MIDDLETOWN - They may not know it yet, but Pennsylvania lawmakers are going to get a major research assignment thrown at them with the dawn of the 2019-20 legislative session

The topic?

Nuclear energy in Pennsylvania, and what, if anything, to do about it.

Nuclear plant operators, and those who rely upon them for their careers, say the state needs to provide new supports to guarantee this original “zero-emissions energy” can ride out short-term upheaval in the energy markets brought on by abundant natural gas supplies, to be a long-term piece of the energy supply puzzle.

Thousands of jobs are at stake, including about 675 at Three Mile Island near here.

But others, from rivals in the energy sector to advocates for those who are benefitting from Pennsylvania’s competitive electric markets now, call this push undisguised corporate welfare that will likely have the effect of raising costs for everyone else.

An opening salvo was fired Thursday by members of the state legislature’s pro-nuclear Nuclear Energy Caucus, who said they will work for implementation by summer 2019 of measures that could include:

The inclusion of nuclear energy into a list of 16 existing alternative energy sources - including wind and solar - that power companies are required to use for 14.7 percent of electricity sales, a market slice slated to grow to 18 percent of sales by 2021.

Zero-emissions credits that provide a direct subsidy to nuclear plants for every megawatt-hour of emissions-free electricity generated. The fee is set based on the “avoided costs” of carbon emissions and overall energy market conditions.

Creation of some form of carbon tax that would effectively impose costs on oil, gas and coal as for increased health care costs caused by the pollutants they create, or higher insurance premiums resulting from the effects of climate change. Collected fees could be refunded to retail electric customers to offset higher energy costs, or used to promote energy efficiency programs.

At present, Pennsylvania has nine operating commercial nuclear reactors at five plants, accounting for about 42 percent of the state’s total electricity production.

With closure plans already announced by operators of the Three MIle Island (2019) and Beaver Valley (2021) plants, supporters of state aid say it’s needed to avoid the permanent loss of a major power source because of what might prove to be short-term market conditions.

“We make long-term energy policy decisions based only on what is cheap today. I think basing long-term energy decisions on the short-term price and not recognizing the importance of reliability and resiliency and fuel diversity, the environmental benefits - I think that’s foolish," said Sen. Ryan Aument, a Lancaster County Republican who chairs the General Assembly’s two-year-old Nuclear Energy Caucus.

“We need to have an energy policy that takes into account these long-term benefits and the current market simply doesn’t do that.”

Because nuclear plants, in particular, can’t just be turned on and off like a light switch, Aument added, doing nothing risks the loss of thousands of jobs - including contract employees working on long-term maintenance of the plants - across the state for what might be relatively short-term factors in an energy market that needs some government guidance.

The pro-nuke lawmakers' call to arms were received warmly Thursday at a campaign-style rally at the Londonderry Fire Company near here, filled with scores of employees from TMI and other Pennsylvania reactors.

Joe Gusler, president of the Central Pennsylvania Building and Construction Trades Council, argued saving those jobs should be at least as important to state leaders as the recent efforts to lure Amazon’s new corporate headquarters to Pennsylvania.

“If we would go to the Legislature and say that we have a plan to bring 16,000 new jobs (the number of direct and indirect hires attributed to the plants) to Pennsylvania, they would be jumping over each other to see who was going to sponsor that legislation,” Gusler said.

Others, however, have pushed back hard on the nuclear industry’s offensive in recent months.

Current market regulators, including the PJM Interconnection that coordinates the movement of wholesale electricity in Pennsylvania and 12 other states, argue the status quo is working pretty well for most.

PJM spokesman Jeff Shields said Thursday that its generation mix is 30 percent less carbon-intensive than 10 years ago, and Pennsylvania consumers in particular have seen wholesale energy costs decline between 30 and 50 percent over that time.

The regional transmission organization also sees no problems with grid reliability even if the TMI and Beaver Valley nuclear plants go off line, Shields said.

Rod Williamson, executive director of a group known as the Industrial Energy Consumers of Pennsylvania, voiced concerns that state-mandated subsidies for nuclear operators would only create higher energy costs for all that would create new job risk for an even larger number of manufacturing workers.

And while environmental advocates have recognized nuclear’s place as a zero-emissions energy sources, some note that simply preserving existing power plants does not, in itself, do anything to reduce the actual greenhouse gas emissions that are currently building up in the atmosphere.

As Damon Moglen, an adviser to the Washington D.C.-based Friends of the Earth put it, "Debating whether or not to give billions of dollars in handouts to a few, decrepit 1970-era nuclear reactors for a few more years of operation is nothing but a distraction from the real task at hand — we need to transform our energy economy.

"We need the equivalent of an Apollo program in renewable energy, not a debate about whether the Edsel should come in a hatchback model.”

Aument counters that the nuclear industry is simply seeking to level a playing field that, in his view, unfairly lumps nuclear with greenhouse gas producing energy sources when it’s actually the biggest single source of zero-emissions power.

“We’re not talking about a bail-out. We’re not talking about a subsidy," Aument said. "We’re talking about very specifically valuing each resource appropriately for the value they bring to the system.”

The struggles of the nuclear power industry aren’t limited to Pennsylvania.

Nationally, nuclear’s share of the national energy market has plateaued at about 20 percent since 1990. Six reactors have shut down permanently since 2013 due to high maintenance costs and the competition from cheap natural gas. Eleven more retirements are planned through 2025.

Some states, including New York, New Jersey and Illinois, have already launched nuclear assistance programs.

It’s hard to tell where this issue will settle out in Pennsylvania, though.

Gov. Tom Wolf, in a statement provided by his press office, sounded like someone who has not landed on a hard and fast position.

While expressing empathy for job-threatened nuclear workers, it said only that Wolf “believes we need a robust conversation about our energy economy and looks forward to engaging with the General Assembly about what direction Pennsylvania will go in regards to its energy sector, including the future of nuclear power and the value of lower emission energy for Pennsylvania’s economy and environment.”

For Aument and his allies, however, it’s very clear that the clock is ticking.

Three Mile Island’s owner, Exelon Corp., has announced plans to close the 44-year-old plant sitting about 12 miles south of Harrisburg in September.

“Realistically speaking, if we are going to take steps because we believe that these assets should be preserved, we are going to have to do so this spring,” Aument said.