NUCLEAR ENERGY IS POISED FOR AN EXPANSION IN THE EMPIRE STATE, SO WE'RE EXAMINING WHAT THAT COULD LOOK LIKE AND HOW IT'S USED ALREADY.

ALL THAT, AND MORE, COMING UP NEXT ON CONNECT NEW YORK.

♪ ♪ >> WELCOME TO CONNECT-NEW YORK, I'M DAVID LOMBARDO - HOST OF WCNY'S THE CAPITOL PRESSROOM, A DAILY PUBLIC RADIO SHOW, BROADCASTING FROM THE STATE CAPITOL.

ON THIS MONTH'S EPISODE WE'RE DISCUSSING NUCLEAR ENERGY, INCLUDING THE UPSTATE PROJECTS THAT ALREADY HELP POWER THE STATE, AND THE POTENTIAL EXPANSION BEING CHAMPIONED BY GOVERNOR KATHY HOCHUL.

BEFORE WE HEAR FROM OUR PANEL OF EXPERTS ON THESE TOPICS, WE'RE GOING TO SHARE A SNAPSHOT OF HOW NUCLEAR POWER IS ALREADY BEING HARNESSED IN NEW YORK, WITH A PACKAGE FROM CONNECT NEW YORK PRODUCER ALEC AMBRUSO, WHO VISITED A COMMUNITY THAT IS ALREADY HOME TO A NUCLEAR POWER PLANT.

HERE'S HIS STORY.

>> HERE IN NEW YORK STATE, WE HAVE 3300 MEGAWATTS OF NUCLEAR POWER FACILITIES.

THAT IS SPREAD ACROSS THREE POWER PLANTS.

WE HAVE THE NINE MILE POINT, AND FITZPATRICK AND GINEA.

COLLECTIVELY THOSE UNITS PROVIDE HALF OF NEW YORK'S CLEAN ELECTRICITY AND IN TERMS OF THE AMOUNT OF HOMES THEY PROVIDE ELECTRICITY FOR, IT'S ABOUT 2.5 MILLION HOMES PLUS OR MINUS.

THESE ARE HOMES, HOSPITALS, BUSINESSES THAT WE ARE PROVIDING CLEAN ELECTRICITY FOR HERE IN NEW YORK.

AS AMERICA'S NUMBER ONE PRODUCER OF CARBON-FREE POWER, WE EMPLOY THAT HERE IN NEW YORK STATE AS WELL AND WE VERY MUCH VIEW IT AS A PARTNERSHIP WITH THE STATE OF NEW YORK TO HELP THEM MEET THEIR CLIMATE OBJECTIVES.

WHAT WE HAVE CERTAINLY SEEN SINCE PASSAGE OF THE ACT IN 2019 IS THESE GOALS ARE REALLY HARD.

AND AT THE END OF THE DAY, YOU NEED ALL THE TOOLS AT YOUR DISPOSAL TO TRY TO HIT THESE TARGETS.

AND A BIG PIECE OF THAT ARE THESE UPSTATE NUCLEAR UNITS.

AGAIN, NOT ONLY ARE THEY ECONOMIC ENGINES FOR UPSTATE NEW YORK, BUT AGAIN THEY PROVIDE ABOUT HALF OF THE STATE'S CLEAN ELECTRICITY.

SO WE VERY MUCH VIEW IT AS A PARTNERSHIP WITH THE STATE AS TOGETHER WE TRY TO FORGE A PATH TO HIT THE CLIMATE OBJECTIVES OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.

>> THE RESIDENTS OF OSWEGO ARE ON BOARD WITH NUCLEAR POWER.

I MEAN ONE OF THE REASONS IS THE FACT THAT WE HAVE HAD THREE NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS IN OUR BACKYARD YOU MIGHT SAY FOR SIX DECADES.

THAT'S TWO GENERATIONS.

SO WE HAVE HAD PEOPLE LIVING, GOING TO SCHOOL HERE IN THE SHADOW OF THE THREE POWER PLANTS AND THEY HAVE PROVEN TO BE SAFE, RELIABLE AND IMPACT ON THE ECONOMY.

AS FAR AS I KNOW, THERE IS NOBODY HERE LOCALLY THAT IS AGAINST IT.

I'M SURE THERE MIGHT BE SOME PEOPLE FUTURE IF THERE IS, I HAVEN'T HEARD OF THEM.

>> THEY SAY IT'S A ZERO CARBON TECHNOLOGY.

THAT'S FALSE COMPLETELY.

THERE ARE CARBON FOOTPRINT ASSOCIATED WITH NUCLEAR POWER AS THERE IS WITH EVERYTHING.

WITH WIND, SOLAR, CHAFER YOU BUILD, THERE IS-- WHATEVER YOU BUILD THERE IS A CARBON FOOTPRINT ASSOCIATED WITH IT.

WHAT IS UNDER STATED ABOUT NUCLEAR IS THE CARBON FOOTPRINT EXTENDS TO MINING OF THE URANIUM AND THEN MILLING IT AND THEN ENRICHING IT AND TRANSPORTING IT AND GETTING IT TO THE REACTOR, BUILDING THE REACTOR, LOTS OF CONCRETE, LOTS OF STEEL, AND THEN ULTIMATELY WASTE DISPOSAL.

WE DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT THE CARBON FOOTPRINT IS OF DISPOSAL BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T FIGURED THAT OUT.

WHEN YOU TAKE A URANIUM AT ATOM AND SPLIT IT, YOU PRODUCE ALL THIS HEAT, WHICH IS GREAT BUT YOU GET BYPRODUCTS AND WILL BYPRODUCTS ARE HIGHLY RADIOACTIVIVE.

AND YOU GET ALSO, YOU GET THE DAUGHTER PRODUCTS WHICH ARE FRAGMENTS OF THE URANIUM NUKE NUKOUS AND PLUTONIUM WITH A HALF LIFE OF 24 YEARS.

YOU WANT TO GO THROUGH 10 HALF LIVES TO GET TO A SAFE LEVEL WHICH IS A QUARTER MILLION YEARS WHICH IS FAR LONGER THAN CIVILIZATION HAS BEEN AROUND FOR.

SO WE ARE BURDENING FUTURE GENERATIONS WITH THIS STUFF.

>> CONSTELLATION VIEWS IS CONTRIBUTION TO THE STATE'S CLIMATE OBJECTIVES IS BY PROVIDING THE VAST AMOUNT OF CLEAN ENERGY THAT WE CURRENTLY PROVIDE.

WHEN YOU ARE COMING HERE TODAY YOU PROBABLY SAW THE COOLING TOWER OUTSIDE OF NINE MILE POINT.

COMING OUT OF THAT COOLING TOWER IS IN FACT STEAM.

SO THESE RESOURCES ARE VERY MUCH 100% CARBON FREE AND THEY PRODUCE A LOT OF MEGAWATT HOURS.

WHICH JUST SHOWS THE VAST MANLT OF CLEAN POWER THAT THE CLEAN RESOURCES CAN PROVIDE AND WHAT IS DESPERATELY NEEDED BY THE STATE OF NEW YORK TO HIT THE CLIMATE TARGETS.

THE CHEAPEST MEGAWATTS ARE THE ONES THAT WE ALREADY HAVE.

SO WHILE WE ARE LOOKING TO ADVANCE NEW FORMS OF CLEAN GENERATION, RENEWABLES ADVANCED NUCLEAR RACKETERS, WE NEED REACTORS WE NEED TO MAKE SURE WE MAINTAIN THE REACTORS SO EVERYTHING IS ADDITIVE TO THE EFFORT OPPOSED TO MOVING BACKWARD.

WE PARTNERED WITH NYSERDA, TOGETHER SUBMITTING AN APPLICATION TO THE DOE TO HOPEFULLY GARNER A SUCCESSFUL GRANT WHICH WE THEN WILL FILE AN EARLY SITE PERMIT, WHICH ARE THE EARLY STEPS TOWARDS ADVANCING A PROJECT HERE IN OSWEGO.

>> I WAS ASKED ABOUT A MONTH AGO BEFORE THEY MADE THE ANNOUNCEMENT THAT THEY WERE LOOKING TO BUILD A FOURTH MODULAR NUCLEAR POWER PLANT.

SO THEY ASKED ME TO SEND A LETTER OF SUPPORT FOR THEIR APPLICATION AND I WAS HAPPY TO DO THAT.

AGAIN, WE HAVE SEEN THAT CONSTELLATION IN THE NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS ARE GREAT NEIGHBORS AND WE EMBRACE THE TECHNOLOGY.

WE KNOW IT'S SAFE, AND HAVING A FOURTH MODULAR UNIT DOESN'T UPSET US FROM THE STANDPOINT OF HAVING ANOTHER ONE.

AND IN REALITY, I HAVE SPOKEN TO PEOPLE WHO WORK OUT THERE AND WHO ACTUALLY BUILT THE PLACE AND THEY SAID THERE IS PLENTY OF LAND, THERE IS PLENTY OF INFRASTRUCTURE.

>> WE SHOULD BE LOOKING AT ALL THE POSSIBILITIES OF HOW TO SUPPLY-- THERE IS AN ELECTRICITY DEMAND THAT WE HAVE TO FILL.

THERE ARE RENEWABLES.

THERE IS WIND, THERE IS LAND-BASED WIND AND OFFSHORE WIND.

THERE IS SOLAR, OTHER TECHNOLOGIES, HOT GEOTHERMAL WHICH THEY'RE LOOKING AT AT CORNELL AND THERE IS FOSSIL FUELS WITH CARBON CAPTURE.

WHAT I SAY AND WHAT OTHERS BUILD RENEWABLESS APACE.

PUSH THAT AS MUCH AS YOU CAN, PUT IN BATTERY STORAGE.

IT'S CHEAPER.

IT'S FASTER AND IT'S JUST AS RELIABLE AND PERHAPS MORE RELIABLE THAN NUCLEAR.

IT'S NOT NEARLY AS TOXIC.

AND IT'S FAR LESS EXPENSIVE, FAR LESS EXPENSIVE.

AND IT'S FAR MORE EFFECTIVE AT REDUCING CARBON EMISSIONS.

>> ALL CLEAN GENERATION TYPES, AGAIN, HAVE THEIR STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES.

RENEWABLES ARE GREAT IN THAT THEY CAN HARNESS THE SUN AND THE WIND AND WATER TO PRODUCE ELECTRICITY.

HOWEVER, SUN DOES SHINE 24 HOURS A DAY.

WIND DOESN'T BLOW 24 HOURS A DAY.

NUCLEAR POWER IS THE ONLY POWER RESOURCE THAT'S 100% CLEAN AND CAN RUN 24/7, 365.

>> AND NOW FOR OUR PANEL.

WE ARE JOINED IN THE STUDIO BY MATT MOSES, CO-CHAIR OF THE PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PRACTICE FOR THE LAW FIRM BARCLAY DAMON, TIM JUDSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE NUCLEAR INFORMAITON AND RESOURCE SERVICE, AND ERIC DAWSON, OF NUCLEAR NEW YORK.

SO, TIM, WE SAW IN THE PACKAGE, A LITTLE BIT ABOUT HOW NUCLEAR POWER IS USED IN NEW YORK AND HOW IT MIGHT BE USED IN THE FUTURE AS CONSTELLATION EXAMINES A FUTURE GROWTH IN THIS AREA.

BUT STICKING WITH THE EXISTING USE OF NUCLEAR POWER IN NEW YORK, AND I BELIEVE NUCLEAR ACCOUNTS FOR ABOUT 20% OF THE GENERATION HERE IN NEW YORK AND WE ARE ALSO IMPORTING SOME OF IT FROM OTHER STATES AND COUNTRIES.

WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THE CURRENT LANDSCAPE?

IS THERE ANYTHING THAT WE SHOULD KNOW OR THINK ABOUT WITH REGARDS TO THE STATUS QUO?

OR ARE WE COMFORTABLE JUST HAVING THIS SORT OF BURNING OFF IN THE BACKGROUND OUT OF SIGHT OUT OF MIND FOR THE MOST PART?

>> SURE, I THINK WE NEED TO TAKE STOCK OF THE FACT THAT THE RACKETERS THAT WE HAVE ARE ALREADY OLD.

YOU KNOW, THEY STARTED BUILDING NINE MILE 1 IN OSWEGO 60 YEARS AGO THIS YEAR.

IT'S GOING TO BE 60 YEARS IN OPERATION IN 2029 WHEN ITS CURRENT LICENSE EXPIRES.

THESE MACHINES CAN'T OPERATE FOREVER AND YET OUR STATE ENERGY PLANNING JUST ASSUMES THAT THESE REACTORS ARE GOING TO RUN IN PERPETUITY.

AND THE REALITY IS THAT WE HAVE TWO OF THE THREE OLDEST OPERATING NUCLEAR REACTORS IN THE WORLD IN NEW YORK STATE.

EVERY OTHER RACKETER AND THERE HAVE BEEN OVER-- REACTORS OVER THE WORLD HAVE CLOSED WELL BEFORE THE AIMTION OF OUR NUCLEAR PLANTS HERE.

THE ONLY REASON SOME OF THESE ARE OPERATING TODAY IS BECAUSE WE HAVE BEEN PUMPING HUGE AMOUNTS OF SUBSIDIES INTO THEIR CONTINUED OPERATION SINCE 2017.

IN 2023, NEW YORK RATE PAYERS PAID OVER $54 MILLION IN SURCHARGES TO SUBS DICE THE OPERATION OF THESE FOUR REACTORS.

>> $7.6 BILLION PROGRAM OVER 12 YEARS AUTHORIZED BY STATE REGULATORS WHAT, NOW, EIGHT, NINE YEARS AGO.

SO THERE IS ANOTHER-- >> THAT WAS THE ESTIMATE WHEN THE PROGRAM STARTED.

THE ESTIMATE HAS COME DOWN A LITTLE BIT BOTH BECAUSE THE SUBSIDY RATE HAS DECREASED A LITTLE BIT IN THE LAST YEAR.

BUT ALSO BECAUSE THERE IS FEDERAL SUBSIDIES THAT ARE GOING TO NOW BE APPLIED TOWARD REIMBURSING NEW YORK RATE PAYERS FOR OUR SUBSIDIES THAT WE PAY IN.

>> ERIC, WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT THE PACKAGE WE JUST SAW, WHAT STANDS OUT TO YOU AS YOU THINK ABOUT THAT VIDEO OR YOUR OWN THOUGHTS COMING TO THE PANEL AND THE EXISTING USE OF NUCLEAR POWER IN NEW YORK?

>> I'M KIND OF A BIG PICTURE GUY.

ULTIMATELY I'M A PRONUCLEAR ENERGY ENVIRONMENTALIST BECAUSE I THINK EXPANDING NUCLEAR ENERGY IS THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT TO PRESERVING THE ENVIRONMENT HERE AND GLOBALLY AND IF WE COULD TAKE A STEP BACK.

I THINK THE PEOPLE LOSE SIGHT IN THIS CONVERSATION OF THE IMPORTANCE OF ABUNDANT RELIABLE AFFORDABLE ENERGY ESPECIALLY ELECTRICITY ON A GRID, AND SO I THINK THAT COAL IS VERY DEMONIZED IN THE CURRENT HOUR.

RIGHTLY SO.

BUT WE CAN'T FORGET COAL IS WHAT BROUGHT MILLIONS OF PEOPLE OUT OF POVERTY YEARS AGO ESPECIALLY SUPPLYING ELECTRICITY TO THE GRID AND THE GREATEST REDUCTION IN COAL IN THE LAST 20 YEARS HAS COME FROM THE EXPANSION OF NATURAL GAS AND THAT'S BECAUSE NATURAL GAS IS AS RELIABLE AS GOAL COAL.

IF WE WANT TO CONTINUE THIS TRANSITION FROM GOING FROM VERY DIRTY COAL TO NATURAL GAS TO SOMETHING CLEANER, WE NEED SOMETHING EQUALLY RELIABLE.

THE ONLY CANDIDATE CAPABLE OF SCALING TO THE LEVEL WE NEED IS NUCLEAR ENERGY.

NUCLEAR IS VERY SIMPLY THE MOST RELIABLE FORM OF ZERO EMISSION ENERGY AND USES THE LEAST LAND, THE LEAST MATERIALS, THE LEAST MINING OF CRITICAL MINERALS AND THE LEAST RELIANCE ON FOREIGN SUPPLY CHAINS OF ANY OTHER ZERO EMISSION SOURCE ON A PER GENERATED BASIS.

COULD TALK MORE ABOUT NEW YORK.

I DON'T WANT TO FILIBUSTER.

>> THAT WAS NOT EVEN CLOSE TO A FILIBUSTER.

YOU COULD REALLY TEST US HERE.

I DIDN'T FEEL LIKE I HAD TO JUMP IN AT ANY TIME.

MATT, YOU COME TO THIS CONVERSATION, I IMAGINE, MORE OF A NEUTRAL ARBITER, THIRD PARTY FOCUSING ON THE REGULATORY SIDE OF THINGS.

AS YOU THINK ABOUT WHAT IT TAKES TO CITE ONE OF THESE PROJECTS OR OPERATE THEM, I MEAN IN A SIX-MINUTE PACKAGE WE JUST SAW, IT ALL SEEMS KIND OF SIMPLE.

IT'S ALL PROBABLY MADE MORE STREAMLINE THAN IT ACTUALLY IS.

WHAT ARE THE HEADACHES SITING SOMETHING LIKE THIS OR GETTING THE PERMITS UP AND RUNNING TO GET LAND AUTHORIZATION OR THE OTHER MILLIONS OF DIFFERENT ANGLES OF THINGS I'M PROBABLY NOT THINKING ABOUT?

>> THESE FACILITIES ARE REGULATED BY THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION AND A SITING APPLICATION TO BUILD A NEW NUCLEAR WOULD GO THROUGH THAT DOOR.

THAT'S A RIGOROUS REVIEW AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL WHICH PREEMPTS STATE REVIEW.

AND WOULD NOT BE LIMITED TO THE TOTALITY OF THE ISSUES THAT THESE FACILITIES FACE.

WHAT THEY-- THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DOES THE NUCLEAR ASPECTS OF THE REVIEW, WHEREAS THE STATE REGULATORS AND THE LOCAL REGULATORS WILL FOCUS ON WATER, SITING AND PERMITTING, THINGS OF THAT NATURE THAT ALL POWER PLANTS NEED TO NATE AND OUR NEW YORK INDEPENDENT SYSTEM OPERATOR WOULD HAVE TO WORK ON THE INTERCONNECTION.

HOW ARE THOSE MEGAWATTS ACCEPTED TO THE GRID AND DO HAVE YOU TO-- WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN WITHIN OUR ELECTRICITY SYSTEM TO PERMIT THAT AMOUNT OF ENERGY TO BE INJECTED.

>> WHAT ABOUT SOMETHING LIKE TAKING CARE OF THE WASTE FROM THESE FACILITIES?

IS THAT SOMETHING THAT FALLS TO FEDERAL REGULATORS OR SOMETHING IN THE PURVIEW OF THE STATE?

BECAUSE IN PREPARING FOR THIS, I WAS READING ABOUT THE NEW YORK STATE ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND SOME OF ITS WORK AND I THINK A 1986 LAW OR DEALING WITH LOW LEVEL RADIATION AND PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT, IT SAYS THIS HAS BEEN SUSPENDED FOR RIGHT NOW.

WHERE IS THE BALL IN THAT?

WHOSE COURT IS IT IN?

>> THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY REGULATES THE DISPOSAL OF SPENT FUEL FROM THESE FACILITIES.

AND EACH OF THESE FACILITIES IN NEW YORK HAS AN INDEPENDENT SPENT FUEL STORAGE INSTALLATION.

AND ALL OF THAT SPENT FUEL IS HOUSED THERE ON SITE UNTIL A NATIONAL REPOSITORY IS CREATED.

YUKA MOUNTAIN WAS TO BE THE NATIONAL REPOSITORY.

THAT HAS BEEN DISCONTINUED FOR THE TIME BEING.

SO WHEN THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY ULTIMATELY OPENS SOME SORT OF REPOSITORY, THOSE BUSY INSTALLATIONS WILL HOLD THE SPENT FUEL, BUT IT'S NOTEWORTHY THAT THESE FACILITIES HAVE BEEN OPERATING FOR 40, UP TO 60 YEARS HERE AND ALL OF THEIR SPENT FUEL IS ON SITE.

NONE OF IT HAS BEEN CARTED AWAY.

WHICH IS A PRETTY SMALL FOOTPRINT FOR WASTE FROM AN ENERGY FACILITY.

COAL FACILITIES HAVE MOUNTAINS OF COAL ASH AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE AND THOSE THESE FACILITIES HAVE THAT SMALL FOOTPRINT RELATIVE TO OTHER ENERGY PRODUCED.

>> I THINK WHAT I WOULD ADD IS, I THINK WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ONLY ONE SOURCE OF RADIOACTIVE WASTE THAT IS PRODUCED AND THAT'S THE HIGH LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE.

THERE IS A WHOLE STREAM OF WHAT ARE CALLED LOW LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE WHICH IS WHAT YOU ARE REFERRING TO IN THAT LAW THAT WAS SUSPENDED.

>> THE LLRWs.

>> EXACTLY.

SO THERE WAS A LAW PASSES IN THE 80S TO REQUIRE STATES TO SITE THEIR OWN LOW LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE FACILITIES.

WE STOPPED THOSE IN NEW YORK FROM HAPPENING BUT THE LOW LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE SO CALLED THAT IS THE NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS PRODUCE IS SHIPPED OFF TO PLACES IN TEXAS AND UTAH AND FORMERLY IN SOUTH CAROLINA.

THESE ARE ALL ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE COMMUNITIES THAT THIS RADIOACTIVE WASTE IS BEING SENT TO.

>> WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT THE STATUS QUO ON THE WASTE FRONT, DOES IT MAKE SENSE OR DO WE NEED TO ADDRESS THE WASTE ISSUE IN TERMS OF HOW WE OPERATE THESE NOW OR BEFORE WE THINK ABOUT EXPANSION?

>> WE DEFINITELY NEED TO THINK ABOUT IT IN TERMS OF EXPANSION.

YOU KNOW, THE PROMISES THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS MADE TO ACCEPT THE HIGH LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE THAT MATT WAS JUST TALKING ABOUT ARE CONTINGENT ON SITING THE FIRST NUCLEAR WASTE REPOSITORY THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE YUCCA MOUNTAIN.

BUT WE HAVE MORE OF THE NUCLEAR WASTE SITTING AT THE EXISTING REACTOR SITES THAN YUCCA MOUNTAIN WAS ALLOWED TO STORE.

WE ARE WORKING ON A SECOND SPOT.

IF A THIRD IS BUILT, THEY WILL BE WAITING FOR A THIRD REPOSITORY TO SEND THEIR WASTE TO.

THERE IS NO GUARANTEE THAT THIS WASTE IS EVER GOING TO GO ANYWHERE AND RIGHT NOW IT IS SITTING ON THE SHORE OF LAKE ONTARIO AND THE SHORE OF THE HUDSON RIVER.

THESE ARE PRESHESZ SOURCES OF DRINKING WATER WE HAVE TO PROTECT AND WE ARE PILING THE NUCLEAR WASTE ON THE SHORES OF THEM.

>> WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THIS QUESTION.

>> ANTINUCLEAR GROUP LED BY PEOPLE LIKE TIM ARE MASTERS OF SOUNDING SCARY.

>> I DIDN'T FIND TIM THAT SCARY.

HE WAS PRETTY REASONABLE.

>> I'M SHAKING RIGHT NOW.

I WILL REMIND EVERYONE THAT NO ONE IN THE WORLD HAS EVER DIED FROM BEING EXPOSED TO NUCLEAR WASTE.

NOT BECAUSE IT IS SO DANGEROUS BUT BECAUSE IT IS SO EASY FOR MODERN SOCIETY TO CONTAIN IN THICK CONCRETE CASTS.

DEEP GEOLOGICAL BORE HOLES IN THE FUTURE OR FOLLOW THE MODEL OF FRANCE WHICH PROCESSES 96% OF ITS SPENT FUEL AND CAN RECYCLE IN THE FUTURE.

IF WE THINK ABOUT ENERGY WE SHOULD EVALUATE ON A PER ENERGY GENERATED BASIS.

IT SOUNDS LIKE A LOT.

IT SOUNDS DANGEROUS, BUT ON A PER ENERGY BASIS, NUCLEAR ACTUALLY HAS THE LEAST AMOUNT OF WASTE COMPARED TO HOW MUCH ENERGY IS ACTUALLY GENERATED.

>> SO THEN ARE YOU CONTENT WITH THE STATUS QUO WITH KEEPING THIS WASTE ON SITE FOR THE MOST PART?

>> YEAH, YEAH, I THINK THAT IT COULD BE PUT DEEP UNDERGROUND SOME DAY.

BUT I FRANKLY DON'T WANT TO BECAUSE I WOULD LIKE TO EXPAND REPROCESSING AND RECYCLING ABILITIES IN THE FUTURE.

SO IT'S SOMETHING THAT IN MODERN LIFE WITH ANY BIG INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT AND ANY BIG ENERGY SOURCES ARE THREG-- $GOING TO BE ALL KINDS OF SOURCES THAT SOUND SCARY BUT ARE PEOPLE ACTUALLY BEING HARMED BY THIS OR HELPED IN THE AGGREGATE?

WITH NUCLEAR ENERGY IT IS VERY, VERY CLEAR IN THE COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS, THE BENEFITS OUTWEIGH THE COSTS.

>> I CAN TALK ABOUT THAT HAPPILY.

WE HAVE A SITE CALLED THE WEST VALLEY DEMONSTRATION PROJECT IN WESTERN NEW YORK SOUTH OF BUFFALO WHERE THERE WAS A COMMERCIAL REPROCESSING FACILITY THAT OPERATED FOR SIX YEARS IN THE 60S AND 70S AND THAT SITE IS EXTREMELY CONTAMINATED.

THEY HAVE BEEN WORKING ON TRYING TO CLEAN UP THAT SITE FOR OVER 40 YEARS TO THE COST OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS.

AND EVERY REPROCESSING FACILITY IN THE WORLD, INCLUDING THE ONE IN FRANCE IS AN ENVIRONMENTAL MESS.

IT'S ACTUALLY ONE OF THE WORST THINGS THAT WE CAN POSSIBLY DO WITH NUCLEAR WASTE IS TO REPROCESS IT.

>> WHETHER YOU SAY ENVIRONMENTAL MESS, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN TO YOU?

SO THAT MEANS THERE IS INCREDIBLE AMOUNTS OF RADIOACTIVE CONTAMINATION IN THE GROUND AND LEAKING INTO THE WATER ON THE WEST VALLEY SITE.

WHEN OPERATED, THERE WAS CONTAMINATION SPREAD THROUGHOUT CENTRAL AND WESTERN NEW YORK.

IN THE 90s A RESEARCH TEAM IN THE UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER STUDIED THE CONTAMINATION FROM WEST VALLEY AND OVER 20 YEARS AFTER WEST VALLEY STOPPED OPERATING THEY WERE FINDING RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS FROM WEST VALLEY IN THE WESTERN FINGER LAKES-- EASTERNY FINGER LAKES NEAR ITHACA.

>> I'M GETTING A LITTLE SCARED.

BUT WHAT IS YOUR REACTION TO THAT?

>> I WILL REPEAT MYSELF.

NO ONE WAS KILLED BY ANY OF THE THINGS TIM JUST-- >> THAT'S A HIGH THRESHOLD.

KILLED, I DON'T WANT TO GET MAIMED OR GET SICK OR MY QUALITY OF LIFE DIMINISHED IN SOME WAY.

>> OF COURSE, BUT NO ONE WAS HARMED BY ANY OF THESE THINGS EITHER.

IF YOU WANT TO HELP THE GREATEST NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN THE WORLD, THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IS TO REDUCE ENERGY POVERTY BY INCREASING RELIABLE ENERGY, ESPECIALLY ELECTRICITY ON A GRID.

BUT THE GREATEST NEGATIVE EXTERNALITY OF ELECTRICITY PRODUCTION IS FROM COAL AND COAL ASH, AS YOU BROUGHT UP EARLIER, CONTAINS RADIOACTIVE ELEMENTS AND BECAUSE IT IS SPEWED IN THE ATMOSPHERE, PEOPLE BREATHE IT IN THEIR LUNGS SO IF YOU WANT TO REDUCE PEOPLE'S ACTUAL HARM FROM RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS, YOU SHOULD DO EVERYTHING YOU CAN TO DISPLACE COLBY INCREASING RELIABLE ZERO EMISSION ENERGY AND NUCLEAR IS THE ONLY CANDIDATE TO DO THAT.

I WILL ADD THAT IF YOU LOOK AT THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF TOXIC WASTE, TOXIC WASTE THAT HUMANS SHOULD NOT MANIPULATE THEMSELVES OR EAT OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, SOLAR AND WIND HAVE HUNDREDS OF TIMES MORE OF IT ACCUMULATED.

AND THIS IS JUST BECAUSE NUCLEAR IS SO EFFICIENT.

IT'S SO EFFICIENT AND THEN WHEN YOU INCLUDE THE POSSIBILITY OF REPROCESSING AND RECYCLING, IT GETS EVEN MORE EFFICIENT.

>> WHAT IS THE TOXIC WASTE GENERATED BY THOSE TYPES OF RENEWABLE SOURCES?

>> MOSTLY FROM CRITICAL MINERALS AND ANOTHER RELATED ISSUE IS LARGE SCALE BATTERIES, THERE WAS A TERRIBLE BATTERY FIRE A COUPLE MONTHS AGO MOSS LANDING IN CALIFORNIA AND WHENEVER A LITHIUM BATTERY, IT GETS INTO THE AIR.

I DON'T WANT TO GLOOM AND DOOM.

THERE ARE WAYS MODERN SOCIETY CAN HANDLE ALL WASTE BUT IF YOU WANT TO REDUCE WASTE AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE PER ENERGY UNIT, NUCLEAR IS THE WAY TO GO.

>> I WANT TO COME BACK TO THE ISSUE OF COST.

AND MATT, AS SOMEONE WHO IS IN THE ENERGY SPACE, WHEN WE THINK ABOUT SUBSIDIES FOR EXISTING NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS, IS THAT UNIQUE TO THAT ENERGY SECTOR OR WHEN WE THINK ABOUT SUBSIDIZING ENERGY COSTS BECAUSE WE ARE IN NEW YORK OR SOMETHING ELSE ABOUT THE ENERGY SPACE, IS IT PREDICTABLE OR EXPECTED TO HAVE SUBSIDIES FOR THESE TYPES OF NEW PROJECTS OR UNGOING PROJECTS.

-- ONGOING PROJECTS?

>> I DON'T THINK THERE IS A SINGLE SOURCE OF ENERGY IN NEW YORK OR ELSEWHERE THAT IS CONSTRUCTED WITHOUT A SUBSIDY.

WIND AND SOLAR PLANTS RECEIVE SIGNIFICANT SUBSIDIES.

BERRY PROJECTS THE SAME.

SO I THINK THAT-- BATTERY PROJECTS THE SAME.

THESE ARE CHALLENGING ISSUES IF WE WANT TO SUPPLY OUR SOCIETY WITH ENERGY AND WE HAVE AN ALL OF THE ABOVE APPROACH TO THAT, WE HAVE TO HAVE A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD.

AND WE HAVE TO CHOOSE THE TYPES OF ENERGY THAT WE WANT TO SUPPLY AND THE SUBSIDIES FOR NUCLEAR THAT HAVE BEEN REFERRED TO ARE BOTH ON THE FEDERAL AND STATE LEVEL JUST AS THEY ARE FOR WIND AND SOLAR.

>> AND IS THERE A DIFFERENCE THOUGH BETWEEN DUBS DIFFICULTS TO GET SOMETHING-- SUBSIDIES TO GET SOMETHING OFF THE GROUND VERSUS SOMETHING TO CONTINUE OPERATING BECAUSE WHEN WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE UPSTATE NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS, THIS ISN'T FOR BUILDING NEW STUFF.

THIS IS JUST TO KEEP THE LIGHTS ON, SO TO SPEAK.

>> YEAH, I THINK, YOU KNOW, WHAT RICH WAS REFERRING TO IN HIS BIT AT THE OUTSET OF THE PROGRAM WAS , YOU KNOW, THE STATE IS SUBSIDIZING THESE FACILITIES TO KEEP THEM OPEN.

AND IT'S CHEAPER TO KEEP WHAT WORKS OPEN THAN IT IS TO BUILD NEW.

AND SO THESE SORTS OF INCENTIVES THAT ARE OUT THERE FOR ANY TYPE OF ENERGY, ARE NEEDED TO GET NEW IRON IN THE GROUND AND PROVIDE THE NEW MEGAWATTS FOR ALL OF US THAT CONSUME THEM.

BUT FOR NUCLEAR, IT'S A BIT OF A SPECIAL CASE TO KEEP THOSE EXISTING FACILITIES ALIVE.

>> ERIC, WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THE COST SIDE OF THINGS, ESPECIALLY SINCE WE DON'T REALLY HAVE A GOOD HANDLE ON WHAT THE COST MIGHT BE IN THE FUTURE SINCE WE DON'T ACTUALLY HAVE, SAY, COMMERCIAL SMALL MODULE RACKETERS IN PLACE-- REACTORS IN PLACE RIGHT NOW.

>> I WOULD SAY IT'S VERY CHEAP JUST TO MAKE A SOLAR PANEL OR ONE TURBINE.

ESPECIALLY CHEAP ABOUT 10 YEARS AGO WHEN WE HAD MUCH LOWER INFLATION, LOW INTEREST RATES AND LOW TARIFFS AND HEAVY SUBSIDIES FOR SOLAR AND WIND.

SO IT'S MUCH MORE EXPENSIVE TODAY.

BUT TO ACTUALLY DECARBONIZE A LARGE GRID LIKE NEW YORK, IT'S NOT JUST BUILDING ONE OR TWO SOLAR POWERS.

WE HAVE TO BUILD TRANSITION LINES.

THIS IS THE MOST EXPENSIVE BARRIER TO BUILDING UP RENEWABLES AND WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THOUSANDS OF MILES OF TRANSMISSION LINES AROUND THE STATE.

LAST YEAR THERE WAS A TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT CLEAN PATH NEW YORK THAT WAS IT CANCEL DUE TO EXPENSE AND IT WAS JUST UNDER 2K 00 MILES.

WE NEED THOUSANDS IF WE ARE EVER COMING CLOSE TO DECARBONIZING WITH SOLAR AND WIND SO VERY SIMPLY, IF YOU WANT TO DO THE PATH OF NUCLEAR, IT'S GOING TO TAKE BILLIONS OF DOLLARS AND MANY YEARS TO BUILD PLANTS.

THAT'S TRUE.

IF YOU WANT SOLAR AND WIND AND TRANSMISSION LINES AND BATTERIES, THAT IS ALSO GOING TO TAKE BILLIONS OF DOLLARS AND MANY YEARS OR IF YOU WANT TO USE FOSSIL FUEL STRUCTURE AND GO CARBON STRUCTURE, AT THAT TIME WILL TAKE MILLIONS OF DOLLARS AND MANY YEARS.

AND IF YOU WANT TO BUILD SKY SCRAPERS, THIS IS THE STATE OF MODERN SOCIETY.

WE HAVE TO BIAS OURSELVES IN THE LONG-TERM.

WHAT IS THE MOST EFFICIENT WAY TO KEEP GOING IN A POSITIVE DIRECTION OF LOWERING OUR CARBON FOOTPRINT WITHOUT COMPROMISING RELIABILITY AT ALL.

>> DO YOU WANT TO WEIGH IN ON THE COST CONVERSATION?

>> SURE.

TO TALK ABOUT COST, YOU KNOW, THE $540 THAT WE SPENT IN SUBSIDIZING THE EXISTING REACTORS IN 2023 WAS OVER 30 TIMES THE AMOUNT OF SUBSIDIES WE PAID FOR NEW RENEWABLE ENERGY RESOURCES IN NEW YORK IN THAT YEAR.

AND THAT'S PARTLY BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, WE ARE NOT BUILDING ENOUGH OF IT.

I THINK ONE OF THE PROBLEMS THAT WE HAVE HAD IS THAT, YOU KNOW, WE NEED REAL SOLUTIONS TO ENERGY IN NEW YORK.

AND YOU KNOW, THERE HAS BEEN A PROBLEM OF HOLDING THE PEOPLE THAT CAN MAKE THESE THINGS HAPPEN ACCOUNTABLE TO MEETING THE TARGETS AND THE GOALS THAT THE STATE HAS SET.

AND WE PAID, AS A FOR INSTANCE, RATE PAYERS IN NEW YORK PAID MORE FOR WHAT ARE CALLED ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE PAYMENTS, WHICH ARE FEES THAT ARE CHARGED TO THE UTILITIES FOR NOT BEING ABLE TO BUY ENOUGH RENEWABLE ENERGY TO MEET WHAT THE STATE'S TARGETS ARE.

SO THE FACT THAT WE ARE SO-- THAT WE HAVE BEEN, YOU KNOW, THAT THE UTILITIES HAVEN'T BEEN HELD ACCOUNTABLE TO ACTUALLY YOU KNOW, MAKING RENEWABLE ENERGY PROJECTS HAPPEN IS WHERE WE HAVE GOTTEN THE NOTION THAT IT TAKES TOO LONG TO BUILD RENEWABLES AND WE CAN'T BUILD THEM AT THE SCALE NECESSARY.

RENEWABLES ARE BEING BUILT AT SCALE AFFORDABLY IN MANY PLACES AROUND THE WORLD AND IN THIS COUNTRY BUT IT IS NOT HAPPENING IN NEW YORK BUT IT CAN.

ONE INTERESTING EXAMPLE OF THAT, RIGHT, IS ANYBODY WHO HAS BEEN TO OSWEGO COUNTY KNOWS THERE IS PLENTY OF WIND THERE.

THEY PUT UP TIE LINES ON THE SUNY OSWEGO CAMPUS SO STUDENTS DON'T GET BLOWN AWAY IN THE WINTER.

THERE IS NOT A SINGLE WIND PROJECT IN OSWEGO COUNTY.

WHY IS THAT?

>> WOULD YOU LIKE TO TELL US?

>> WE HAVE, YOU KNOW, A COUNTY THAT HAS AN ATOM IN ITS COUNTY SEAL.

AND SO I THINK THERE HAS BEEN A DECISION MADE BY, YOU KNOW, THE UTILITIES AND BY THE VESTED INTERESTS IN OUR AREA, THAT THEY WANT TO KEEP THE EXISTING INDUSTRY GOING.

AND NOT BE-- AND SO THEY THINK WE REALLY NEED TO BE WORKING ON REAL SOLUTIONS FOR OUR FUTURE.

>> SO JUST TO CLARIFY.

THIS IS A CONSPIRACY THEORY THAT YOU HAVE BASED ON THE FACT THAT YOU SAW AN ATOM ON A FLAG?

>> I THINK HE IS SAYING THAT IS EMBLEMATIC OF THEIR SUPPORT FOR NUCLEAR ENERGY.

>> ABSOLUTELY.

>> SO THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT THERE IS ANY KIND OF CONSPIRACY HOLDING SOLAR AND WIND BACK IN THIS PLACE AT ALL?

>> WELL, I THINK THAT WHAT WE KNOW IS THAT THERE HAVE BEEN WIND PROJECTS PROPOSED IN OSWEGO COUNTY BEFORE.

20 YEARS AGO GENERAL ELECTRIC PROPOSED BUILDING A DEMONSTRATION OFFSHORE WIND PROJECT IN OSWEGO COUNTY.

AND THEN IT NEVER HAPPENED.

>> DO YOU THINK THIS MIGHT HAVE SOMETHING TO DO WITH THE FACT THAT SOLAR AND WIND ARE THE LEAST RELIABLE ENERGY SOURCES?

>> ABSOLUTELY NOT.

THEY'RE COMPLETELY RELIABLE.

>> COMPLETELY RELIABLE?

>> ABSOLUTELY.

>> THE, YOU KNOW, THE PERFORMANCE OF SOLAR AND WIND PROJECTS, YOU KNOW, HAS ACTUALLY BEEN PROVEN TO BE ONE OF THE MOST RELIABLE EASILY FORECASTED SOURCES OF ENERGY ON THE GRID.

>> SO OFF CAPACITY FACTOR, CAPACITY FACTOR IS A CONCEPT WHERE WE EVALUATE DIFFERENT ENERGY SOURCES, HOW LONG THEY CAN STAY GENERATING THROUGHOUT THE YEAR.

THE HIGHEST ZERO EMISSION SOURCE HIGHEST CAPACITY FACTOR IS NUCLEAR, LOWEST IS SOLAR AND WIND.

AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL THE CAVERNING CAPACITY FACTOR FOR WIND IS 35% BUT IN NEW YORK, WHICH IS NOT AS WINDY AS THE AVERAGE U.S. IS, IT'S ONLY 25%.

IF YOU LOOK AT SOLAR, THE AVERAGE IS 25%.

IN NEW YORK NOT A VERY SUNNY PLACE, IT'S ONLY 15%.

NUCLEAR CAN STAY ON 24 HOURS A DAY, SEVEN DAYS A WEEK ZERO EMISSION AS MUCH AS SOLAR AND WIND IF NOT MORE IN THE LONG-TERM.

>> THE COST OF NUCLEAR IS ASTRONOMICALLY HIGHER THAN THE COST OF WIND AND SOLAR ELK TRIFT.

AS A FOR INSTANCE, THE ONLY NEW NUCLEAR PLANTS BUILT IN THE U.S.

IN THE LAST 30 YEARS WAS JUST BUILT IN GEORGIA.

THOSE PLANTS ARE ALREADY OPERATING AT OVER 90%, YOU KNOW, CAPACITY FACTOR.

THEY COST $37 BILLION TO BUILD THOSE TWO REACTORS AND GEORGIA RATE PAYERS HAVE SEEN THEIR RATES GO UP BY ALMOST 24% TO PAY FOR THEM.

>> BEFORE WE GET TOO DEEP IN THIS CONVERSATION, I WANT TO PAUSE AND SHARE AN INTERVIEW WE RECORDED IN THE MIDDLE OF MARCH WITH DOREEN HARRIS, PRESIDENT AND C.E.O.

OF THE NEW YORK STATE ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE STATE ENTITY SPEARHEADING GOVERNOR HOCHUL'S CAMPAIGN TO DEVELOP NEW NUCLEAR POWER PROJECTS IN NEW YORK.

HERE IS THAT CONVERSATION.

WHAT IS IT ABOUT THE CURRENT ENERGY DEMANDS IN NEW YORK AS WELL AS THE AVAILABLE POWER SOURCES THAT MADE GOVERNOR HOCHUL INTERESTED IN EXPLORING NEW NUCLEAR POWER PROJECTS HERE IN THE EMPIRE STATE?

>> WE HAVE ALWAYS KNOWN WE ARE GOING TO NEED EXTENSIVE EXPANSION OF OUR ELECTRIC GRID TO SUPPORT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND ELECTRIFICATION OF BUILDINGS AND TRANSPORTATION.

SO WE KNEW WE NEEDED A WIDE VARIETY OF RESOURCES AND I THINK DIVERSITY IS THE NAME OF THE GAME.

BUT CERTAINLY WE SAW STRONG BIPARTISAN SUPPORT FOR THE FEDERAL CONTEXT THROUGH THE ADVANCE ACT REALLY ADVANCING NEW NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGIES AND CERTAINLY THE GOVERNOR HAS MADE CLEAR SHE WANTS NEW YORK TO LEAD THE WAY WITH RESPECT TO BENEFITING NOT ONLY FROM THE FEDERAL LEVERAGE BUT FROM THE FIRM CLEAN CAPACITY THAT NUCLEAR POWER CAN PROVIDE.

>> CAN YOU EXPAND A LITTLE BIT ON THE ADVANCE ACT AND THE POTENTIAL THAT OFFERS FOR NEW YORK.

>> THE ADVANCE ACT REALLY SETS STAGE, I WOULD SAY INVESTMENTS ON MULTIPLE FRONTS, FIRST FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF TAX CREDITS THAT CAN REDUCE THE COST OF THE RESOURCES AND ALSO PROGRAM TO BRING SCALE AND THAT'SY ACENTRAL ASPECT OF THIS, IS THAT NOBODY CAN DO THIS ALONE.

WE NEED INDUSTRY SCALE, STANDARDIZATION, TO ALLOW FOR COST REDUCTIONS AS WE MOVE FROM PROJECT NUMBER ONE TO PROJECT NUMBER 5, 10 AND BEYOND.

>> SO IN OUR CURRENT WORLD, A DAY AT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CAN SEEM LIKE A LIFETIME AND WE ARE RECORDING IN MID MARCH.

THIS IS GOING TO AIR IN LATE MARCH.

BUT GIVEN THAT BACKDROP, WHAT HAVE WE SEEN OUT OF THE EARLY DAYS OF THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION THAT SIGNAL A POSITIVE FUTURE FOR NUCLEAR POWER OR MAYBE MORE CHALLENGES FOR NUCLEAR POWER?

AT THIS POINT DOES IT SEEM LIKE THE STEPS TAKEN IN THE PAST ARE STILL MOVING CAUTIOUSLY FORWARD?

>> CERTAINLY THE ADVANCE ACT, AS I SAID, WAS A BIPARTISAN BILL THAT ADVANCED AND WE REALLY SEE THAT LEVEL OF SUPPORT CONTINUING UNDER THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION.

IN FACT, IF ANYTHING, IT'S CONTINUED TO GROW.

SO THIS IS REALLY NEW YORK BEING IN THE RIGHT PLACE AT THE RIGHT TIME TO BENEFIT FROM THE DURABLE POLICY THAT NOT ONLY WE CAN ADVANCE BUT CAN LEVERAGE FROM A FEDERAL CONTEXT AS WELL.

>> SO BACK IN THE FALL OF 2024, THE HOCHUL ADMINISTRATION AND YOUR OFFICE MORE SPECIFICALLY PUT OUT A REQUEST FOR INFORMATION TO GATHER SOME DIFFERENT VIEWPOINTS ABOUT THE NEW NUCLEAR POTENTIAL THAT WE HAVE HERE IN NEW YORK.

AND I'M CURIOUS IF ANYTHING STOOD OUT TO YOU IN TERMS OF THE RESPONSES YOU GOT AND NOT NECESSARILY FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE INTERESTED IN DEVELOPING NUCLEAR POWER BUT OTHER STAKEHOLDERS WHO SEE A POTENTIAL ROLE FOR THEMSELVES.

>> WE RECEIVED DOZENS OF RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR INFORMATION, REALLY TRYING TO TAKE STOCK OF THE ECOSYSTEM THAT EXISTS HERE TODAY OR COULD.

AND WE RECEIVED RESPONSES FROM EVERYTHING FROM HOST COMMUNITIES WHO MAY BE INTERESTED IN CONSIDERING SITING A NUCLEAR REACTOR IN THEIR COMMUNITY, AT LEAST IN THE EARLY STAGE.

BUT EVERYTHING FROM A COMMUNITY ALL THE WAY TO A UNIVERSITY, WE HAVE A STRONG ECOSYSTEM OF EDUCATION IN NEW YORK THAT CAN REALLY BUILD ON THE WORKFORCE THAT WE HAVE, AS WELL AS THE SUPPLY CHAIN TO SERVE THE REACTORS AND SYSTEMS THEMSELVES.

SO I WOULD SAY IT IS AN EXISTING ECOSYSTEM THAT REALLY NEEDS TO BE BUILT UPON WHEN WE THINK ABOUT THE THE NEW OPPORTUNITIES THAT ADVANCE TECHNOLOGIES REPRESENT.

>> WELL, IT HAS BEEN A FEW MONTHS NOW SINCE THAT R.F.I.

WENT OUT AND SOME OF THE INITIAL RESPONSES CAME IN.

SO WHAT ARE YOU DOING THEN WITH THAT INFORMATION?

HAVE YOU BEGUN TAKING ANY SORT OF CONCRETE STEPS WITH THE RESPONSES?

>> SO WE ARE.

WE HAVE A MASTER PLAN THAT IS UNDER WAY THAT WILL OCCUR OVER THE COMING COUPLES OF YEARS, REALLY LOOKING AT ALL ASPECTS OF THIS TECHNOLOGY AND ITS POTENTIAL FOR ADVANCEMENT HERE IN NEW YORK STATE.

THAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN.

BUT AT THE SAME TIME, WE HAVE A NUMBER OF OTHER INITIATIVES THAT ARE UNDER WAY TO CONSIDER THE POTENTIAL APPLICATION OF TECHNOLOGY IN OUR STATE.

A GREAT EXAMPLE IS THE SUPPORT THAT NYSERDA PROVIDED TO CONSTELLATION FOR AN APPLICATION TO THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF THE EARLY SITE PERMITS NECESSARY 20 INSTALL-- TO INSTALL ONE OR MORE OF THE REACTORS AT THE NINE MILE FACILITY IN OSWEGO COUNTY.

THAT'S VERY REAL.

A TANGIBLE SITE IN WHICH WE COULD POTENTIALLY SUPPORT THE INSTALLATION OF A PROJECT.

BUT WE ALSO KNOW, AS I HAD SAID, WE REALLY CAN'T DO THIS ALONE AND CERTAINLY THE SUPPORT THAT WE HAVE PROVIDED IN CO-LEADING A MULTISTATE INITIATIVE, CALLED THE FIRST MOVERS INITIATIVE, OF A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT STATES, BOTH RED AND BLUE STATES, WOULD I SAY IMPORTANTLY, LOOKING AT HOW TOGETHER WE CAN PROVIDE SCALE, CERTAINTY SAND A PIPELINE OF PROJECTS TO BRING THIS INDUSTRY FORWARD.

FASTER PERHAPS THAN WE WOULD ON OUR OWN.

>> THIS IS OFTEN TALKED ABOUT AS NEW NUCLEAR.

WE HEAR THE EXPRESSION OF ADVANCED NUCLEAR THROWN OUT.

WHAT DOES THAT MEAN FOR THE AVERAGE LISTENER COMPARED TO WHAT WE MIGHT HAVE THOUGHT ABOUT AS THE NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY THAT IS IN PLACE SAY ALREADY IN NEW YORK STATE?

>> SO THE STUDIES THAT WE HAVE UNDER WAY WILL CONSIDER THE APPLICATION OF EVERYTHING FROM WHAT ARE CALLED MICROREACTORS THAT LITERALLY COULD BE INSTALLED IN A NEIGHBORHOOD ALL THE WAY THROUGH TO LARGE REACTORS MORE LIKE THOSE THAT ARE IN OUR STATE BUT CERTAINLY MORE MODERNIZED DESIGNS.

THE BIG DIFFERENCE IS FIRST, REPLICABILITY MEANING THAT IN THIS CASE THEY COULD BE INSTALLED IN A MORE MODULAR MANNER IN A SERIES OPPOSED TO ONE LARGE LARGER REACTOR BUT ALSO FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF SAFETY.

SAFETY PROVISIONS IN THE NEWER DESIGNS ARE SIGNIFICANTLY ENHANCED AND SOMETHING THAT CAN ALLOW I'D SAY NOT ONLY BETTER SITING OF THE TECHNOLOGY BUT THE MORE AUTOMATION THAT WILL BE NECESSARY TO CONTINUE TO ADVANCE ON IT FROM THE SAFETY PERSPECTIVE AS WELL.

SO WE DON'T HAVE AN ANSWER YET AND IT MAY BE THAT WE ARE LOOKING AT SEVERAL TECHNOLOGIES, DEPENDING ON THE USE CASE.

AND THAT'S REALLY WHAT THE MASTER PLAN IS INTENDED TO DO, IS TO TAKE EACH TECHNOLOGY, DETERMINE WHERE AND IF IT MAY BE APPLIED AND DETERMINE IF IT IS SOMETHING THAT NEW YORK WANTS TO PURSUE.

>> AND IN TERMS OF PURSUING THIS TECHNOLOGY IN THE FUTURE, HOW RELEVANT IS THE ENERGY DEMAND IN NEW YORK TO THAT CONVERSATION BECAUSE WE OBVIOUSLY HAVE PROJECTS LIKE MICRON THAT EVER GOING TO BE VERY ENERGY INTENSIVE IN THE CENTRAL NEW YORK REGION.

THERE IS THE EMPIRE A.I.

DEVELOPMENTS OUT IN WESTERN NEW YORK.

ARE THOSE SOME OF THE DRIVING REASONS FOR PURSUING NUCLEAR ENERGY?

OR IS IT THE BROADER ENERGY SYSTEM THAT MAKES THIS APPEALING TO THE STATE?

>> GREAT QUESTION.

GOVERNOR HOCHUL CALLED THE FUTURE ENERGY ECONOMY SUMMIT LAST SUMMER FOR THIS VERY REASON, TO SAY LOAD GROWTH IS A GOOD PROBLEM TO HAVE.

IT MEANS THAT OUR ECONOMY IS GROWING.

AND IN NEW YORK, MOST NOTABLY WE SEE THAT LOAD GROWTH HAPPENING IN THE UPSTATE REGION THROUGH DATA CENTERS, A.I., SEMICONDUCTORS, FABRICATION, ET CETERA.

WHEN WE LOOK AT THE POTENTIAL FOR APPLICATIONS OF NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGIES, IT IS, IN PART, BECAUSE PERHAPS THESE FACILITIES COULD BE SITED IN A MANNER THAT SERVES THOSE LOADS DIRECTLY, MEANING LITERALLY AT THE SITE OF THE LOAD.

HOWEVER, IT ALSO COULD BE THE CASE THAT IT IS SERVING THE GRID AT LARGE.

AS I HAD SAID, WE KNOW OUR ELECTRIC SYSTEM NEEDS TO GROW AND EXPAND.

AND ELECTRIC NEEDS ARE VERY DISBURSE IN SOME INSTANCES, FROM OUR RENEWABLE RESOURCE, FOR EXAMPLE.

BUT NUCLEAR POWER IS DENSE AND CAN BE SITED IN A RELATIVELY SMALL SPACE AND REALLY DELIVER A LOT OF ELECTRICITY FROM THAT PARTICULAR LOCATION IN WAYS THAT COULD BENEFIT AN OFF TAKER LIKE MICRON, BUT ALSO THE GRID AT LARGE.

>> SO THE INITIAL R.F.I.

THAT WENT OUT LAST YEAR WAS FOCUSED ON UPSTATE DEVELOPMENT OF NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY.

IS THAT STILL THE FOCUS?

KEEPING IT SAY NORTH OF, WHATEVER THAT IMAGINE UPSTATE LINE IS ALTHOUGH I IMAGINE YOU HAVE A SPECIFIC UPSTATE LINE FOR THIS PURPOSE?

>> WE USE SPECIFIC ZONES FOR OUR CONSIDERATION.

BUT IT IS IMPORTANT TO SAY THAT THE FOCUS THE GOVERNOR HAS PROVIDED AND THAT WHICH WE CONTINUE TO PURSUE IS REALLY HOW ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CAN BENEFIT FROM THE DEPLOYMENT OF NUCLEAR POWER.

AND AS SUCH, WHEN WE LOOK AT THESE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT LOADS, THEY ARE, FOR THE MOST PART, OCCURRING IN THE UPSTATE NEW YORK REGION AND REMAIN THE FOCUS OF OUR MASTER PLAN AND CERTAINLY OF THE ENGAGEMENTS THAT WE ARE HAVING TODAY.

>> SO A POLL CONDUCTED AT THE END OF 2024 BY THE SIENNA COLLEGE INSTITUTE FOUND NEW YORKERS WOULD SPLIT ON THE IDEA OF NEW NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS AND A SLIM PLURALITY SAID THEY WERE IN FAVOR.

WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT THE FUTURE OF DEVELOPMENTS OF NEW NUCLEAR POWER, HOW WILL LOCAL SUPPORT BE FACTORED IN THOSE CONVERSATION CONSIDERATION?

IT IS ESSENTIAL TO WORK TO NOT ONLY ENSURE THAT WE ARE WORKING WITH POTENTIAL HOST COMMUNITIES BUT THAT WE ARE DOING WHAT NYSERDA HAS DONE FOR 50 YEARS, WHICH IS PROVIDE OBJECTIVE, CLEAR-EYED COMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION TO AID IN DECISION MAKING.

I HAVE BEEN REALLY IMPRESSED WITH THE WAYS IN WHICH HOST COMMUNITIES HAVE ALREADY STEPPED UP TO SAY, THIS IS SOMETHING WE AT LEAST WANT TO CONSIDER.

BUT I THINK THE HISTORY OF NUCLEAR POWER AND SPECIFICALLY THE HISTORY OF NUCLEAR POWER IN NEW YORK IS ONE THAT WILL NECESSITY AN EXTRA AMOUNT OF EDUCATION FOR THE PUBLIC AT LARGE AND POTENTIAL HOST COMMUNITIES, BECAUSE IT IS TRUE.

THESE ARE NOT THE TECHNOLOGIES OF YESTERDAY.

BUT WE NEED TO MAKE SURE WE ARE EXPLAINING THIS ALL.

AND AS I SAID, IN AN OBJECTIVE MANNER, TO AID IN THE COMMUNITIES' OWN VIEWS AND ULTIMATE OBJECTIVE INFORMATION TO HELP THEM IN THEIR DECISION MAKING AS WELL.

SO THIS IS CENTRAL TO THE WORK WE HAVE UNDER WAY.

SO FAR, A STRONG LEVEL OF SUPPORT HAS BEEN RECEIVED IN RESPONSE TO OUR RFI, BUT THIS IS WHY WE HAVE A MULTIYEAR EFFORT BECAUSE IT IS GOING TO TAKE MANY YEARS TO MAKE SURE WE ARE SOLID ON THE FACTS AND SHARE THEM ACCORDINGLY.

>> PRESIDENT HARRIS, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR MAKING THE TIME.

APPRECIATE IT.

>> GREAT TOPIC TO COVER.

GLAD TO BE HERE.

>> SO WE HEARD DOREEN MENTION THE ADVANCE ACT AND LEGISLATION SIGNED BY FORMER PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN IS SUPPOSED TO MAKE THE APPROVAL PROCESS FOR NUCLEAR ENERGY IN THE FUTURE EASIER.

WE ARE ALSO HEARD HER MENTION THAT THIS TECHNOLOGY, YOU KNOW, ALLEGEDLY SAFER AND COULD MAKE THE SITING PROCESS SAFER.

I ALSO MENTIONED IN THE CONVERSATION THOUGH HOW THE PUBLIC IS KIND OF DIVIDED ON THIS.

COMING BACK TO THAT ISSUE OF SITING, I MEAN DO YOU JUST HAVE BILLABLE HOURS RACKING UP IN YOUR MIND WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT HOW COMPLICATED THIS COULD BE IN THE FUTURE OR IS THIS POTENTIALLY A STRAIGHTFORWARD PROCESS AS PRESIDENT HARRIS TRIED TO LAY OUT THERE?

>> WELL, I THINK FOR SITING FACILITIES OF THIS SORT, YOU WILL ALSO FIND A PARTNERSHIP WEN THE LOCAL COMMUNITY AND SPONSOR OF THE PROJECT BECAUSE THESE FACILITIES PROVIDE A SIGNIFICANT ECONOMIC RETURN FOR THE HOST COMMUNITY AND THE REGION.

THEY ARE EMPLOYMENT JUGGERNAUTS.

THEY HAVE HIGH PAYING JOBS.

THEY PROVIDE SIGNIFICANT TAXES TO THE LOCAL COMMUNITY.

AND I THINK THAT THE SITING PROCESS WILL BE IMPROVED BY THOSE THAT WANT TO PARTNER WITH THE NUCLEAR PLANT SPONSORS, WHETHER IT BE A SMALL MODULAR REACTOR OR A LARGE CENTRAL STATION FACILITY.

>> IS THAT KEY THOUGH, HAVING THAT LOCAL BUY IN?

COULD SOMETHING LIKE THIS STILL BE GREEN LIT IN A COMMUNITY THE WAY SOMEONE MIGHT BE ABLE TO PUT SAY SOLAR PANELS ON THEIR PROPERTY REGARD LET'S WHAT A MUNICIPALITY-- REGARDLESS OF WHAT A MUNICIPALITY OR PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN THE PLUPT MIGHT THINK ABOUT IT?

>> ALL PROJECTS EVEN THOSE THAT FEEL THAT THE STATE IS IMPOSING, FOR EXAMPLE, RENEWABLE PROJECT ON THEIR COMMUNITY, ULTIMATELY, THERE IS A DEAL THAT IS BROKERED BETWEEN TO ADDRESS ALL ISSUES AS IT RELATES TO SITING THAT FACILITY.

SO I DON'T-- THERE MAY BE NEGATIVE VOICES IN THESE COMMUNITIES BUT I THINK BY AND LARGE, THERE IS AN EMBRACE OF EACH AND EVERY FACILITY THAT COMES INTO A COMMUNITY.

AND THERE IS A BIT OF A TRADE, RIGHT?

THERE ARE BENEFITS TO ENERGY FACILITIES THAT SUBSIDIZE THE TAX BASE.

>> AND HERE IN NEW YORK, WE UPDATED OUR SITING PROCESS FOR LARGE SCALE RENEWABLE GENERATION PROJECTS ABOUT FIVE YEARS AGO.

WE ALSO UPDATED THE SITING PROCESS FOR TRANSMISSION LINES.

IS THIS AN AREA WHERE THE STATE NEEDS TO EXAMINE OR SHOULD EXAMINE ITS SITING PROCESS FOR NUCLEAR PROJECTS?

OR IS THIS MORE IN THE DOMAIN OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND OUR HANDS ARE TIED TO A CERTAIN DEGREE SO IT DOESN'T MATTER HOW WE MIGHT TINKER AROUND THE MARGINS?

>> I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE A FEDERAL PROCESS, NOT A STATE PROCESS.

AND THERE WILL BE LOCAL ISSUES THAT WILL BE REVIEWED FOR EACH OF THESE FACILITIES, BUT AS WE HAVE SEEN, YOU KNOW, WE USED TO THINK OF RENEWABLE SITING AS A THREE TO FOUR YEAR PROCESS.

IT'S NOW EIGHT TO NINE YEARS.

NONE OF THESE FACILITIES FINDS ITS WAY INTO A COMMUNITY AND TO PUT THE IRON IN THE GROUND WITHOUT A VERY LONG PROCESS THAT EXAMINES ALL ISSUES AND GIVES VOICE TO ALL PEOPLE, WHETHER THEY BE FOR OR AGAINST THESE PROJECTS.

AND ULTIMATELY, THERE IS A CONSENSUS BUILT AND AN INVESTMENT MADE.

>> ERIC, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT STOOD OUT TO ME FROM THE CONVERSATION WITH DOREEN IS THIS IDEA THAT IT IS STILL AN EVOLVING TECHNOLOGY.

AND SHE EVEN TALKED ABOUT HAVING TO DO STUDIES TO TRY TO GET THEIR HEADS WRAP ADD ROUND WHAT IS POSSIBLE.

SO WHEN WE HEAR ABOUT SO CALLED NEXT GENERATION NUCLEAR TECH; HOW MUCH OF IT IS ACTUALLY READY FOR PRIME TIME AND CAN BE DEPLOYED NOW AND HOW MUCH OF THIS IS STILL A WORK IN PROGRESS AND THEORETICAL, ESPECIALLY COMPARED TO SOME OF THE RENEWABLE ENERGY PROJECTS THAT WE ALREADY ARE DEPLOYING?

WE HAVE PROOF OF CONCEPT OF OFFSHORE WIND, FOR EXAMPLE.

>> KIND OF LIKE WHERE DO YOU DRAW THE LINE BETWEEN UPSTATE AND UPSTATE NEW YORK.

WHERE DO YOU DRAW THE LINE BETWEEN NEW NUCLEAR AND OLD NUCLEAR.

BASICALLY THIS TECHNOLOGY OF NUCLEAR FISSION WORKED REALLY WELL IN THE 1950s.

IT STILL WORKED VERY WELL TODAY AND IS GETTING BETTER IN TERMS OF MORE PASSIVE SAFETY SYSTEMS WITH GRAFT THERMAL EXPANSION, MORE VARIATION IN SIZE.

YOU HEARD ABOUT SMALL MODULAR REACTORS OR MICROREACTORS AND THE BETTER ABILITY TO RAMP UP AND DOWN EASILY MIPPICKING THE POWER OF NATURAL GAS.

IT IS JUST A GREAT TECHNOLOGY THAT KEEPS GETTING BETTER AND I THINK THAT MICRON PROJECT IS AN EXAMPLE OF THAT.

NEW YORK STATE COMPARED TO OTHER STATES IS NOT KNOWN AS THE MOST BUSINESS FRIENDLY.

A LOT OF BUSINESSES HAVE LEFT IN RECENT YEARS AND DECADES AND MICRON IS COMING TO NEW YORK TO BE PRIMARILY TO BE CLOSE PROXIMITY OF RELIABLE ZERO OF EMISSION NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS.

>> THEY ARE GETTING SOME CARVEOUTS FOR FOSSIL FUEL POWERS AS WELL.

>> THIS IS NOT JUST FOR NEW YORK.

THEY'RE TRYING TO LOCATE AROUND PLACES THAT HAVE RELIABLE ENERGY THAT IS ALSO ZERO EMISSION TO COMPLY WITH ALL OF THE VARIOUS COMPLIEMENT GOALS PUSHED IN VARIOUS STATES.

AND ONE THING THAT SHE SAID THAT RESONATED WITH ME A LOT.

I THINK IT WAS A QUOTE FROM GOVERNOR HOCHUL, WAS THAT OUR ELECTRICITY DEMAND IS GROWING.

IT'S GOING TO DOUBLE IN THE NEXT 25 YEARS AND THAT'S A GOOD THING.

THIS IS A VERY GOOD THING TO WANT TO RESHORE MANUFACTURING IN NEW YORK.

WE WANT TO HAVE MORE BIG TECH COMPANIES LOCATED IN NEW YORK AND WE WANT TO SEE THE ECONOMIC MULTIPLIER EFFECT IN THE SMALL TOWNS.

THERE ARE A LOT OF KIND OF, WHAT YOU MIGHT CALL RUST BELT COMMUNITIES IN UPSTATE NEW YORK AND THEY COULD BE REALLY SAVED BY ADDING MORE NUCLEAR REACTORS.

>> TIM, YOU HAVE TALKED ABOUT THAT ISSUE OF LOW DEMAND AND MADE IT CLEAR YOU DON'T THINK THERE IS A QUOTE UNQUOTE ENERGY EMERGENCY.

WE HAVE A CLIMATE EMERGENCY.

CAN YOU TALK ABOUT THE LOAD DEMAND THAT IS THE RATIONALE TO FOCUS ON NUCLEAR POWER RIGHT NOW?

>> SURE.

WE HAVE INCREASING ELECTRICITY DEMAND RIGHT NOW FROM WHETHER IT'S DATA CENTERS OR MANUFACTURING FACILITIES.

SO, YOU KNOW, WE DO NEED TO BE PROVIDING MORE ELECTRICITY.

THAT'S OBVIOUS.

THE PROBLEM IS THAT NUCLEAR ISN'T A GOOD SOLUTION FOR THAT.

BECAUSE IT TAKES SO LONG TO BUILD IT AND SO, YOU KNOW, AS I THINK IT WAS NOTABLE THAT WHEN DOREEN HARRIS WAS TALKING ABOUT THE RESPONSES THE STATE GOT TO THIS INQUIRY THEY PUT OUT FOR INTEREST IN BUILDING NEW NUCLEAR, SHE DIDN'T MENTION THERE WERE ANY COMPANIES THAT WERE ACTUALLY INTERESTED IN BUILDING NEW REACTORS.

AND THAT'S BECAUSE OF TWO REASONS.

ONE IS THE COST IS ASTRONOMICAL AND COMPANIES ARE NOT INTERESTED IN TAKING ON THAT RISK RIGHT NOW BUT IT'S ALSO BECAUSE THERE IS ALMOST NONE OF THE NEW WHAT THEY'RE CALLING ADVANCED REACTORS THAT HAVE THEIR DESIGNS APPROVED AND READY TO BUILD SO WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT IS IF THEY'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT BUILDING NEW NUCLEAR PLANTS TO POWER THE MICRON FACILITY, YOU KNOW, YOU ARE LOOKING AT HAVING THESE THINGS 10, 15, MAYBE 20 YEARS FROM NOW.

WHEREAS YOU KNOW, WE CAN BUILD RENEWABLE ENERGY TODAY AT A MUCH, MUCH LOWER COST AS YOU POINTED OUT.

AND SO YOU KNOW, AND THEN THE OTHER QUESTION THAT DOREEN HARRIS RAISED IS THE LOCAL IMPACTS OF BUILDING THESE PROJECTS.

WE HAVE HAD THAT EXPERIENCE THROUGH AND THROUGH HERE MUCH WE HAVE THREE REACTORS IN OSWEGO COUNTY BUILD IN THE 70s AND 80s.

THAT WAS WHILE WE WERE DEINDUSTRIALIZING THROUGHOUT CENTRAL NEW YORK AND OSWEGO COUNTY.

WE LOST MORE JOBS THAN WE GOT FROM BUILDING THOSE FACILITIES.

AND PART OF THAT, YOU KNOW, WAS ASSISTED BY THE WAY THAT ELECTRICITY PRICES WERE GOING UP BECAUSE OF THE ASTRONOMICAL COST OF BUILDING NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS.

SO FROM THE STANDPOINT OF WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE, YOU KNOW, WE NEED REAL SOLUTIONS.

THERE ARE A MILLION HOUSEHOLDS IN NEW YORK STATE THAT ARE HAVING TROUBLE PAYING THEIR UTILITY BILLS AND YET WAS WE ARE GETTING FROM THE GOVERNOR AND FROM DOREEN HARRIS, WE SHOULD BE BUILDING THE MOST EXPENSIVE POWER POSSIBLE.

THOSE TWO THINGS DON'T JIVE FOR ME.

>> RENEWABLE ENERGY PROJECTS THAT ARE IN THE WORKS RIGHT NOW ARE DRIVING UP ENERGY BILLS.

THEY JUST WON'T ACTUALLY MAKE IT CLEAR, ON YOUR ENERGY BILL, THAT THIS IS A PRODUCT OF THAT COST.

>> SURE, YEAH, I MEAN IT'S COSTING A LITTLE BIT MORE BUT WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT IS, YOU KNOW, IN GEORGIA THE REACTORS THAT JUST GOT BUILT, BILLS ARE GOING UP 24% FROM THE CONSTRUCTION OF THOSE REACTORS SO WE ARE TALKING ALSO ABOUT A QUESTION OF SCALE.

AND THE OTHER THING THE STATE NEEDS TO BE DOING IS INVESTING IN ENERGY EFFICIENCY.

WE HAVE HOUSEHOLDS THAT DESPERATELY NEED ENERGY EFFICIENCY IMPROVEMENTS TO THEIR HOMES SO THEY WON'T REQUIRE AS MUCH ENERGY AND THAT WILL SAVE PEOPLE A LOT OF MONEY ON THEIR BILLS AS WELL.

WE NEED A PACKAGE OF SOLUTIONS HERE.

>> ERIC, I WANT TO DUMB BACK TO SOMETHING HOVERING OVER THE WHOLE CONVERSATION WHICH IS THE 2019 CLIMATE LEADERSHIP AND COMMUNITY PROTECTION ACT WHICH SET GREEN ENERGY GOALS IN NEW YORK.

IN 2030, 70% RENEWABLE ENERGY AND 2040 NET ZERO ELECTRICITY EMISSIONS OR WHATEVER.

WHEN WE THINK ABOUT NUCLEAR, I FEEL LIKE WE HAVEN'T REALLY DEFINED IN STATE REGS OR STATE LAW HOW TO TREAT THE ENERGY WE GET FROM THAT.

SO FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE, IF YOU HAD TO ADVISE THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, WOULD YOU TELL THEM NUCLEAR IS RENEWABLE OR WOULD YOU TELL THEM MAYBE IT'S NOT RENEWABLE BUT FOR THE SAKE OF THE 2040 GOALS IT COUNTS AS NET ZERO EMISSION.

HOW DO YOU THINK ABOUT THE THE ENERGY PRODUCED.

>> YOU BRING UP AN EXCELLENT POINT AND AGAIN, I WOULD SAY THAT I'M NOT JUST A SHILL FOR NUCLEAR OR THE NUCLEAR INDUSTRY.

I WANT A VERY RATIONAL LONG-TERM ENERGY POLICY IN GENERAL.

AND SO IF WE ARE GOING TO HAVE ANY SINNED OF ZERO EMISSION GOALS, THE MOST IMPORTANT PRINCIPLE I WOULD SUGGEST IS THAT THEY BE TECHNOLOGY NEUTRAL SO YOU ARE BRINGING UP A VERY IMPORTANT POINT THAT THE 2030 GOAL IS TECHNOLOGY SPECIFIC.

ONLY RENEWABLES VERY NARROWLY DEFINED AS SOLAR, WIND, GEOTHERMAL AND BIO MASS IS IT.

BUT THE 2040 GOALS IS TECHNOLOGY NEUTRAL.

0% EMISSION.

IT COULD COME FROM GEOTHERMAL OR NUCLEAR FISSION OR CARBON CAPTURE AND COULD INCORPORATE HYDROGEN ELECTROLYZERS OR BATTERIES OR ANYTHING ELSE AND SO I THINK THAT IS THE BEST WAY TO FRAME ANY LEGISLATION GOING FORWARD TO JUST USE WHATEVER WORKS AND COUNT ON AMERICAN INNOVATION AND MASS PRODUCTION TO DO IT AND I WOULD ALSO ADD THAT UNLIKE FOSSIL FUELS, RENEWABLES NUCLEAR CURRENTLY HAS THE STRONGEST BIPARTISAN SUPPORT.

EVERYBODY IS SO DIVIDED TRUMP VERSUS BIDEN, TRUMP WAS PRONUCLEAR IN HIS FIRST TERM AND BIDEN WAS MORE SO IN THE SECOND TERM WITH THE INFLATION REDUCTION ACT AND ADVANCE ACT AND TRUMP IS CONTINUING TO PRONUCLEAR SO THIS IS SOMETHING WE CAN ALL AGREE UPON.

>> TIM, I WANT TO COME BACK TO THE IDEA OF NET OTHER SEA-- NET 0.

WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT NUCLEAR POWER DOES THAT CATCH THE UMBRELLA FOR THE 2040 GOALS.

>> IT'S A REAL DODGE BY THE NUCLEAR INDUSTRY TO KIND OF MAKE OUT THE 2040 GOAL FOR THE ZERO EMISSIONS ELECTRICITY IN THE STATE.

: WE HAVE A GOAL TO MEET 70% OF OUR ELECTRICITY FROM RENEWABLES BY THIRST 30.

>> GOAL WE ARE PROBABLY NOT GOING HIT.

>> WE ARE PROBABLY NOT GOING TO HIT THE GOAL BUT IT IS THE GOAL AND WAS DECIDED WHAT WAS NECESSARY IN ORDER TO MEET OUR EMISSION REDUCTIONS BECAUSE WE HAVE A CLIMATE CRISIS.

BUT, YOU KNOW, SO WE ARE GOING TO NEED TO RAMP UP, YOU KNOW, INSTALLATIONS OF SOLAR AND WIND AND OTHER RENEWABLES TREMENDOUSLY BY 2030.

ARE WE NOT GOING TO CONTINUE BUILDING SOLAR AND WIND AND RENEWABLES AFTER 2030?

ARE WE JUST GOING TO LET THOSE INDUSTRIES GO AWAY AS WELL?

I THINK THE REAL REASON THAT WE HAVE THAT GOAL FOR 2040 FOR ZERO EMISSIONS THERE IS A POTENTIAL THAT SOME OF THE EXISTING REACTORS WILL CONTINUE TO OPERATE PAST 2040 AND THEY MADE SPACE FOR THAT.

BUT THE IDEA THAT WE ARE GOING TO BUILD UP A WHOLE RENEWABLE ENERGY INDUSTRY IN THE NEXT DECADE TO MEET OUR RENEWABLE ENERGY TARGETS AND THEN STOP BUILDING RENEWABLES IN FAVOR OF NUCLEAR IS REALLY I THINK, WOULD BE A TOTAL MISFIRE IN TERMS OF MAKING SURE THAT THERE ARE JOBS FOR PEOPLE IN CENTRAL NEW YORK AND THE REST OF THE STATE LONG-TERM.

>> WE GOT TO START TO WIND THIS DOWN.

MATT, I WANT TO LEAN ON YOU.

WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT THE FUTURE, DOES THE PICTURE LOOK CLEAR TO YOU?

DOES THIS SEEM LIKE THERE IS A TRAJECTORY THAT WE ARE CLEARING HEADING TOWARD?

OBVIOUSLY NEW YORK STATE, GOVERNOR HOCHUL IS INTERESTED IN NUCLEAR POWER BUT WHO KNOWS IF WE WILL REALIZE THAT.

DOES THERE SEEM TO BE A MAKEUP OF ENERGY THAT IS CLEARLY GOING TO BE OUR FUTURE OR DO YOU THINK THIS IS STILL AN EVOLVING PIECE OF ARTWORK THAT WE ARE PUTTING TOGETHER?

>> WELL, I THINK THAT THE STATE NEEDS TO DECIDE AND PICK THE WAY.

AND IT HAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO LEAD THE COUNTRY ON THESE ISSUES.

IT HAS DONE A GREAT JOB INCENTIVIZING RENEWABLES BUT HAS FOUND THAT EVEN THOSE PROJECTS ARE CHALLENGES BY COST.

AND THEY HAVE HAD PROJECT CANCELLATIONS INCLUDING MULTIPLE OFFSHORE WIND PROJECTS BECAUSE OF COST.

SO IF BEE WANT THESE THINGS, IF WE BANT RENEWABLES, WE WANT NUCLEAR, ANY OF THESE THINGS, THE STATE HAS TO DETERMINE THE TARGET, SUPPORT THEM AND INCENTIVIZE THEIR DEVELOPMENT AND I THINK THAT AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO AN ALL OF THE ABOVE APPROACH FOR NEW YORK TO BRING IN THOSE INDUSTRIES THAT WE WANT.

WE ARE NOT GOING TO HAVE STEEL MILLS IN NEW YORK ANYMORE.

BUT WE WILL HAVE A.I.

DATA CENTERS.

WE WILL NEED TO SUPPLY THOSE WITH HOMEGROWN ELECTRICITY AND NUCLEAR PROVIDERS A BENEFIT TO NOT ONLY THE COMMUNITY IN WHICH IT RESIDES, BUT ALSO TO PROVIDE ROUND THE CLOCK POWER THAT THOSE FACILITIES NEED.

>> TIM, WHAT DO YOU THINK?

IS THE HOLISTIC RESPONSE THE RIGHT WAY FORWARD?

DON'T NECESSARILY BET ON ONE TECHNOLOGY OR THE OTHER?

OR DO YOU THINK WE SHOULD PICK WINNERS AND LOSERS IN THIS SPACE.

>> I THINK ALL OF THE ABOVE STRATEGY THAT WE HAVE HEARD A LOT ABOUT OVER THE LAST 20 YEAR IS REFUSE TO CHOOSE.

WE ARE GOING TO NEED TO CHOOSE AND I THINK IN NEW YORK WE HAVE CHOSEN.

WE HAVE SET GOALS FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY IN NEW YORK AND THOSE WEREN'T JUST SOME IDEOLOGICAL BIAS.

THE EVIDENCE IS THERE.

WIND AND SOLAR ARE THE CHEAPEST SOURCES OF ELECTRICITY AROUND.

AND ALSO THE FASTEST TO BUILD.

YOU KNOW, I THINK WHAT WE ARE LOOKING AT HERE IN SYRACUSE, RIGHT, AND YOU TALKED ABOUT MICRON BEFORE, THAT ONE FACILITY IF IT GETS BUILT TO FULL SCALE BY 2040 WILL CONSUME AS MUCH ELECTRICITY AS THE STATES OF NEW HAMPSHIRE AND VERMONT COMBINED, JUST ONE FACILITY HERE IN CENTRAL NEW YORK AND MICRON MAY THINK THIS IS A GREAT PLACE BECAUSE THEY CAN PLUG INTO THE NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS IN OSWEGO BUT THOSE NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS ARE POWERING THE GRID THROUGHOUT THE REGION IN THE STATE AND THEY DON'T GET TO BE FIRST IN LINE.

LIKE THERE IS GOING TO HAVE TO #-B, YOU KNOW, MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF RENEWABLE GEOTHERMAL BUILT TO MAKE UP FOR WHATEVER ELECTRICITY THAT FACILITY CONSUMES.

>> THERE IS A LOT MORE WE COULD SAY ON THIS TOPIC BUT UNFORTUNATELY WE ARE OUT OF TIME TODAY.

MY THANKS TO OUR PANELISTS, MATT MOSES, OF BARCLAY DAMON, TIM JUDSON, OF THE NUCLEAR INFORMATION AND RESOURCE SERVICE, AND ERIC DAWSON, OF NUCLEAR NEW YORK.

ALSO, A BIG THANK YOU TO DOREEN HARRIS, OF NYSERDA, FOR SITTING DOWN WITH ME.

AND IF YOU WANT MORE CONNECT NEW YORK CONTENT - LIKE PAST EPISODES AND ONLINE BONUS FEATURES VISIT WCNY.ORG/CONNECTNEW YORK.

AND FOR MORE POLITICAL COVERAGE, INCLUDING A LOT MORE ENERGY DISCUSSIONS, CHECK OUT THE CAPITOL PRESSROOM AT CAPITOL CAPITAL PRESS ROOM.ORG OR WHEREVER YOU DOWNLOAD PODCASTS ON BEHALF OF THE ENTIRE TEAM AT WCNY - I'M DAVID LOMBARDO - THANKS FOR WATCHING.