 Welcome back to Think Tech, I'm Jay Fiedel. This is Hawaii, the state of clean energy. And our discussion today is there a chance for nuclear energy in Hawaii with our special guest, Representative Corey Chant. And we are really looking forward to talking with him about the bill he introduced and the other bill, there are two bills, which would create an environment for nuclear energy here in Hawaii. Welcome to the show, Corey. Yeah, thanks for having me, Jay. So it's great. Tell me about your background, your 35th district, that's Waipahu, and you've been around. You have been in various government organizations over the past few years, and you have been associated with various committees in the legislature and various nonprofits outside the legislature. So give us a couple of hundred words on who you are, Corey. Sure. So I'm new to the House of Representatives. I was recently elected in 2022. So this is going into my second session. Prior to that, I was with the Honolulu City Council as a staff member for Council Chair Tommy Waters, where I was primarily working on budget issues and some land use and noise, actually, because when it comes down to an urbanized Honolulu, noise is a big issue. And then prior to that, I was with the American Cancer Society, Cancer Action Network, doing cancer advocacy on behalf of cancer patients and their families. And the other thing is I also served on the Waipahu Neighborhood Board for 15 years until I got elected and also had the chance to serve as vice chair and chair of the board. So I represent District 35, which is Waipahu and Pearl City. So I have a little bit of Waipahu and a little bit of Pearl City. That's kind of it. 15 years on the Neighborhood Board. Wow, that must be some kind of record. Yeah, and this is very interesting that you have introduced a lot of bills. You've been prolific this session. And I was just to your credit. And also among them, this Nuclear Energy Bill, can you tell us how that came to you, how that came to your desk? And what your thinking was to introduce it? Sure. So I have a background in public health primarily. That's where I spent most of my career, almost 10 years with the American Cancer Society. But during the interim, so after the 2023 legislative session, there's a lot of organizations like the National Council on State Legislatures that have trainings for new legislators to just get them experience and understanding of all the topics that we have to cover. Because my first year, while I kind of understand public health really well, I'm a member vice chair of the Corrections Military Veterans. I didn't have a lot of experience with the criminal justice system. So trying to get up to speed on that. Water and land, I'm on that committee. I'm just getting up to the state land use and all the issues with agriculture and water use. So what I was able to do during the interim was to go on to this conference called the Legislative Energy Horizons Institute, which is put on by NCSL and also the University of Idaho. And what that program is, is basically a program to allow legislators from across the country a chance to take a deep dive into understanding how energy delivery is done in the United States and also in Canada. So knowing very little about energy, other than you know, you turn the lights on and turn it off. Yeah, but you're a very curious fellow. You can tell that all the things you're associated with. And that means you have to be a lawyer because lawyers, among other things, are curious people, right? True, yes, yes. I do have a law degree. I haven't technically practiced for about 15 years. So I tell people I'm retired, but I do have a little background. Okay, so continue, yeah. Yeah, so anyway, during this conference, you know, I got a chance to learn about all the other states and how they produce their energy. And especially in the Pacific Northwest, you know, they have hydroelectric, which is one of the cleanest forms of energy. But you know, even those types of energy sources, there's always the good and bad with it, right? So that was one of the other things too that they were trying to share is just that whatever energy source you pick, no matter the benefits, there are some drawbacks. So, you know, just taking a look at how things are done across the country, two things stuck out in my mind that I learned. And the first thing is that, unlike the continental US, if we need energy for whatever reason, we can't tap into another state's grid or ask them to send over energy, which they do in a lot of other states, right? They're connected with the East Coast and the West Coast grid, even Canada can send power down. And the other thing too is that our state is not on the same grid. So unfortunately, even between Oahu and the Big Island, we cannot send energy back and forth, which means that every island has to produce their own energy, which is another issue that we face, right? Because even if you have a lot of geothermal possibilities on the Big Island, it can never generate energy that could be used for what were the greatest need is. So trying to find solutions to this problem was something that I was really interested in. And one of the things that I learned at this conference was about nuclear energy. And to be honest, what I told people is that before I went to this conference, my understanding of nuclear energy came from the Simpsons, where you see this giant reactor with green goo coming out and it's like, that's the worst thing ever. Like why would you even consider nuclear energy? It's so terrible, right? And then you think about all of the tragedies that have happened throughout the years and it's just like, why would you even think about nuclear energy at this time? But what was presented was the advancement in technology. So specifically what I was interested in was small modular reactors and micro reactors. And what some folks have pointed out to me when I came back to Hawaii was that we actually do have micro reactors in our state. They are actually in Pearl Harbor in our nuclear powered subs that have been powered for the maybe the last 20 years. So it's not, it wouldn't be like a new technology but just something that would be applied outside of the military and to actual commercial uses. So if I could keep going, I mean, I could keep going, but what happened is I came back, I was looking at what was done on nuclear energy before. And so the bill I introduced is to create a nuclear energy commission. It's not something new. So representative Sean Clinton, he was the first call I made as he introduced the exact same bill in 2019 and said, hey son, are you still interested in this? You know, you're gonna introduce it again. And he said, no, you should do it, go ahead. And he actually reminded me that former representative Mark Takai and even Senator Sam Sloan and Fred Hemings actually introduced the bill as well. So it was a bipartisan kind of idea. It wasn't just a, you know, a democratic or Republican idea. So there's some history to it. I started with that bill because really what it is is just to start the conversation. It wasn't to say if your energy for Hawaii would be good or bad. It's just, you know, is it a viable option? So that's really what the point of it was. Yeah, okay. I thought there were two bills. Yeah, so there is another bill. So the other thing about nuclear energy is we do have a constitutional amendment in our constitution that's, you know, prohibits the construction of any nuclear power plant or disposal of any waste in the state unless it gets approval by two thirds of both houses in the legislature. So the other bill would repeal that threshold so that, you know, you wouldn't need that approval. And that would be a constitutional amendment. Yeah, so now you'd have to change the constitution to do that. Yeah. Well, I wanted to tell you a story, Corey. I'll tell you what my story is. This is like five or six years ago. Fred Hemmings, Republican, but, you know, he was a non-denominational kind of Republican. He called me and he asked me to come down to his office in a ledge. And I did. And he said he wanted to share something really important with me, okay? And he was really excited about the possibility of this modular nuclear energy. And he said he talked with Dan Inouye. I wish I could call Dan Inouye right now and ask him about that. He said Dan Inouye had suggested it to him and it was in favor of this modular nuclear energy. And he described it to me. And he had materials on it. And what it was was a device about the size of a Volkswagen bus, big van, okay, which is not that big. And the idea is you would find a small city or town somewhere a remote place. They were thinking of Alaska. Maybe this came from Stevens, you know, Senator Stevens, Dan Inouye's friend. And you dig a hole 30 feet deep, roughly, and you put the van in there. And it was a nuclear reactor, modular nuclear reactor. You'd cover it up and it would generate, you know, on one supply of uranium, it would generate power for this community of maybe a few thousand people for 30 years. And then when all of that was over, you'd either cover it over or dig it up and put another one in there. And it was actually very cheap and very safe. And my recollection is that the company that was designing this was Toshiba in Japan. And so Fred was trying to, you know, get some traction on that. I don't think he ever did, honestly. But I thought that was a pretty interesting that you could do this without the risk, as you say, of Fukushima or anything like that. And you could put it underground and cover it up, make it safe. And it would be the best application of nuclear energy for electricity that you could possibly think of. And, you know, it's not a NIMBY kind of thing because you could really bury it away from, you know, populated areas. Has you ever heard of that? Is that what you're talking about? Yes, so that's sort of what my interest was. Not the full blown reactors, but these smaller reactors that maybe not strong enough to power the entire grid, but at least to power enough to move us away from some of the other fossil fuels and other things. Because that's the other thing I learned is that, you know, we always talk about net zero. And net, I guess, depending on which state, every state has a different definition of net zero. So what I've learned is that some states, their idea of net zero is they'll still be producing burning coal or all these other fossil fuels, but they'll use other technologies to offset it. So this one participant who was a long time senator from Oregon said, you know, we really should be going to zero, not just net zero. And, you know, that really stuck with me because I'm like, yeah, that's true, you know? We shouldn't be just trying to offset it to be neutral. We should be going to zero. And nuclear at the time, or at this time, I think is the only source that is carbon free. So that's, that was one of the other, you know, big advantages of nuclear energy. Yeah, people have a bias against it, you know, because of, you know, the bomb and World War II and because of Fukushima. But in fact, the technology has gone much further than that. And it's really all about technology. You know, I commend you on your curiosity. I commend you on choosing to go to this conference, even though this is not necessarily mainstream for you in the ledge, but it is an expression of your curiosity and your willingness to engage in new technology that would help Hawaii, new policy that would help Hawaii. That's great. You probably aspire to get on the energy committee, right? Well, I don't consider myself an energy expert, but at least I think just having a better understanding of how energy works, I think would just make me a better legislator because at least when these questions or issues come up, my hope is that I will be able to ask the right questions because I think part of our job is all about asking the right questions to have those discussions. And prior to this, like I mentioned before, yeah, I did not have a lot of background knowledge about energy, but you know, just even learning things about the difference between what a base load of energy is versus, you know, the intermittent, right? So we were going with a lot of wind and solar, but those things are intermittent. And you know, depending on how the wind is blowing or the weather or even with solar, right? If it's cloudy one day, Pico has to manage all of that. And so when the output is low because of weather or climate, you know, you're gonna have to go to your base load energy. And so right now, you know, we're still burning oil, we're trying to move to more renewables, but trying to find that consistent and reliable base load energy is really key, I think. You know, it's interesting. This is part of a conversation that took place in the first few years of the odd years between say 2005, 2010 about portfolios. Portfolios are various renewables. And of course solar was in that portfolio. Wind, first wind on Maui was a big deal. And then we always talked about geothermal, big island, and we talked about the cable. You refer to the cable, but the cable died of political deaths. And now it's, may I use the term radioactive? And so, you know, we talked about, you know, biofuel and we talked about ocean wind, you know, and ocean thermal energy and wave energy. I mean, it was so many things. I remember going to conferences, such as the one you're talking about, where they had people displaying, you know, a dozen different kinds of alternative energies. And there were, there was a Renewable Energy Society of Hawaii and the Association of Hawaii. And it was, you know, made up of people who were interested in exploring all these energies. But somewhere along the way, it all became solar. With lesser wind, because wind is the NIMBY problem. You know, as soon as you build a wind farm that people come around and say, no, not in my backyard. So solar has been more and more, you know, the exclusive method of renewable energy, which has its, you know, it has its downside. Do you remember the Puerto Rico in the storm? What was it, Maria in Puerto Rico? And how it, they had lots of solar, big solar farms. And the wind just tore it all up. Now they had no electricity. Of course, it also tore up the infrastructure. So I think, you know, going modular, adding to, you know, the solar, you know, community solar facilities is actually a real option. This is not just a fantasy. This is real option. I wonder how much you've been able to, you know, convince your peers in the legislature about the viability of a project like this and what kind of response you've gotten from them and from the public, your constituents. What's your experience been, Corey? It's been mixed. I was quite surprised at the amount of support that people have reached out to about. Just, you know, either they've lived in a state that had a nuclear reactor or, you know, they're from the military and understand either they've worked on a nuclear sub or understand the mechanics and the technology. But, you know, I also had people who, even though I think I'm crazy because they realize or they think to what my perception of, before learning about, you know, small modular reactors and micro-reactors was, you know, the Simpsons, right? It's like, you want to put a giant a fissure plant right in the middle of Waipahu and with the gringoo coming out and everything. And so, yeah, I understand that because that's where I was, honestly, like a year ago. You know, I was- No, you've been on the activist side of things. You're a liberal person. And so, one would normally say, oh, Corey, Sean, he would be against nuclear energy, but not. It's really refreshing. Yeah. Yeah, I've always thought it's important to just have the discussion. You know, when people reach out to me and share their thoughts, I point out to them that, you know, I don't consider myself an expert at anything. You know, so do I consider myself an energy expert? You know, or a nuclear energy expert? Oh, definitely not. But I think it's important that we actually hear from those people and have those discussions and conversations. And that's really what Maipahu was all about and knows the intent that I was trying to do. It's just to say, you know, a lot of time has passed since that constitutional amendment which was put into our constitution probably in the 70s. So, you know, now maybe is the time we, the technology has gotten to a point where we can't have these conversations. Well, it's interesting. That was my notion in trying to set up this show with our energy host from Florida who works for an energy efficiency company there. He's familiar with all the utilities on the East Coast and, you know, he believes it's a real future for nuclear energy. He believes we have all kinds of issues about all our attempts at renewables. You know, technological issues and political issues, sociological issues, and so you have to consider it. And in fact, we're gonna do a show with him and I'm sure he's gonna bring up this whole subject. You're not alone, you know. There are other people who have found this technology. But I wanna ask you about the commission. Okay, because the commission is really important. On the one hand, you hear about commissions that die a slow death on a dusty shelf somewhere and they never reach any conclusions and the next time you look, they're gone. What makes this commission better? What makes this commission more likely of having a robust conversation? Who would be on this commission? How do you see this commission unfolding? Yeah, so we're specifically trying to get folks who have experience. So, you know, someone from the University of Hawaii, obviously we'd want, you know, someone local who would provide their take on the energy landscape, but also someone from the Department of Energy because, you know, at the conference, I did get a chance to hear from the Department of Energy and their work to try to figure out a disposal method for nuclear waste because that's probably the biggest hangup, right? If the government can figure out a way to do this safely, you know, it will alleviate a lot of the waste concerns. But also someone from, you know, the military just because they have been using nuclear power with their submarines and other types of vehicles and then, you know, just trying to get these people together and in a room. And so also from the Department of Energy, I think I mentioned that. And just to look at, you know, not just the benefits, but also the drawbacks because I realized that with anything, right? There's gonna be some trade-offs and are we willing to, you know, accept those trade-offs? That's really what the point of it was, is to just have those conversations to see if this is something that, you know, would make sense for our island state. So the commission would examine the pros and the cons. The commission would then, what? And by the way, your point about the military is very valuable because in fact, you know, we all assume that nuclear energy has not changed since Three Mile Island, you know, that meltdown in 1979, but it has. It's changed dramatically, not only in the US for utilities in the US, but everywhere in the world. In fact, in the military, they changed the design of the nuclear reactors on those submarines and on the carriers all the time. And they're always improving those things, not only for safety, but for power and for efficiency. You know, it's interesting to take a carrier, for example, the nuclear reactor on a carrier, just like the modular nuclear energy, you know, that you're talking about. It lasts for years and years and years. It probably lasts as long as the useful life of the carrier itself, which means it's really the most important thing about this whole military exercise. And as a result, I suggest to you that a military guy in the commission who is familiar with what they are doing with nuclear energy, I mean, of course, he's not going to tell you anything classified, but he could be very or she could be very valuable in this commission. Yeah, and I forget to mention, there would be also a representative from the environmental community because obviously, you know, they're an important part of this discussion. And so we'd want to be able to, you know, balance that out, right? And to hear from the folks who are, you know, fighting the good fight against climate change and trying to get us to a carbon-free world. Yeah, sure. You have to bring them in on the decision process or they'll fight with you forever. So let's assume that we've identified here today at least some of the pros and some of the cons. The pros is it lasts for a long time. It's not dangerous anymore. And actually, I think that these modular units, they just, you know, you bury it and it's not a problem because when it's spent and the uranium is spent, it just stays there. Or you can, you know, pull it up and do another one. So then, you know, it's very efficient actually. I guess the problem is it's designed, this modular system is designed rather than a big facility, it's a little facility. So it's designed for a small town, a small community. And Hawaii has small towns and small communities, but it also has big towns and big cities like Honolulu. So you have to sort of adapt, you know, to the size of the community and thus the size of the reactor. But all things considered, I think these, there's a lot of people who are working on this in the U.S. anyway, to make this possible. So I think that technology is very advanced. The efficiency is very advanced. You're right to say that there's no greenhouse gases here at all. This is pure green energy, pure. And it does not do damage to the environment. People don't realize that. And finally, it's cheap. When you measure the cost of a kilowatt hour over the life, the long life of any of these reactor devices, it's way cheaper than anything we're using now. So there are lots of pros. The cons are mostly social. The cost is that there's always the atomic risk, so to speak, and you see that like that movie, what was that movie about the guy who invented the nuclear bomb, the atomic bomb recently? And it's scary because they were talking about destroying the cities and hundreds of thousands of people and millions of lives. That's pretty scary. And so what you have is a built-in resistance. And so a lot of this has to be that this commission has to be able to reach out and explain it and advocate for it and change their minds. That's gonna be hard. And how do you see that unfolding? Cause that's the biggest negative in this whole project. You know, that's a good question. I'm still trying to figure that out, you know? But yeah, really it's just about understanding the technology and how do we get that information out? So we can just have a very objective conversation about it. And you know, I may be proven wrong. Maybe it's not the right fit for Hawaii, but you know, unless we have that conversation and actually have the experts come in and look at it, you know, I think it's still, should be an option that's on the table. Yeah, you know, one thing that comes to mind is the fact that we stopped looking at alternatives that's my opinion over the past 10 or 15 years for reasons that escaped me. And you're opening a conversation of this particular alternative actually gives way to a larger conversation on alternatives in general. We should be considering them. We should be looking for the best combination of portfolio sources of energy all. And we stopped doing that. We have to start it up again. And I, you know, a viable candidate would be nuclear. I suppose also, you know, you know, Hawaii is into a kind of cargo cult. So if we see the city of Cincinnati, and I'm just making this up, if we see the Cincinnati is building a reactor and it's going to be really powerful and cheap and safe and the people have agreed to it, then we're going to take that seriously and say, maybe we should do that too. We don't want to be left behind on this because this could be the next big, you know, non environmentally damaging possibility. And I think it's not only that, you know, intrinsically the commission and it comes up with all the positive points and argues against the negative points assuming they make that decision, but also that the commission looks overseas. It looks in Europe, it looks everywhere in Canada, it looks in the US, any state, and it finds, gee whiz, you know, there's a lot of Corey Chun's around. And that would be a powerful message, you know, to our community. And that's got to be part of the advocacy, you know. So where does it go from here? What are the prospects of either of these bills getting through? I mean, realistically not very good. So my bill to create the Nuclear Energy Commission missed the procedural deadline last week, so it will not get a public hearing. The constitutional amendment is technically still alive, but I haven't heard of a lot of people, you know, interested in moving that forward too. So I think it's just getting to the point where, you know, even among my colleagues and even with the committee members, just getting that understanding of nuclear energy and just trying to dispel some of the myths, not to promote it above other things, because like I said, you know, there are some trade-offs, right? But just to have that broader understanding that we're not where we were with nuclear energy back in the 70s and the technology has advanced a lot since then. So what's the connection between the possibility of nuclear energy in Hawaii and the undersea cable? We really dumped on that a few years ago. And you know, maybe they were gonna do a wind project in the west end of Lanai, and they were gonna, you know, connect all that renewable to other islands and boy, that got bashed. And as I said, it's radioactive. So the question is, does the model that you're thinking of include an undersea cable where you take one place, generate a lot of energy and transmit it all around the state? Cause, you know, we are not a state of separate islands. We are just simply an island state and we gotta get together on that sort of thing. What do you think? You know, I recognize that there are a lot of challenges with that, especially with the costs. But you know, it sort of makes sense to just have a state-wide grid, sort of like just being connected. You know, I do know that there's, you know, when we get to different counties and islands, right? And Oahu, especially because we have the majority of the population. I know I could get to some folks, it may seem like, you know, all the other states, I mean, I'm sorry, all the other islands are just helping out Oahu. And this is a very Oahu-centric thing. And so I don't want it to be about that because I do think there are benefits to being able to move power to any island that needs it in, you know, times of crisis, right? When, for whatever reason, you know, we need to shift that power around and divert power. It just kind of would make sense. Not just necessarily about, you know, one place feeding power to Oahu to make, to meet all of our needs. Yeah, and one other element about that, it seems to me, is that a state of community with cheap and continuing, you know, energy is a state with a better economy. You can do more. You can let the energy work for you. You can let the energy build your economy. And, you know, we have energy now in a state that costs 40 or 50 cents a kilowatt hour still. And using fuels that are really not good for the climate or the environment. So it's just hypothetically, we had cheap energy and plenty of it, and all day and all night, you know, not sporadic in any way, seems to me that would help our economy and our future. We need to build the economy. I mean, Maui is a good example of a problem that needs economic incentives and, you know, rebuilding. And so if I gave you West Maui and I said here, you got cheap energy now forever, that would help. That would help rebuild Maui, wouldn't it? Possibly, I mean, I haven't really thought about it that way, but, you know, there are opportunities, definitely, if we had a statewide connected grid. And also just, you know, we do, yeah, like you mentioned, we do have the highest electricity rates in the country. And so anything we can do when we talk about, you know, just the cost of living, right? You always think about just housing and food, but energy is one of those big issues too. And if we can reduce the costs of energy for everybody, I think everyone will benefit. Well, that's true because the cheap energy is important to agriculture. And we know we have a problem with agriculture. A farmer who is spending a ton of money on energy can't make any money. And, you know, I always hear farmers tell you that if they don't make any money, they're not going to continue to farm. And so energy would help farmers and thus local foods and thus, you know, not so dependent on imported foods, which are way over 90% now. This is very dangerous for us. We really have to develop agriculture. And this is one of the ways we can do that. Anyway, so yeah, I think you're going to run into all kinds of problems here with these food bills. And it's not likely that you're going to get either one of them going anywhere in this session, but will you introduce them again? And what does that depend on, Corey? I don't know. So I guess it just depends how this conversation goes. You know, being new to the legislature, I realized that a lot of the work happens during the interim. So, you know, depending on the conversations I have with colleagues and also, you know, just talking with folks, maybe I love HECO and also the University of Hawaii and even with some of the environmental groups who, you know, raise concerns about it, just to have those conversations because I think that's really where it has to start just to get that momentum going. And I'm slowly learning that that's, you know, how all kind of legislation works here. It's like you sort of have to do your homework and talk to the right people and get them on board. That's sort of the plan. Well, good for you. Be the champion. Associate yourself with the issue. I think that'd be great. And if you talk it up, maybe you'll find traction, you know, one day soon. But I want to say that I know you are into a lot of other issues, a lot of other bills. This is particularly interesting for ThinkTech. We follow energy closely and I'm happy to talk to you about it, but I would also like to circle back and talk with you about some of your other bills and some of your other interests and issues. So I hope we can reschedule and explore your other bills and your other aspirations. Can we do that? Sure, yes. Yeah. Great. Corey Chun, Representative Corey Chun, 35th District, joining us today to talk about a couple of bills that were introduced into the legislature in 2024 about nuclear energy. What an interesting discussion. Thank you so much, Corey. Yeah, thanks for having me, Jay. Aloha.