LETTER
September 24, 2026
Kathy Hochul
Governor of New York State
Capitol Building
Albany, NY 12224
Rory M. Christian, Chair and CEO
Michelle L. Phillips, Secretary to the Commission
New York State Public Service Commission Empire State Plaza
Agency Building 3
Albany, New York 12223-1350
Doreen M. Harris
President and CEO
New York State Energy Research and Development Authority
RE: Proceeding on Motion of the Commission to Implement a Nuclear Reliability Backbone, Case Number 26-E-0335
Dear Governor Hochul, Chair Christian, President Harris, and Secretary Phillips:
We write to oppose the use of any taxpayer or ratepayer subsidies to support the construction of new nuclear power plants in New York, as proposed in the Advanced Nuclear Policy Options paper published on June 12th, 2026, by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority and the Department of Public Service1
Nuclear power is the most expensive form of new energy. The Shoreham nuclear power plant on Long Island cost roughly 85 times its original estimate and left Long Islanders with some of the highest utility bills in the country when most of the $6 billion cost of the facility was passed along to local ratepayers after it was decommissioned due to public backlash over safety concerns2. The Vogtle Plant Units 3 and 4 in Georgia are the most recent nuclear generators built in the United States, the first in 30 years. That 2GW facility took 15 years to build, 7 years longer than planned3, at a cost of $36.8 billion, more than double the original cost estimate of $14 billion4. The exorbitant cost of this new nuclear generation led to a nearly 25% rate increase for Georgia Power customers5. By comparison, over just the past four years the state of Texas has built 30GW of solar and 6GW of storage for roughly the same cost6.
If construction of new nuclear generation in New York follows anything like a similar path to the most recent precedent in the United States, it will not only lead to unacceptable cost burdens for ratepayers and taxpayers, but will also arrive over a decade later than needed to address current near-term generation capacity needs. As a recent analysis of the New York State Energy Plan by Dr. Joseph Romm of the University of Pennsylvania7 pointed out, at a time when data centers are the largest driver of new electricity demand, “ironically, new reactors are the only option that worsens the affordability problem but can’t be built fast enough to address the AI data center demand crisis.”8 The same analysis also finds that small modular reactors lead to even higher costs per unit of energy than large facilities like Vogtle, and that the cost to develop new reactors does not benefit from learning reductions, but has become more expensive, not less, as more generating capacity has been developed.
In addition to being very expensive and taking a very long time to build, nuclear power is toxic and dangerous, generating massive quantities of hazardous waste and radioactive pollution while threatening catastrophic accidents. 84 years after the world’s first nuclear reactor was built in the U.S., there is still no solution for safe long-term disposal of the intensely radioactive and long-lived nuclear waste that reactors produce. All that waste will remain a danger to New Yorkers, our environment, and our drinking water for many generations into the future.
The options for state financial support proposed in the Policy Options paper include adding enormous surcharges to utility bills, providing taxpayer-funded construction grants, investing public money directly into nuclear reactors, and using public money to provide cost-overrun guarantees. The Public Service Commission estimates that these subsidies could total $23.9 billion, which is very likely an underestimate based on the industry’s track record. These costs would be on top of the recently approved $33 billion ZEC subsidy program to keep New York’s four existing nuclear reactors operating through 2049. Any of these options would burden New Yorkers with higher electric bills while taking on the risk of paying for cost overruns that history suggests are highly probable.
New York taxpayers and ratepayers are not a bottomless ATM machine for the nuclear industry. The extraordinary subsidies the PSC has authorized for nuclear power vastly overshadow spending on far more affordable and rapidly deployable clean options.
Rather than devoting financial resources to environmentally destructive, expensive, and slow-to-build nuclear schemes, we should be investing in proven, affordable solutions like wind, solar, storage, thermal energy, energy efficiency, demand response, and any number of other technologies and policies that can meet our needs more quickly and at lower cost to ratepayers and taxpayers.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely
Liz Krueger
28th Senate District
Jo Anne Simon
52nd Assembly District
Jabari Brisport
25th Senate District
Cordell Cleare
30th Senate District
Leroy Comrie
14th Senate District
Kristen Gonzalez
59th Senate District
Robert Jackson
31st Senate District
Kevin Parker
21st Senate District
Roxanne J. Persaud
19th Senate District
Gustavo Rivera
33rd Senate District
Julia Salazar
18th Senate District
Jose M. Serrano
29th Senate District
Khaleel M. Anderson
31st Assembly District
Chris Burdick
93rd Assembly District
Catalina Cruz
39th Assembly District
Martiza Davila
53rd Assembly District
Manny De Los Santos
72nd Assembly District
Phara Souffrant Forrest
57th Assembly District
Emily Gallagher
50th Assembly District
Deborah J. Glick
66th Assembly District
Jessica Gonzalez-Rojas
34th Assembly District
Andrew Hevesi
28th Assembly District
Anna R. Kelles, PhD
125th Assembly District
Marcela Mitaynes
51st Assembly District
Steven Raga
30th Assembly District
Linda B. Rosenthal
67th Assembly District
Grace Lee
65th Assembly District
Dana Levenberg
95th Assembly District
Diana Moreno
36th Assembly District
Mary Jane Shimsky
92nd Assembly District
Sarahana Shrestha
103rd Assembly District
Phil Steck
110th Assembly District
Yudelka Tapia
86th Assembly District
Claire Valdez
37th Assembly District
Phil Ramos
6th Assembly District
FN 3
FN 4
FN 5
FN6
Ibid
FN7
FN8
No comments:
Post a Comment