![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ny\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/1786024338_472_AdobeStock_1054947580.jpeg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
For more than half a century, the R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant has quietly generated carbon-free electricity along the southern shore of Lake Ontario, producing enough power for more than 400,000 homes. Its lone reactor is the smallest operating commercial nuclear unit in the United States, yet it consistently ranks among the nation\u2019s most reliable, operating with a capacity factor above 99 percent.<\/p>\n
Now, New York wants to build something far bigger.<\/p>\n
Gov. Kathy Hochul last year directed the New York Power Authority to begin developing at least one new advanced nuclear power plant in Upstate New York while charting a course toward what she calls a statewide \u201cnuclear reliability backbone\u201d totaling 8.4 gigawatts of nuclear generation. That vision includes New York\u2019s existing reactors, a planned 1-gigawatt advanced nuclear facility and another 4 gigawatts of future development\u2014a buildout unlike anything attempted in the U.S. in decades.<\/p>\n
Among the possible locations for the proposed 1-gigawatt advanced nuclear facility: Wayne County, home to the Ginna plant, and a site only a few miles from downtown Rochester.<\/p>\n
State officials argue the investment in nuclear energy is essential. Artificial intelligence, semiconductor manufacturing, electrification and economic development are driving electricity demand upward just as New York struggles to meet its ambitious climate goals.<\/p>\n
But before a single reactor is built, New York faces a question that could determine whether the governor\u2019s vision ever becomes reality: Who pays for it?<\/p>\n
The state\u2019s own financial modeling estimates that making a 5-gigawatt advanced nuclear buildout commercially viable could require between $15.4 billion and $23.9 billion in public support, depending on how the projects are developed. Separate construction cost estimates<\/a> suggest the full price tag could approach $45 billion.<\/p>\n Those figures have transformed what might otherwise have been a debate over energy policy into one of the state\u2019s most consequential political fights\u2014drawing labor unions, economic development officials and local governments eager for investment into conflict with environmental organizations that see nuclear as an extraordinarily expensive gamble at the very moment New York is retreating from portions of its landmark climate law.<\/p>\n Whether New York\u2019s next generation of nuclear plants ever gets built may depend as much on politics and public acceptance as engineering.<\/p>\n When the Department of Public Service and the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority released the 2026 New York Advanced Nuclear Policy Options Paper<\/a> in June, the document offered the clearest picture yet of the financial challenge ahead.<\/p>\n Its conclusions were sobering.<\/p>\n Private investors remain reluctant to finance nuclear construction because of the industry\u2019s long history of delays and cost overruns. Wholesale electricity markets alone cannot generate enough revenue to make new reactors economically viable. Before construction even begins, developers would likely require hundreds of millions of dollars simply to reach a final investment decision.<\/p>\n The report concludes that substantial public intervention will almost certainly be necessary.<\/p>\n Among the options under consideration:<\/p>\n \u25a0 Cost-overrun guarantees, allowing the state, federal government, reactor developers and engineering firms to share the financial risk of construction delays and budget overruns.<\/p>\n \u25a0 Advanced Nuclear Zero Emission Credits,a proposed subsidy modeled after New York\u2019s Zero Emission Credit program for existing nuclear plants. The paper also contemplates allowing large technology companies operating energy-intensive data centers to voluntarily purchase those credits or negotiate direct power purchase agreements.<\/p>\n \u25a0 Public ownership and construction grants, including direct state equity investments designed to reduce financing costs.<\/p>\n \u25a0 Federal financing through the U.S. Department of Energy, which could cover as much as 80 percent of construction costs through long-term, low-interest loans.<\/p>\n The report also acknowledges another difficult question: What exactly should New York build?<\/p>\n State officials are weighing traditional large light-water reactors against a new generation of small modular reactors, or SMRs, that promise lower upfront costs and greater siting flexibility but remain largely unproven commercially.<\/p>\n Rather than issuing a traditional request for proposals based primarily on price, the paper recommends an open-book negotiation process that would allow developers and the state to jointly evaluate financial risk before selecting a technology.<\/p>\n The state\u2019s renewed embrace of nuclear represents one of the most dramatic shifts in New York energy policy in a generation.<\/p>\n Standing at the Robert Moses Niagara Power Plant in June 2025, Hochul announced<\/a> that New York would pursue construction of a new advanced nuclear facility in the upstate region\u2014the first major state-backed nuclear project proposed anywhere in the country in more than 15 years.<\/p>\n The announcement came as electricity forecasts <\/a>were changing dramatically.<\/p>\n Massive semiconductor manufacturing projects such as Micron\u2019s planned campus outside Syracuse, rapid expansion of AI infrastructure and broader electrification efforts have all fueled expectations that electricity demand could rise significantly over the coming decades. State officials increasingly argue that renewable energy alone cannot provide enough around-the-clock generation to maintain reliability.<\/p>\n As of 2024, nearly half of New York\u2019s in-state electricity generation<\/a> came from zero-emission sources, with 21% from nuclear generation and 26% from renewable sources: hydroelectric, solar, and wind. Combustion generation\u2014which uses natural gas, oil, biofuels, or solid waste as fuel\u2014produced 53% of in-state bulk electricity. Coal is no longer used for electricity generation in New York.<\/p>\n In her 2026 State of the State address<\/a> in January, Hochul expanded her vision for nuclear\u2019s future in New York.<\/p>\n \u201cI\u2019ve decided to raise the bar to 5 gigawatts,\u201d she told lawmakers. \u201cThat\u2019s more nuclear energy than has been built anywhere in the United States in the last 30 years.\u201d<\/p>\n The governor framed nuclear not as a replacement for renewable energy but as the dependable backbone needed to support it\u2014a source of emissions-free electricity capable of operating regardless of weather conditions.<\/p>\n This view is mirrored by Kristy Hartman, senior director of state policy and external affairs at the Washington, D.C.-based Nuclear Energy Institute, which promotes the use and growth of nuclear energy. She notes that the surge in interest is a nationwide phenomenon.<\/p>\n \u201cNew York is a leader in this space,\u201d Hartman says. \u201cThere are a lot of states coming up with innovative policy and regulatory concepts to support the future of nuclear. We\u2019ve seen a complete change in that landscape. Last year, 350 bills were introduced across state legislatures across the country. We\u2019re halfway through the year this year and we\u2019re on track for that number again.\u201d<\/p>\n That argument has resonated across much of Upstate New York, where communities already hosting nuclear facilities see an opportunity to build on decades of experience while attracting billions of dollars in new investment.<\/p>\n Others, however, see something entirely different.<\/p>\n To critics, New York is preparing to spend tens of billions of dollars on technology they believe remains too expensive, too slow to deploy and burdened by an unresolved radioactive waste problem.<\/p>\n Few have emerged as more outspoken critics than Tim Judson, executive director of the Maryland-based Nuclear Information and Resource Service, an information and advocacy organization that supports efforts for a nuclear-free planet and a sustainable energy future.<\/p>\n \u201cIt\u2019s hard to see what the upsides would be to the governor\u2019s plan,\u201d Judson says. \u201cNuclear power is extremely expensive. It takes a really long time to build nuclear plants. The technologies, some of the ones they\u2019re considering, are, at best, nascent but certainly unproven. We have a lot more effective ways to provide energy, including renewable energy, which the governor seems to be undermining.\u201d<\/p>\n Judson argues the state\u2019s newly released policy paper should become the focus of public scrutiny rather than simply the governor\u2019s announcement.<\/p>\n \u201cThe Public Service Commission opened up a public comment period for people to weigh in on this,\u201d he says. \u201cIt includes a study or a report that the PSC staff and NYSERDA produced, laying out their proposed options. All of which are really terrible.\u201d<\/p>\n For Judson, the financial modeling itself raises serious questions about whether the projects can ever become affordable for ratepayers.<\/p>\n While critics emphasize high upfront costs, proponents argue these figures fail to capture the long-term value of nuclear assets.<\/p>\n \u201cIt is expensive to build nuclear,\u201d Hartman says. \u201cBut what sets us apart, and I don\u2019t think we have a great way to value this, is that you\u2019re building energy assets for your kids and grandkids. There is no energy source where you\u2019re building it out for 80 or 100 years. When we spread those costs over the life cycle of a nuclear power plant, it\u2019s actually pretty low.\u201d<\/p>\n Others see broader implications.<\/p>\n Ethan Gormley, legislative coordinator for Citizen Action of New York, argues the debate cannot be separated from New Yorkers\u2019 growing concerns about utility bills.<\/p>\n \u201cNuclear energy is one of the, if not the, most expensive forms of energy out there,\u201d Gormley says.<\/p>\n He notes that the governor\u2019s proposal comes as households continue to struggle with rising utility costs.<\/p>\n \u201cMore nuclear is just going to create higher bills for a lot of people who are already struggling to keep the lights on,\u201d he contends.<\/p>\n Gormley frequently points to Georgia\u2019s Plant Vogtle expansion<\/a>\u2014the nation\u2019s largest recent nuclear construction project\u2014as a warning. Cost overruns totaling roughly $7.6 billion ultimately resulted in higher monthly electric bills for customers, in addition to years of construction surcharges.<\/p>\n \u201cA lot of people are either unaware of Gov. Hochul\u2019s reckless pursuit of new nuclear power or they\u2019re not sure how it\u2019s going to affect them yet,\u201d he says.<\/p>\n For his organization, the strategy is straightforward: Raise public awareness before New York selects host communities.<\/p>\n As state officials refine the financial framework, another question is beginning to dominate the conversation: Where, exactly, should New York build its next nuclear plant?<\/p>\n The state Power Authority has not selected a site, but its requests for information<\/a> last fall drew responses<\/a> from 23 nuclear developers and eight communities interested in hosting the state\u2019s first advanced reactor.<\/p>\n For some upstate communities, the proposal represents a once-in-a-generation economic opportunity. For others, it has become a flashpoint.<\/p>\n Support for the governor\u2019s goal is also coming from advocacy groups. Scott Cicora, co-executive director of Nuclear New York, says his group felt validated by the state\u2019s move.<\/p>\n \u201cWe were ecstatic,\u201d Cicora says. \u201cWe formed in 2019 primarily to oppose the closing of Indian Point (near Peekskill). We obviously failed there. But we\u2019ve been working on public outreach and educating legislators around nuclear and trying to demystify all of the things that have happened with the messaging in the past.\u201d<\/p>\n Few communities are more familiar with nuclear power than Wayne County.<\/p>\n For more than 50 years, the Ginna nuclear facility has operated along Lake Ontario, providing hundreds of high-paying jobs while serving as one of the country\u2019s most reliable generating stations. Constellation Energy is already seeking to extend Ginna\u2019s operating license<\/a> to 80 years<\/a>, reinforcing the company\u2019s long-term commitment to the site. That would extend the current license, which runs through 2029, another 20 years to 2049. The company is one of the developers that responded to the Power Authority\u2019s RFI.<\/p>\n Wayne County Administrator Mark Humbert believes that history gives the county a distinct advantage if New York decides to expand nuclear generation.<\/p>\n \u201cWe\u2019ve built a lot of infrastructure, community support, and essential services related to nuclear being in our neighborhood,\u201d Humbert says. \u201cFor instance, we do annual drills with the plant. There is already good transmission capacity throughout the region of the state from the plant. So, it already exists.\u201d<\/p>\n Rather than starting from scratch, Humbert sees existing nuclear communities as logical places to grow.<\/p>\n Cicora agrees, identifying Wayne and Oswego counties as the most practical options.<\/p>\n \u201cWayne County and Oswego County are the low-hanging fruit,\u201d Cicora says. \u201cThey have the land. And actually before the governor\u2019s announcement, all of the town supervisors in Wayne County had already weighed in about wanting new nuclear. The fact that there is community support, that\u2019s huge for both Wayne County and Oswego County.\u201d<\/p>\n The emergency planning systems are already in place. Transmission infrastructure already exists. Residents understand the industry because they\u2019ve lived alongside it for decades.<\/p>\n For local officials, the conversation is about more than electricity. It is about jobs, tax revenue and long-term economic stability.<\/p>\n The same argument is being made 60 miles to the east.<\/p>\n Oswego County already hosts three operating reactors at the Nine Mile Point and James A. FitzPatrick nuclear plants, making it one of the country\u2019s largest concentrations of nuclear generation.<\/p>\n State Assembly Minority Leader Will Barclay, whose district includes Oswego County, has called Hochul\u2019s nuclear initiative \u201ca positive step forward,\u201d arguing the region has both the workforce and public acceptance necessary to accommodate future development.<\/p>\n Communities that have lived with nuclear power for decades generally see less uncertainty than places being introduced to the technology for the first time.<\/p>\n That dynamic could shape the state\u2019s eventual siting decisions.<\/p>\n No potential site has generated more controversy than Rochester\u2019s Eastman Business Park.<\/p>\n Among the eight community responses submitted to the Power Authority was one from RED-Rochester, the nonprofit utility operator serving the sprawling industrial campus just three miles from downtown Rochester.<\/p>\n The submission immediately drew criticism from anti-nuclear advocates, who argue the park\u2019s proximity to residential neighborhoods makes it an inappropriate location for a reactor.<\/p>\n \u201cIt\u2019s opened up the opportunity for crazy ideas like what RED-Rochester is proposing\u2014to put a nuclear power plant in an urban neighborhood three miles from downtown Rochester,\u201d Judson says.<\/p>\n \u201cThis has been illegal for the past 60 years in the U.S., to put a nuclear power plant in a densely populated area,\u201d he adds. \u201cBut the nuclear industry has been pushing this crazy idea that these new designs for small reactors are so small and inherently safe that the radiation, even in an accident, wouldn\u2019t get beyond the site boundary. This is just all fundamentally untrue.\u201d<\/p>\n When asked about those criticisms, RED-Rochester declined an interview, saying the process remains too preliminary.<\/p>\n \u201cAt this early stage, we do not believe there are sufficient project-specific details available to warrant an interview,\u201d Paul Tyno, RED-Rochester\u2019s director of client and market development, wrote in an email.<\/p>\n Instead, the organization emphasized that its participation has been limited to responding to NYPA\u2019s request for information and a subsequent informational meeting.<\/p>\n \u201cOur submission reflects the capabilities of Eastman Business Park as an industrial energy and infrastructure platform, not a defined project,\u201d the statement said. \u201cThere is no specific project, site design, development plan, or siting decision associated with Eastman Business Park at this time.\u201d<\/p>\n The organization also stressed that Eastman Kodak Co. is not part of the submission and that nuclear represents only one of several possible decarbonization technologies being evaluated for the campus.<\/p>\n That distinction matters.<\/p>\n An RFI is not a construction proposal, nor does it commit a community to hosting a reactor.<\/p>\n Rather, it is an early planning exercise designed to help NYPA understand which communities believe they possess the infrastructure, workforce and local interest necessary to support future development.<\/p>\n Still, the Rochester response illustrates how quickly the governor\u2019s proposal has moved from an abstract statewide policy discussion to a locally focused issue. Even before a site has been selected, communities are already debating whether they want to become New York\u2019s next nuclear hometown.<\/p>\n Kate Kressmann-Kehoe, New York state lead for Mothers for Nuclear, offers a nuanced take on the potential for new sites like the Eastman location.<\/p>\n \u201cI think different things require different responses,\u201d Kressmann-Kehoe says. \u201cWe\u2019re at the very, very early stages of everything. To me, I am a geology major, I am a filmmaker. I am not a structural engineer, I\u2019m not a nuclear engineer. Putting more nuclear in Wayne County where there is already nuclear, that seems relatively straightforward. Looking at new sites that may require new technologies is a process. It may be a great fit, it may not be. It\u2019s something that you need to deliberately go through the site assessments and look at the technology.<\/p>\n \u201cIt could be a great source of stable, emissions-free power for the city,\u201d Kressmann-Kehoe adds. \u201cBut we could be like, \u2018No, this isn\u2019t a good idea.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n If environmental organizations have become the loudest critics of Hochul\u2019s plan, organized labor has emerged as one of its strongest supporters.<\/p>\n Construction unions view advanced nuclear not simply as another energy project but as one of the largest potential public works programs in decades.<\/p>\n Vincent Albanese, director of policy and public affairs for the New York State Laborers\u2019 Organizing Fund, says the labor movement has been preparing for precisely this moment.<\/p>\n \u201cThere are just thousands of jobs that would be created in the construction of new units, whether they be smaller SMRs or larger-scale units,\u201d Albanese says.<\/p>\n The support extends beyond rhetoric.<\/p>\n Albanese says the Laborers\u2019 union and Constellation Energy now co-chair the Future Energy Alliance, a coalition formed specifically to advocate for new nuclear development in New York.<\/p>\n The organization has also begun preparing workers for projects that may still be years away.<\/p>\n Using a portion of the governor\u2019s recently announced $40 million NextGen Nuclear New York workforce initiative<\/a>, apprenticeship programs are beginning to incorporate nuclear-specific training and certifications intended to ensure qualified workers are available if projects move forward.<\/p>\n Albanese rejects the notion that labor\u2019s support for nuclear comes at the expense of renewable energy.<\/p>\n \u201cWe\u2019re very supportive of renewables,\u201d he says. \u201cThat\u2019s creating a tremendous amount of jobs at the moment.\u201d<\/p>\n The challenge, he argues, is scale.<\/p>\n Electricity demand is growing rapidly enough that no single resource can meet it alone.<\/p>\n \u201cOur electricity demand is increasing,\u201d Albanese says. \u201cCombining all of these sources still is a challenge for us to meet that demand.\u201d<\/p>\n That \u201call-of-the-above\u201d philosophy increasingly reflects the position of many business and economic development organizations across Upstate New York.<\/p>\n Greater Rochester Enterprise president and CEO Matt Hurlbutt says his organization remains neutral on where a future reactor should be located, but he believes the broader need for additional generation is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore.<\/p>\n The region\u2019s industrial expansion, housing development and economic growth all depend on one thing, he said: reliable electricity.<\/p>\n \u201cThe ability to get and think out of the box and to help things move forward as quickly as possible\u2014and importantly, as safely as possible, and making sure we\u2019re affordable, efficient\u2014is something we\u2019re working collaboratively with other partners to support,\u201d Hurlbutt says.<\/p>\n For proponents, that is the central argument.<\/p>\n Whether the answer ultimately comes from conventional reactors, small modular reactors or another technology altogether, they believe New York cannot achieve its economic ambitions without significantly expanding reliable, around-the-clock power generation.<\/p>\n For opponents, however, that premise remains deeply flawed. To them, the question is not whether New York needs more electricity. It is whether nuclear power is the right\u2014and affordable\u2014way to produce it.<\/p>\n For critics like Citizen Action\u2019s Gormley, the debate over nuclear power cannot be separated from a broader shift in New York\u2019s climate policy.<\/p>\n The state\u2019s 2019 Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act<\/a> established some of the nation\u2019s most ambitious emissions-reduction goals, requiring an 85 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 while setting interim benchmarks for 2030 and 2040.<\/p>\n Meeting those targets, however, has proven far more difficult than lawmakers anticipated.<\/p>\n This spring, as part of negotiations over the fiscal year 2027 state budget, Hochul secured changes that pushed back implementation of key emissions-reduction regulations, including the long-delayed cap-and-invest program, until the end of 2028\u2014four years later than originally contemplated. Lawmakers also approved a change in how the state calculates methane emissions, shifting from a 20-year to a 100-year measurement window.<\/p>\n The governor has defended those changes as necessary to balance climate goals with affordability and economic realities.<\/p>\n Environmental organizations see them differently.<\/p>\n More than 200 organizations signed a letter<\/a> this spring urging Hochul to abandon both the proposed nuclear expansion and the changes to the state\u2019s climate law, arguing that the two policies represent a retreat from New York\u2019s commitment to rapidly deploy renewable energy.<\/p>\n To Gormley, the two issues are inseparable.<\/p>\n Whatever promise advanced nuclear may hold decades from now, he argues, it does little to address today\u2019s affordability crisis.<\/p>\n \u201cIf anything,\u201d he says, \u201cit\u2019s going to make it worse.\u201d<\/p>\n Judson raises another concern that has followed the nuclear industry for generations.<\/p>\n Even if the economics eventually work, he argues, New York still has no permanent solution for the radioactive waste already being produced by its existing reactors.<\/p>\n \u201cThe cost issue is the one that\u2019s going to affect everybody across the state,\u201d Judson says. \u201cBut the reality is that we don\u2019t have a solution for nuclear waste.\u201d<\/p>\n Industry representatives argue, however, that the waste issue is frequently misunderstood.<\/p>\n \u201cThere just isn\u2019t that much nuclear waste used fuel,\u201d Hartman contends. \u201cAnd I think that\u2019s a misnomer. If your entire life was powered by clean nuclear energy, all of that waste would fit in a soda can. All of the used fuel that has been created by the existing nuclear reactors in the U.S. would fit in an Amazon warehouse or a Walmart or any of those types of big box store buildings.<\/p>\n \u201cOf course, we\u2019d like to see a permanent repository and a plan,\u201d she adds. \u201cBut in the meantime as the government works through all these options, there is a lot of momentum and excitement. The nuclear industry is very safe. The used fuel is stored on-site. It can be stored indefinitely.\u201d<\/p>\n For his part, Judson points to the closure of Indian Point in 2021 as an example. Although the Hudson Valley plant stopped generating electricity, its spent nuclear fuel remains stored on site because the U.S. still lacks a permanent federal repository.<\/p>\n \u201cThere is this crazy logical fallacy at play,\u201d Judson says. \u201cEssentially what they\u2019re saying is that we can figure out how to keep nuclear waste out of the environment for a million years, but we can\u2019t figure out how to keep the lights on.\u201d<\/p>\n Supporters of nuclear power acknowledge those concerns but argue the alternative carries its own risks. Nationally, the industry points to decades of safe on-site storage of spent fuel in steel-and-concrete casks and is pressing the federal government to open a consolidated interim storage site as a bridge to a permanent underground repository, a position the Nuclear Energy Institute<\/a> has outlined as its preferred path forward.<\/p>\n Without substantial new sources of reliable, around-the-clock electricity, they say, New York could struggle to accommodate the very industries state leaders have spent years recruiting. Semiconductor manufacturing, AI infrastructure and widespread electrification all depend on a grid capable of producing massive amounts of power regardless of weather conditions.<\/p>\n For them, the debate is less about choosing between nuclear and renewable energy than ensuring there is enough electricity to support both economic growth and the state\u2019s long-term climate ambitions.<\/p>\n The fight over New York\u2019s nuclear future has never really been about whether reactors can produce electricity. They already do.<\/p>\n For more than five decades, plants like Ginna, Nine Mile Point and FitzPatrick have generated carbon-free power while employing thousands of New Yorkers. The harder question is whether the next generation of reactors can be built on time, within budget, and at a cost taxpayers and ratepayers are willing to accept.<\/p>\n The state\u2019s own policy paper offers no easy answers. It acknowledges that new nuclear construction is unlikely to proceed without significant public support. It recognizes that private investors remain wary after decades of cost overruns and abandoned projects. And it outlines a menu of subsidies, financing mechanisms and risk-sharing agreements that could require billions of dollars in public participation before a single watt of electricity reaches the grid.<\/p>\n For supporters, those costs represent a necessary investment in New York\u2019s economic future and electric reliability.<\/p>\n For opponents, they are evidence that the state is preparing to spend tens of billions of dollars pursuing a technology that remains slower and more expensive than other clean-energy alternatives.<\/p>\n The next several months may begin to determine which vision prevails.<\/p>\n The public comment period on the Advanced Nuclear Policy Options Paper remains open through Aug. 10, after which the Department of Public Service and NYSERDA are expected to develop a formal white paper recommending specific policy actions to the Public Service Commission. At the same time, NYPA continues reviewing responses from reactor developers and communities interested in hosting the state\u2019s first advanced nuclear project, with additional announcements expected later this year.<\/p>\n The decisions that follow will shape far more than where New York builds its next power plant.<\/p>\n They will determine how the state intends to power an increasingly electrified economy, how much the public is willing to spend to achieve that goal and whether one of the most ambitious nuclear expansions proposed in a generation ever moves beyond the drawing board.<\/p>\n Will Cleveland is a Rochester Beacon contributing writer.\u00a0<\/p>\n The Beacon welcomes comments and letters from readers who adhere to our\u00a0comment policy<\/a>\u00a0including use of their full, real name.\u00a0See \u201cLeave a Reply\u201d below to comment on this post. Comments of a general nature may be submitted to the Letters page by emailing\u00a0[email\u00a0protected]<\/a>.<\/p>\n \n\tRelated<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"For more than half a century, the R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant has quietly generated carbon-free electricity along…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":315186,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6],"tags":[9,11,10],"class_list":["post-315185","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-new-york","tag-new-york","tag-new-york-headlines","tag-new-york-news"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ny\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/315185","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ny\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ny\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ny\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ny\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=315185"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ny\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/315185\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ny\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/315186"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ny\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=315185"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ny\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=315185"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ny\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=315185"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ny\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/1786024339_913_Robert-Moses-Niagara-power-plant_pe.jpg\")
More than a quarter of New York\u2019s in-state electricity generation comes from renewable sources like the Robert Moses Niagara hydroelectric power plant. State officials say nuclear is not a replacement for renewable energy but a reliable backbone needed to support it.<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ny\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/1786024344_43_Ginna-.png\")
R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant | Photo: U.S. Department of Energy\/Facebook<\/p>\n