Governor Cuomo’s schizophrenic nuclear policies

NY Governor Cuomo thinks Indian Point is too dangerous to operate. He's right. But why are upstate reactors any different?

NY Governor Cuomo thinks Indian Point is too dangerous to operate. He’s right. But why are upstate reactors any different?

In mid-1986, New York Governor Mario Cuomo was asked about the future of nuclear power. The future of nuclear power, he replied, “is Chernobyl.” He understood that nuclear power is dangerous, and he understood that it could never become safe enough to use. He made good on that statement too: he decided to prevent the Shoreham reactor on Long Island, for which construction was basically completed and it had even been tested at very low power, from ever operating.

While he made a futile attempt at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to get them to deny a license to Shoreham, on the grounds that Long Island could never be evacuated in the event of a nuclear meltdown, he also created the Long Island Power Authority (LIPA) and made the much-criticized local utility LILCO an offer it couldn’t refuse: the Authority bought Shoreham for a dollar and agreed to cover the decommissioning costs. The story is much longer and more complex than that, of course; for those who want to know more, Karl Grossman’s book Power Crazy covers the entire Shoreham saga, a boondoggle from the beginning whose bizarre story seems almost unimaginable today.

But while Cuomo stopped Shoreham, he didn’t go after Indian Point in the same way. It’s true that he had less leverage there–those reactors already were built and operating–but if he could create LIPA out of thin air, why not another authority in Indian Point’s region? After all, even Cuomo didn’t believe the Indian Point area, so close to New York City, could be evacuated either.

Imagine, by the way, trying to evacuate that area during an event like last week’s blizzard.

And Gov. Mario Cuomo said virtually nothing about New York’s upstate nuclear reactors, even though, if the future of nuclear power was Chernobyl, that would seem to apply everywhere, not just on Long Island.

A generation later, Mario Cuomo’s son Andrew is now Governor Cuomo. And this Gov. Cuomo has made clear he wants Indian Point closed. It’s unsafe, he says, and the area cannot be evacuated. And this Gov. Cuomo is, by any honest assessment, doing just about everything a Governor can do to close those reactors.

On those grounds, Gov. Andrew Cuomo would be a hero to the clean energy movement.

And there’s more. Gov. Andrew Cuomo also wants to end the use of coal in the state, and he is insisting on a clean energy plan that New York attain 30% of its electricity from renewables by 2020, less than five years from now, and 50% renewables by 2030. For a large, industrial state, that is by any measure an aggressive plan.

But where Gov. Mario Cuomo essentially ignored New York’s upstate reactors, Gov. Andrew Cuomo has embarked on a new crusade–not to close them, but to ensure they continue operating at any cost. And that cost, which is part of a new Clean Energy Standard proposal released this week by the staff of New York’s Public Service Commission, could become very high.

Two upstate reactors, Ginna and Fitzpatrick, announced last year that they will be closing within the next year or two because they are no longer economically competitive in New York’s marketplace. Gov. Cuomo seems determined to try to reverse those decisions, and to provide extra protection–in the form of subsidies from already burdened New York ratepayers–to nuclear power just because, well, because it’s nuclear. Even though he still wants to close Indian Point.

Basically, under the proposal, nuclear power would be defined as “clean” and just as utilities would be required to provide the 30% and 50% renewable power, they would be required to provide a percentage of nuclear power too–even if it is more expensive than more renewables. The percentage would begin at 4.6% in 2017, rising to 6.2% in 2018, 9.4% in 2019 and 15.7% in 2020. For those levels to be met, Ginna and Fitzpatrick would not be able to close if Indian Point were to close.

Never mind that Entergy already has told the Governor that it is too late to save Fitzpatrick; they’re going to close it anyway. And never mind that Entergy is determined to keep Indian Point open. If they’re successful–and they may well be–then New Yorkers could end up subsidizing Indian Point too, even though it is an economic powerhouse.

What is curious, and schizophrenic, is both Cuomos’ seeming lack of concern for upstate residents. If Shoreham was too dangerous to operate, and it was, and if Indian Point is too unsafe to operate, and it is, then why aren’t the upstate reactors also too dangerous? Indeed, design-wise, one could make the case that the Indian Point reactors are of a better design than those upstate: all except Ginna are General Electric Boiling Water Reactors suffering from the same inadequate containment and other design deficiencies as Fukushima while Ginna is one of the oldest, most decrepit reactors in the U.S.

The difference is that the upstate reactors have more public support than those closer to New York City. And the job losses that would occur if the upstate reactors were closed would have more impact in the economically more depressed upstate regions. In addition, Cuomo and the PSC argue that the upstate reactors are needed to meet the state’s carbon reduction goals. They claim that if closed their power would be replaced with natural gas.

But there are ways around both of those problems, and that is to create a true Clean Energy Standard combined with job programs. Deployment of large-scale renewable and energy efficiency programs (and it’s true New York is already headed in this direction) can both replace the relative small amounts of power from Fitzpatrick and Ginna and create many more jobs than those two reactors provide. In fact, NIRS and the Alliance for a Green Economy already have put forth such a plan for a Fitzpatrick shutdown.  Indeed, done right, such programs can close Indian Point and Nine Mile Point as well.

Under Gov. Cuomo, New York actually has the opportunity to lead the nation in creating the nuclear-free, carbon-free energy system. The fundamentals are already there in New York’s plan, what’s missing is the political courage to do so. And getting out from under the notion that the upstate reactors are somehow safer than reactors closer to New York City.

Gov. Andrew Cuomo could be a hero to the clean energy movement. Right now, however, he seems intent on leading the state into adopting a hypocritical, indeed schizophrenic, policy that views the lives of upstate New Yorkers as less important as those downstate.

We will provide a more complete analysis of the Clean Energy Standard proposal soon. There will be opportunity for public comment and involvement on the proposal and we’ll keep you posted on that as well.

Michael Mariotte

January 27, 2016


Your contributions make publication of GreenWorld possible. If you value GreenWorld, please make a tax-deductible donation here and ensure our continued publication. We gratefully appreciate every donation of any size.

Comments are welcome on all GreenWorld posts! Say your piece. 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. Or just put your e-mail address into the box in the right-hand column.

If you like GreenWorld, 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!



8 thoughts on “Governor Cuomo’s schizophrenic nuclear policies

  1. Don Richardson, M.D. (boards in Nuclear medicine)

    Nuclear power is a mirage, a myth, dead of market and health forces. Forget the PR barrage that somehow it’s affordable, clean and low-carbon.
    It’s NOT.

  2. desdouceurs

    Your argument loses credibility with the use of the word schizophrenia to describe Gov. Cuomo’s discordant positions on nuclear. Schizophrenia is a serious, psychotic mental illness. You may be confusing this with the term schizoid or split personality.
    Please know this is meant as information and not criticism. I support your work and believe you endeavor to be accurate in your reports.
    Thank you for all you do.

  3. Bill Schutt

    If I were a researcher and I thoroughly researched the viability of the “Renewable Energy Alone” option, I might conclude that I was confident that it would work. Nonetheless, I would feel obliged to qualify it by saying that “given the large number of eminent scientists who remain doubtful, the prudent thing would be to pursue both renewable and nuclear energy at this time.” I would also add “the rise in CO2 output in Germany from 2009 to 2015 also means one needs to be extremely cautious.”

    Having said that, I also conclude that the “Renewable Energy Alone” idea is a bit like creationism. Creationists claim that their belief has nothing to do their religious belief, nonetheless, 100% of creationists are religious fundamentalists. Similarly, “Renewable Energy Alone” believers will claim that their belief has nothing with being anti-nuclear, nonetheless, 100% of “Renewable Energy Aloners”are anti-nuclear fundamentalists.

    The fact, as far as I can tell, no scientist agnostic about energy solutions has ever supported the “Renewable Energy Aloners” is as damming as the fact no secular scientist has ever supported creationism.

    1. Michael Mariotte Post author

      First, it should be understood that a nuclear-free, carbon-free energy system is not based on “Renewable Energy Alone.” Rather, such a system also requires continued implementation of energy efficiency measures–the U.S. uses far more energy per capita than most other industrialized nations. It also requires use of 21st century grid technologies, energy storage and other similar technological advances. Renewables are the underpinning of the system, but they are not the only piece of the puzzle.

      Germany’s rise in CO2, as has been conclusively demonstrated in these pages and elsewhere, was based on decisions made before the nuclear phase-out and Germany is now making advances in closing both nuclear reactors and CO2 emissions.

      Finally, you are discrediting the work of a large swathe of scientists who have shown a variety of paths to a system based on renewables. There are a large number of studies available on this page: that conclusively demonstrate such an energy system is indeed both feasible and economically advantageous (not to mention advantageous to addressing climate, since renewables and efficiency are cheaper, faster and more effective at reducing CO2 than nuclear power).

  4. Peter Sipp

    Doesn’t Governor Cuomo understand that the upstate reactors can’t last much longer before huge amounts of $ are going to need to be spent on the rocking and puffing nukes up there? Maybe this is his plan. Will someone from New York, please inform the good Governor that eventually that money will have to be paid back. I understand upstate NY rate payers are already hard pressed to pay their electric power bills now. How will they ever be able to afford paying for a electric power source that is never ending in it’s inherent need of being repaired?
    Remember Mr. Mariotte’s Greenworld article recently, where he points out that old nuke plants are similar to Ford Model T’s? So, sure…repair a Model T so it’s top speed is 35-40 mph.
    Eventually, those rocking and puffing Model T’s in upstate NY will be so inherently irradiated no $ can save them. Start decommissioning them now, then there will be that much less nuclear wastes to foist on future generations.
    Does the good Governor have a plan for what to do with all the irradiated metals that the nukes
    inherently produce ?
    Of course everyone recognizes the irradiated metals that we have at our reactor sites nationally will turn into a colossal pile. The pile will start when the reactor sites are actually cut up and taken down. A job I will not help do. All that irradiated metal MUST be kept separated from the current clean non-irradiated scrap metal stream. Unless people wouldn’t mind a little radiation in their spoons,forks, or pants zippers. Just to mention a few metal items we use every day. Good luck New Yorkers.

  5. Pingback: New York Just Proved Why Bailing Out Nuclear Power Is a Bad Idea | GreenWorld

  6. Pingback: Нью-Йорк: почему спасение старых реакторов – плохая идея — Ядерный монитор

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