EXC Exelon Corp

By Kris Maher 

Bills in Pennsylvania and Ohio to prop up troubled nuclear-power plants face growing opposition from businesses and advocacy groups, who say the plans are too costly and would unfairly tip the scales in energy markets.

Four nuclear plants are slated for early retirement in the two states. Exelon Corp. has warned that it would close its Three Mile Island Generating Station in Pennsylvania in September if it doesn't get government aid. The money-losing facility, along the Susquehanna River near the state capital of Harrisburg, became a symbol of the risks of nuclear power when it suffered a partial meltdown in 1979.

Many locals don't want to see it close. "We're totally sold that we have to help bail out this nuclear industry," said Stephen Mohr, a longtime supervisor in Conoy Township, which sits 300 yards from one of the plant's cooling towers. "We can't afford to go without any one of them," he added, referring to nuclear-power plants.

In Ohio, Gov. Mike DeWine said he supports saving the state's two nuclear plants to keep carbon emissions down. The plants in northern Ohio produce 90% of the state's zero-carbon electricity, according to industry and state officials, and employ 1,400 people. One proposal would charge residential customers $2.50 a month to create a $300 million fund, partly for propping up the struggling facilities.

"I'm all for wind, I'm all for solar," Mr. DeWine, a Republican, said earlier this month. "But you cannot hit the numbers without using nuclear."

In the past several years, similar measures to provide subsidies have been enacted in Illinois, New York and New Jersey, as states try to balance meeting lower carbon-emission goals, preserving energy-sector jobs and keeping electricity markets competitive.

The laws in New York and Illinois withstood a legal challenge earlier this month when the Supreme Court declined to review them, effectively guaranteeing market share for nuclear power in the states. New Jersey regulators voted last week to award $300 million in special payments for three nuclear plants.

Last year, a Trump administration proposal to aid uncompetitive nuclear and coal plants on national-security grounds stalled amid broad criticism.

The nation's 59 nuclear-power plants produce 20% of electricity, while natural gas now generates 35% as a result of a fracking boom in states like Pennsylvania and Ohio. Coal accounts for 27%, and wind and solar power combined make up 9%, according to the Energy Information Administration.

Six nuclear-power plants have closed since 2013, including Exelon's Oyster Creek facility in New Jersey last year. Nine more are slated to close by 2025, including the four in Pennsylvania and Ohio.

In Pennsylvania, proponents of bills in the state House and Senate say they would help save roughly 16,000 jobs that depend on the state's nuclear industry. The legislation is also aimed at keeping open a nuclear plant north of Pittsburgh that FirstEnergy Solutions Corp., which is in bankruptcy, has said it plans to close in 2021.

Exelon is encouraging lawmakers to pass legislation that will "put Pennsylvania on a path to a clean energy future," a company spokesman said.

Consumer-advocacy groups like the AARP object to the cost of the Pennsylvania bills and say state-imposed subsidies would interfere with the deregulated marketplace. The bills' supporters in the legislature estimate the cost at roughly $500 million a year, or about $1.50 a month for residential customers on average, according to a state estimate.

Energy-intensive businesses in steel, manufacturing and other industries would pay far more, said Rod Williamson, executive director of the Industrial Energy Consumers of Pennsylvania. "We're talking about adding millions of dollars to large energy-users' bills," Mr. Williamson said. "It's going to put manufacturing jobs at risk."

Environmental groups oppose the bills because they don't include limits on carbon pollution in the state or promote renewables enough.

"Pennsylvania needs to plan for a transition away from these plants," said Mark Szybist, a senior attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council.

Rep. Thomas Mehaffie, who introduced the House bill, said that closing Pennsylvania's nuclear plants would ultimately cost more than the legislation, and that the state needs to maintain a diverse energy portfolio.

"Once they're out of commission, it's irreversible," he said. "There's no way they'll ever build plants like this again."

Andrew Scurria and Erin Ailworth contributed to this article.

Write to Kris Maher at kris.maher@wsj.com

(END) Dow Jones Newswires

April 29, 2019 07:14 ET (11:14 GMT)

Copyright (c) 2019 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.