1. At-Risk Nuclear Plants: Challenges and Opportunities
Matthew Crozat
Senior Director, Policy Development
Nuclear Energy Institute
New England Restructuring Roundtable
June 16, 2017

2. Overview of U.S. Nuclear Fleet
Merchant
Regulated
99 operating reactors at 60 sites
~100 GW installed capacity
In 2016, nuclear plants provided 805 million MWh of electricity
92% capacity factor in 2016

3. Challenges Facing U.S. Nuclear Fleet
Failure of markets to recognize environmental attributes
Low growth in electricity demand
Continuing surge in supply of low-cost shale gas
Fuel/technology diversity is undervalued
State and federal policies that promote only renewables
Transmission constraints
Market design issues

4. Premature Nuclear Plant Shutdowns
State
Market
MWe
Reason
Closure Year
Crystal River 3 FL
Reg.
860
Mechanical
2013
San Onofre 2 & 3 CA
2,150
Kewaunee WI
Mer.
566
Vermont Yankee VT
620
2014
Fort Calhoun NE
479
2016
Palisades MI
789
2018
Pilgrim MA
678
2019
Oyster Creek NJ
610
Policy
Three Mile Island 1 PA
805
Indian Point 2 & 3 NY
2,060
Combination
Diablo Canyon 1 & 2
2,240
13 % CPP target
More than 2X all solar
11,857 MWe of baseload capacity
96 million MWh of generation
60 million short tons of CO2 avoided
Approximately 10,000 direct jobs

5. Impacts from Closing a Nuclear Plant (1)
Emissions increase
Vermont Yankee’s generation was completely replaced by natural gas – emissions increased
San Onofre lead to an addition 9 million tons
Communities are stressed
Loss of hundreds of well-paying jobs
Carlton, WI lost 70% of budget after Kewaunee
Uncertainty weighing on Davis-Besse, Palisades
New England’s emissions increased ~5%

6. Impacts from Closing a Nuclear Plant (2)
Electricity prices increase
Lost nuclear electricity would be replaced by plants previously too expensive to run
Studies estimate significant potential impact of losing operating nuclear plants
California consumers paid $350 million more for electricity following San Onofre closure

7. Searching for Regional Solutions
FERC Technical Conference
NEPOOL Integrating Markets and Public Policy
Can state policy goals be met through the market?
Three main proposals:
Forward clean energy market
Two-tiered capacity market
Carbon adder on fossil generators
States are key stakeholders
PJM, NYISO also exploring possibilities

8. Solutions Emerging Among the States
State approaches to nuclear have mirrored renewable policies
New York – Clean Energy Standard with tier for ZECs in parallel with RECs
Illinois – Zero-emission credits, similar to New York (2016)
Connecticut – proposal for sales to utilities through state procurement
Closing nuclear facilities “would eviscerate the emission reductions achieved through the state’s renewable energy programs, diminish fuel diversity, increase price volatility, and financially harm host communities.”
– New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo
Dec. 2, 2015

9. Zero Emission Credits Analogous to Renewable Energy Credits
Directly prices non-emitting attribute
Based upon Social Cost of Carbon
Limited to eligible plants
Credit reduces if forecasted revenues rise

10. Connecticut Efforts Legislation Millstone
Allow a state procurement for a portion of Millstone’s generation to be sold directly to utilities
Passed Senate 23-9
Not called for a vote in House
Millstone
Largest generator in New England
97% of state’s non-emitting electricity

11. The Value of Nuclear Energy to America
Source: The Nuclear Industry’s Contribution to the U.S. Economy, The Brattle Group, July 2015