America is attempting to restart three shuttered nuclear plants as rising electricity demand makes previously uneconomic reactors attractive again. The Energy Department is lending up to $4.4 billion to projects in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Iowa that would restore 2.25 gigawatts of generating capacity.

Palisades in Michigan is furthest along. Its owner, Holtec International, began loading fuel in August but paused after an assembly tilted unexpectedly. Electricity contracts require the plant to enter service by March 2027.

Microsoft has agreed to purchase power from the undamaged reactor at Three Mile Island, now called the Crane Clean Energy Center. Constellation aims to restart it in 2027. Google is backing the Duane Arnold restart in Iowa, targeted for early 2029.

All three plants closed before their operating licenses expired, largely because their electricity was considered too expensive. Technology companies willing to pay a premium have changed the economics. Supporters believe that restarts are quicker and cheaper than building large reactors, while some critics have questioned safety preparations and why projects with committed corporate buyers need billions in federal financing.

Plants once judged too expensive now have buyers willing to pay more for dependable electricity. Such a reversal shows just how sharply demand has changed, as AI expansion requires excessive generating capacity that can operate continuously, subsequently giving these existing nuclear sites renewed purpose and commercial value.

Restarting these plants could save assets that would otherwise be dismantled. Grid connections and existing infrastructure offer advantages over construction from scratch, though years of inactivity still require equipment checks and regulatory approval. The attraction is speed relative to building a new reactor, not an exemption from engineering realities.

Federal funding for these projects does present a conflict of interest for many. Contracts with big companies such as Microsoft and Google strengthen these projects’ revenue prospects. If their commitments make these restarts commercially attractive, federal officials should explain why private lenders won't supply the money and what public benefit justifies government involvement.

Loans may be repaid, but taxpayers still assume exposure while projects are completed. Supporting nuclear power does not require accepting every financing arrangement offered in its name. The strongest case would demonstrate that federal credit brings additional capacity online sooner without needlessly subsidizing well-financed corporate customers.

Restoring generation could relieve pressure on electricity supplies without delivering an equivalent reduction in household bills. Much depends on the contracts and regulatory decisions that determine who pays for refurbishment and who benefits from the output. NextEra says Google’s agreement shields Iowa households from restart costs, an assurance that should hold through delays and unexpected repairs.

Residents near the plants could also regain skilled employment, provided schedules leave regulators room to demand necessary work.

Nuclear power’s revival offers an opportunity to recover useful infrastructure rather than replace it at greater expense. And yet, enthusiasm for the technology should not obscure the terms. A defensible energy policy should expand dependable supply while making corporate buyers bear the costs of serving it.