VIA EMAIL

To: ALL MEMBERS OF THE SCHUYLER COUNTY LEGISLATURE, C/O NICHOLE SMITH, TOWN CLERK

nsmith@schuylercountyny.gov

RE: Bid To Site Nuclear Power Plant in Schuyler County

Dear Members of the Schuyler County Legislature,

We write to respectfully urge you to rescind the bid to site a nuclear power plant of any size anywhere in Schuyler County on the grounds that it is a short-sighted, unaffordable, and dangerous proposition that puts our economy and public health at risk. Please consider the following:

SHORT-SIGHTED AND UNAFFORDABLE, PUTTING OUR ECONOMY AT RISK:

Gov Hochul’s Energy Plan is deeply flawed and would explode electricity rates

The explosion in electricity rates and substantial delay in achieving New York’s zero-carbon emissions goals that would result from Governor Kathy Hochul’s nuclear reactor plans are carefully documented in a just-released report by Dr. Joseph Romm of the University of Pennsylvania (see bio below). He notes that much better options are now available. His analysis documents the following case:

1.     NYS’s plans for new reactors will be a huge burden on ratepayers, comparable to the price spikes the twin Vogtle reactors hit Georgians with.

2.     NYS Energy Research & Development Authority (NYSERDA) noted in a 2025 report, “Nuclear plants in the U.S. have a long history of substantial cost overruns.”[i]

3.     The cost analysis underlying NYS’s Energy Plan is so flawed that neither the state nor the contractor who wrote it stands behind its accuracy or the consequences of using it.

4.     As a result, NYS’s Plan embraces two anti-affordability strategies to achieve its goal of a zero-emissions grid by 2040—up to 3.3 GW of new reactors and 15 GW of gas plants running on green hydrogen—while ignoring much better options. 

5.     Data centers (aka AI/ Bitcoin mining facilities) have helped triple wholesale electricity prices in NY. Nothing would be more anti-affordability than bringing in more and then building plants for them that produce electricity at a cost much higher than the data center is charged for. The difference would be paid by NY ratepayers and taxpayers.

Robert W. Howarth, the Atkinson Professor of Ecology & Environmental Biology at Cornell University and Co-Editor-in-Chief of OLAR, Journal of Ocean-Land-Atmosphere Research writes, "In his new report, Dr. Joseph Romm does an excellent job of explaining why the newly enacted NY State Master Energy Plan is bad policy, especially its reliance on new nuclear plants. Put simply, new reactors are extremely expensive and slow to deploy compared to renewable energy, the latest storage technologies, and modern approaches to grid management. Pursuing nuclear will increase electric costs for consumers, perhaps dramatically so. And it will slow and distract the state from reducing our climate impact.”

David Schlissel of Schlissel Technical Consulting  "With its plan for new nuclear reactors, the New York State Energy Plan simply would be a financial disaster for the state's ratepayers and taxpayers. Instead of facts, all the Plan, and the nuclear proponent who support it, can offer is “hopium” (a combination of hope and opium meaning unfounded hope) as there is no evidence that the cost of new reactors be anywhere as low as they claim.”

 THE REPORT’S EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 In June 2025, New York’s Governor Kathy Hochul directed the state “to develop at least one new nuclear energy facility with a combined capacity of no less than one gigawatt of electricity” as part of an effort to support an “affordable electric grid.”[ii] Yet, the only U.S. commercial reactors built this century—the only ones the state modeled—are 1100-Megawatt AP1000 reactors.

NYSERDA noted “the Vogtle units were originally estimated to cost $13 billion ... but eventually cost $32 billion.”[iii] The final cost may be over $38 billion.[iv] One analysis noted it was “the most expensive power plant ever built on earth,” with an “astoundingly high” estimated electricity cost.

 So, Georgia ratepayers’ bills are rising by over $220 a year, a 25% increase. In 2023, state regulators made customers pay for most of Vogtle “on top of a monthly surcharge”[v] they’ve had to pre-pay for years, totaling $1000.[vi] South Carolina consumers still pay for two never-completed AP1000s.[vii]

• Any new NY reactors are likely to cost the same or more than Vogtle’s. Small reactors (SMRs) would cost even more per MW: That’s why commercialization efforts for SMRs have failed for decades. A December 2023 Columbia University report concluded that “if the costs of new nuclear end up being much higher” than $6,200/kW “new nuclear appears unlikely to play much of a role, if any, in the US power sector.”[viii] Yet, a 2024 MIT report noted, “According to GP [Georgia Power], the total project cost including financing cost was $18,500/kW.”[ix]

• Remarkably, the 1053-page December 2025 NY Energy Plan, which opens with the Governor’s letter asserting “Affordability is just as important” as “reliability” to the state, has no discussion whatsoever of the impact of the planned nuclear plant(s) on affordability.[x] The Plan’s 35-page “Energy Affordability Impacts Analysis” does not mention the word “nuclear” once. The Plan never mentions the Vogtle plant and only briefly mentions the 1.1 GW AP1000s, although that is what the state is planning for with scenarios requiring an additional 2.2 GW and 3.3 GW.

• There’s also no serious discussion of data centers, although they’re driving both demand and affordability concerns. The Governor states this is “a time when demand is rising fast. Advanced manufacturing, new housing, and exciting research all require more energy.” But her letter ignores data centers in the list of what’s driving demand, despite the fact NYISO (the state’s grid operator),[xi] and the Plan itself point out they are a major demand driver. Why? Most likely because the Plan makes clear that new nuclear is at best a post-2035 solution. So, it doesn’t address the data center problem.

• Ironically, new reactors are the only option that worsens the affordability problem but can’t be built fast enough to help address the AI data center demand crisis.

• The Plan also assumes the state’s primary new non-nuclear carbon-free firm capacity in 2040 will be 15 GW of gas plants “converted to run on hydrogen by 2040” but run only 260 hours a year. The “modeling assumes” that these “multi-day reliability needs are met by generators powered by green hydrogen. Under this assumption, the combustion generation fleet remains critical.”

• But that scenario is so implausible it’s hard to see why the state embraced it other than 1) to make its embrace of nuclear seem affordable and sensible by comparison and 2) to provide an excuse for keeping so many natural gas plants running through the 2030s. But carbon-free green hydrogen won’t be affordable or scalable for decades, if ever, as detailed in my 2025 book, The Hype About Hydrogen. “America’s Clean Hydrogen Dreams Are Fading Again,” as a 2025 NY Times headline put it, adding “Costs are rising, and Congress just put a lucrative tax credit out of reach for many companies.”[xii]

• Remarkably, the state considered and rejected other strategies for carbon-free firm, dispatchable power,[xiii] and multi-day reliability needs in 2040—including long-duration energy storage, virtual power plants, and advanced geothermal energy. Yet these probably have a greater combined chance of meeting those needs more affordably than new reactors and hydrogen. A superior strategy for NY is to let other states take the risk of building nuclear, while it focuses on better approaches.[xiv]

Dr. Joseph Romm is a New York native and leading expert on climate solutions. He has been involved with nuclear energy policy and analysis for over three decades. In December 2025, Romm was the primary presenter on nuclear energy costs for a webinar and public meeting of the National Academy of Sciences Nuclear and Radiation Studies Board. He gave a 30-minute presentation on “Promoting SMRs Will Slow or Stop any ‘Nuclear Renaissance’ and Undermine U.S. Leadership in AI.” He holds a PhD in physics from M.I.T. and is a Senior Research Fellow at the University of Pennsylvania Center for Science, Sustainability, and the Media (PCSSM). His work focuses on the sustainability and scalability—and the scientific underpinnings—of the major climate solutions, as well as the media coverage of them. rommj@sas.upenn.edu 

SITING EVEN A “SMALLER” NUCLEAR FACILITY AT CAMP MONTERY OR ANY SCHUYLER COUNTY LOCATION PUTS OUR COMMUNITY’S PUBLIC HEALTH AT RISK

Last month, a new Harvard study was published showing that living near a nuclear power plant "significantly increase(s) cancer incidence." It found Massachusetts residents in zip codes within a 30 kilometer radius of a nuclear power plant had much higher cancer rates, while outside 30 kilometers those rates “declined sharply.”  Meanwhile, RPHP is working with the same team at Harvard on a new study, currently under review, of mortality rates near nuclear power plants nationally.

Joseph Mangano's recent health research focuses on elevated cancer and mortality rates near U.S. nuclear plants, with key 2025 reports highlighting increased thyroid cancer near Michigan's Palisades plant (5x higher) and higher overall cancers near Iowa's Duane Arnold plant, finding counties below state average before operation, then above average after, linking to radioactive leakage concerns. He argues nuclear power isn't clean and calls for studies before expansion, emphasizing risks from tritium leaks and radioactive waste. 

Key Findings & Studies (2024-2025):

• Palisades Plant (Michigan): A February 2025 study found residents near the plant had a five-fold increased risk of thyroid cancer, with surveys showing higher rates in Van Buren County.
• Duane Arnold Plant (Iowa): In late 2025, Mangano presented data showing cancer rates in nearby counties (Linn & Benton) rose significantly (over 12% above state average) after the plant operated, compared to being below average before 1975.
• General Argument: Mangano, as Executive Director of the Radiation and Public Health Project (RPHP), asserts that proximity to reactors increases cancer, infant mortality, and low-birth-weight births, citing tritium in groundwater and spent fuel dangers. 

Earlier Work (Context): Mangano's research consistently points to elevated health issues near reactors, including studies on leukemia near older plants, excess infant mortality after plant start-ups, and the "Tooth Fairy Project" measuring Strontium-90 in baby teeth. 

Significance:

• These recent findings by Mangano and RPHP are part of a broader push for national studies on nuclear health risks, challenging official narratives and urging caution before expanding nuclear power.
• The U.S. federal government, not New York State, has jurisdiction over radiological health and safety issues. Nuclear expansion in New York would be taking place against a backdrop of unprecedented dismantling of federal nuclear regulation, dumbing down radiation exposure standards, and rubber-stamping and fast-tracking new nuclear projects.

We do not accept the notion of entertaining a financial boondoggle or a public health risk in Schuyler County. Based on these findings, we vehemently urge you to rescind any bids for the construction of a nuclear power plant OR A DATA CENTER anywhere in Schuyler County. Instead, we urge you to become educated on the feasibility and affordability of renewable energy, and would be happy to provide resources to you to advance your research and understanding of the subject.

Signed,

 

Cc: Anne Welliver-Hartsing <anne@buildwelliver.com>, Becky Gould <rgould@cayugahealth.org>, "Blowers Carl (carlblowersmf@aol.com)" <carlblowersmf@aol.com>, "Blowers Carl (CBlowers@co.schuyler.ny.us)" <CBlowers@co.schuyler.ny.us>, "Bond,Chris" <bondc@hunt-eas.com>, Brian Kenney <bkenney@buildwelliver.com>, Colton Hillman <chillman@edgerinc.com>, donnieJ1058@gmail.com, "Eldred, Matthew A." <meldred@hselaw.com>, Joann Lindstrom <JLindstrom@co.schuyler.ny.us>, "John Terry 1 (jht1@cornell.edu)" <jht1@cornell.edu>, "Jon Beckman (jbeckman@worksdesigngroup.com)" <jbeckman@worksdesigngroup.com>, Keith Klug <Keith_Klug@cargill.com>, Kristin Van Horn LDG <KVanhorn@larsondesigngroup.com>, Mark Rondinaro <mrondinaro@co.schuyler.ny.us>, Mayor <Mayor@watkinsglen.us>, "McKenzie Brian (brian@fingerlakesdistilling.com)" <brian@fingerlakesdistilling.com>, "Melissa C. Schroeder" <mcs35@cornell.edu>, Michell Krossber <admin@flxgateway.com>, nigar@watkinsglenchamber.com, Salvatore Garozzo <GarozzoSA@arcofcs.org>, "Carl Taber (taberhill@htva.net)" <taberhill@htva.net>, Chad Hendrickson <chad.hendrickson.wg@gmail.com>, "D'Alleva, Kai" <KDALLEVA@wgcsd.org>, erinshawkey@gmail.com, Laury Ellen Kline <LauryEllenKline@gmail.com>, "Mark P. Taylor" <mptaylor@empacc.net>