
Judd Gregg writes that the end of 2014 marked a sad moment with the closure of the Vermont Yankee nuclear energy plant. A lifeline for many in the communities it served, including Vernon, Vt., and parts of New Hampshire and Massachusetts, Vermont Yankee closure is indicative of a problem that nuclear plants across the country currently face. Too many well-functioning nuclear energy facilities - most of which have decades of safe, useful operating life remaining - are at risk of closure or have announced their early retirement.
These closures are due not to the economic fundamentals of nuclear plants, but rather the unintended consequences of poorly designed market structures and government policies. Looking ahead, regulators, policymakers and industry should keep in mind the impacts of the Vermont Yankee shutdown - which will spread far and wide - and should do everything they can to prevent further premature nuclear closures. The reliability of the electric grid and the well-being of electricity consumers, the environment, employees, and communities across the country depend on it.
Vermont Yankee contributed more than 60 million dollars to the local economy each year. And, since 2002, having the facility on-line saved New England customers approximately 330 million dollars in electricity rate savings compared to the price of purchasing that same power from the spot market. Said another way, this plant was producing energy at less than five cents per kilowatt-hour, while the energy that replaces it will cost roughly three times that given that the regional average is 17.67 cents per kWh. These costs will, over time, prove a burden for ratepayers across the region, especially low-income families.
In 2013, nuclear plants accounted for 63.3 percent of the U.S. total carbon-free energy - more than all other clean-energy sources combined. Therefore, nuclear is of low cost to the consumer and environment friendly. So what is the problem America.