Recent developments in Albany have put the future of upstate New York’s nuclear power plants in question, with some lawmakers at odds over proposed subsidies that would keep the plants running.

New York state Gov. Andrew Cuomo and the state’s Public Service Commission have proposed a bailout program, which would cost up to $7.6 billion over 12 years, for three plants, including the James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant in Oswego County. The subsidies, which would be covered by a $2 monthly charge to state residents, are set to go into effect Saturday.

The subsidies, though, are currently being challenged in federal court, where plaintiffs argue that nuclear plants are harmful to energy markets. Additionally, in its one-house budget passed this month, the state Assembly opted not to include the subsidies, instead calling for a moratorium on the program until the end of this year. The Assembly and state Senate must negotiate a state budget by Saturday.

The moratorium, lawmakers say, would give them ample time to gather more information about the subsidies, as some say the proposal has been rushed.

In interviews, lawmakers said the debate over the subsidies stems from a desire to satisfy the state’s renewable energy goals while also preserving the state’s economy and jobs in the energy sector, many of which exist at the plants.

“It’s not that I’m against these subsidies,” said Pamela Hunter, the Assembly representative for the district that includes Syracuse and a member of the state’s energy committee. “I’m just trying to get answers to big questions that we’re not getting yet.”

Pat Wood, former chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and Peter Bradford, former chairman of the New York Public Service Commission, filed a motion Friday against the Public Service Commission in U.S. District Court seeking to have the subsidies dismissed.

They claim that the subsidies would negatively impact the energy market, arguing that as nuclear plants have aged over the years, they’ve required maintenance and capital investments that have caused their operating costs to rise.

“New nuclear power has been priced out of power markets completely,” the plaintiffs write in the motion. “… The nuclear industry has come to realize that it cannot thrive under today’s competitive conditions and has commenced an all-out political effort to subvert competition with governmentally imposed subsidies as well as other legislative and regulatory actions.”

Those in favor of the subsidies and keeping the plants running point to the property taxes the plants pay and the jobs they generate.

Nuclear plants in New York generate millions in property tax revenue for local municipalities, including Oswego County. Proponents of the plants say that without that revenue, the state’s economy would suffer.

“What happens when that money gets depleted?” Hunter said. “… Do we, the state, have a plan to help municipalities that are going to be losing huge amounts of money relative to property tax, based on these plants not being there or being operational?”

Additionally, the nuclear plants account for hundreds of jobs in the state. When Cuomo announced in August 2016 that Exelon Generation would take over the Fitzpatrick Plant, keeping it from closing, he said it preserved 615 jobs. Hunter added that if the three plants affected by the subsidies were to close, thousands of people would be out jobs.

Kevin Parker, a New York state senator for the district covering Brooklyn and a member of the Senate’s energy committee, said lawmakers need to “make sure that full-time jobs are at the top of our agenda.”

“So whatever we need to do in order to maintain jobs, particularly in a sector as important for the state as energy, we need to absolutely do,” he said.

Some critics, though, would like to see the state allocate more resources to renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar energy.

The state is planning to transition half of its power to renewable energy sources by 2030. Until then, Cuomo sees keeping the plants open as a way to keep the state’s air clean, given that nuclear plants don’t give off carbon emissions.

But Diane Swords, a member of the Syracuse-based Alliance for a Green Economy, said supporting the plants takes away money that could be used for renewable sources. Additionally, she said that even though the plants don’t emit carbon, they’re dangerous because of the radioactive waste they produce.

Such waste is hazardous to life and the environment, and both Swords and Hunter said they’re concerned that New York might not be able to safely store the waste long-term.

“There’s only so much you can push reality,” Swords said. “You can’t just claim it’s safe and have it be safe.”

Parker echoed those sentiments, saying that for the sake of the state’s energy future, “it makes sense to go green.” But he added that renewable resources “don’t come overnight.” In addition to the jobs nuclear energy creates, it also accounted for about a third of the state’s electricity generation in December 2016, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

“So even though our preference is renewable and clean energy for the future, I’m also cognizant of the fact that that is not a 2017 solution and that we need 2017 solutions as it relates to jobs, as it relates to property taxes and as it relates to energy production,” Parker said.

Published on March 27, 2017 at 11:02 pm

Contact Michael: mdburk01@syr.edu