ShareThis Page
Uncertainty shadows Pennsylvania’s debate over nuclear power | TribLIVE.com
Pennsylvania

Uncertainty shadows Pennsylvania’s debate over nuclear power

Associated Press
| Sunday, February 17, 2019 1:04 p.m
763486_web1_763486-8e49ae77b6d04182809708d9d2d2322b
AP
In this file photo of Nov. 2, 2006, cooling towers of the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant are reflected in the Susquehanna River in this time exposure photograph in Middletown, Pa. Forty years after Three Mile Island became synonymous with America’s worst commercial nuclear power accident, the prospect of bailing out nuclear power plants is stirring debate at the highest levels of Pennsylvania and the federal government.
763486_web1_763486-1675d9d52562435aa9a3424584c1c3a3
AP
In this May 22, 2017, file photo shows the control room at the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant in Middletown, Pa. Forty years after Three Mile Island became synonymous with America’s worst commercial nuclear power accident, the prospect of bailing out nuclear power plants is stirring debate at the highest levels of Pennsylvania and the federal government.
763486_web1_763486-88cc44c98eab4c0cb227fe73281b0da2
AP
In this May 22, 2017 file photo shown is the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant in Middletown, Pa. Forty years after Three Mile Island became synonymous with America’s worst commercial nuclear power accident, the prospect of bailing out nuclear power plants is stirring debate at the highest levels of Pennsylvania and the federal government.
763486_web1_763486-d890d73dd5f44597980f9cbb424b83ba
AP
This March 30, 1979, file photo shows a cooling tower of the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant near Harrisburg, Pa., as it looms behind an abandoned playground. Forty years after Three Mile Island became synonymous with America’s worst commercial nuclear power accident, the prospect of bailing out nuclear power plants is stirring debate at the highest levels of Pennsylvania and the federal government.

HARRISBURG, Pa. — Four decades after Three Mile Island became shorthand for America’s worst commercial nuclear power accident, financial rescues of nuclear power plants are stirring the highest levels of government.

In Pennsylvania, nuclear power plant owners have been working for two years to build support for the kind of financial packages already approved by New York, New Jersey and Illinois. Meanwhile, those packages have sparked legal appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court and a debate among federal energy regulators over protecting ratepayers from higher electricity prices.

Those loose ends are shadowing Pennsylvania as state lawmakers prepare to decide whether to help their state’s nuclear power plants.

“Anything that Pennsylvania does is going to be subject to a degree of policy and legal uncertainty,” said Christina Simeone, director of policy and external affairs at the Kleinman Center for Energy Policy at the University of Pennsylvania.

The nation’s aging and shrinking nuclear power fleet is being buffeted by a flood of natural gas plants entering competitive electricity markets, relatively flat post-recession electricity demand, and states putting more emphasis on renewable energy and efficiency.

The pursuit of state guarantees has spurred questions over why ratepayers should foot the cost to keep nuclear power plants open, and whether nuclear power provides an indispensable environmental benefit in the age of global warming.

The spotlight moved in 2017 to Pennsylvania, the nation’s No. 2 nuclear power state.

That’s when Three Mile Island’s owner, Chicago-based Exelon Corp., announced it will close the plant that was the site of a terrifying partial meltdown in 1979 unless Pennsylvania comes to its financial rescue. It set this Sept. 30 as the closing date.

Ohio-based FirstEnergy Corp. also said it will shut down its Beaver Valley nuclear power plant in western Pennsylvania — as well as two nuclear plants in Ohio — within three years unless Pennsylvania steps up.

So far, no rescue has been written into legislation.

Rather, sympathetic lawmakers have issued a broadly worded memo saying they will introduce legislation to effectively give Pennsylvania’s nuclear power plants the same preferential treatment as solar power, wind power and a handful of other niche energy sources received under a 2004 state law.

The owners of Pennsylvania’s five nuclear power plants — primarily Exelon, FirstEnergy and Allentown-based Talen Energy — are backing that effort.

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

But, last summer, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, in a 3-2 decision, ordered PJM to come up with a solution to protect the competitive market from what it described as a dangerous cascade of pressure on states to prop up otherwise viable power plants.

PJM pitched an idea in October that, if adopted, could create new dilemmas, particularly for nuclear power plant owners.

“At that point, do they come back to the state and ask for more? Maybe,” said Glen Thomas, a Pennsylvania-based consultant who specializes in utility regulations. “Do they go out of business because they don’t have enough revenue? Maybe. Does it suppress the market price for other generators? Definitely. It creates some problems for sure.”

It’s a long-shot that the U.S. Supreme Court will take up appeals in lawsuits challenging New York’s and Illinois’ nuclear power subsidies, say lawyers following the cases.

But FERC action still looms, and it’s not clear when or how commissioners will respond.

Exelon said Pennsylvania must enact legislation by June 1 if it is to keep operating Three Mile Island, since fuel must be ordered months in advance.

Gov. Tom Wolf hasn’t taken a position on rescuing Pennsylvania’s nuclear power plants — although his administration suggests that keeping them operating would help slash Pennsylvania’s greenhouse gas emissions over the coming decades — and neither have top lawmakers.

Meanwhile, the fight is sweeping up labor unions, business associations, ratepayer advocates, the AARP, environmental groups, anti-nuclear power activists and Pennsylvania’s considerable natural gas industry.

“FERC has created all this uncertainty,” said Miles Farmer, an attorney for the Washington, D.C.-based Natural Resources Defense Council. “It’s not clear how customers are going to be protected and it’s very difficult for states to set up their programs when they’re in the dark as to how the rules will work.”

Categories: News | Pennsylvania
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com 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.