U.S. Nuclear Plant Shutdowns, State Interventions, and Policy Concerns

June 10, 2021 – February 7, 2022 R46820

U.S. Nuclear Plant Shutdowns, State
Interventions, and Policy Concerns
Updated February 7, 2022
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
R46820

U.S. Nuclear Plant Shutdowns, State Interventions, and Policy Concerns

R46820
U.S. Nuclear Plant Shutdowns, State
February 7, 2022
Interventions, and Policy Concerns
Mark Holt
The United States has the largest nuclear power plant fleet in the world, with 93 reactors that can
Specialist in Energy Policy
generate approximately 95,522 megawatts (MW) of electricity. Nuclear power has accounted for

about 20% of annual U.S. electricity generation since the late 1980s; in 2020 it was 19.7%.
Phillip Brown
However, the U.S. nuclear power industry in recent years has been facing economic and financial
Specialist in Energy Policy
challenges, particularly plants located in competitive power markets where natural gas and

renewable power generators influence wholesale electricity prices.

Twelve U.S. nuclear power reactors have permanently closed since 2012, with the most recent
being Indian Point 3 on April 30, 2021. The closed reactors had electric generating capacity of 9,436 MW, nearly 10% of the
total capacity of current U.S. reactors. Another three U.S. reactor retirements have been announced through 2025, with total
generating capacity of 3,012 MW (equal to roughly 3% of current U.S. nuclear capacity).
However, announced retirements have not always occurred as planned. Most recently, an Illinois law signed September 15,
2021, provided subsidies that halted the planned shutdown of two nuclear plants in the state with a total of four reactors.
Including those units, 20 reactors previously announced for permanent closure within the past five years have continued
operating pursuant to state interventions that provide them with additional revenue sources or other assistance. State nuclear
power subsidies, such as zero emissions credits and power purchases, are typically about $100 million per year for each
reactor. The 20 reactors whose shutdowns were averted—in Connecticut, Illinois, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, and
Pennsylvania—represent 19,831 MW of electricity generation capacity (21% of total U.S. nuclear capacity). Many other U.S.
reactors have been identified by recent studies as being “at risk” of shutdown for economic reasons, although their closures
have not been announced.
Economic pressure on nuclear power plants is less immediate in areas of the country where electricity prices are set by state
regulators rather than markets, such as in much of the Southeast. Under such “traditional” rate regulation, all power plant
expenditures must be approved by state regulators, and electricity customers are charged rates sufficient to recover those
costs plus a reasonable investment return. However, many other factors can affect plant-specific costs, revenues, and
operating profits.
The recent U.S. nuclear power plant retirements and announced future shutdowns have drawn congressional attention,
including proposed legislation, committee hearings and markups, and enacted authorizations and appropriations. In
particular, a new federal program to provide financial support to nuclear power plants at risk of closure is included in the
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (P.L. 117-58) signed into law November 15, 2021. The law includes an appropriation
of $6 billion for the program—$1.2 billion per year from FY2022 through FY2026. A tax credit for existing nuclear power
plants was included in budget reconciliation legislation passed by the House on November 19, 2021 (Build Back Better Act,
H.R. 5376). Under the tax provision (Section 136109), existing nuclear power plants would receive a production tax credit of
up to 1.5 cents per kilowatt-hour (kwh), or $15/MWh, through the end of 2026.
Following are the three currently operating U.S. reactors that have been announced for closure by their owners:
 Palisades, Michigan, scheduled to shut down in May 2022 because of operating losses and the expiration of
a power purchase agreement; and
 Diablo Canyon 1 and 2, California, scheduled to shut down in November 2024 and August 2025,
respectively, because of a settlement with labor and environmental groups to replace the plant’s output with
renewable energy and energy efficiency measures.

Congressional Research Service

link to page 5 U.S. Nuclear Plant Shutdowns, State Interventions, and Policy Concerns

Introduction
The United States has the largest nuclear power plant fleet in the world, with 93 reactors that can generate
approximately 95,522 megawatts (MW) of electricity.1 Nuclear power has accounted for about 20% of
annual U.S. electricity generation since the late 1980s; in 2020 it was 19.7%.2 However, the U.S. nuclear
power industry in recent years has been facing economic and financial challenges, particularly plants
located in competitive power markets where natural gas and renewable power generators influence
wholesale electricity prices.
Twelve U.S. nuclear power reactors have permanently closed since February 2013, following a 14-year
period without any shutdowns.3 The most recent reactor retirement was Indian Point 3 on April 30, 2021.4
The plant’s owner, Entergy, cited low electricity prices driven by low-cost natural gas generation and
increased operating costs as major reasons.5
Another three U.S. reactor retirements have been announced through 2025. However, announced
retirements have not always occurred as planned: 20 reactors previously scheduled for permanent closure
have continued operating pursuant to state interventions that provide them with additional revenue
sources or improved competitive conditions (see Figure 1). An Illinois law signed September 15, 2021,
provided subsidies that halted the planned shutdown of two nuclear plants in the state with a total of four
reactors. Many other U.S. reactors have been identified by recent studies as being “at risk” of shutdown
for economic reasons, although their closures have not been announced.6

1 Energy Information Administration, Monthly Energy Review, January 2021. Megawatts in this report reflect “net summer”
generating capacity, defined as the maximum electrical output that can be supplied to system load, as demonstrated by a multi-
hour test, during summer peak demand (June 1 through September 30). EIA capacity total reduced by 1,038 MW to reflect the
April 20, 2021, permanent shutdown of Indian Point 3.
2 Energy Information Administration, “Electricity Data Browser,” https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/browser, and Monthly
Energy Review, Table 7.2, February 2021, https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/. Percentage refers to utility-scale
generation.
3 Energy Information Administration, “Nuclear Reactor Shutdown List,” https://www.eia.gov/nuclear/reactors/shutdown/.
4 Indian Point 3 was the last operating reactor at the Indian Point plant, whose initial nuclear reactor began generating electricity
in 1962. The plant had been controversial for decades because of its location about 25 miles north of New York City along the
Hudson River. The State of New York opposed Indian Point’s operating license extension by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) and reached an agreement with the plant’s owner, Entergy, in 2017 to close the final operating units in 2020
and 2021. See New York State, “Governor Cuomo Announces 10th Proposal of the 2017 State of the State: Closure of the Indian
Point Nuclear Power Plant by 2021,” news release, January 9, 2017, https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-
announces-10th-proposal-2017-state-state-closure-indian-point-nuclear-power.
5 Entergy Corporation, “Entergy, NY Officials Agree on Indian Point Closure in 2020-2021,” news release, January 9, 2017,
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/entergy-ny-officials-agree-on-indian-point-closure-in-2020-2021-300387633.html.
6 For an example of such studies, see Union of Concerned Scientists, More Than One-Third of Nation’s Nuclear Plants at Risk of
Early Closure or Slated for Retirement, November 8, 2018, https://www.ucsusa.org/about/news/nuclear-plants-risk-early-closure.
Congressional Research Service

1

link to page 7

Figure 1. U.S. Nuclear Power Plants Currently Operating, Shut Down Since 2013, Announced Plans for Shutdown, and
Operating Pursuant to State Intervention

Source: CRS, using data from S&P Global Platts, Esri Data and Maps, with information from the U.S. Energy Information Administration and plant operator
announcements.
Notes: Plant shutdowns are from February 2013 through the end of April 2021. See Table 1. Two U.S. reactors are currently under construction: Units 3 and 4 at the
Vogtle nuclear power plant in Georgia. There are no nuclear power plants in Alaska, Hawaii, or U.S. territories.

CRS-2

link to page 7 U.S. Nuclear Plant Shutdowns, State Interventions, and Policy Concerns

Reactors that have been identified in recent studies as being “at risk” of near-term retirement, but with no
shutdown date announced by their owners, are not shown in the accompanying maps and tables, because
of widely varying study methodologies, data, and results. Identifying “at risk” reactors with broad
screening studies is difficult because each nuclear reactor can have a unique set of market, location, cost,
revenue stream, maintenance, contract, and regulatory factors that operators may consider when deciding
to shut down reactor operations earlier than previously anticipated.
The maps in this report graphically illustrate that actual and planned reactor shutdowns are mostly
concentrated in particular regions of the country, such as the Northeast and Midwest, where supply,
demand, transmission constraints, and fuel costs in regional markets largely determine wholesale
electricity prices and generator revenues. If the wholesale market price of electricity (the price received
by power plants) is chronically lower than a nuclear plant’s operating costs, the owner of the plant may
decide to shut it down rather than endure losses indefinitely. Plant owners in such situations also may be
unwilling to make large capital investments that may be necessary to keep their reactors operating.
Wholesale electricity prices were pushed to historically low levels in recent years by rising amounts of
low-cost generation from natural gas, wind, and solar, and by weak electricity demand growth. Low
prices were cited by plant owners in the permanent closure of at least eight reactors during the past decade
(see Table 1). However, rising natural gas prices in 2021 led to substantial increases in wholesale
electricity prices in the second half of the year, according to the Energy Information Administration
(EIA). Average electricity prices rose in all regions during 2021, including a near-doubling in the
Midcontinent region and a 37% increase in California from the previous year.7 A continuation of this
trend could ease future economic pressure on nuclear power plants in regions with market-based rates.
Economic pressure on nuclear power plants is less immediate in areas of the country where electricity
prices are set by state regulators rather than markets, such as in much of the Southeast. Under such
“traditional” rate regulation, all power plant expenditures must be approved by state regulators, and
electricity customers are charged rates sufficient to recover those costs plus a reasonable investment
return. However, as noted above, many other factors can affect plant-specific costs, revenues, and
operating profits. In particular, plants that have guaranteed revenue streams through long-term power
purchase agreements may be somewhat insulated from wholesale price fluctuations. For background
information about some of the variables and complexities that affect nuclear power economics, see CRS
Report R44715, Financial Challenges of Operating Nuclear Power Plants in the United States, by Phillip
Brown and Mark Holt.
Concerns about reactor shutdowns, particularly their potential effects on local economies and efforts to
reduce power sector greenhouse gas emissions, have prompted action in the 117th Congress to provide
incentives and financial support for operating nuclear power plants. In particular, a new federal program
to provide financial support to nuclear power plants at risk of closure is included in the Infrastructure
Assistance and Jobs Act (P.L. 117-58), signed into law November 15, 2021. Other legislative proposals
such as federal clean electricity standards and tax credits could support existing nuclear power plants and
reduce the likelihood of earlier-than-planned shutdowns.
Scope of Report
This report provides maps and tables that show nuclear reactor shutdowns, announced closures, and state
interventions to prevent reactor shutdowns. For clarity, each of those categories is shown in a separate set
of maps and tables, along with a general map that shows all currently operating U.S. nuclear reactors and
their status. The map of reactors that have been kept operating by state action is accompanied by brief

7 Energy Information Administration, “Wholesale electricity prices trended higher in 2021 due to increasing natural gas prices,”
January 7, 2022, https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=50798.
Congressional Research Service

3

link to page 7 link to page 8 U.S. Nuclear Plant Shutdowns, State Interventions, and Policy Concerns

descriptions of those actions; many involve the establishment of “zero emission credits” that electric
utilities must purchase from nuclear plants, increasing nuclear plant revenues.
Nuclear Reactor Shutdowns: 2013-2021
From 2013 through April 2021, power plant operators permanently shut down 12 nuclear reactors
representing 9,436 MW of electricity generation capacity. Table 1 contains additional information about
each reactor. Figure 2 includes a map showing the location of each reactor listed in the table.
Table 1. U.S. Nuclear Reactor Shutdowns: 2013-2021
Organized by Shutdown Date
Generating
Major Factor(s)
State
Shutdown
Capacity
Start-Up
Contributing to
Reactor
(Cong. District)
Date
(Megawatts)
Year
Shutdown
Crystal River 3
Florida (FL-11)
Feb. 2013
860
1977
Cost of major repairs to
reactor containment
Kewaunee
Wisconsin (WI-8)
May 2013
566
1974
Operating losses
San Onofre 2
California (CA-49)
June 2013
1,070
1983
Cost of replacing
defective steam
generators
San Onofre 3
California (CA-49)
June 2013
1,080
1984
Cost of replacing
defective steam
generators
Vermont Yankee
Vermont (VT-at large) Dec. 2014
620
1972
Operating losses
Fort Calhoun
Nebraska (NE-1)
Oct. 2016
479
1973
Operating losses
Oyster Creek
New Jersey (NJ-3)
Sept. 2018
614
1969
Agreement with state to
avoid building cooling
towers
Pilgrim
Massachusetts (MA-9)
May 2019
685
1972
Operating losses; rising
capital expenditures
Three Mile Island 1
Pennsylvania (PA-10)
Oct. 2019
803
1974
Operating losses
Indian Point 2
New York (NY-17)
April 2020
1,020
1974
Low electricity prices;
settlement with state
Duane Arnold
Iowa (IA-1)
Aug. 2020
601
1975
Lower-cost alternative
power purchases
Indian Point 3
New York (NY-17)
April 2021
1,038
1976
Low electricity prices;
settlement with state

Total
9,436

Source: CRS, with information from the U.S. Energy Information Administration and plant operator announcements.
Notes: Generating capacity numbers reflect “Net Summer” capacity.

Congressional Research Service

4

Figure 2. Nuclear Reactor Shutdowns, 2013-2021

Source: CRS, using data from S&P Global Platts, Esri Data and Maps, with information from the Energy Information Administration and plant operator announcements.
Notes: Plant shutdowns are from February 2013 through the end of April 2021. There are no nuclear power plants in Alaska, Hawaii, or U.S. territories.

CRS-5

link to page 9 link to page 10 U.S. Nuclear Plant Shutdowns, State Interventions, and Policy Concerns

Announced Nuclear Reactor Shutdown Plans
As of the date of this report, power plant operators have announced their intent to shut down three
operating nuclear reactors, representing 3,012 MW of electricity generation capacity (about 3% of
total current U.S. nuclear capacity). Table 2 contains additional information about each reactor.
Figure 3 includes a map showing the location of each reactor listed in the table, along with all
other operating reactors in the country.
Table 2. Announced Nuclear Reactor Shutdown Plans
Organized by Announced Shutdown Date
Major Factors
Announced
Generating
Start-
Contributing to
State
Shutdown
Capacity
Up
Announced
Reactor
(Cong. District)
Date
(Megawatts)
Year
Shutdown
Palisades
Michigan (MI-6)
May 2022
772
1972
Operating losses; end
of power purchase
agreement
Diablo Canyon 1
California (CA-24)
Nov. 2024
1,122
1985
Settlement with labor
and environmental
groups to use
renewables and
efficiency
Diablo Canyon 2
California (CA-24)
Aug. 2025
1,118
1986
Settlement with labor
and environmental
groups to use
renewables and
efficiency

Total
7,1093,012

Source: CRS, with information from the U.S. Energy Information Administration and plant operator
announcements.
Notes: Generating capacity numbers reflect “Net Summer” generating capacity.

Congressional Research Service

6

Figure 3. Announced Nuclear Reactor Shutdown Plans

Source: CRS, using data from S&P Global Platts, Esri Data and Maps, with information from the U.S. Energy Information Administration and plant operator
announcements.

CRS-7

link to page 11 link to page 13 U.S. Nuclear Plant Shutdowns, State Interventions, and Policy Concerns

State Interventions to Support Nuclear Power
Generation
Six states have intervened to provide financial support or other assistance for 20 nuclear
reactors—representing 19,831 MW of electricity generation capacity (21% of total U.S. nuclear
capacity)—that had been previously announced for closure or identified as likely to close. Most
recently, an Illinois law signed September 15, 2021, provided subsidies that halted the planned
shutdown of two nuclear plants in the state with a total of four reactors. State subsidies that
benefit nuclear power, such as zero emissions credits or power purchase agreements, have
typically been up to $100 million per year for each reactor. Table 3 contains additional
information about each reactor, including the type of intervention. Figure 4 shows the location of
each reactor listed in the table, along with all other operating reactors in the country. Background
information, reference materials, and context about the six state incentive programs are also
included below.
Table 3. U.S. Nuclear Reactors Supported by State Intervention
Organized Alphabetically by State
Generating
State
Capacity
Start-Up
Reactor
(Cong. District)
(Megawatts)
Year
State Intervention Type
Mil stone 2
Connecticut (CT-2)
853
1975
Power Purchase Agreement
Mil stone 3
Connecticut (CT-2)
1,233
1986
Power Purchase Agreement
Byron 1
Il inois (IL-16)
1,164
1985
Carbon Mitigation Credits
Byron 2
Il inois (IL-16)
1,136
1987
Carbon Mitigation Credits
Clinton
Il inois (IL-13)
1,065
1987
Zero Emission Credits
Dresden 2
Il inois (IL-16)
902
1970
Carbon Mitigation Credits
Dresden 3
Il inois (IL-16)
895
1971
Carbon Mitigation Credits
Quad Cities 1
Il inois (IL-17)
908
1972
Zero Emission Credits
Quad Cities 2
Il inois (IL-17)
911
1972
Zero Emission Credits
Hope Creek
New Jersey (NJ-2)
1,172
1986
Zero Emission Credits
Salem 1
New Jersey (NJ-2)
1,153
1977
Zero Emission Credits
Salem 2
New Jersey (NJ-2)
1,142
1981
Zero Emission Credits
Ginna
New York (NY-24)
580
1970
Zero Emission Credits
James A.
New York (NY-24)
848
1976
Zero Emission Credits
FitzPatrick
Nine Mile Point 1
New York (NY-24)
621
1969
Zero Emission Credits
Nine Mile Point 2
New York (NY-24)
1,292
1987
Zero Emission Credits
Davis-Besse
Ohio (OH-9)
908
1977
Nuclear Resource Credits
Perry
Ohio (OH-14)
1,240
1987
Nuclear Resource Credits
Beaver Valley 1
Pennsylvania (PA-17)
907
1976
PA joined Regional Greenhouse
Gas Initiative (RGGI)
Beaver Valley 2
Pennsylvania (PA-17)
901
1987
PA joined RGGI
Congressional Research Service

8

U.S. Nuclear Plant Shutdowns, State Interventions, and Policy Concerns

Generating
State
Capacity
Start-Up
Reactor
(Cong. District)
(Megawatts)
Year
State Intervention Type
Total

19,831

Source: CRS, with data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration and state policy documents.
Notes: Generating capacity numbers reflect “Net Summer” generating capacity. All nuclear power reactors in
Pennsylvania could benefit from the state joining RGGI, a carbon dioxide cap-and-trade system in the Northeast
and Mid-Atlantic. Beaver Valley is included in this table because the plant owner rescinded its closure order, and
cited RGGI as the reason for not shutting down the reactors. Ohio subsidies were postponed and then repealed
without being implemented, although the two Ohio nuclear plants have continued to operate. Exelon announced
in July 2021 that its two-unit Braidwood plant could close “sometime in the next few years,” with no specific
date; Braidwood has also been awarded carbon mitigation credits by Il inois as an “at risk” plant.

Congressional Research Service

9

Figure 4. U.S. Nuclear Reactors Supported by State Intervention

Source: CRS, using data from S&P Global Platts, Esri Data and Maps, with data from the Energy Information Administration and state intervention policies.
Notes: NRC = Nuclear Resource Credits (similar to ZECs); PPA = Power Purchase Agreement; RGGI = Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative; ZEC = Zero Emission
Credits; CMC = Carbon Mitigation Credits. All nuclear power reactors in Pennsylvania could benefit from the state joining RGGI. Beaver Valley is included in this map
because the plant owner rescinded its closure order, and cited RGGI as the reason for not shutting down the reactors. Ohio subsidies were postponed and then
repealed without being implemented, but the two Ohio nuclear plants have continued to operate. The two-unit Braidwood plant in Il inois has also been awarded carbon
mitigation credits as an “at risk” plant, but it is not shown on this map because it never had an announced shutdown date.
CRS-10

U.S. Nuclear Plant Shutdowns, State Interventions, and Policy Concerns

Connecticut
Connecticut enacted a law in 2017 to authorize the state’s Department of Energy and
Environmental Protection (DEEP) to hold competitive procurements for power from nuclear
plants found to be at risk of retirement.8 Two power reactors are currently operating in
Connecticut, Millstone 2 and 3 (with unit 1 having been previously retired). DEEP and the
Connecticut Office of Consumer Counsel determined in 2019 that Millstone 2 and 3 were at risk
of permanent shutdown beginning on June 1, 2023, when the Millstone plant’s current capacity
obligations with the regional transmission organization expire.9
In the power purchase solicitation that took place after Millstone was found to be at risk, DEEP
approved Millstone’s bid to sell half the plant’s output for a 10-year period running through 2029,
or 9 million megawatt-hours per year. Connecticut’s two regulated electric utilities were required
to purchase the power from Millstone at $49.99 per megawatt-hour, for a total of about $450
million per year. The power purchase includes all of Millstone’s zero emission credits (ZECs),
which can be resold.10 New England real-time wholesale electricity prices averaged $30.67 per
megawatt-hour in 2019,11 $19.32 below the price in the Millstone power purchase contracts. At
those rates, the resulting subsidy to Millstone would average about $174 million per year.
Illinois
Exelon announced in 2016 that it would shut down its single-unit Clinton plant and the two-unit
Quad Cities plant in 2017 and 2018, respectively.12 The Illinois General Assembly enacted a law
(Public Act 99-0906) on December 1, 2016, to provide ZECs to keep the plants operating for 10
years. The law set the price of a ZEC at $16.50 per megawatt-hour, based on the social cost of
carbon,13 to be adjusted for market conditions and other factors. Under criteria in the law, the
Illinois Power Authority procures the ZECs from the three reactors at Clinton and Quad cities at
the mandated price and sells them to utilities in the state. The total cost of the ZECs over 10 years
is estimated to be about $3.6 billion, or about $360 million per year for the three eligible

8 An Act Concerning Zero Carbon Solicitation and Procurement, Public Act No. 17-3, signed October 31, 2017,
https://cga.ct.gov/asp/cgabillstatus/CGAbillstatus.asp?selBillType=Bill&bill_num=1501&which_year=2017IS.
Connecticut Governor Dannel P. Malloy had signed Executive Order 59 with similar provisions July 25, 2017.
9 Connecticut Public Utilities Regulatory Authority, Brief of the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection’s
Bureau of Energy and Technology Policy and the Office of Consumer Counsel, September 28, 2018,
http://www.dpuc.state.ct.us/DOCKCURR.NSF/60903cc7b9de44728525746b006e8ffb/
45b46c73aeca4c6285258319003d9a97/$FILE/68115619.pdf/scanned%20DEEP-
OCC%20At%20Risk%20brief%20with%20attachments%2018-09-28.pdf.
10 Connecticut Legislature, Office of Legislative Research, Millstone Power Procurement, September 1, 2020,
https://www.cga.ct.gov/2020/rpt/pdf/2020-R-0203.pdf.
11 ISO New England, “Markets: Fast Stats,” https://www.iso-ne.com/about/key-stats/markets.
12 Exelon, “Exelon Announces Early Retirement of Clinton and Quad Cities Nuclear Plants,” news release, June 2,
2016, http://www.exeloncorp.com/newsroom/clinton-and-quad-cities-retirement.
13 Estimated by the U.S. Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases, https://www.epa.gov/sites/
production/files/2016-12/documents/sc_co2_tsd_august_2016.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

11

U.S. Nuclear Plant Shutdowns, State Interventions, and Policy Concerns

reactors.14 The Illinois ZEC program and a similar program in New York were challenged in
federal court but ultimately upheld.15
Although the Illinois ZEC program averted the planned closure of the Clinton and Quad Cities
plants, Exelon announced in August 2020 that it would retire two other nuclear plants in the state:
the two-unit Byron plant in September 2021 and the final two operating reactors at its Dresden
plant in November 2021. Exelon said the two plants “face revenue shortfalls in the hundreds of
millions of dollars” despite efficient and reliable operation.16 As noted above, the planned
shutdowns were averted by an Illinois law signed September 15, 2021, that provides “carbon
mitigation credits” to nuclear plants at risk of closure for economic reasons.17 Exelon also had
warned that its two-reactor Braidwood plant could close “sometime in the next few years,”18 and
that plant is also receiving carbon mitigation credits.
Under the new law, each carbon mitigation credit represents 1 MWh of eligible nuclear power
generation. The Illinois Power Agency is to procure five-year contracts for 54.5 million credits
per year from eligible nuclear plants.19 The credits are to be purchased by utilities serving at least
3 million retail customers in the state, with automatic pass-through to ratepayers.
Under the act, eligible nuclear plants submitted bids to supply the credits. To bid, plants were
required to submit cost, revenue, and operational data to prove they faced economic risk.
Eligibility was limited to nuclear plants in the Illinois portion of the PJM interconnection, of
which there are three: Byron, Dresden, and Braidwood. At 1 credit/MWh, the 54.5 million
available credits almost exactly equal the electric generation of the three eligible nuclear plants in
2019, according to EIA. On December 1, 2021, the Illinois Commerce Commission awarded the
three plants the 54.5 million credits annually through the end of May 2027.20
The price paid for the credits is to be the bid price minus other plant revenues, so the value of the
credits may vary from month to month. Bids were not allowed to exceed a customer protection
cap equal to baseline costs set at $30.30/MWh in 2022 and rising to $34.50/MWh in 2026.

14 Illinois Commerce Commission, Report to the General Assembly in Compliance with Section 1-75(d-5) of the Illinois
Power Agency Act, August 2019, https://www.ilga.gov/reports/ReportsSubmitted/
553RSGAEmail1216RSGAAttach2019%20Report%20to%20General%20Assembly%20in%20Compliance%20with%
20Section%201-75(d-5)%20IL%20Power%20Agency%20Act.pdf.
15 Walton, Rod, “Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Appeals Against Nuclear Subsidies in New York, Illinois,” Power
Engineering, April 16, 2019, https://www.power-eng.com/emissions/supreme-court-refuses-to-hear-appeals-against-
nuclear-subsidies-in-new-york-illinois/#gref.
16 Exelon, “Exelon Generation to Retire Illinois’ Byron and Dresden Nuclear Plants in 2021,” news release, August 27,
2020, https://www.exeloncorp.com/newsroom/exelon-generation-to-retire-illinois%E2%80%99-byron-and-dresden-
nuclear-plants-in-2021.
17 Illinois General Assembly, Energy Transition Act (Nuclear Plant Assistance), Public Act 102-0662, section d-10,
https://ilga.gov/legislation/publicacts/102/102-0662.htm.
18 Exelon, “Exelon Generation Submits Decommissioning Plans for Byron and Dresden Nuclear Plants,” July 28, 2021,
https://www.exeloncorp.com/newsroom/exelon-generation-submits-decommissioning-plans-for-byron-and-dresden-
nuclear-plants.
19 Illinois Power Agency, “Carbon Mitigation Credits RFP,” https://www.ipa-energyrfp.com/carbon-mitigation-credits.
20 Illinois Commerce Commission, “Public Notice of Successful Bidders and Average Prices,” December 1, 2021,
https://www.ipa-energyrfp.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Public-Notice-of-CMC-Procurement-Results-
12-1-2021.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

12

U.S. Nuclear Plant Shutdowns, State Interventions, and Policy Concerns

New Jersey
New Jersey enacted a law in 2018 to provide ZECs to nuclear power plants in the state that could
demonstrate a need for subsidies to continue operating.21 PSEG Nuclear, the operator of New
Jersey’s three nuclear reactors—Salem 1 and 2 and Hope Creek—applied for the ZECs in
December 2018. The application stated that “PSEG intends to retire the plants within the next
three years unless there [is] a material beneficial financial change.”22
The New Jersey Board of Public Utilities (BPU) in April 2019 awarded ZECs to the three reactors
worth about $100 million each for three years. The BPU staff concluded that the reactors were
financially viable without the subsidies. However, the BPU Board found that “operational risks”
and “market risk” as defined by the law made the three reactors eligible for ZECs. In dissenting
from the BPU decision, one commissioner contended that the three reactors had not
“satisfactorily demonstrated” that they would shut down without state subsidies.23
New York
The owners of four nuclear reactors in upstate New York announced in 2016 that they would
permanently be closed for economic reasons.24 To keep the plants operating, the State of New
York Public Service Commission approved a ZEC system in August 2016 that provided
additional revenue for the four reactors and required them to continue operating through 2029.25
The order required the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority
(NYSERDA) to purchase ZECs from the four reactors and resell them to state-regulated electric
utilities (“load serving entities”). The initial ZEC price was set at $17.48 per megawatt-hour at a
cap of 27.618 million megawatt-hours per year. This yielded a maximum annual ZEC subsidy for
the four reactors of $483 million for the first two years of the program, with adjustments to be
made every two years.
Ohio
The permanent shutdown of Ohio’s two nuclear power plants, Davis-Besse and Perry, was
announced in an April 25, 2018, filing with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) by the
plants’ owner, FirstEnergy Solutions (now Energy Harbor after a bankruptcy reorganization). The

21 NJ Rev Stat § 48:3-87.3 (2018), Findings, declarations relative to nuclear energy, https://law.justia.com/codes/new-
jersey/2018/title-48/chapter-3/section-48-3-87.3/.
22 PSEG Services Corporation, Application to New Jersey Board of Public Utilities for Hope Creek Generating Station
to receive ZECs, December 19, 2018, p. 5, https://corporate.pseg.com/aboutpseg/companyinformation/
thepsegfamilyofcompanies/-/media/E26DB24D6B074FEB8CD0895A1ED1D45C.ashx.
23 McAuliffe, Michael, “New Jersey Customer Advocate Mulls ZEC Appeal,” Nucleonics Week, April 25, 2019; New
Jersey Board of Public Utilities, Order Determining the Eligibility of Hope Creek, Salem 1, and Salem 2 Nuclear
Generators to Receive ZECs, April 17, 2019, https://www.bpu.state.nj.us/bpu/pdf/boardorders/2019/20190418/4-18-19-
9A.pdf.
24 Entergy, “Entergy to Close James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant in Central New York,” news release, February
23, 2016, http://www.entergynewsroom.com/latest-news/entergy-close-jamesfitzpatrick-nuclear-power-plant-central-
new-york-1829/; Knauss, Tim, “Another Oswego County Nuke Threatens to Close: Nine Mile 1 on the Brink,”
Syracuse.com, June 15, 2016, updated March 22, 2019, https://www.syracuse.com/news/2016/06/
another_oswego_county_nuke_threatens_to_close_nine_mile_1_on_the_brink.html.
25 State of New York Public Service Commission, Order Adopting a Clean Energy Standard, Issued and Effective
August 1, 2016, https://www.nyserda.ny.gov/All-Programs/Programs/Clean-Energy-Standard/Important-Orders-
Reports-and-Filings/Filings-Orders-and-Reports. See Appendix E.
Congressional Research Service

13

U.S. Nuclear Plant Shutdowns, State Interventions, and Policy Concerns

NRC filing said FirstEnergy Solutions would cease operation of Davis-Besse by May 31, 2020,
and Perry by May 31, 2021.26
FirstEnergy Solutions rescinded the shutdown notice for the two nuclear plants on July 26,
2019,27 three days after the Ohio Legislature enacted a bill, H.B. 6, to provide subsidies to keep
them operating.28 H.B. 6 authorized the collection of $150 million per year from ratepayers for a
“nuclear generation fund,” which would provide financial support to Davis-Besse and Perry. The
nuclear subsidy collections were to begin on January 1, 2021.29
A proposed referendum to repeal H.B. 6 was abandoned in January 2020 after sufficient
signatures were not gathered in time.30 However, on July 16, 2020, the U.S. Attorney for the
Southern District of Ohio filed a criminal complaint that the enactment of H.B. 6 and failure of
the repeal effort had been directly affected by “multiple acts of bribery” by the Ohio Speaker of
the House and other state officials.31
Citing the scandal and other concerns about the implementation of H.B. 6, an Ohio industry
association appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court to stay the scheduled January 1, 2021, initiation
of ratepayer charges for the act’s nuclear and other electric generation subsidies.32 The Ohio
Supreme Court granted the temporary stay on December 28, 2020.33 Ohio Governor Mike
DeWine signed legislation on March 31, 2021, that repealed the H.B. 6 nuclear subsidies.34
Following the nuclear subsidy suspension and repeal, Energy Harbor has not announced any
changes to the status of Davis-Besse and Perry, which are continuing to operate.
Future use of any Ohio subsidies could also be affected by a Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC) order to expand the Minimum Offer Price Rule (MOPR) issued by the PJM
regional transmission organization. The Ohio nuclear plants are in the PJM region. FERC may
revisit its order under the Biden Administration. For more information, see CRS Insight IN11223,
FERC Directs PJM to Expand Minimum Offer Price Rule, by Richard J. Campbell.

26 Ryser, Jeffrey, “FirstEnergy Reaches Creditor Agreements Related to Subsidiary Bankruptcy,” Nucleonics Week,
April 26, 2018.
27 FirstEnergy Solutions, “FirstEnergy Solutions Rescinds Deactivation Notices for Competitive Generating Plants in
Ohio,” news release, July 26, 2019, https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/firstenergy-solutions-rescinds-
deactivation-notices-for-competitive-generating-plants-in-ohio-300891786.html.
28 Ohio Legislature, 133rd General Assembly, House Bill 6 Status, https://www.legislature.ohio.gov/legislation/
legislation-status?id=GA133-HB-6.
29 Ohio Legislature, 133rd General Assembly, House Bill 6 as enrolled, Sec. 3706.46, https://www.legislature.ohio.gov/
legislation/legislation-summary?id=GA133-HB-6. Other electric generation subsidies were also included in the
legislation.
30 “House Bill 6 Referendum Effort Is Dead After Group Drops Lawsuit Appeal,” January 22, 2020,
https://www.cleveland.com/open/2020/01/house-bill-6-referendum-effort-is-dead-after-group-drops-lawsuit-
appeal.html.
31 Criminal Complaint Before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, United States of America v.
Matthew Borges, Case No. 1:20-MJ-00526, July 16, 2020, https://fox8.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/2020/07/
show_temp.pdf.
32 Supreme Court of Ohio, “Motion to Stay Charges Assessed to Customers to Subsidize the H.B. 6 Clean Air Fund by
the Ohio Manufacturers’ Association Energy Group,” Case No. 2020-1488, December 17, 2020,
http://supremecourt.ohio.gov/pdf_viewer/pdf_viewer.aspx?pdf=895795.pdf.
33 Supreme Court of Ohio, In re Matter of Establishing the Clean Air Fund Rider Pursuant to R.C. 3706.46, December
28, 2020, http://supremecourt.ohio.gov/pdf_viewer/pdf_viewer.aspx?pdf=895795.pdf.
34 Mike DeWine, Governor of Ohio, “Governor DeWine Signs Ohio Transportation Budget,” news release, March 31,
2021, https://governor.ohio.gov/wps/portal/gov/governor/media/news-and-media/transportation-budget-signed-
03312021.
Congressional Research Service

14

U.S. Nuclear Plant Shutdowns, State Interventions, and Policy Concerns

Pennsylvania
FirstEnergy (now Energy Harbor), owner of the two-unit Beaver Valley nuclear plant in western
Pennsylvania, announced in March 2018 that the plant would close in 2021.35 Energy Harbor
rescinded Beaver Valley’s planned retirement in March 2020, after observing the Pennsylvania
Governor’s efforts to join the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), a carbon dioxide cap-
and-trade program in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic. Energy Harbor said its decision to keep the
plant operating was “largely driven” by the governor’s actions to join RGGI, “which will begin to
help level the playing field for our carbon-free nuclear generators.”36
Governor Wolf issued an Executive Order in October 2019 directing the Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to develop a rulemaking that would establish the
framework to join RGGI.37 DEP’s final rule to participate in RGGI was approved by the state’s
Independent Regulatory Review Commission on September 1, 2021.38 Policymakers in
Pennsylvania’s legislative bodies have voiced strong opposition to joining RGGI and the
governor’s actions to join the program without enacting new legislation.39
The 11 northeastern and mid-Atlantic states that participate in RGGI have agreed to a regional
cap on carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from fossil-fuel-fired electric power plants. The RGGI
emissions cap increases costs for fossil fuel plants relative to non-emitting generating sources
such as nuclear plants. To demonstrate compliance with the emissions cap, covered power plants
must submit emission allowances to the implementing state agency to cover the number of short
tons of CO2 the plant emitted over the past compliance period (three years in the RGGI program).
The vast majority of RGGI emission allowances are initially distributed through quarterly
auctions, and power plants may buy and sell allowances among themselves throughout the
compliance period. In RGGI’s most recent auction (March 2021), the auction clearing price for
allowances was $7.60 per short ton of CO2, the highest price in RGGI’s history. For more
information, see CRS Report R41836, The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative: Background,
Impacts, and Selected Issues, by Jonathan L. Ramseur.
Congressional Action
The 117th Congress has enacted or is considering multiple approaches to addressing potential
shutdowns of existing nuclear power plants. Some bills currently under consideration would
target at-risk plants by providing direct payments or tax credits. Another major approach would
indirectly help existing reactors by including nuclear power in broader “clean energy” incentives
and mandates. The future of nuclear power has been discussed at several recent hearings, with

35 FirstEnergy Solutions, “FirstEnergy Solutions Files Deactivation Notice for Three Competitive Nuclear Generating
Plants in Ohio and Pennsylvania,” news release, March 28, 2018, https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1407703/
000119312518104000/d561242dex991.htm.
36 Energy Harbor, “Energy Harbor Corp Rescinds Deactivation Notice for Nuclear Generating Plant in Pennsylvania,”
news release, March 13, 2020, https://energyharbor.com/en/about/news-and-information/energy-harbor-corp-rescinds-
deactivation-notice-for-nuclear-gene.
37 Governor Wolf Executive Order 2019-07, first signed October 3 2019, amended June 22, 2020,
https://www.oa.pa.gov/Policies/eo/Documents/2019-07.pdf.
38 For more information, see the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection RGGI website,
https://www.dep.pa.gov/Citizens/climate/Pages/RGGI.aspx.
39 See, e.g., EnergyWire, “Battle Rages over Pa. Plan to Join RGGI,” May 6, 2021, https://www.eenews.net/
energywire/2021/05/06/stories/1063731853.
Congressional Research Service

15

U.S. Nuclear Plant Shutdowns, State Interventions, and Policy Concerns

concerns raised about continued shutdowns as well as about ensuring that safety standards are
maintained for at-risk plants.
Infrastructure Assistance and Jobs Act
A new federal program to provide financial support to nuclear power plants at risk of closure is
included in the Infrastructure Assistance and Jobs Act (P.L. 117-58 ) signed into law November
15, 2021.
A nuclear reactor is eligible for the bill’s assistance program (Section 40323) if it “competes in a
competitive electricity market”40 and the Secretary of Energy certifies that it is likely to close
because of economic factors, that such closure would result in increased pollution, and that NRC
has reasonable assurance that the reactor would operate safely. Priority is given to reactors that
maximize their use of U.S.-origin fuel. In applying to the Secretary for certification, reactors at
risk of closure would have to submit cost and revenue data and an estimate of potential increased
air pollution that would result from their shutdown. The revenue data would include the impact of
any state assistance programs, unless the federal credits would be used to reduce the state
payments. For example, the Illinois law authorizing carbon mitigation credits (cited above)
requires nuclear plants applying for the credits to include any anticipated federal support in their
revenue projections.
Reactors certified by the Secretary could submit bids to receive credits for four years, specifying
an amount per megawatt-hour of electricity generated that would be paid for each credit. The bids
would include a commitment to generate a specific number of megawatt-hours during the four-
year period. The bids could not exceed the losses that the certification process had projected that
a reactor would incur without assistance. Certification for the assistance program can be renewed
until September 30, 2031. The Secretary is to use the bidding results to award credits to as many
certified reactors as possible within available funding.
Appropriations for the nuclear plant assistance program were provided in the same bill by
Division J, Title III, Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies. The program received
a total of $6 billion, with $1.2 billion appropriated per year from FY2022 through FY2026.
Production Tax Credit for Existing Reactors
A tax credit for existing nuclear power plants was included in budget reconciliation legislation
passed by the House on November 19, 2021 (Build Back Better Act, H.R. 5376).
Under the tax provision (Section 136109), existing nuclear power plants would receive a
production tax credit of up to 1.5 cents per kilowatt-hour (kwh), or $15/MWh, through the end of
2026. To qualify for the credit, a nuclear plant would have to satisfy requirements on prevailing
wages and apprenticeships or have a generating capacity below 1 MW. An existing nuclear plant
not meeting those requirements would qualify for a credit of up to 0.3 cents/kwh.

40 The term “competitive electricity market” is not defined in the act. After the law’s enactment, DOE issued a
statement that the credit program will be “open to all 93 reactors operating in the U.S.” See DOE, “Saving Existing
Nuclear Fleet Brings Net-Zero Future Closer,” December 6, 2021, https://www.energy.gov/articles/saving-existing-
nuclear-fleet-brings-net-zero-future-closer. According to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, “two-thirds of
the nation’s electricity load” is served by “bid-based markets.” See Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, “Electric
Power Markets,” https://www.ferc.gov/electric-power-markets.
Congressional Research Service

16

U.S. Nuclear Plant Shutdowns, State Interventions, and Policy Concerns

The credit would be reduced if the price of electricity generated by an eligible plant rose above
specific levels. The credit would also be offset in specified circumstances by amounts received
from state or federal zero-emission credit (ZEC) programs.
Clean Electricity Performance Program
The House-passed Build Back Better Act (H.R. 5376) also includes a program of grants and fees
to encourage utilities to increase their supply of low-carbon electricity, including nuclear energy.
The Clean Energy Performance Program in H.R. 5376 would require the Department of Energy
(DOE) to provide annual grants to utilities that increase their clean electricity percentage by at
least four percentage points over the previous year. If a utility did not increase its clean electricity
share by that amount, it would owe a payment to DOE. After the first year, a utility would have to
meet the four percentage point goal to receive a grant the following year. Grants would be $150
for every MWh of clean electricity that exceeded a level of 1.5% more than the amount a utility
had generated the previous year. The payment for failure to meet the 4 percentage point increase
would be $40/MWh of the generation shortfall.
While those grants and payments would not directly benefit nuclear power plants, they could
influence an electric utility’s decisions on nuclear plant closures, expanding a nuclear plant’s
generating capacity, or even building new reactors.
Other Bills and Hearings
The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee held a hearing on nuclear energy March 25,
2021, which included a focus on existing U.S. nuclear plants. Chair Joe Manchin said in his
opening statement, “Lifetime extensions are cheaper than new builds and are generally cost
competitive with other generation technologies. We cannot afford to let this carbon-free energy
resource fade out.”41 Manchin subsequently sent a letter to President Biden urging him “to take
action to preserve our existing nuclear fleet and prevent further closures.”42 An amendment to
provide a production tax credit for existing nuclear power plants was proposed by Senator Ben
Cardin in the Senate Finance Committee but not offered for a vote during a markup of draft
energy tax legislation on May 26, 2021.43
Nuclear plant closures were discussed at a May 6, 2021, hearing by the House Appropriations
Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development on the DOE FY2022 budget request.44 Under
questioning, Energy Secretary Jennifer M. Granholm pledged to work with Congress to find ways

41 Chairman Joe Manchin’s Opening Statement, Hearing to Examine the Latest Developments in the Nuclear Energy
Sector, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, March 25, 2021, https://www.energy.senate.gov/services/
files/FD68DDC9-1352-4189-B1C8-4AF3A44E7235.
42 Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Joe Manchin, letter to President Joseph R. Biden, April
20, 2021, https://www.energy.senate.gov/2021/4/manchin-urges-biden-to-support-domestic-nuclear-fleet-prevent-
plant-closures.
43 Senate Committee on Finance, “Open Executive Session to Consider an Original Bill Entitled The Clean Energy for
America Act,” May 26, 2021, https://www.finance.senate.gov/hearings/open-executive-session-to-consider-an-original-
bill-entitled-the-clean-energy-for-america-act.
44 House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies,
FY2022 Budget Request for the Department of Energy, Hearing, May 6, 2021, https://appropriations.house.gov/events/
hearings/fy-2022-budget-request-for-the-department-of-energy.
Congressional Research Service

17

U.S. Nuclear Plant Shutdowns, State Interventions, and Policy Concerns

to keep existing reactors operating, a goal that was supported by Subcommittee Chair Marcy
Kaptur.
The 10th anniversary of the March 2011 Fukushima nuclear accident in Japan also prompted
congressional comment on the future of U.S. nuclear power, especially the safety of existing
plants. Senator Edward Markey, Chair of the Subcommittee on Clean Energy, Climate, and
Nuclear Safety of the Environment and Public Works Committee, issued a statement on the
Fukushima anniversary calling on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to ensure that the
lessons of Fukushima are applied to existing U.S. reactors and not relaxed to ensure nuclear
industry profitability.45
Legislation has been introduced in the 117th Congress to establish a national clean energy
standard (CES), which would require electric utilities to provide specific amounts of power to
their customers from eligible low- or zero-carbon generators. A CES that includes nuclear energy
could increase the demand for electricity from existing reactors and possibly provide an economic
incentive for building new ones. The CLEAN Future Act (H.R. 1512), introduced March 2, 2021,
by House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Frank Pallone Jr., includes a CES that would
gradually rise to 100% zero-emission electricity generation by 2035 and afterward. Nuclear
power is eligible in the CLEAN Future Act. The House Energy and Commerce Committee held a
hearing on the bill March 24, 2021.46
The 116th Congress enacted the Energy Act of 2020 (Division Z of P.L. 116-260), which
authorized appropriations for DOE’s ongoing “sustainability” research and development program
to improve the economics, safety, and continued operation of existing nuclear power plants.
Division D of P.L. 116-260 provided appropriations of $47 million for the sustainability program
for FY2021, the same as in FY2020.

Author Information

Mark Holt
Phillip Brown
Specialist in Energy Policy
Specialist in Energy Policy

Acknowledgments
CRS Visual Information Specialist Amber Hope Wilhelm produced the maps in this report.

45 Senator Ed Markey, Statement on U.S. Nuclear Safety Agenda on 10th Anniversary of Fukushima Nuclear Disaster,
March 11, 2021, cited by Indian Point Safe Energy Coalition, https://www.ipsecinfo.org/2021/03/17/lap-dogs-for-the-
industry-senator-markey-statement-on-u-s-nuclear-safety-agenda-on-10th-anniversary-of-fukushima-nuclear-disaster/.
46 House Committee on Energy and Commerce, “The Clean Future Act: Powering a Resilient and Prosperous
America,” hearing, March 24, 2021, https://energycommerce.house.gov/committee-activity/hearings/hearing-on-the-
clean-future-act-powering-a-resilient-and-prosperous.
Congressional Research Service

18

U.S. Nuclear Plant Shutdowns, State Interventions, and Policy Concerns

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

Congressional Research Service
R46820 · VERSION 5 · UPDATED
19

Download PDF

Download EPUB

Revision History

Feb. 7, 2022

HTML · PDF

Jun. 10, 2021

HTML · PDF

Metadata

Topic areas

Energy Policy

Report Type: CRS Report

Source: CRSReports.Congress.gov

Raw Metadata: JSON