Hochul pushes nuclear energy as state struggles to meet climate goals

Just a few years after New York shuttered its primary nuclear power plant, Gov. Kathy Hochul and the state’s energy authority are looking seriously at the possibility of investing in new nuclear power reactors. The new push for nuclear energy comes as the state struggles to meet its legally-mandated climate goals, in part because New York’s fossil fuel emissions have grown since it abandoned nuclear power. 

But Hochul’s hopes for “friendly atoms” faces strong opposition from detractors who worry that readopting nuclear energy would distract from the need to build out truly renewable energy sources like wind and solar power, on top of being impractical financially and logistically impractical. 

At the New York State Energy and Research Authority’s Future Energy Summit on Thursday, protesters from across the state argued that a dalliance with nuclear power wasn’t the solution some in state government might think it is. The summit, ostensibly an exploration of how New York can meet its climate goals while still providing energy to residents and a rapidly expanding tech sector, is widely viewed as a starting pistol for Hochul’s embrace of nuclear power, which has steadily fallen out of favor in the northeast, including in New York. 

Hochul told reporters though, that she was capable of being concerned with energy consumers and the state’s adherence to climate law at the same time. 

“I am concerned about affordability, I want to make sure that we’re not increasing costs for consumers so all these are factors but I am committed to those climate goals 100%,” she said.

Nuclear possibilities

NYSERDA Commissioner Doreen Harris stressed that her department’s “Draft Blueprint for Consideration of Advanced Nuclear Technologies” is merely an exploration of the options for powering New York in the coming years, not a sign of a stopgap measure for New York as it fails to meet its climate goals. 

“There is such an opportunity space for all forms of clean energy generation in our state,” Harris said. “No one should take from this that there is a reduction in our commitment to renewables, in fact, nothing could be further from the truth.”

Harris explained that part of the reason more clean energy sources needed to be considered was because between the industry demand and what ratepayers expect, the state simply needs to produce more energy. 

“Looking at the data we’re going to need more renewable than we even modeled through the Climate Action Council work, so certainly this is more of a ‘yes, and’ situation as opposed to an ‘either-or’,” she said.

Amber Bieg, lead senior program manager for global sustainability at Micron, said at a panel that her company, a large-scale constructor of computer chips with even larger plans and energy needs for Central New York, also shared the “yes, and” philosophy and wanted to explore how Micron and the surrounding community could meet its needs through a variety of energy sources, potentially including nuclear power. 

Indian Point

New York is no stranger to nuclear power. For six decades, a nuclear reactor at the Indian Point Energy Center in Peekskill provided energy to the area, while also inspiring worry about pollution and a Three Mile Island-esque meltdown a stone's throw from New York City.

The reactor was shut down in 2021 and is currently in the process of being decommissioned. But the shuttering of Indian Point has raised its own concerns among some opponents of fossil fuels, who point out that the state’s use of fossil fuels has dramatically increased to compensate for the loss of energy produced by the nuclear plant. 

Republican state legislators have even introduced a bill that would require the state to explore the possibility of bringing the Indian Point nuclear reactor back into service. But Harckham dismissed the idea, noting that any potential reopening would require a consensus, and therefore an agreement, between state and local entities.

“Indian Point is closed and defueled,” Harckham said in a statement. “This bill will never make it to the floor. Indian Point will be re-nuclearized when Elvis Presley makes his comeback tour. Discussions of bringing back nuclear energy to Indian Point are a pointless election year stunt by Republican politicians. If my colleagues across the aisle are that interested in nuclear power, they are welcome to invite atomic energy into their own communities.”

Harckham and other local politicians said that Westchester residents are no longer interested in being ground zero for the state’s nuclear power ambitions.

“The most recently completed commercial reactors were delayed seven years and had significant cost overruns,” Harckham said. “We also still do not have a national repository for spent nuclear fuel, and there are few communities competing for that opportunity. I see the consequences of that firsthand in my district, where the Village of Buchanan must carry the burden of being a ‘temporary’ waste storage site indefinitely.” 

He added that solar, wind and hydroelectric energy sources were better, readily available methods to reach climate goals in the state. 

Westchester County Executive George Latimer, though he most likely will head to Congress next year, is keenly aware of public sentiment around the plant, which even out of operation draws divisive reactions from residents, now concerned about discharge into the Hudson River. 

According to Latimer, a reintroduction of nuclear energy production to the site, even on a smaller scale, would undoubtedly bring protest, but the average resident would base their feelings on the state of the energy supply directly in their community.

“To reintroduce that into the marketplace, which is what you would be doing, is going to engender a lot of comment,” he said. “I’m not quite sure where the majority of emotions lie, I think a lot of people react to what's happening immediately in their world. ‘Do we have a supply of energy that’s reliable at this point?’ Well if there's no problem we don’t want it. ‘Are we having trouble with supplying energy or supplying it at some price tag?’ Well, that’s another point.”

Advanced reactors

NYSERDA and proponents of nuclear energy are adamant that it isn’t as though another Indian Point-style nuclear reactor was in the works. Supporters of the new NYSERDA proposal argue that modern nuclear reactors are far smaller in scale than the Indian Point reactor and, at least in theory, are more resilient to weather events. 

Still, 153 organizations – including Citizens Action of New York and Greenpeace USA – signed a letter to Hochul warning that “the history of the nuclear industry is full of unfulfilled promises.”

Robert Horwath, a member of the state Climate Action Council and Atkinson professor of ecology and environmental biology at Cornell University, said that it’s his understanding that individuals in state government don’t see nuclear power as the solution and the push is being driven by Hochul. 

“I think this advanced nuclear is just the next step in that decades-long, century almost, of misleading public relations,” Horwath said. “But beyond that, we don’t need it, we can meet New York’s energy electricity goals 100% with hydro, solar and wind and we know that it would be cost-effective. We don’t need this other experiment, it’s a distraction.”

Harckham framed the situation more simply. “New Yorkers do not have time for nuclear used-car salesmen,” he said.