A renewed effort to develop a nuclear power plant north of Green River is moving forward with new partners, different reactor technology and a revised vision for a proposal first put forward nearly two decades ago.

Announced in May, a partnership between Blue Castle Holdings and Fulcrum Point Holdings aims to revive the long-discussed project using small modular reactor technology rather than the much larger reactors envisioned in earlier versions of the proposal, which never advanced beyond planning and development.

While project representatives say advances in nuclear technology, growing electricity demand and years of previous site work have improved the project’s prospects, the proposal remains years from construction and has not yet begun the Nuclear Regulatory Commission licensing process required before a reactor can be constructed and operated. The project also does not yet have financing commitments or publicly identified customers for the electricity it would produce. Project representatives said the early 2030s would be an optimistic timeline for the facility to begin operating.

The proposal comes as Utah places renewed emphasis on expanding electricity generation and strengthening grid reliability through Gov. Spencer Cox’s Operation Gigawatt initiative, which seeks to increase power production and support new energy development, including nuclear power.

The Green River proposal is one of multiple nuclear and advanced-energy projects that Fulcrum Point says it is pursuing in Utah and the broader Mountain West, including a previously announced small modular reactor development effort in the Brigham City area.

Aaron Tilton, CEO of Blue Castle Holdings, said the renewed effort builds on tens of millions of dollars invested in site characterization, environmental studies, water-right approvals and other development work completed during earlier versions of the project. He said the information collected through that work gives project representatives a head start as they move forward with the revised proposal.

Earlier versions of the project centered on large conventional nuclear reactors capable of generating up to 2,200 megawatts of electricity. Blue Castle pursued water-right approvals, conducted environmental and site studies and completed years of regulatory and development work, but the proposal never moved beyond planning and development.

The project also became the subject of years of litigation over water-right transfers and faced recurring questions about financing, potential electricity customers and whether the proposed plant would ultimately move forward.

Tilton said the company moved away from large reactor designs as portions of the nuclear industry shifted toward smaller reactor technologies and large-scale nuclear projects faced development challenges, including the 2017 bankruptcy of reactor developer Westinghouse Electric Co., whose AP1000 reactor was considered for earlier versions of the project.

Under the revised proposal, the companies have identified Holtec International’s SMR-300 as the reactor technology for the project. The pressurized light-water reactor is designed to produce about 300 megawatts of electricity, according to the U.S. Department of Energy. The reactor has not yet been deployed commercially in the United States.

Tilton said the smaller scale of the revised proposal could reduce some of the costs and risks associated with earlier concepts.

The project area covers approximately 1,500 acres north of Green River, Tilton said. Portions of the site are owned by Blue Castle, while other portions are controlled through development agreements involving Emery County and state trust lands, according to Tilton.

Green River City Manager Edward Bennett said several factors make the proposal appear more credible than earlier versions, including advances in small modular reactor technology, growing concerns about grid reliability, Utah’s emphasis on expanding energy production and the involvement of companies with operational experience in the nuclear industry.

“A number of things feel different today than they did even five or 10 years ago,” Bennett said. “… At the same time, we also understand this project still has significant regulatory, technical and financial steps ahead of it, so we continue to view it with professional optimism and measured realism.”

Bennett said any future proposal would ultimately be evaluated based on whether it benefits residents, strengthens the community’s long-term future and fits responsibly within the area’s character and infrastructure capacity.

Environmental groups and other longtime critics, however, say many of the same financial, regulatory and environmental questions that dogged earlier versions of the project have yet to be answered.

Water questions remain

Water was one of the most closely watched aspects of earlier versions of the project, which faced years of litigation over water-right transfers and broader questions about long-term water availability.

Project representatives say the shift toward smaller modular reactor technology could substantially reduce water demand compared with the large conventional reactors previously proposed for the site. The companies have also identified Holtec’s optional air-cooled condenser technology as a potential option for the project.

Earlier versions of the project secured agreements for water from conservancy districts in Kane and San Juan counties, leading to years of litigation brought by environmental groups over water-right transfers supporting the project before the approvals were ultimately upheld by Utah courts.

Tyler Ivins, district manager for the San Juan County Water Conservancy District, told The Times-Independent the lease agreement associated with earlier versions of the project ended years ago and that the district has not heard from Blue Castle since around 2020. Board Chair George Matocha said Blue Castle later defaulted on its contract, leading the district to terminate the agreement. The district is now pursuing a pending change application that would allow the water to be used for municipal and development purposes near Green River and Cisco, and Matocha said agreements are already in place for those uses if the application is approved by the Utah Division of Water Rights, including a proposed development in Cisco.

Tilton said Blue Castle no longer needs those additional water rights because the revised proposal is based on smaller reactor technology that would require less water than earlier versions of the project.

Tilton added that Blue Castle’s existing agreement with the Kane County Water Conservancy District remains sufficient for the revised project and that discussions with the district are ongoing.

Records from the Utah Division of Water Rights show the Kane County arrangement is associated with water rights totaling approximately 29,600 acre-feet annually through an approved change application authorizing the use of Green River water for nuclear power generation.

Project representatives did not provide an estimate of how much water the revised proposal would require, but Tilton said he does not anticipate pursuing additional water rights for the project.

Michael Noel, general manager of the Kane County Water Conservancy District, wrote in an email that the district maintains a good working relationship with Blue Castle and discussions regarding the existing contract are continuing. However, he said the district does not yet have enough information about the revised proposal to determine how the arrangement may apply to the project.

“Until we have further information as to the amount of water needed for the SMR’S (if that is even the proposed technology), we will not speculate on how much water is needed, the technology involved in producing electrical power, or even what the power will be used for,” Noel wrote. “We simply do not know at this time.”

Bennett said the city has not received updated technical information regarding the project’s long-term water demands or whether air-cooled condenser systems would ultimately be used.

Major hurdles remain

While water has historically received much of the attention surrounding the proposal, project representatives and outside observers say several other major questions remain before any reactor could be built.

Kirt Marlow, senior vice president of energy for Hi Tech Solutions, said the project team is currently focused on updating site studies and engineering work completed during earlier versions of the project, adapting that information to the proposed reactor design and continuing discussions with potential customers for the electricity the facility would generate.

The project has also not yet entered the Nuclear Regulatory Commission licensing process, which includes years of technical, environmental and safety reviews before a reactor can be constructed and operated.

Both Marlow and Tilton said securing customers for the power generated by the facility will be a critical step moving forward. While they pointed to growing electricity demand tied to economic development, data centers and broader grid needs, no utilities, industrial users or other customers have been publicly identified.

Marlow said the project has attracted early interest from potential investors, though no specific financing commitments have been secured.

Marlow added the project team hopes to engage with residents of Green River and the broader region as planning continues.

Environmental advocates and longtime opponents of earlier versions of the project say renewed interest in nuclear energy does not necessarily resolve the financial, regulatory and environmental challenges that have surrounded the proposal for years.

“There is certainly more momentum behind nuclear development in Utah today than there was a decade ago,” said Carmen Valdez of HEAL Utah, which challenged water-right transfers associated with earlier versions of the project. “However, political support alone does not guarantee a project is economically or technically viable.”

Valdez said HEAL Utah continues to have concerns about environmental impacts, costs, radioactive waste and the long-term viability of small modular reactors. She said the technology remains largely unproven at commercial scale in the United States and noted that several proposed projects nationwide have faced delays, cancellations or escalating costs.

Sarah Fields, program director for Uranium Watch, has followed and opposed earlier versions of the Blue Castle proposal for years, including during litigation and regulatory proceedings involving the project’s water-right transfers. She said she believes many of the central questions that challenged earlier versions of the project remain unresolved, including water availability, financing, electricity customers and the project’s path through federal review.

As planning efforts continue, Bennett said that, like any large-scale development project, many questions remain regarding timelines, infrastructure impacts, regulatory approvals and the project’s eventual scope.

“While we are encouraged by the direction of the project and the continued momentum behind it, we also recognize there are still substantial steps ahead before anything becomes certain,” Bennett said.