We Support Nuclear. We Question the Price Tag.
Palo Verde Generating Station is the largest nuclear power plant in the country, and it's right here in Arizona. It provides reliable, carbon-free baseload power to SRP customers. We support keeping Palo Verde running strong.
But when politicians and industry groups say "nuclear" in 2026, they're not talking about Palo Verde. They're talking about new builds. And new nuclear has a cost problem that ratepayers can't afford to ignore.
Largest nuclear plant in the U.S., operating since 1986
Provides roughly 17% of SRP's power portfolio
Carbon-free baseload that runs day and night, rain or shine
Already paid for, producing power at competitive rates
Our position: Protect it. Maintain it. Keep it running.
The only new conventional nuclear plant built in the U.S. in decades is Vogtle in Georgia. Original estimate: ~$14 billion. Final cost: ~$35 billion. Seven years behind schedule. Georgia ratepayers are paying for that overrun in their bills right now.
Factory-built, 50-300 MW reactors designed to be cheaper and faster to deploy. In theory. In practice:
Smaller units designed for remote sites, military bases, or individual industrial facilities like data centers. Interesting concept. Could theoretically power a data center directly without burdening the grid. But:
Thorium is more abundant than uranium, produces less long-lived waste, and is harder to weaponize. Molten salt designs operate at atmospheric pressure, making meltdowns physically impossible. China and India are investing heavily. Kairos Power is building a demo in Tennessee.
The ultimate clean energy source. Companies like Commonwealth Fusion Systems, Helion, and TAE Technologies are making real progress. But commercial fusion is realistically late 2030s at the earliest.
SRP needs to roughly double its generation capacity to meet projected demand, much of it driven by data centers. The question is simple:
Who pays, and what do they pay for?
| Option | Cost per MWh | Timeline | Risk to Ratepayers |
|---|---|---|---|
| Utility-scale solar | $25-30 | Deployable now | Low - proven, fixed cost |
| Battery storage | $35-50 (4hr) | Deployable now | Low - costs still falling |
| Solar + storage | $45-65 | Deployable now | Low - proven combination |
| Existing nuclear (Palo Verde) | ~$30 | Already running | None - already built |
| New large reactor | $100-150+ | 10-15 years | Extreme - see Vogtle |
| SMR (if proven) | $80-120 (est.) | 5-10 years | High - no commercial track record |
| Microreactor | Unknown | 5+ years | Unknown |
Solar and battery storage can be deployed today, at prices we already know, on timelines that match the demand growth SRP is facing. New nuclear cannot.
It's a proven asset producing reliable, affordable, carbon-free power. Keep it running at full capacity.
Solar and battery storage are proven, affordable, and can be built on the timeline SRP actually needs. Every dollar spent today on deployable technology is a dollar already reducing bills and emissions.
If a next-gen nuclear technology proves itself commercially, with real costs, real timelines, and real performance data, we should absolutely evaluate it. But SRP customers shouldn't be the test case. Let someone else go first.
Microsoft, Google, and Amazon are all exploring nuclear to power their facilities. Great. If a microreactor can power a data center without burdening the grid, that's a win for everyone. But the cost should be on their balance sheet, not your power bill.
We're not anti-nuclear. We're anti-ratepayer-risk. The technology landscape is evolving fast. What doesn't make economic sense today might be the right answer in five years. An SRP board should be evaluating options honestly, not locked into dogma from either side.
We're pro-nuclear where it's proven. We're pro-solar and storage where it's deployable. And we're pro-ratepayer, always.
The question isn't "nuclear or renewables." The question is: who bears the cost and the risk?
Our answer: not you.
Join the Fight for Energy FreedomPaid for and authorized by John Travise Campaign Committee and Sara Travise Campaign Committee. info@energyfreedom.team