Look before you leap on nuclear power.

Towns, taxpayers and electricity ratepayers are being courted to pay for a new “small modular reactor" (SMR) nuclear plant, slated for the end of the decade near Idaho Falls. Understand the risks you face if the nuclear industry comes calling.

Should your community sign up if SMR nuclear approaches you?

The Utah Taxpayers Association strongly recommends buyers say “no” to the Idaho Falls nuclear project, and some cities that committed initially have backed out.

“Every nuclear project since the 1970s has had cost overruns, and the multitude fail, ultimately burdening rate- and taxpayers, and sometimes bankrupting municipalities.” 

— Peter Bradford, former Nuclear Regulatory Commission member, Herald Journal 

Story of a Struggling Project

Our timeline picks up in 2015, when NuScale and the Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems (UAMPS) launched their plan for an SMR plant in Idaho Falls, and UAMPS set out to raise money for the venture from towns in the West.

2018

The first cost hike

July 2020

Second cost hike, and a delay

August 2020

Signups are lagging

October 2020

Cities back out

“The risk that’s going to come is going to be on us, on the cities. And I just feel really, really uncomfortable moving forward….It just seems scary.” 

— Katie Koivisto, Lehi, UT city council, Daily Herald
A red caution sign icon

Financial Risks

The small modular nuclear plant planned by NuScale and Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems (UAMPS) is an untested nuclear reactor, so there's risk it will follow the usual history of nuclear project cost overruns, delays, and failures. The private financial sector has not stepped forward to pay for it. Neither have large investor-owned utilities. That leaves backers looking to put the financial risk on smaller utilities and towns.

An icon of a bar chart with an arrow indicating an upward trajectory.

Escalating Costs

The UAMPS/NuScale nuclear plant in Idaho Falls is following the same trajectory of rising costs that has plagued most nuclear projects in America. Total project cost estimates started at $3.1 billion in 2015, rose to $4.2 billion in 2017, and then to $6.1 billion in 2020—and that’s all before construction has even begun. UAMPS’ estimates of the power purchase price have gone up as well.

“At this point modular nuclear power is a venture, not a product. So let private venture capital come in and pay for it, not Utah taxpayers.”

— Rusty Cannon, President of the Utah Taxpayers Association, Deseret News
An icon of a file with a lock in front of it.

Uncertainty & Secrecy

A number of details of the UAMPS/NuScale nuclear project have changed over time, and been kept from public view. The construction timeline has been delayed by years. UAMPS refuses to disclose how it arrives at its price estimates, and has hidden key developments like Energy Northwest’s withdrawal as plant operator. Often, UAMPS meetings with local officials on the project are held behind closed doors.

"The more I listened to the people who are in charge, the less confidence I have in it.”

— Rich Anderson,Logan, UT, Finance Director, Herald Journal
Risks

Public outcry makes Pueblo County officials drop support for nuclear

After officials of Pueblo, Colorado invited Oregon-based NuScale to give a presentation on how its small modular reactors could replace the Comanche Generating Station, the largest coal power plant in the state, many Puebloans criticized the county in local newspapers. The city has now refocused on its commitment to looking at all potential replacement technologies to transition to 100 percent renewable energy by 2035.

Escalating Costs

New report drops the hammer on NuScale's small modular reactor

The independent Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) finds that the NuScale project will cost far more than the company claims, take much longer to build, and pose serious financial risks for the members of the Utah Associated Municipal Power System (UAMPS) and other municipalities and utilities that sign up for the project’s power.

Escalating Costs

Small modular reactors offer no hope for nuclear energy

Electricity from a new nuclear plant today is estimated to cost four times more than power from new wind and solar facilities. Countries look to public money to fund these new small modular nuclear projects because private financiers are unwilling to risk investing in production lines and reactors that could prove uneconomic. 

Escalating Costs

Nuclear has become 33% more expensive over the past 10 years

While renewables costs have dropped 90% over the last decade, nuclear costs have risen 33% say Brigham Young University researchers and other authors in a recent report. With increased cost and development delays, new “next-generation” nuclear plants won’t be completed for 10 to 20 years, the report notes, and even then nuclear costs are expected to be at least double what renewables are today. 

Escalating Costs

Taxpayers’ Losing Bet on NuScale and Small Modular Reactors

A new report from Taxpayers for Commonsense explains how the UAMPS/NuScale project contributes to a long history of taxpayer money down the drain for nuclear projects, finding that “ever-increasing subsidies cannot solve the nuclear energy industry’s costly flaws.”

Risks

Renewable-powered grids are more reliable

As wind and solar become so much cheaper and faster to power lives and economies, myths are propagated against them designed to bolster options like nuclear. In fact, the authors point out, nuclear plants are regularly and often out of action and nuclear plant interruptions have become seven times more frequent in the past decade as a result of climate and weather-related factors.

New Nuclear?
Same Problems.

Cost overruns, delays, cancellations

News & Resources

FAQNews