Over the last several months, there has been a lot of talk about nuclear power and many Senate and Assembly hearings, including two held just last week. What has struck me after attending several of these hearings is the broad agreement on the value nuclear energy has for New Jersey:

Nuclear is critical for New Jersey in meeting our clean-energy goals. Nuclear provides more than 40 percent of New Jersey’s energy and more than 90 percent of its clean, carbon-free energy.

New Jersey’s nuclear power is critical to the reliability of the system, especially during polar vortexes and bomb cyclones.

Nuclear power is a strong contributor to New Jersey’s economy — creating close to 6,000 direct and indirect jobs and contributing $820 million to the state’s economy.

There are some who say protecting nuclear is too expensive, that it will crowd out other renewable investments or add too many costs for businesses. Those making these claims should take note of current research. If nuclear plants close, energy prices will go up. Two reports from well-respected firms (The Brattle Group and IHS Markit) show that, if the plants close, customer costs will increase close to $400 million a year — and maybe more, if we have significant weather events.

If you tally the benefits of nuclear energy as outlined in the IHS analysis — $530 million in cleaner air and public health benefits, $820 million in economic benefits and $400 million in lower energy costs — the benefits outweigh the possible capped cost by a factor of six-to-one.

The driver for my support for nuclear, not surprisingly, is the environmental impact. Allowing nuclear plants to close will be taking a huge step backward and would ensure that New Jersey cannot meet its clean air goals.

Most people in our state — certainly the overwhelming number of scientists — believe that climate change is the major issue facing our planet. There is no silver bullet that will fix the increasing concentration of CO 2 and other climate-changing gases in the atmosphere — it will take a series of actions, done at the right time.

These include:

more renewables like solar and wind;

more energy efficiency, by far the quickest and least expensive way to reduce carbon emissions;

electrification of transportation, with electric cars, buses and trucks;

reduction in methane leaks from our natural gas networks. Methane is nearly 100 times more damaging to the atmosphere than CO 2 ;

; larger-scale introduction of battery storage; and

new innovations not yet invented.

I took criticism from some of my environmentalist friends for supporting a nuclear bill in the last legislative session. I did so because I believe nuclear provides a strong bridge to a future when the above technologies can be more widely deployed — and done so in an effective and cost-efficient way.

The nuclear bill currently under consideration in Trenton, when coupled with other clean energy bills working their way through the Legislature, will restore New Jersey to a position of environmental leadership. Until recently, our state had a proud history of being at the forefront of protecting our environment. These bills will go a long way toward helping us restore that tradition.

And I believe there is a sense of urgency. I know Ralph Izzo, the head of PSEG — and I trust him. He is concerned he will be forced by his fiduciary duties to close his company’s nuclear plants, despite the huge benefits they provide this state. We cannot let that happen.

Everywhere that nuclear plants have closed — be it in states like Vermont or countries such as Germany — the results have been the same: climate change gases and other harmful emissions have gone up — and gone up significantly; jobs have gone away and costs to consumers have gone up, as well.

Of course, the environmental community must remain committed to its longstanding core principles: encouraging more efficient use of energy, promoting renewable energy resources and advancing sustainable lifestyles and business practices. That’s the long game. Unfortunately, the climate challenges we face demand more immediate action.

I am concerned because if nuclear plants close, we will see an immediate increase in climate change gases as plants are replaced by electricity generated by natural gas-burning plants and out-of-state coal. I also worry that the price impact will be great enough that it keeps us from making needed investments elsewhere — a true double-whammy.

The bill before the Legislature is not a blank check. It includes strong consumer protections:

the owners of a plant must open their books to New Jersey regulators to demonstrate a financial need;

if the need goes away, the payments go away with regular re-evaluation of need;

payments to a plant will be reduced by any support received through a federal or multi-state program to support nuclear; and

any plant receiving payments will be required to stay open.

To protect the environment,

To protect jobs,

To ensure reliability,

To protect customers,

It is time to end the debate and pass a bill to preserve nuclear energy for New Jersey.

James J. Florio

Moorestown, NJ

_____________________________________________________

The above column is sponsor-generated content from New Jersey Needs Nuclear. To learn more about sponsor-generated content, click here.

James J. Florio is a former New Jersey governor, senior fellow for Public Policy and Administration at the Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy at Rutgers University, and founding partner of the law firm of Florio Perrucci Steinhardt & Cappelli, LLC, headquartered in Phillipsburg, NJ.

