- NJ considers comprehensive energy legislation including zero-emissions credits
- Sensible reforms would value carbon free benefits of nuclear
- Keeping nuclear plants running boosts residents’ pocketbooks and public health
NEI has called for swift legislative action in New Jersey to properly compensate nuclear power plants for their carbon-free generation and support for grid reliability.
“Clearly it is ‘cheaper to keep’ Salem and Hope Creek nuclear plants running in New Jersey benefiting all New Jersey consumers and communities than to let them retire prematurely,” NEI Vice President for Policy and Public Affairs John Kotek said at a Feb. 22 joint hearing of the New Jersey Senate’s Budget and Appropriations Committee and the Assembly’s Telecommunications and Utilities Committee.
Allowing well-run nuclear plants to close doesn’t help the communities that have grown up around them, it doesn’t make electricity more affordable for consumers, it doesn’t help provide jobs for New Jersey, and it doesn’t support our energy and national security.
Following similar recent moves in New York, Illinois and Connecticut, New Jersey is considering comprehensive energy legislation (S. 877) that would offer zero-emissions credits to nuclear power plants that generate carbon-free electricity. The legislation also calls for a study on battery storage and includes community solar provisions.
The benefits of retaining the states’ nuclear power plants far outweigh the costs of the proposed legislation, Kotek said.
“When you compare the estimated benefits of keeping these plants running, including the economic benefits ($820 million per year), environmental benefits ($530 million per year) and avoided higher electricity rates ($400 million per year) to the expected cost of the program ($280 million per year), the benefit-to-cost ratio for New Jersey consumers is six to one.”
PSEG Nuclear’s Salem and Hope Creek nuclear generating stations employ 1,400 people, generate more than $800 million in economic value each year and support between 5,800 and 6,100 total jobs.
“If these plants close, the downstream consequences are dire and irreversible. The electricity produced by these plants will need to be replaced and most of that generation will be produced outside of the state,” Kotek said. “New Jersey would have to import even more electricity, increasing reliance on out-of-state generators and sending New Jersey jobs to neighboring states.”
New Jersey ratepayers also would be hit with significantly higher electricity rates, Kotek warned.
“The replacement power will come from plants that were previously too expensive to be dispatched [by grid operators],” Kotek said. “Two separate economic analyses have each estimated that New Jersey customers will pay an additional $400 million each year in higher power prices if Salem and Hope Creek close.”
California consumers paid $350 million more for their electricity after the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station shut down and similar effects have been seen in other states where nuclear power plants have closed, Kotek added.
He highlighted an important attribute of nuclear power plants especially in urban states—they make electricity without generating carbon emissions or common air pollutants.
“New Jersey’s nuclear plants provide 95 percent of the state’s non-emitting electricity. They do not emit air pollutants such as sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides, which lead to acid rain, smog and asthma,” Kotek said. “A strong nuclear fleet means the United States does not have to choose between the health of its electric grid and the health of its most vulnerable citizens.”
More than one in ten New Jersey children suffers from asthma. Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) has linked nuclear power with helping to alleviate asthma, saying, “The real problem is that the economy doesn’t recognize the true value of nuclear technology right now. ... And this is hurting children like those in Paterson, Passaic, Camden and Newark.”
In closing, Kotek strongly endorsed the proposed legislation.
“The legislature should not delay in addressing this risk to the state. Once a nuclear plant closes, the decision cannot be reversed later,” Kotek said. “Allowing well-run nuclear plants to close doesn’t help the communities that have grown up around them, it doesn’t make electricity more affordable for consumers, it doesn’t help provide jobs for New Jersey, and it doesn’t support our energy and national security. … New Jersey has the opportunity to preserve these plants, and I encourage you to do so.”
New Jersey has four operating nuclear power plants, with Exelon’s Oyster Creek station near Forked River scheduled to end operations later this year.
UPDATE: The committees passed S. 877 on Feb. 22. The bill now will move to the Senate and House for a floor vote and further consideration. The Senate is scheduled to consider the bill early next week.