places, and opportunities in our region.

Online at ottobremer.org.

The Greater Montana Foundation, encouraging communication on issues, trends, and values of importance to Montanans, and viewers like you, who are friends of Montana PBS.

Thank you.

- Welcome to "Impact", our continuing series investigating issues important to Montanans.

I'm Breanna McCabe.

Nuclear could be on its way to Montana.

As the community of Colstrip continues to phase out coal, conversations are underway to see if nuclear could occupy its soon-to-be shutdown power plants.

"Montana PBS's", Anna Rau reports.

- [Duane] That's company house, that's company house.

All of these along here are company houses.

- [Anna] Longtime lawmaker and Colstrip resident, Duane Ankney, knows coal built this community nearly 100 years ago.

Ankney himself helped build two of the coal fired boilers in the early '70s.

After that, he worked for almost 30 years in the nearby coal mine.

Ankney estimates nearly 70% of Colstrip residents work good paying jobs at the plant or the mine.

And perhaps no one has worked harder or done more to try and keep those good paying jobs here.

Ankney spent 16 years in the legislature and never missed the chance to carry a bill for the community he loves.

- [Duane] Every session I had something, some kind of a bill lookin' out for the workers, when and the if the plants closed down.

- [Anna] Ankney's term limited out now.

Colstrip's units one and two are closed.

And utilities are beginning to abandon units three and four.

Ankney knows coal may be on its way out.

- [Duane] You've seen a real uncertainty here in Colstrip.

I can't imagine what the conversation is around the supper table.

You know, "Dad, you gonna have a job tomorrow?"

Senate Energy Telecommunications will come to order.

- [Anna] Now, Ankney has a new plan, one that began unfolding during his last legislative session.

That's when lawmakers quietly repealed a citizen initiative, that they say effectively banned nuclear power in the state for nearly 45 years.

- [Steven] I think nuclear needs to have a redress from the public.

- [Anna] Representative Steven Galloway is a vocal proponent of nuclear power at the legislature, and he supported repealing that initiative.

- [Steven] Basically, it just removed that restriction that we couldn't have any nuclear in the state.

That's the simple statement.

- [Anna] But other lawmakers say the initiative didn't ban nuclear.

It simply gave Montanans the right to vote on whether or not to approve large nuclear plants in the state.

During debate over the repeal, it was clear that some lawmakers were uncomfortable with overturning something that passed with 65% of the vote.

- [Steven] I would argue that maybe there's another path, which would be to have a referendum to undo the referendum, let the people decide.

- [Anna] In the end, though, nearly 100 lawmakers voted overwhelmingly to repeal the initiative.

- [Steven] Now the door is open.

If somebody wants to come and spend a bunch of money in our state and build us some nuclear power, we could sure use it.

- [Anna] At the same time Montana was removing obstacles to nuclear, momentum was building on the federal level.

The Inflation Reduction Act and the infrastructure bill both include tax breaks and incentives for nuclear.

- [Edwin] Money has always been the obstacle for developing new nuclear power plants, because they are very expensive and take a long time to build.

- [Anna] Dr. Edwin Lyman is the director of Nuclear Power Safety with the Union of Concerned Scientists in Washington DC.

He says the renewed interest is partly due to the fact that nuclear energy produces very little CO2.

And partly because there are new technologies now that sound promising.

One of those new technologies is small modular reactors, also known as SMRs.

- [Edwin] There's a company called New Scale, which has developed a small modular nuclear reactor based on current light-water reactor technology, but shrunken down.

And this company is one of the first out of the gate with a commercial design.

- [Dr. Reyes] A small modular reactor, or SMR, is basically defined as a reactor with the power output of less than 300 megawatts.

And it's scalable.

So you can start with one module, two module, up to 12 modules.

And you install them as the power is needed in the particular region.

- [Anna] Dr. Jose Reyes is the inventor and co-founder of New Scale based in Corvallis, Oregon.

Dr. Reyes says the uranium fueled reactor modules would be submerged together in a large concrete pool lined with steel.

Dr. Reyes says the reactors are so safe, they won't need any electricity or human intervention to shut them down or keep them cool in the event of an emergency.

- [Dr. Reyes] So this is a major breakthrough for commercial nuclear power in terms of safety.

And that's allowing us to do things that we haven't been able to do in the past.

- New scale is one of dozens of companies that are working on various small reactor designs that can be pre-fabricated and shipped to building sites.

But New Scale stands alone as the only company with the design that's actually been certified for use by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

New Scale is building the first modular reactor demonstration project at Idaho National Labs with the help of a 1.3 billion award from the Department of Energy.

New Scale also recently signed a deal to provide modular reactors in Romania and Poland.

- [Dr. Reyes] The whole world is looking for clean energy sources.

And we really feel that we have a part to play in that.

- New Scale has also been active in Montana.

Company representatives testified in favor of a bill to study the feasibility of modular reactors during the last legislative session.

And they're the only modular reactor company we could find that's officially licensed by the state of Montana to do business here.

- [Dr. Reyes] Certainly in Montana, as in many other states that use coal-fired plants, we're really interested in the opportunity to replace some of these coal-fired plants with New Scale plants.

And we believe it's a perfect fit because from the beginning, we've been designing our plants to do that.

- [Duane] They're small.

You just put 'em together like plug and play.

You can have one or you can have 10 of 'em, it don't matter.

- [Anna] Duane Ankney invited New Scale to meet with the Colstrip community last October to talk about what the modular reactors could do to save the town.

- [Duane] To get 90 people out in Colstrip on a weeknight, you gotta have a basketball game.

We had over 140 people in that auditorium.

- [Anna] Dr. Lyman believes all the excitement, hype, and money are clouding critical judgment.

- [Dr. Lyman] The problem is that nuclear power has significant risks, safety, security, environmental risks and costs.

And that message seems to be getting lost in the fervor for building new nuclear power plants.

And that's a dangerous mistake.

- [Anna] Dr. Lyman believes that fervor caused the NRC to approve the New Scale design over the objections of one of its own scientists.

The NRC scientist was worried, a flaw in the passive shutdown system could lead to a disaster.

- [Dr. Lyman] After the reactor shuts down, it could actually return to power again.

In that case you could have a power increase that could potentially lead to damage to the reactor.

- [Anna] While the NRC didn't listen to its scientist, New Scale did.

And they added a fix to their newest higher power design.

- [Dr. Reyes] For the lower power, we found that it really wasn't an issue.

But as we increased power, we said, "This is something that's prudent to do.

"It's a very low probability type of event."

But we've also now addressed it.

- [Dr. Lyman] Because of the complexity of these systems and the potential for surprises as we saw with New Scale, it really is important that the NRC do as thorough job as possible.

- [Anna] Dr. Reyes says the NRC is so satisfied with the safety of the company's design that the agency is considering rolling back some of the emergency requirements they have in place for larger nuclear plants.

- [Dr. Reyes] What's not needed is the alarms and the sirens.

And really, that sends kind of a mixed message, right?

Because you say, "Well, this plant is safe, "but we're gonna put all these sirens "and we're gonna put all these evacuation drills "and things like that."

- Evacuation planning and emergency sirens would stop at the plant boundary.

Currently, the NRC requires those sirens and emergency training to extend 10 miles into the surrounding community.

- [Dr. Lyman] I think that it's foolish and dangerous.

Nuclear power is an inherently uncertain technology.

There are always things that are going to go wrong that you didn't anticipate.

- [Anne] Nuclear is not a technology that you want to rely on optimism or luck to ensure the safety of the system.

- [Anna] Anne Hedges is the Director of Policy at the Montana Environmental Information Center.

Hedges says the environmental fears usually get the most attention.

But she's also concerned about the financial risks.

- [Anne] I just don't think rate payers in Montana can afford to be on the hook to pay for a technology that doesn't exist yet.

We haven't seen it deployed on a commercial scale any place in the world.

So as we see costs increase, including very recently New Scale announcing that its costs have dramatically increased, we can anticipate those costs to be even higher when it's actually ready for commercial deployment in about a decade.

- [Anna] Recent financial reports show that the projected cost of power from New Scale's demonstration project in Idaho has shot up from $55 per megawatt hour to an estimated $89 per megawatt hour.

That price includes the federal subsidies and tax breaks.

And the plant is still under construction, so the final price of energy could be even higher.

- [Dr. Reyes] All the energy industry, whether it's wind, or solar, or nuclear, are seeing increases in cost.

What I understand though, is that we remain competitive.

On that relative scale, we still remain competitive with other forms of energy.

- In general, nuclear is more expensive than other power sources.

But utilities, like Northwestern Energy, say that extra cost can be worth it.

Because nuclear is reliable and flexible.

- [Bleau] I can ramp it up, I can ramp it down.

I can actually shut 'em off and not have 'em create energy for periods of time.

- [Anna] Bleau LaFave is the Director of Long-Term Resources at Northwestern Energy.

He says the company is currently in the process of modeling potential future energy resources.

Once they've modeled the different options, they'll submit a plan, known as an integrated resource plan, or IRP, to state regulators.

- [Anna] So you guys have an IRP coming up right, in like a month and a half two?

- [Bleau] Yeah.

We're targeting to release the IRP for Montana by the end of March.

- [Anna] Is there nuclear in there?

- [Bleau] Yes.

- [Anna] Is this the first time you guys have modeled nuclear?

- [Bleau] It's the first time we'd modeled nuclear in Montana.

- LaFave says the repeal of that citizen's initiative opened the door for nuclear.

And the draft IRP shows Northwestern Energy is exploring the idea of replacing units three and four with modular nuclear reactors by 2030 and 2035.

LaFave is quick to point out that the IRP is not a binding document and the company may or may not choose to pursue nuclear in the state.

But they are certainly planning now for the possibility.

- [Bleau] Right now I'm in contact with all three of the current leading technologies.

As they continue to build out some of their first projects, we get more costing information and that really drives some of the final decision.

- A decision on nuclear can't come soon enough for Duane Ankney.

The new technologies are giving this community hope that if coal does dwindle and die, something will be there to take its place.

- [Duane] I'd just as soon see 'em burn coal air for the next a hundred years.

I'm a coal guy.

But with that being said, I think nuclear is absolutely the best option.

- The new modular reactors will still produce nuclear waste that must be stored for decades.

And since there's no national repository for nuclear materials, the waste would likely be stored at the plant site.

Montana's House of Representatives has voted overwhelmingly in support of a bill that would give state judges a bigger role in determining when to remove children from abusive and neglectful homes.

Except in cases where physical or sexual abuse is imminent.

House Bill 37 would require case workers to first get a warrant before removing a child.

And despite broad bipartisan support from lawmakers, the bill is getting some pushback from within the child welfare system.

Montana PBS's Stan Parker has the story.

- [Voter] Mr. Speaker, 96 representatives have voted.

I too have voted no.

House Bill 37 has passed the House.

- [Stan] Lawmakers are showing a united front on child welfare reforms this session.

On their minds confronting a legislative audit with a decade's worth of alarming statistics.

During the 2010s, the number of kids in state care more than doubled, from about 2,000 children to about 5,000.

The numbers have come down significantly since 2018.

But lawmakers and family advocates say an additional judicial check would help keep families together.

- One of the best things we can do for children is to have them stay in their home when it is safe for them to do so.

- [Stan] House Bill 37, which passed the house 96 to two, would require case workers to get a warrant from a judge before moving a child from a home.

Unless physical or sexual abuse is likely in the time it would take to get one.

The way it works now, judges weigh in after a removal happens.

If Montana adopts a warrant system as many other states do, judges would have to approve non-emergency removals before, not after they happen.

Advocates like Denise Johnson with the Montana Child Protection Alliance, say a warrant requirement would prevent unnecessary removals and protect constitutional rights.

- ^ Removing a child should be the absolute last resort.

And what we saw over the last decade was not that.

- [Stan] The added judicial check is a welcomed change by Johnson and others who have lost faith in the system.

- I have talked to families with the most horrific stories you can imagine.

False allegations meant getting their children removed that were not true.

That just led to a domino effect of destroying the family.

- [Stan] Some in the family policy world, like Jeff Folsom, see warrants as a way to ensure due process and build trust in the system.

But he cautions against inferring too much from the stats.

- And there is a strong vocal group that would point to those numbers to say that Montana is removing more kids than appropriate.

It's just as easy to say that those high numbers might be reflective of a effort of the state to be less tolerant of abuse and neglect in a household.

- [Stan] State officials have pushed back on both the idea that their removals aren't justified, and the bills warrant requirement.

- So when we remove a child and we get before the judge, those cases are not getting dismissed.

I think that's an important indicator that we're only removing children when it's truly necessary and that the court agrees with us.

- [Stan] Nikki Grossberg heads the Child and Family Services Division at the Montana Department of Health and Human Services.

She also says lawmakers are basing their thinking on old numbers.

- I think it's important to recognize that we've already reduced the removal of children by 41% over the past five years.

And that was without a warrant requirement.

That was really about our leadership and our supervisors really engaging families and engaging service providers in the necessary services to keep children in the home safely.

And so in addition, we've reduced the overall number of kids in care by 28% over the past five years.

And so I think the issues within the child welfare system, Montana, have already a happened without new legislation.

- [Stan] The bills critics, like Prosecutor Amanda O'Shea Tiernan, have also doubted whether a warrant requirement will actually bring down removal numbers.

- We don't get involved in cases that court involvement isn't needed.

Social workers aren't willy-nilly removing children when there are safe parents and safe situations.

- [Stan] Prosecutors are the attorney's tasked with defending removal decisions in court.

O'Shea Tiernan says, removals she can't get behind are exceedingly rare.

- The court is going to grant these warrants, and this warrant requirement is keeping children in unsafe situations longer and adding a ton of extra steps for the department.

- My primary concern is just that it defines what exigent circumstances are so narrowly.

It only lets us look at emergency situations when there's physical abuse or sexual abuse.

Which the reality is that's not the majority of our situations.

- [Stan] Across the table in cases like these are public defenders like Kelly Driscoll, advocating for the parents and children involved.

Noting that her office had no official position on the bill, she too doubted the warrant requirement would move the needle on removal numbers.

- The courts often sustain the removal of children.

But we are seeing more and more situations where the legal case goes forward, but children actually return home under what's called an in-home safety plan.

And I think that's a great step forward.

I know for my clients, once their children are back in their home, that really brings down the temperature on a case and allows folks to focus on the services that they need to, to be the safe parents that they are and want to be.

- [Stan] These sorts of cooperative arrangements with families, especially those meant to prevent removal in the first place, are a growing trend nationwide ushered in by the Family First Prevention Services Act of 2018.

- People have often asked the question of, "Why does a family have to get to the point of removal?

"And before we can bring services into play "to support them?"

Family First said, "Yeah, that's right.

"We can get supports to families before it gets to the level "where the safety of the kid is compromised."

- Under this philosophy, bringing down the number of removals becomes an exercise, not of debating the hard choices about when and how to remove kids, but about preventing those removal situations in the first place.

And that's something that those on all sides of the warrant debate are agreeing on.

- Over the past four years we've worked really hard at preventing removals.

And through that has really been about engaging parents.

And oftentimes parents, when they're in crisis, they recognize they need additional help.

- We're very excited to see that happening.

That is exactly the move that needs to be happening and that's what we have been advocating for.

I would really like to see more services where we wrap around these families, and we support them, and just make sure they get through this.

- [Stan] For "Impact", I'm Stan Parker.

- The lawmakers considerations to reform the process come as Montana's child welfare system is already engaged in a year's long evolution.

To reflect on that, we spoke with District Court Judge Leslie Halligan for a view from the bench.

- How has the experience for families involved in the child welfare system changed from when you first started these cases until today?

- So in my experience early on, parents first touch with the system after a child may have been removed was at this 20 day mark.

And really at the 20 day hearing, nothing very substantive happened because the attorney hadn't had a chance to meet with the parents and review the proceedings.

And so those were often kicked out another two weeks, or three weeks, or even a month.

So kind of fast forward now, we've spent probably the last 10 years looking at improvements.

And so in Missoula we have kind of a pilot project that we're doing.

So every time a family has a removal, or the department files a petition, there is an initial hearing.

And so those happen weekly.

Other courts are doing the same thing and they're called pre-hearing conferences.

And those are more like mediations where the parents with representation with an attorney can really have a more informal meeting with the department.

And in large part, many of the parents do come to some agreement and are kind of eager for the support.

So a lot of changes have occurred really with regard to getting people connected with attorneys, getting them to court, and then having them have opportunities to challenge the state's action.

- We've talked a lot about the warrant requirement.

Another reform that this bill would do is to codify shrinking the timeline to get parents in front of judges a lot quicker.

What's sort of like the pro and con with the math as you start shrinking the timeline?

- I don't think there's anybody who doesn't want to give parents the right to get to court and to have hearings.

Logistically, when we've tried to do these hearings within this very short timeframe, and we have, we find that the attorneys really aren't prepared and they haven't had enough time to meet with their parents.

And sometimes we don't even have parents.

So it's the attorney just operating again on the information they've gotten, believing what they think their parent would want, or asking for more time.

So some of it's the logistics.

The other part is just the mechanics of making sure we have teams available to appear in court.

And so if you have a judge that's representing a multi-county district, and traveling from one county to the next, they may be in one county on Monday, in a different county on Tuesday, in their home county on Wednesday.

It's really hard to rearrange everything to make sure that they're gonna be in the place that they need to be, in order to have that attorney.

- Some of the bill's proponents have argued that the warrant requirement would bring Montana into compliance with constitutional recognition that families generally have a right to stay together.

Does this bill help Montana align with the constitution more?

- So, in my review of kind of these issues, parents have a constitutional right to be in a family situation and parent their children under the 14th Amendment.

So there's certainly constitutional provisions that form the basis for this, that courts have interpreted, to grant constitutional rights to families and children.

Not every state has this warrant requirement.

But I think it is, again, one more way to ensure that there's not inappropriate removals.

But honestly we often see cases where we wonder why removal didn't happen sooner because the child's really suffered a lot of pretty serious neglect for a number of years.

And you know, like I said, if it helps to ensure that people's constitutional rights are being respected, I'm quite certain the judges are fine reviewing it.

It still allows for some emergency removals, although I'm a bit concerned that it's pretty narrow, this physical or sexual abuse.

What happens if a child's abandoned, both parents are arrested?

So it doesn't really cover that circumstance.

- House Bill 37 is just one of several child welfare reform bills at the legislature of this session.

And so-- - There's more than I can count on my two hands.

(laughs softly) - And so, as the judges are looking at these bills, just very broadly, what are some concerns about this slate of reforms that could potentially happen all at the same time?

- Well, one thing I think the department has been doing, a lot of the things that the legislature now is asking them to do, but the requirements that are kind of listed in some of the other bills that I have been presented, again, just increase the burden, whether it's a paperwork burden or a checklist burden.

There's a lot of worker burnout because of all these obligations and all the criticism that they get.

And so, I just worry that we're gonna continue to cycle through all these workers.

And we've lost the professional social worker who's willing to stay for the long term just because of the stress of the job and the demands that continue to be foisted on them.

- Well, thank you so much.

- Yeah, thank you very much.

Yeah, thank you Stan.

It was nice to meet you.

- Likewise.

- After easily passing in the house, now it's the Senate's chance to weigh in on the bill.

Well, that's all for this edition of "Impact".

I'm Brianna McCabe.

And for all of us at Montana PBS, thanks for watching.

- Production of Impact is made possible with support from the Otto Bremer Trust, investing in people, places, and opportunities, in our region.

Online at ottobremer.org.

The Greater Montana Foundation, encouraging communication on issues, trends, and values of importance to Montanans.

And viewers like you, who are friends of Montana PBS.

Thank you.