Are you paying too much for electricity
because of the high cost of nuclear power?
That depends. You might say yes, but your
neighbor may say no.
That's because we all have our own beliefs 
about what's most important when it comes
to powering our lives.
If you live in New York or Illinois, your
state leaders have decided you need to pay
significantly more to turn on the lights,
use your phone, keep your personal space
comfortable and countless other activities.
This is happening because nuclear power plants
in those states can't compete 
with lower cost natural gas.
Without taxpayer subsidies, 
the operators of five nuclear power
plants say they would've had to
shut those reactors down prematurely.
The cost to consumers in New York
and Illinois will be painful,
and the pain is going to last
a long time.
Cost estimates vary, but over the next
dozen years, New Yorkers will pay
somewhere between five point seven and
seven point six BILLION dollars
in extra electricity costs to save
Nine Mile Point, Fitzpatrick and
Ginna nuclear plants.
For a family of four, saving nuclear
in New York will amount to an extra
twelve to fifteen hundred
dollars a year.
Ratepayers in Illinois will fork
over an additional three billion
over thirteen years to keep the Quad
Cities and Clinton power plants operating.
A family of four there will pay nearly
$1000 more for their electricity.
And this nuclear power subsidy
contagion is spreading.
Several other states are considering
propping up nuclear as well.
In Pennsylvania, five nuclear plants
supply thirty five percent of the
state's electricity, but all of them are
suffering because of competition from natural gas.
The problem is most urgent for the infamous
Three Mile Island power plant.
Its operator, Exelon Corp, has given
notice that it will shutdown the plant
in the Fall of 2019 unless it gets
a taxpayer cash infusion similar to
what operators in Illinois and New
York have gotten.
Interestingly, Exelon made more than
one billion dollars in profit in 2016...
so does it really need a bailout?
That's something Pennsylvania lawmakers
should be looking into.
You might be wondering why Illinois and
New York didn't simply let their power
plants close and replace their nuclear
output with clean, low-cost natural gas.
And why don't Pennsylvania, Ohio and
other states follow suit,
saving their citizens a
mountain of money?
Free market advocates say that's
exactly what should be happening.
But there are those who believe other
factors need to be considered.
For one, once nuclear power
plants are operational, 
they don't generate any greenhouse gases.
Secondly, local economies are significantly
impacted when nuclear plants are shut down
because of the loss of high-paying jobs.
Some of those positions are replaced by
high-paying jobs at new natural gas plants,
but more are lost than are gained,
which is part of the reason why 
natural gas is a lower cost
alternative to nuclear.
And thirdly, there is value in having
a diversified power supply.
In the event of natural disasters, or
God forbid, a war, having multiple sources
for electricity production could
prove to be helpful.
There are thoughtful arguments that can
be made in support of, or against,
paying more for electricity in the
interest of saving nuclear power.
Unfortunately, leaders in New York and
Illinois made those decisions for their
citizens, without a whole lot of public
education, discussion and debate.
And now it appears Pennsylvania and other
states are going to do the same thing.
That's unfortunate.
If a majority of people want to pay more
for their electricity because of other
priorities, then so be it.
But when it comes to spending your money,
shouldn't government leaders try to
figure out if subsidizing nuclear is
something YOU want to do?
Power On, America.
