Don't Risk Hoosier Paychecks on SMRs

HB 1007, SB 424 and SB 423 all have in common that they allow utilities to pass along expenses, with an additional guaranteed rate of return, for speculative costs like planning, design, and permitting of small modular (nuclear) reactors or SMRs. These expenses, which can cost $200-$300 million, will be charged to ratepayers even if a planned SMR is never built! Costs associated with project delays, budget overruns, and cancelled projects, that can run into the billions, will also fall on ratepayers if this legislation passes.

What makes nuclear energy so risky? One example is Georgia, Southern Co., which recently completed the first new nuclear plant built in the US in decades. The project finished 7 years behind schedule and cost more than $30 billion – more than double the cost projections. In Idaho, an ambitious effort by NuScale to deploy SMRs was cancelled after the project's price tag ballooned from $5 billion to $9 billion.

TAKE ACTION AND ASK YOUR LEGISLATORS TO SAY NO TO THESE BILLS TODAY!

? Take future action with a single click.
Log in or Sign up for FastAction

Contact Information

Prefix First Name Last Name

Street Address

Postal Code City State

Email Home Phone (Optional)

Yes, sign me up for email updates.

Remember me so that I can use FastAction next time.

(Optional)

Join me in opposing HB 1007.

Dear [elected official],

Personalize your message

I'm writing to you today to express my opposition to Hoosier rate payers being charged for the risky business of small modular nuclear reactors known as SMRs.

HB 1007, SB 424 and SB 423 all have in common that they allow utilities to pass along expenses, with an additional guaranteed rate of return, for speculative costs like planning, design, and permitting of SMRs. These expenses, which can cost $200-$300 million, will be charged to ratepayers even if a planned SMR is never built!  Costs associated with project delays, budget overruns, and cancelled projects will also fall on ratepayers if this legislation passes.

What makes nuclear energy so risky? One example is Georgia, Southern Co., which recently completed the first new nuclear plant built in the US in decades. The project finished 7 years behind schedule and cost more than $30 billion – more than double the cost projections. In Idaho, an ambitious effort by NuScale to deploy SMRs was cancelled after the project’s price tag ballooned from $5 billion to $9 billion.

Planned SMRs offer one of the most expensive forms of new energy and no SMRs are currently operational in the US.  Cheaper, faster, and better forms of energy generation and load management are available.  Please don’t approve what is essentially a tax on regular Hoosiers to pay for these risky investments.

As your constituent, I’m asking you to stand up for rate payers and vote no on these costly SMR bills.  Thank you.

Sincerely, [Your information here]