New York Governor Kathy Hochul has just issued a statement headed: “Governor Hochul Announces Major Milestone To Facilitate New Advanced Nuclear Development.”
It repeats her declaration in her State of the State address in January to have five gigawatts of new nuclear power—the equivalent of five nuclear power plants the size of the nuclear plant constructed in Shoreham in Suffolk County—built in New York State.
She announced: “Today’s action marks the start of a full examination of ways to bring new advanced nuclear power online.”
Last year, as she directed the New York Power Authority to facilitate construction of new nuclear power plants, Hochul said: “I’m the first Democratic governor in a generation to say to nuclear: ‘I’m embracing this.’”
Then and in the new announcement she said the new nuclear power plants in New York would produce “zero-emissions electricity” and be “advanced” models.
However, as environmental attorney Susan Shapiro, long involved in challenging nuclear power, said at what has been a series of “Forums for a Nuclear-Free New York” held in recent months to counter Hochul’s nuclear drive: “It is patently untrue that nuclear energy is zero-emissions or a carbon-free source of energy.”
The nuclear fuel cycle, which includes mining, milling and fuel enrichment and fabrication, is “carbon-intensive,” said Shapiro. Moreover, nuclear power plants themselves emit carbon, a radioactive form, Carbon-14. The claim that nuclear power is “emissions free” is a “fraud on the public,” said Shapiro. It’s “not part of a solution to climate change.”
While pushing nuclear power, Hochul at the same time is delaying implementation of the state’s Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act—heralded when it was enacted in 2019 as the way to offset climate change by utilizing green, renewable, clean energy sources led by solar and wind.
As to the “advanced” nuclear power plants that Hochul cites, Dr. Gordon Edwards, president of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility, said at the forums that nuclear power plants now being proposed and labeled “advanced” by the nuclear industry are actually not “advanced” but designs tried 50 and 60 years ago that didn’t succeed then. The industry is seeking to sell them as “new and improved,” and they are neither, said Edwards.
Meanwhile, in the State Legislature in recent months there has been an effort, led by Senator Kevin Parker of Brooklyn, chair of the Senate Energy Committee, to pass the New York State Ratepayer Protection Nuclear Moratorium Act to deal with Hochul’s nuclear push.
It provides for a two-and-a-half-year moratorium on state support of new or reopened nuclear power plants.
Says the measure: “It is the policy of New York State to protect natural resources, public health, and economic well-being by preventing pollution and advancing safe, clean and affordable energy systems. The proposed development of nuclear power facilities represents a fundamental shift in state energy policy that is inconsistent with the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act mandate for an affordable, clean, and renewable energy transition.”
In the next sentence it cites a nuclear power plant fiasco on Long Island: the Shoreham nuclear power plant. It was blocked from commercial operation by grassroots opposition and resistance by Suffolk County and New York State governments largely based on public safety concerns.
Some $7 billion was spent building the Shoreham plant, which the Long Island Lighting Company originally estimated would cost “in the $65 million-$75 million range.”
The measure says: “New York’s own experience, including the Shoreham facility, illustrates the financial risks of nuclear power facilities, which resulted in substantial and lasting costs to ratepayers without delivering electricity.”
It adds: “Historical and recent evidence demonstrates that nuclear power facilities are among the most expensive and slowest energy sources to deploy, with significant cost overruns and delays.”
A most recent venture in nuclear power in the United States is also cited, the two Vogtle nuclear power plants opened in Georgia. They are the only nuclear power plants built from scratch in the U.S. since the Three Mile Island accident in 1979. Their estimated cost of $14 billion ballooned to $36 billion. The bills of Georgia electric customers have risen sharply as a result.
The “five gigawatts, the equivalent of five nuclear power facilities,” which Hochul is seeking to have built, says the measure, would cost “an estimated $100 billion.” And “they are being advanced without a financial and environmental assessment, sufficient legislative oversight, or public transparency, contrary to principles of fiscal responsibility and good governance.”
The bill goes on: “Nuclear power facilities pose inherent safety and environmental risks, including potential catastrophic accidents, long-term radioactive waste with no permanent disposal solution, and significant public health concerns for surrounding communities. Scientific research indicates potential adverse health impacts for communities located near nuclear facilities, including increased cancer mortality.”
During the moratorium, “A comprehensive, evidence-based assessment will be conducted…to analyze the expense, health, safety, security, opportunity costs, community impact and environmental impacts of nuclear power facilities, including but not limited to mining and fuel production, construction, operation, nuclear waste long-term management, site and off-site remediation, and a comparison to alternative energy sources.”
It would be conducted by a Nuclear Assessment Task Force to be established. “Each member of the task force shall have demonstrated expertise in at least one of the following areas: grid modernization, renewable energy, environmental sciences, security, toxicology, medicine, particularly in pediatrics, public health, nuclear energy economics, environmental and energy policy or programs related to nuclear energy or monitoring one or more nuclear power plants in the state,” the measure says.
Action on the bill, however, stalled in the State Legislature before it ended its 2026 session last month. When it reconvenes in January 2027, it can revisit the measure.
Will Hochul’s “embracing” nuclear power affect her re-election bid in the November election? Her Republican opponent, Bruce Blakeman, also supports nuclear power.
Blakeman, the Nassau County executive, has said: “Nuclear power has many attributes going for its expansion…But it will not get off the ground unless there is an organized effort to build public support—which is not happening today.”