NRG spars with Exelon over uneconomic reactors, carbon rule

There are two GE Mark I reactors at Exelon's uneconomic Quad Cities site.

There are two GE Mark I reactors in one building at Exelon’s uneconomic Quad Cities site.

Hearings begin today before the Illinois Commerce Commission on what will become a pivotal battle over the future of nuclear power–not only in Illinois, but across the nation.

That’s because the hearings will ultimately lead to legislation that likely will determine the fate of Exelon’s admittedly uneconomic and aging nuclear reactors in the state. And how Illinois comes down on the issue may well become a precedent for other states.

The hearings are on Illinois’ plan to reduce carbon emissions, a process every state will have to go through once the EPA’s Clean Power Plan is put into effect, probably next year. But Illinois is starting early because some of Exelon’s reactors are in dire straits and the utility wants a bailout now.

Exelon is leaving nothing to chance; as the Chicago Tribune put it Friday, “Exelon is busy pulling political strings to ensure it is rewarded financially for its nuclear power plants….”

For example, the Tribune reports that “…Exelon has taken strides to beef up its political might after repairing a long-standing tiff with House Speaker Michael Madigan.” In return, Madigan got a resolution through the state legislature last session that will result in a pile of reports. Reports designed to help Exelon. Reports “that lay out the financial, environmental and economic benefits of Exelon’s nuclear fleet in Illinois.” The Tribune noted that while more than half of Illinois’ power comes from non-nuclear sources, “none of those companies has received that kind of treatment from Madigan. A spokesman for Madigan did not respond.”

Exelon’s goal in Illinois is to replace the state’s currently non-functional Renewable Portfolio Standard with a new Clean Energy carbon-based standard that would reward Exelon’s reactors, while putting the kibosh on renewable energy investment in the state for decades to come.

And that has brought NRG Energy into the fray.

Lee Davis, executive vice president and regional president for NRG Energy’s east region, criticized the idea that existing nuclear plants should be propped up.

“We want to reduce carbon emissions, not maintain the status quo,” he said of the EPA’s goal of 30 percent greenhouse gas reductions from 2005 levels by 2030.

The goal of the carbon rule, Davis said, is to reduce carbon emissions, not to reward Exelon for something it’s been doing….

“What Exelon is asking for is state funds to support nuclear units that are now uneconomic. If they’re uneconomic today, they’re going to be uneconomic in the future,” Davis said. “We’re responding to market signals, we’re cutting our carbon emissions. We think something forward-thinking needs to be done. Introduce renewables to help you achieve your goal.”

Davis said he’d like to see the state come up with an approach to meeting carbon-reduction goals that rewards flexibility.

“What Exelon is suggesting here is, put all your eggs in the nuclear basket and just trust Exelon,” he said.

Exelon is also going after the EPA’s carbon rule, which currently encourages additional support for 6% of a state’s nuclear generation–meaning some sort of ratepayer or taxpayer subsidy for nuclear power. Exelon doesn’t think that’s enough and is urging EPA to make that number much larger–in fact, it wants EPA to add support for all nuclear power, whether or not it is currently uneconomic.

Said Exelon exec William Von Hoene, “We want this to be a marketplace solution, not a subsidy solution. We have federal subsidies for two kinds of generation: wind and solar. That’s not a market. We’re picking two specific technologies. Let’s decide: What’s the goal? Reliable? Clean? Create a marketplace that supports those goals and let the marketplace decide.”

It’s really the classic “big lie” technique. Repeat something often enough–and Exelon does–maybe people will start to believe it. In this case, that’s the notion that only wind and solar receive any federal subsidies. In fact, all generation sources have received federal subsidies, and still do. And nuclear’s subsidies have far outweighed those of any other single generating source. Loan guarantees, the Price-Anderson Act, a woefully-underfunded Nuclear Waste Fund–which is now prevented from collecting any more money. Nuclear even has essentially the same Production Tax Credit for new reactors that Von Hoene is referring to as existing only for wind and solar.

Just trust Exelon? NRG clearly doesn’t. Neither should anyone else.

Michael Mariotte

August 18, 2014


You can now support GreenWorld with your tax-deductible contribution on our new donation page here. We gratefully appreciate every donation of any size–your support is what makes our work possible.

Comments are welcome on all GreenWorld posts! Say your piece above. Start a discussion. Don’t be shy; this blog is for you.

If you’d like to receive GreenWorld via e-mail, send your name and e-mail address to and we’ll send you an invitation. Note that the invitation will come from a address and not a address, so watch for it.

If you like GreenWorld, you can help us reach more people. Just use the icons below to “like” our posts and to share them on the various social networking sites you use. And if you don’t like GreenWorld, please let us know that too. Send an e-mail with your comments/complaints/compliments to Thank you!

GreenWorld is crossposted on tumblr at


5 thoughts on “NRG spars with Exelon over uneconomic reactors, carbon rule

  1. John Hughes

    Who is NRG (Natrual Gas is Really Good). NRG wants to burn natural gas to make electricity.

    When they say “We want to reduce carbon emissions, not maintain the status quo,” they are talking about natural gas projects such as

    which would close one Illinois coal-fired generating unit in Romeoville and convert a power facility in Joliet to natural gas.

    Another example is NRG’s “repowering” of an existing plant and the construction of 600MW of new natural gas electricity in California:

    There is big money on the table for NRG to “reduce carbon emissions” their way, by burning more clean natural gas.

  2. Peter Sipp

    Hi John, burning nat. gas is better than burning coal. Not perfect–there is no radiation or irradiated metals left over. A little carbon– yes– that is WAAAY better than all the nuclear waste/irradiated metals that are left over from n. power. Personally–the uneconomic reactors need to close. Tough beans as my dad used to say. the folks that work there– they will have to move and find work else where. I know about finding work I have worked in paper mills, chemical plants and hospitals as a pipe weldor. I never went with out. I raised two children. built my passive solar house without a mortgage. One year I worked 12 shutdowns. I can understand how scared the people at the uneconomic reactors are. They will just have to move, there is work out there.

    1. John Hughes

      You said “A little carbon-yes…”
      NIRS needs to change their slogan for the September 21, 2014 People’s Climate March to “Nuclear Free Now, Carbon Free Later”.

      1. Michael Mariotte Post author

        Peter Sipp is a commenter on this blog; like all other commenters on this blog (including yourself), he does not speak for NIRS. Perhaps you should get straight who you are quoting. NIRS position is clear: we believe in and work for a nuclear-free, carbon-free energy system.

We welcome your comments here!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s