Roger Caiazza and Richard Ellenbogen
New York Governor Hochul plans to pursue “the most ambitious development of nuclear power in America, setting a new goal to build five gigawatts of new nuclear capacity”. While I believe that nuclear power is the best option to reduce electric system GHG emissions, this announcement represents another New York politician meddling in energy policy. This summarizes a more detailed post at Caiazza’s blog.
Hochul Proposal
On January 13, 2026 Hochul presented her State of the State address. It described the nuclear proposal as follows:
Establishing a Nuclear Reliability Backbone for a Zero-Emission Grid
As New York transitions to a zero-emission electric grid, the State must ensure reliable and cost effective baseload power to keep homes, businesses, and critical infrastructure running at all hours. Governor Hochul will ensure that New York State leads in the race to harness safe and reliable advanced nuclear energy to power homes and businesses with zero-emission electricity for generations to come.
To catalyze progress towards those goals, the Governor will advance a new initiative, the Nuclear Reliability Backbone, directing state agencies to establish a clear pathway for additional advanced nuclear generation to support grid reliability. The Nuclear Reliability Backbone will be developed by a new Department of Public Service (DPS) process to consider, review, and facilitate a cost-effective pathway to four gigawatts of new nuclear energy that will combine with existing nuclear generation and the New York Power Authority’s (NYPA) previously announced one gigawatt project, to create an 8.4 gigawatt “backbone” of reliable energy for New Yorkers.
This effort will provide firm, clean power that complements renewable energy resources and reduces reliance on fossil fuel generation. By creating a stable foundation of always-on energy, the Backbone will allow renewable resources to operate more efficiently and flexibly. Together, these actions will support a resilient, flexible, and zero-emission grid that meets New York’s growing energy needs.
New York Energy Issues
New York’s Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act) includes a 2040 “zero-emissions” mandate for the electrical sector. We have chronicled the myriad issues with this target for years. In brief, the State expects that the interim 2030 target to obtain 70% of New York’s electricity from renewable sources by 2030 is years behind schedule and the recently released State Energy Plan suggests that there will be a continuing need for fossil-fired units beyond 2040.
To her credit Hochul apparently recognized that nuclear should be included in a decarbonized electric system in her State of the State. The problem is that the State of the State did not confront the reliability crisis confronting the state in the near term that cannot be fixed with nuclear plants that will not be online for a decade or more.
Last November the New York Independent System Operator (NYISO) released its 2025-2034 Comprehensive Reliability Plan (CRP). The report found that “the electric grid is at an inflection point driven by the convergence of three major trends: the rapid growth of large loads, (e.g.: microchip manufacturing and AI-related data centers); the aging generation fleet; and a lack of new dispatchable generation resources being added to the system.” The description of the CRP went on to say:
The CRP highlights that the future reliability of the grid depends on the development of flexible generation capable of performing during extended periods of high consumer demand and extreme weather. The report examines lessons-learned from the June 2025 heatwave and the need for a planning framework that better reflects present challenges of operating the grid while anticipating plausible future risks.
“The system requires additional dispatchable generation to serve forecasted increases in consumer demand,” said Zach Smith, Senior Vice President, System and Resource Planning. “We also need to refine and evolve our planning processes to better reflect this period of great change on the grid and a broader range of plausible future outcomes.”
The CRP demonstrates that due to emerging reliability challenges, traditional planning methods built around a single forecast are no longer sufficient. To maintain system reliability and protect public safety, the economy and quality of life, the CRP recommends actions that will strengthen planning processes across a broad spectrum of system conditions and advance needed investment before reliability margins disappear.
Our biggest concern is the reliability margin crisis described in the CRP. The NYISO plausible range of reliability margins illustrates the problem (Figure 1). The CRP doesn’t explain what is going to keep the lights on after 2033, and possibly as early as 2027 if replacement capacity does not keep up with retirements. Several new gas turbine projects were being permitted when Climate Act implementation started but two were rejected because of the Climate Act and others quietly stopped the process. This should be the energy program priority but Hochul proposes a nuclear program.
Figure 1: Plausible Range of Statewide System Margins NYISO 2025-2034 Comprehensive Reliability Plan
For background consider New York’s nuclear power plants (Table 1). Five gigawatts of nuclear is basically equivalent to building five new traditional reactors like Nine Mile 2, the last completed plant in New York. While adding new nuclear capacity is appropriate, replacement of existing capacity must also be considered. The youngest of the 3.4 GW of existing nuclear in NY State will be reaching 60 years of age by 2040.
Table 1: New York Nuclear Generating Plants
We agree on one thing completely: It’s a step in the right direction but it is too little, too late. Building this amount of capacity will take a long time. Nine Mile 2 construction took 13 years, and the most recent reactors built in the US at Vogtle, Georgia took 15 years from the start of initial site work.
The new Vogtle units are Westinghouse AP1000 designs with passive safety systems; The capacity of each unit is on the order of 1.1 GW. Construction went over schedule and budget “as the first new U.S. nuclear build in decades, became a protracted megaproject with schedule slips and cost growth to roughly the mid‑$30‑billion range, widely characterized as one of the most expensive infrastructure projects in U.S. history”. These issues were caused by a “combination of incomplete design and planning, contractor and supply‑chain problems, first‑of‑a‑kind AP1000 implementation issues, weak project management and oversight, and the 2017 Westinghouse bankruptcy, which disrupted construction and financing”.
Most of these underlying factors will be problems for New York State. If new technology is used the design and planning will have to evolve as the plants are built. There are contractor and supply-chain problems with existing infrastructure construction so this will be more of a problem for the new technology. If the deployment goes so far as to mandate that the facilities are “built by and for New Yorkers”, then there will be delays because there are insufficient skilled trade workers available today.
Conclusion
In our opinion, nuclear power should be part of New York’s electric system future. However, Hochul’s proposal is too little, too late as part of the Climate Act implementation without revising the schedule. It is necessary first to pause implementation and reassess the schedule and ambition of the Act so that it can play a meaningful role without negatively impacting the reliability of the utility system as it is presently doing.
Roger Caiazza blogs on New York energy and environmental issues at Pragmatic Environmentalist of New York. Richard Ellenbogen has been commenting since 2019 regarding the deficiencies inherent in NY State Energy policy.
Reopen Indian Point? Denounce the legacy of the Cuomos? Endorse fracking?
Nah, New York will just lean on their neighbors when things get tight. I would propose an experiment. Have New York sever all ties to the bulk transmission grid. Basically, run an isolated system on internal generation resource alone plus the imports from Canada. I’d be generous and give them 5 years to make plans to adapt. We’ll just see how all that works out.
Or the Feds could impose taxes on power
imports for states that operate at a
deficit yearly.
Thinking of California as well.
There is a new NYISO report that indicates that they expect to import more from PJM and less from ISO-NE. You know the PJM that has their own problems and sky high rates. That is not going to work./
Canada, now there is a reliable neighbor!
Just hope they do not need any new transmission through neighboring states!
Oh, wait…oops!
This thing was proposed when George Bush was President, and it is still tied up in court.
It brings hydro power from Canada to Mass.
And it will be alongside existing power lines the whole way!
Turns out they let any and every resident have veto power over anything, no matter the need, no matter how minimal their impact.
Decades, to build one stretch of power line.
And no completion in sight.
Good luck with new nuke plants in New York!
Cut the cord from Canada. They are planning on becoming our Lebanon.
Need more words about Lebanon reference: Biblical, Carter presidency or 1990’s Israel?
Well, I was being generous. OK, you convinced me, cut the imports from the Canuks. Even better.
Reopening Indian Point isn’t a possibility. The shutdown agreement between the state regulatory authorities and the plant’s owners imposed technical provisions which had the practical effect of preventing its retrieval. In any case, the decommissioning process has gone too far to be reversed.
Indian Point cannot be reopened. The decommissioning work is far too advanced. Too much essential equipment has been removed and cannot be replaced because of the loss of OEMs. And without enormous upgrades, NRC will never allow a restart. Indian Point was missing most of the post-Fukushima upgrades.
In Germany, and other places, they have taken to outright destroying closed down power plants, specifically so they cannot be reopened.
Why would anyone do that, one might ask?
Seems like a logical thing to just mothball it.
But at least some of the crazies knew they actually needed that power, and ALL the politicians and regulators were too stupid to prevent such boneheaded insanity…
Oh well.
I think good old coal or gas can be built relatively quickly, if people are literally freezing to death in the dark.
What’s far more likely to happen is that New York City imitates Detroit and sheds 2/3rds of its population.
Where do they go?
Elsewhere.
I don’t personally like the place but I can’t think of anything like it. Someone who loves it there probably doesn’t have a lot of specific options.
While I believe that nuclear power is the best option to reduce electric system GHG emissions,
While it is true that nuclear does not emit much CO2 and very, very little in comparison to carbon fuel steam turbine generators, the fact is, we do not need to limit CO2 emissions.
This is like saying you buy a house and take a mortgage for the tax benefits. The total cost of ownership for the mortgage less tax breaks is 3x the purchase price, give or take based on actual APR. The tax break is roughly 1/3 to total interest paid.
You buy a house not for the tax breaks, but rather for other reasons, stabilizing your cost of living, planned family size increase, whatever.
You build nuclear for reliability and durability and supply chain reasons. CO2 emissions is not part of the calculus nor should it be.
Should we not take yes for an answer?
Forget it, they are doing the right thing for the wrong reason. I am gonna sue!
There are too many words and expressions from the Trans-Reality Alarmist Lexicon present to be able to enjoy reading the article.
GHE
decarbonize
renewable
emissions-free
I’m actually in favor of nuking New York. What? Oh. Never mind.
IIRC. you live in Argentina, isn’t that right? If you do live there, how are things going with the new government?
President Milei (nickname “Chainsaw”), has cut inflation from 9% per month to less than 3%, trimmed government employment by 20%, is pushing for privatization of government assets like oil companies and airlines, and is in favor with President Trump. Good start!
Based on Voglte 3 and 4, nuclear takes way too long to build to be a NY solution over the next decade, as this post correctly concludes.
The only viable ‘timely’ solution is CCGT. A greenfield takes less than 3 years, placing on a closed old steam plant takes about 2 utilizing existing infrastructure.
That solution, however, has two major problems.
First, all global CCGT production capacity is bespoke for at least the next 3 years because of the AI data center demands. The sharp rise in Vernova stock price is but one example.
Second, NY has banned both fracking and additional natgas pipeline capacity. Even if CCGT production capacity could somehow be timely solved, there is no G for the T.
It would take 3 years just to get the permits
How much of NYS is owned by the Feds, and would state permits be required for assets built on Federal lands?
On Fed land the enviros would go nuts. I don’t think there’s much Fed land in NY anyway.
They have so many layers of can’t-get-anything-done-itis, I think it is impossible to slice through it.
They have water pipes that took decades, a new subway line that I think took about a century.
Back when stuff was dug with shovels, it took a few months.
500′ of new sewer?
Over 10 years!
Why it takes NYC nearly 10 years to install 500 feet of pipes – Gothamist
And it is not like it wasn’t terribly important!
It’s Kafkaesque. Can’t solve problems thanks to burro-cracy.
Isn’t much of NY state underlain by shale with gas? It must be an enormous supply which could be tapped into quickly?
Yes, they have a large percentage of the Marcellus shale deposit under their state.
IDK is anyone is sure how much gas is in it, because I think the ban never let anyone do any assessments.
I found this map.
‘Yes, they have a large percentage of the Marcellus shale deposit under their state.’
About 18K sq-mi worth. The Utica shale deposit, which is another ‘black shale’, underlays the Marcellus, and is significantly larger at about 25K sq-mi.
That gas will eventually be produced, but only after NY goes full-Marx, meaning they’ll do away with their fake pretense of caring for the environment and turn beautiful Upstate NY into a wasteland.
https://extapps.dec.ny.gov/docs/materials_minerals_pdf/ogdsgeischap4.pdf
This is a goodly chunk of the delicious irony, no?
They are hoist by their own petard, while shooting themselves in the foot, after they rained on their own parade.
By the time they see how badly they did themselves in, they will be crapping their own bed.
If the CCGT equipment supply can be solved, then the gas availability problem could be addressed by local fracking of the shale underlying much of NY. Build the plants close to the well heads. But that is forbidden in NY.
It can and will be solved but it takes time for companies to bring new production online to meet demand.
STORY TIP
A Scottish council is suing a major City investment group over claims a £40m “gamble” on a fleet of onshore wind farms backfired.
Aberdeen City Council has filed a London High Court claim against Federated Hermes, a fund manager once tied to the BT pension scheme, over allegations the group engaged in an “existential gamble” by investing its pension money in the green energy project.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2026/01/15/council-sues-after-39m-gamble-on-wind-farms-backfires/
“investing its pension money in the green energy project”
wow, that’s crazy, should not be allowed- far too risky
It was all about appearances and brownie points to begin with.
Conveniently left out of Hochul’s State of the State address, as summarized in the above article, is the up-front cost for “a cost-effective pathway to four gigawatts of new nuclear energy”.
Rationing from the final costs for plant Vogtle Units 3 & 4 being about $36.8 billion for nameplate capacity of 1117 MWe each, those four new gigawatts of nuclear energy can be expected to cost in excess of $66 billion considering inflation since those units began operating commercially in 2023-2024.
Maybe NY state has that amount of money laying around somewhere, maybe not. If the latter, a
wordacronym of advice to NY state taxpayers: BOHICA.Ooops . . . second paragraph of my post should start with “
Rationing Ratioing from the . . .”Insane given the fact that much of NY is underlain by shale with gas ready to be fracked. A vast supply, I believe.
“Governor Hochul will ensure that New York State leads in the race to harness safe and reliable advanced nuclear energy to power homes and businesses with zero-emission electricity for generations to come.”
Great to proceed with nuclear but drop justifying it for the zero-emission objective. And bring back ff power plants too- which is why the zero-emission objective must be dropped.
Very nice Roger. It is a sorry fact that we have to deal with worthless government on such an important issue. The first thing that should be done is to send the new report back to them with instructions to write it in plain English. The report should state that the NY government issued environmental/energy policy without all the facts. They ordered directives that were unachievable and ill considered. All fossil fuel and nuclear generators will operate at full capacity starting tomorrow. All generators will be updated. All generators capable of being restarted will be restarted. New generators will be built using known approved technology on existing sites so environmental impacts have already been addressed and approved. A search for new sites will begin tomorrow if need. As the current fossil fuel and nuclear facilities are brought up to speed solar and wind systems will be removed from the grid. The justification for this change is that we have learned that CO2 can’t cause catastrophic runaway global warming and it is critical for life on earth as we know it not just New York.
A Pathway to 5 GW of New York Nuclear
* OPG’s Darlington BWRX-300 Project *
Ontario Power Generation (OPG) is constructing a 300 MW small modular reactor at its Darlington site, the first of four GE-Hitachi BWRX-300s to be sited there assuming the first reactor is brought in on cost and schedule.
OPG’s estimate is ~$18,000/kw capital expenditure and five years from initial site prep to reactor startup for the first unit — roughly 5.5 billion dollars spent over five years. If OPG meets those targets, the other three units will follow.
Although OPG is a government-owned corporation, Ontario ratepayers will be financing the first four SMR’s. However, the project is intended to establish the province of Ontario as the go-to place on the North American continent for SMR nuclear expertise.
* MIT Cost Studies for Nuclear *
Cost studies done at MIT indicate that reducing the CAPEX cost of nuclear power from the current $18,000/kw to a more reasonable $8,000/kw will require that firm orders be placed for possibly 10 to 15 AP1000 size reactors, or possibly 15 to 20 BWRX-300 size reactors.
That many firm orders for each major class of reactor is needed to establish their most economic unit manufacturing capacity, and then to keep that capacity utilized long enough for economies of scale to kick in.
* We Buy Nuclear for its Energy Security and Reliability Benefits *
Going with nuclear power is strictly a public policy decision. We buy nuclear for purposes of gaining energy security and reliability, not because it is the cheapest means of generating electricity.
The steep costs of reestablishing the robust nuclear industrial base needed to greatly reduce nuclear’s capital costs is something only the federal and state governments have enough cash to do.
If we are to think seriously about nuclear power, we must decide how much of a premium we want to pay for nuclear over and above what gas-fired generation costs. If we think the premium for nuclear is too high, then we don’t buy it.
* A Theoretical Pathway to 5 GW of New York Nuclear *
Suppose that it would take twenty firm orders for the GE-Hitachi BWRX-300 to bring its unit CAPEX costs down to $8,000/kw.
Suppose further that OPG’s Darlington project stays on cost and schedule for the next three years, and that OPG then decides to place firm orders for the last three SMRs at the end of 2028.
We now have four firm orders by the end of 2028 for the BWRX-300 SMR design, leaving another sixteen firm orders needed to get the theoretical CAPEX cost for that particular design down to $8,000/kw.
How does one get another sixteen firm orders?
One way would be for the New York State Government and the US Federal Government to enter into an agreement to finance those sixteen additional SMRs as part of a mutually-agreed nuclear energy development program. The vendor would have to commit to manufacturing some good fraction of the SMR components in New York state.
Another source of funding might include the sale of Renewable Energy Credits (RECs) for the zero emission generation capacity these SMR’s provide. For example, the RECs the Micron megafab chip plant will need to meet NYS green energy requirements come directly to mind.
At any rate, sixteen firm orders for a 300 MW SMR design gets us to 4.8 GW of nuclear capacity for NYS. This might be done in four tranches of four 300 MW units each, with each succeeding tranche having a lower theoretical CAPEX unit cost per kilowatt than the last.
* Keeping Nuclear Projects on Cost and On Schedule *
We know what is necessary to keep a nuclear project on cost and on schedule. We make realistic cost and schedule estimates up front. We identify all the work scope required, we are highly disciplined and professional in every facet of the work we do, we use a thoroughly disciplined project management approach, we identify emerging problems very quickly and very proactively, and we take corrective action as soon as it is needed.
Highly logical, reasonable and pragmatic recommendation. In New York that is a recipe for being ignored.
Gee, Roger, you are sounding very pessimistic about this whole thing — not that the Hochul administration’s various pronouncements concerning the future of nuclear power in NYS have any real substance to them.
And so it could be several years before we have any firm evidence that Hochul’s nuclear talking points are something more than merely an appeal for votes to those upstate New Yorkers who support new-build nuclear power in or near their communities.
After 4 decades working with th clowns my pessimisim was earned. Thank you for your insights – always appreciated.
Ask the South Koreans to lend a hand?
They have built 13 nuclear reactors since 1996 at an average construction time time of four and a half years. The more recent ones have been quicker than that!
Dave, the South Koreans can do this because they have standardized reactor designs, they have the requisite industrial base, they have a nuclear-competent trained workforce, and they have the competent project managers and the project management systems needed to keep their nuclear projects on track to completion on cost and on schedule. And because the South Koreans are always building reactors somewhere.
Exactly!
Stupidity is a tactic not a bug. Going nuclear stops the gas turbine talk. Watch for uranium to be the only acceptable fuel, probably from Canada.
It won’t matter for nearly 1 million NYC renters as landlords aren’t allowed to pass the costs on to them in rent controlled situations.
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/mamdani-sides-tenants-new-york-landlords-get-crushed-rigged-housing-laws
As those tenants are likely on gas systems, they will have to stay on gas systems.
I am a NY State resident (Rochester), and it is pathetic to observe the two energy/environmentalist left wing camps (one anti-CO2, and one anti-nukes) join forces to destroy NY State’s energy infrastructure. For Hochul to propose nukes to “save” the State is disingenuous when her and the previous administration and the State legislature have failed to address the energy crisis. Even last summer, a residential development in the Finger Lakes south of us wasn’t approved since the power company couldn’t guarantee power from the already stressed grid. As the article says above, Hochul’s nukes push is too little too late.
The next time one of the usual crowd laud the “wind and solar” are reliable, remind them that even New York has finally agreed with sceptics that wind and solar are not, and can never be reliable.
Plus if New York has reliable electricity, why do they need to waste any more money on unreliable wind and solar?