The giant hole in Kathy Hochul, Mikie Sherrill’s nuclear-power ambitions

Reality about green energy and concerns over affordability have led Democratic governors like New York’s Kathy Hochul and New Jersey’s Mikie Sherrill to reconsider nuclear energy.

Great.

But it won’t solve their states’ looming energy nightmares any time soon.

In June, Hochul ordered the New York Power Authority to develop a 1,000 megawatt nuclear plant Upstate.

That would hardly be enough to plug New York’s short-term electricity shortages, let alone its plans for zero-emissions by 2040, just 14 years from now.  

So, in her State of the State Address, she upped the ante to 5,000 MW of new nuclear power.

In New Jersey, Sherrill ordered the creation of a “task force” to develop new nuclear power; that won’t address Jersey’s challenges quickly, either.

The problem: Building new and lower-cost nuclear plants will be a major engineering, economic and political challenge.

Recall that the nuclear industry was clobbered by irrational safety and environmental fears, such as those that led former Gov. Andrew Cuomo to force the closure of the Indian Point nuclear plant, which had supplied about a fourth of New York City’s electricity, and prompted Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy to force Oyster Creek’s shutdown.

Even with political support, building nuclear plants takes time.

For starters, training a new generation of nuclear engineers and finding enough workers to build and operate the plants won’t happen overnight.

Consider Hochul’s order to the NYPA: Seven months later, there’s been nary a peep regarding a site for this new plant, who’ll build it, when work will start and what it may cost New Yorkers.

Gov. Kathy Hochul attends the MLK Sunday service at Abyssinian Baptist Church in Harlem, New York. Aristide Economopoulos for NY Post

Other than that, the directive is proceeding apace.

Hochul might as well have directed NYPA to build a plant on the moon, because her plan is yet another energy fantasy.

Recall that the 2019 Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act calls for a zero-emissions electric grid by 2040, just 14 years from now.

That means no more electricity from coal, oil or even natural-gas power plants. It’s hard to see adequate nuclear power online in time.

The most recently constructed nuclear plants in the United States were the two Vogtle plants in Georgia, which took almost that long to build.

New Jersey Governor Mikie Sherrill attends her inauguration ceremony at the New Jersey Performing Arts Center in Newark, New Jersey, U.S., January 20, 2026. REUTERS

And consider the costs: Those Georgia plants came in at around $35 billion, triple the original estimate. Ratepayers aren’t happy, with the costs estimated at about $250 a month for an average home.

In 2024, the US Energy Information Administration put the tab for a new nuclear plant, not counting financing costs, at almost $7,900 per kilowatt.

At that price, 5,000 megawatts of new nuclear capacity would cost almost $40 billion — a lot of money, even for New York.

Across the Hudson, Sherrill wants to form a “task force” to develop new nuclear power.

That’s a welcome step, but again, how soon can that realistically address Jersey’s problems, and at what cost?

Restarting the Oyster Creek Nuclear plant — which her fellow Democrat, Phil Murphy, forced to close prematurely — would be a start.

Meanwhile, the newly crowned Garden State governor is doubling down on electric insanity: Her Day 1 executive orders freeze electric rates (actually, they shift costs from ratepayers to taxpayers) and seek to accelerate development of unreliable wind and solar power.

When California froze rates almost three decades ago, the result was bankrupt utilities and full employment for attorneys.

As for more wind and solar power reliability, this weekend could offer a useful lesson: During the expected snowpocalypse, there won’t be much sun for solar-power generation, and afterward, there may be little wind for wind power.

If Hochul and Sherrill continue relying on more wind and solar, along with high-cost battery storage, the sure result will be blackouts and stratospheric electric bills.

Meanwhile, Hochul refuses to utter the one word that could provide beleaguered New York residents and businesses with lower energy costs almost immediately: fracking.

If she lifted the ban on this safe, widely used practice, new natural-gas supplies could lower the price of both electricity (much of which still comes from natural gas) and gas.

It could also create thousands of new jobs and a sorely needed Upstate economic boon.

As for Sherrill, she clearly needs an “Electricity 101” primer on how the industry works.

Shedding fantasies about solar and wind and opening the door to fracking in New York would be a nod to energy reality.

So would developing new natural-gas generation, rather than wasting residents’ money on wind and solar power.

But fantasy is so much easier.

Jonathan Lesser is a senior fellow with the National Center for Energy Analytics