ALBANY, N.Y. (NEXSTAR) — The demand for electricity is increasing, and the public comment period for New York’s proposed nuclear policies ended on Thursday. Meanwhile, a coalition of 36 Democratic state legislators published an open letter to New York State Governor Kathy Hochul opposing the plan.

“Nuclear power is the most expensive form of new energy,” the atomic energy detractors wrote in the letter, which was sent on Thursday and is available to read at the bottom of this story. They argued that prioritizing and expanding atomic energy would be unrealistic—as new reactors take too long to build—and won’t actually lower energy bills.

Hochul’s office defended the roadmap when reached for comment on Friday. “Governor Hochul has made expanding New York’s nuclear capacity a cornerstone of her all-of-the-above strategy to ensure we have enough reliable energy to keep the lights on and costs down,” according to Senior Communications Advisor Ken Lovett. He said the 8.4-gigawatt plan “complements our continuing nation-leading efforts on wind and solar.” Hochul’s office also touted the state’s $88.7 billion commitments to clean energy projects since 2021.

The New York State Energy Research and Development Authority and the Department of Public Service ended public comments for their Advanced Nuclear Policy Paper, a blueprint for the Nuclear Reliability Backbone. It’s the plan the state proposed to add 8.4-gigawatts of nuclear power to the state’s grid. The Public Service Commission—an arm of DPS that regulates utility rates—now has to review the comments and decide how to fund nuclear development while demand keeps straining the grid.


Attorney: Lindsay Clancy case has become about jurors, not the evidence

To prevent future blackouts, the New York Independent System Operator—which runs the state grid—wants to meet the demand, which comes mostly from data centers and commercial manufacturing facilities. Because private investors are hesitant to pay for expensive, first-of-their-kind nuclear projects without government backing, the state proposed public subsidies.

Without financial commitments from developers, the expansion will require taxpayer subsidies and higher energy bills. York State proposed in June as much as $23.9 billion in ratepayer surcharges and taxpayer money for new nuclear.

NYSERDA, which researches and funds green energy policies, co-wrote that options paper with DPS. In it, they argued that nuclear offers constant and reliable carbon-free energy, unlike solar or wind. Today, the state operates 3.4 gigawatts of nuclear power across three active atomic plants upstate, which accounts for about 20% of the state’s electricity demand.

As of 2023, New Yorkers spent $73.7 billion on over 3.5 quadrillion BTUs of energy, according to a 2025 report from NYSERDA. The nuclear plan would add 5 gigawatts of reactor technology.


Roads flood in New Jersey, inundate some homes, as major signs of nor’easter take shape

At Hochul’s direction, the New York Power Authority, which operates public power plants, started seeking developers in June to build the first new gigawatt of advanced nuclear power in a decade. They committed $40 million this summer to train workers for the specialized construction and operation of future facilities.

Reached for comment on Friday, a NYPA representative added more context about the state’s power grid. They said that its “hydropower assets—anchored by the 2.6 GW Niagara Power Project—have been the backbone of New York’s grid for six decades,” and that “NYPA has allocated $1.2 billion to support the development of renewables in New York State over the next four years.”

On Thursday, Democratic State Senator Liz Krueger and Democratic Assemblymember Jo Anne Simon led 34 other Democratic state lawmakers in the letter to Hochul opposing such nuclear subsidies. They want her to abandon the plan, arguing that New Yorkers can’t afford to pay the difference when nuclear projects go over budget or outpace production schedules.

“The idea that new nuclear generation is a realistic or even a desirable option for New York is just divorced from reality,” Krueger said in a press release announcing the letter. “We need new generation now, not 15 or 20 years from now, and we need to lower costs for ratepayers, not saddle them with billions of dollars of liabilities that will drive up their rates for generations.”


Terrorists using NYC manholes ‘a matter of when’: Tracy Walder

In public comments submitted to DPS, the Alliance for a Nuclear Free New York, pointed to the last nuclear plant built in the U.S.—the notorious Vogtle plant in Georgia—which took 15 years to finish and dwarfed its projected budget by some $22 billion. It ultimately cost $36.8 billion and is expected to raise energy rates in Georgia by 25% for years.

New Yorkers can’t afford to be “a bottomless ATM machine for the nuclear industry,” the letter read.

The lawmakers also pointed to the decommissioned Shoreham plant on Long Island, which cost $6 billion, never operated commercially, and left residents with decades of debt. According to their letter, that abandoned plant “cost roughly 85 times its original estimate and left Long Islanders with some of the highest utility bills in the country.”

Some Native American advocates also opposed the Nuclear Reliability Backbone. In public comments, the Onondaga Nation raised concerns about radioactive waste poisoning local water and land.


New Jersey’s lieutenant governor resigns after sexual harassment and ethics complaints

And, “New York must go forward with renewables,” argued a member of the Ramapough Munsee Lenape Nation named Owl. “The choice between nuclear power and fracking is like a choice between a crystal meth addiction and heroin.”

The government watchdog group Reinvent Albany—which argued that it had no particular position on nuclear power—nonetheless noted that corporations, not everyday New Yorkers, are driving the 24% increase in demand for power by 2040 predicted by NYISO. In their public comments, Reinvent Albany pointed out that residential utility customers already pay almost three times as much for power than tech businesses and industrial manufacturing facilities.

In public comments submitted by the City of New York, attorneys said residents shouldn’t have to foot the bill to power data centers. Because residents of NYC cover up to 40% of the cost of the state’s shared energy infrastructure, the city wants the state to prioritize building new transmission lines to bring clean power from upstate down to the five boroughs.

But on the other side, some labor unions, student groups, and industry leaders and advocates argued in their public comments that nuclear reactors are necessary to meet demands on New York’s energy grid and climate goals enshrined in state law. The New York State Building and Construction Trades Council claimed that a predictable pipeline of advanced nuclear projects will train workers and create thousands of jobs with “middle-class family sustaining wages.”


Suspect in Pittsburgh doctor’s fatal stabbing has lengthy arrest record

In their public comments, the coalition Upstate Energy Jobs made the case that the state’s existing nuclear fleet supports 14,400 jobs while contributing about $38 billion into the state economy.

Nuclear is Clean Energy, a Cornell University student group, submitted comments urging the state to integrate more workforce training into the planning stages, warning that “preparing the people who will build and host the Backbone takes as long as building the infrastructure itself.”

And indeed, a coalition of nuclear advocates including Nuclear New York submitted joint comments claiming that 5 more nuclear gigawatts would prevent 200,000 acres of land from being turned into solar and wind farms. They also argued that well-maintained atomic facilities “can operate 80 years or more,” meaning a better long-term investment than renewables like solar panels and wind turbines that only last 20 to 30 years.

NYISO projected that NYC will face power shortages in the early 2030s. To that end, the Joint Utilities—a group representing the state’s major power companies like National Grid and Consolidated Edison—said they support nuclear development in their public comments. In July, Con Ed specifically forecasted that shortfalls in NYC would emerge in 2033, growing to represent a gap of 1,800 megawatts of power during peak usage by 2036.


Ed Sheeran shows at Robert Kraft’s stadium canceled due to bad weather

The trade group Independent Power Producers of New York supports nuclear expansion, but submitted comments insisting that private developers—not utility companies—should own the new reactors. Keeping ownership private, they said, means developers would pay for construction delays and other overages rather than passing those costs onto consumers.

IPPNY warned that, because “complete cost recovery from ratepayers” is guaranteed for utilities in the current deregulated energy market, power companies have “little incentive to efficiently operate their generation assets at the lowest cost.”

The Joint Utilities group agreed, also opposing a proposed requirement that utilities must own any new nuclear facilities. They argued that financial risks should be shared by the entities best positioned to handle them—private developers and contractors—rather sticking the bill to everyday ratepayers.

To blunt the potential financial blow on New Yorkers, industry advocates like the Nuclear Energy Institute suggested tapping into federal resources. They submitted comments to regulators advising private developers to apply for loans from the U.S. Department of Energy that would cover up to 80% of a new advanced nuclear project’s construction costs. Those federal dollars could mitigate new taxes or higher rates for New Yorkers.


Pittsburgh doctor stabbed to death while sleeping, wife wounded

In a tweet on Monday, the New York Energy Alliance pointed out that carbon emissions downstate spiked 33% after the Indian Point nuclear plant closed. They argued that more nuclear will mean fewer fossil fuels.

But Food and Water Watch and other environmentalists rallied at the Capitol to oppose the plan in July. They delivered thousands of petitions to Hochul’s office demanding a greater investment in wind, solar, and geothermal power instead.

A March 2026 poll by the Siena Research Institute—cited by Nuclear is Clean Energy—found that 35% of registered voters in New York support new nuclear power, with 41% opposed and 17% in the middle.

Take a look at the letter below:

Latest News