newjerseynewsroom.com

BY BOB MARSHALL

COMMENTARY

Despite all the concerns and comments expressed recently about the operations of the Oyster Creek Generating Station from various environmental organizations, the hard facts regarding the tremendous local and state value of the facility remain as presented in our testimony, provided in full at www.njenergycoalition.org. At its core, this issue continues to be an economic one, and given the current economic climate, aims to pit local plant supporters against well-meaning but misinformed groups seeking to close Oyster Creek.

The New Jersey Energy Coalition, a broad-based advocacy group whose membership includes businesses, industry, labor leaders, civic organizations and distinguished citizens from across New Jersey, supports the continued operation of Oyster Creek and its current use of the once through cooling system.

Here are the facts.

In today's deregulated energy marketplace, all New Jerseyans benefit from Oyster Creek's excellent operating record and low cost electricity. Removing Oyster Creek from New Jersey's options of in-state energy supply will have severe economic and environmental consequences. Simply put, if cooling towers are mandated by the DEP, Oyster Creek will be shut down

New Jersey's fleet of nuclear reactors provide our state with over half of our energy supply, and they do so without producing any carbon emissions or criteria pollutants. The installation of cooling towers at Oyster Creek would cost $700-$800 million to install, more than the value of the facility.

In 2007, an independent report conducted by the Bates Whites consulting firm detailed the benefits of Oyster Creek and identified three potential consequences of retiring the facility. The first is the economic impact of Oyster Creek's closure. This constitutes the loss of over 700 high paying jobs, $129 million in annual economic stimulus and $190 million in annual energy savings thanks to the low cost wholesale electric prices the facility's base load output provides. The second impact is environmental. The production of nuclear energy releases zero carbon emissions, greenhouse gases or criteria air pollutants. The loss of Oyster Creek would equate to the loss of 15 percent of our state's low carbon output, without which it will be extremely difficult for New Jersey to meet federal and state carbon reduction standards or the ambitious goals of the NJ Energy Master Plan.

Finally, Oyster Creek produces 6 percent of our state's energy load and plays a fundamental role in ensuring the stability and reliability of our regional transmission grid. PJM, the independent transmission system operator, has determined that the retirement of Oyster Creek would result in significant transmission overloads, particularly in combination with the scheduled retirement of other New Jersey power plants. PJM estimates at least $100 million in transmission upgrades would be required to address Oyster Creek's closure. This estimate does not include the costs of obtaining new rights of way, nor did the analysis address the substantial challenges involved in making such upgrades, such as the time required to conduct environmental impact assessments, obtain state and local construction permits, and overcome potential local opposition. New Jersey's ratepayers would be the ones burdened with paying for these upgrades.

There are many factors affecting the Barnegat Bay, including non-point source pollution, overdevelopment and storm water runoff. Oyster Creek does have an impact on the local environment, but it is not the only one, and there is a lack of significant evidence that suggests the conversion to a closed-cycle cooling system will realistically or adequately solve the problem it is intended to fix. There is a solution to the degradation to Barnegat Bay, but it must be achieved after a comprehensive analysis looks at all the issues at play and a course of action is adopted that addresses each one. In the mean time, we must ensure that the regulations affecting Oyster Creek allow it to continue to play the same role that is has for the past forty years in providing jobs, economic stimulus and a reliable, affordable supply of clean energy for New Jersey residents and businesses. The facts speak for themselves. Economically, environmentally, and for the sake of a reliable energy supply, New Jersey cannot afford to lose Oyster Creek.

Bob Marshall on behalf of the New Jersey Energy Coalition