The ambitious plans of Sawtooth Energy and Development Corp. to introduce small modular reactors to Idaho’s Magic Valley have quickly shifted from initial optimism to significant scrutiny, revealing a perplexing array of inconsistencies and red flags for the energy sector.
While the prospect of expanding clean power through nuclear energy, specifically via advanced small modular reactors, is widely supported by environmentalists and policymakers alike, the emergence of Sawtooth Energy in May raised immediate questions. Initially, reports suggested a promising new venture in Idaho Development, yet deeper investigation uncovered a concerning lack of foundational elements for such a large-scale undertaking.
Core issues emerged rapidly, including Sawtooth’s apparent lack of prior experience in the complex nuclear industry, an absence of publicly known financial backing, and no secured supplier for the small modular reactors themselves. Furthermore, the company initiated public hearings for a right-of-way without clear rights to connect to the critical power grid, sparking considerable local controversy and raising concerns about prudent energy investment.
A significant development was the swift disavowal by NuScale Power, which publicly stated it had no engagement with Sawtooth Energy despite Sawtooth’s prior draft environmental impact statement extensively referencing NuScale. This led to Sawtooth’s website being taken offline and all NuScale references being scrubbed from their revised documentation, highlighting a striking lack of transparency and raising further questions regarding this ambitious Nuclear Energy project.
Sawtooth’s project manager, Dannis Adamson, acknowledged NuScale’s rebuke but claimed the project would proceed with other potential suppliers like X-energy and Holtec International. However, inquiries to these companies yielded no substantiation of talks, adding another layer of skepticism to Sawtooth Energy’s claims and intensifying the corporate scrutiny surrounding their operations.
Connecting to the grid, a crucial aspect of any power project, also presented concerns. Sawtooth’s plans indicated a connection to Idaho Power’s Midpoint Substation, yet Idaho Power confirmed only “very cursory, preliminary discussions.” This, coupled with a highly ambitious cost estimate of $7.5 billion for a project of this scale by a company with limited apparent backing, signals potential challenges in securing the necessary energy investment.
Industry experts, such as veteran nuclear energy analyst Dan Yurman, have vocalized significant reservations, citing a series of “red flags” that echo past instances of nuclear development schemes that never materialized or proved to be fraudulent. The parallels drawn to past failed ventures underscore the need for rigorous due diligence in complex energy development projects.
Furthermore, technical understanding appears to be a major gap. Adamson’s assertion that small modular reactors would be fully assembled elsewhere and trucked to the final site was dismissed by Yurman as “fabulously incorrect,” confusing SMRs with much smaller microreactors. The extensive on-site construction required for SMRs highlights a critical misconception about the practicalities of this Nuclear Energy technology.
As the world seeks reliable clean energy solutions, the case of Sawtooth Energy serves as a cautionary tale. It reinforces the industry maxim that operating a commercial nuclear reactor is not a business for amateurs, emphasizing that superficial engagement in the nuclear power sector can create a “bubble” rather than a sustainable “wave” of progress, underscoring the vital importance of thorough corporate scrutiny in energy investment.
