Fight brewing over prospect of nuclear power plant shutdowns |

Fight brewing over prospect of nuclear power plant shutdowns

The Associated Press
Jasmine Goldband | Trib Total Media
The FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company Beaver Valley Power Station in Shippingport.

HARRISBURG — Pennsylvania lawmakers sympathetic to nuclear power plants are making a push for state action to rescue plants at risk of being shut down by their energy company owners.

Four lawmakers calling themselves the Nuclear Energy Caucus released a 44-page report Thursday, calling for action to avoid plants shutting down and warning that shutdowns would devastate communities that depend on the plants’ jobs and property taxes.

The prospect of bailing out nuclear power plants is spurring a debate over why Pennsylvania ratepayers should foot the cost and whether nuclear power provides an environmental benefit in the age of global warming.

Three Mile Island’s owner, Chicago-based Exelon Corp., announced last year that the plant that was the site of a terrifying partial meltdown in 1979 will close in 2019 unless Pennsylvania comes to its financial rescue. Earlier this year, Ohio-based FirstEnergy Corp. said it will shut down its three nuclear plants, including Beaver Valley Station in Shippingsport, Beaver County, within the next three years unless Pennsylvania steps up.

Proposals in the report include requiring utilities to buy a certain amount of nuclear power or imposing a fee on carbon emissions, ideas designed to make the cost of nuclear power more competitive as it faces pressure from a booming natural gas industry.

Gov. Tom Wolf, a Democrat whose home is barely 10 miles (16 kilometers) from Three Mile Island, said in a statement from his office that he is concerned about layoffs at the power plants. While he gave no promises about what he would support, he coupled that sentiment with his desire to advance the cause of cleaner energy.

“Governor Wolf believes we need a robust conversation about our energy economy and looks forward to engaging with the General Assembly about what direction Pennsylvania will go in regards to its energy sector, including the future of nuclear power and the value of lower emission energy for Pennsylvania’s economy and environment,” Wolf’s office said.

Nuclear power plants are being buffeted by a flood of natural gas plants coming online, relatively flat post-recession electricity demand and states putting more emphasis on renewable energy and efficiency.

PJM Interconnection, which operates the electric grid covering Pennsylvania and the 65 million people from Illinois east to Washington, says those four nuclear power plant closings — two in Pennsylvania and two in Ohio — won’t affect the availability of electricity.

“We have studied that and analyzed that and yes, we will maintain reliability,” said Stu Bressler, PJM’s senior vice president for operations and markets.

The prospect of a bailout is drawing opposition from large industrial electricity users, ratepayer advocates, the natural gas industry, the AARP, the National Federation of Independent Business and anti-nuclear power activists.

Pennsylvania is the nation’s No. 2 nuclear power state. The owners of its five nuclear power plants — primarily Exelon, FirstEnergy and Allentown-based Talen Energy — are part of a coalition backing Thursday’s report that includes labor unions and some local chambers of commerce, including the Philadelphia-area chamber.

A push for a carbon tax could be aided by some environmental groups, which are pressing for such a concept in Pennsylvania.

States including Illinois, New York and New Jersey have approved subsidies to bail out nuclear plants. The caucus’ report suggests that other nuclear power plants in Pennsylvania could start losing money and face premature shutdowns.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.