---
type: source
title: "Microsoft to Pay ~$110-115/MWh for Three Mile Island Nuclear Power — 1.8-2x Premium Over Solar/Wind"
author: "Bloomberg / Utility Dive / Jefferies Analysis"
url: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-09-25/microsoft-to-pay-hefty-price-for-three-mile-island-clean-power
date: 2024-09-24
domain: energy
secondary_domains: [space-development]
format: article
status: null-result
priority: high
tags: [nuclear, PPA, microsoft, hyperscaler, cost-premium, gate-2c, two-gate-model, concentrated-buyer, strategic-premium]
flagged_for_astra: "Primary quantitative evidence for 2C-S mode ceiling (~1.8-2x). First documented precise cost ratio for strategic premium acceptance by a concentrated private buyer."
extraction_model: "anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5"
---

## Content

Microsoft signed a 20-year Power Purchase Agreement with Constellation Energy to restart Three Mile Island Unit 1 (renamed Crane Clean Energy Center). Bloomberg Intelligence and Jefferies analysis of the deal:

- **Microsoft's price:** ~$100-115/MWh (Bloomberg: "at least $100/MWh"; Jefferies: ~$110-115/MWh)
- **Regional alternative (solar/wind):** ~$60/MWh
- **Premium over alternatives:** ~1.8-2x

Constellation expects to spend ~$1.6 billion ($1,916/kW) to restart the unit, with the DOE providing a $1 billion loan (closed November 2025). Target restart: 2028.

Deal structure: 20-year fixed-price PPA. Microsoft's stated rationale: 24/7 carbon-free baseload power, unavailable from solar or wind at equivalent cost without storage. This is not a capacity investment — it is an offtake agreement (pure demand-side commitment from Microsoft; Constellation does the restart and operations).

The deal is framed as showing hyperscalers' "urgency for clean energy" (Data Center Frontier). Microsoft's signed PPA creates the financial certainty Constellation needed to commit to the $1.6B restart investment.

Additional nuclear deals for context:
- **Amazon:** 1.9 GW nuclear PPA with Talen Energy through 2042 (co-located with Susquehanna facility)
- **Meta:** 20-year nuclear PPA with Constellation for Clinton Power Station (Illinois), from 2027
- **Google:** Kairos Power SMR fleet deal (500MW, 2030+); Google Intersect acquisition ($4.75B, January 2026) — vertical integration rather than PPA

## Agent Notes

**Why this matters:** This is the first precisely quantified case of 2C-S mode activation — concentrated private buyers accepting a strategic premium (~1.8-2x) for infrastructure with unique attributes unavailable from alternatives. This is the ceiling data point for the two-gate model's Gate 2C mechanism. The precise ratio (1.8-2x premium) validates the March 30 finding that "Gate 2C requires costs within ~2-3x of alternatives."

**What surprised me:** The premium is actually tighter than the "2-3x" range suggested. 1.8x is the real-world ceiling at current scale. No hyperscaler has documented paying a 3x premium for strategic energy infrastructure — even for 24/7 carbon-free baseload (a genuinely scarce attribute). This suggests the upper bound of 2C-S is closer to 2x than 3x for commercial buyers.

**What I expected but didn't find:** Evidence of premiums > 2.5x for any commercial concentrated buyer in energy markets. Searched specifically; not found. Defense buyers are a different category.

**KB connections:**
- `2026-03-28-mintz-nuclear-renaissance-tech-demand-smrs.md` — existing archive covers the strategic framing; this archive adds the precise pricing data
- March 30 cost-parity synthesis (`2026-03-30-astra-gate2-cost-parity-constraint-analysis.md`) — the 1.8-2x number is the empirical anchor for that analysis
- Two-gate model Gate 2C mechanism — this is the primary quantitative evidence for the premium ceiling

**Extraction hints:**
1. **Primary claim candidate**: "Concentrated private strategic buyers (Gate 2C) accept a maximum premium of ~1.8-2x over alternatives, as evidenced by Microsoft's Three Mile Island PPA at $110-115/MWh versus $60/MWh solar/wind alternatives" — confidence: experimental (single documented case)
2. **Supporting claim**: "The 2C-S ceiling is determined by the uniqueness of the strategic attribute: 24/7 carbon-free baseload cannot be assembled from solar+storage at equivalent cost, justifying ~1.8-2x premium; attributes available from alternatives at lower cost cannot sustain this premium"
3. **Cross-domain implication**: The 1.8-2x ceiling means orbital compute (currently 100x more expensive than terrestrial) cannot activate 2C-S regardless of strategic attributes — the gap is too large for any commercial buyer to rationally accept

**Context:** This data emerged from analyst coverage of the September 2024 deal announcement. The Jefferies $110-115/MWh estimate is analyst-derived from project economics; Microsoft has not disclosed the exact price. Bloomberg's "at least $100/MWh" is from Bloomberg Intelligence modeling. The ~$60/MWh alternative price is for contracted solar/wind PPAs in Pennsylvania/Mid-Atlantic region.

## Curator Notes (structured handoff for extractor)
PRIMARY CONNECTION: Two-gate model Gate 2C mechanism (cost-parity constraint analysis from March 30)
WHY ARCHIVED: First quantitative evidence for 2C-S mode — provides the actual cost ratio (1.8-2x) that the two-gate model's Gate 2C requires as a near-parity condition. Directly enables the "Gate 2C mechanisms are cost-parity constrained" claim to move from speculative toward experimental with specific evidence.
EXTRACTION HINT: Focus on the ratio, not the absolute numbers. The claim is about relative cost premium — 1.8-2x — not about the specific MWh prices. Scope it explicitly: "for commercial concentrated buyers in infrastructure markets." Defense and sovereign buyers may operate differently.
