Governor Kathy Hochul wants 5 gigawatts of new nuclear capacity, with at least 1 GW developed by the publicly owned New York Power Authority, plus a separate 4 GW initiative. 

There haven't been any announcements for the technology of choice, but the most likely candidates are the large Westinghouse AP1000 and the smaller 300 MW BWRX-300 from GE Vernova Hitachi.

As Canary Media reports, the reversal follows this spring's weakening of New York's climate law. The state's difficulties with delivering large renewable projects also hasn't helped keep them on the pure-play renewables path, which was made worse with the Trump administration's assault on offshore wind.

The construction of new nuclear power generation offers a governor facing re-election a unique win-win opportunity: nuclear offers dependable low-carbon generation alongside renewables while also offering industrial investment, construction jobs and promises of lower bills.

Eight upstate communities have expressed interest in hosting projects. With strongly Republican-leaning counties on the list of possibilities, including Jefferson, Oswego, and Schuyler, Gov. Hochul could use the new mega-projects to score political points.

NYISO's 2026 Power Trends warns in their recent report that trying to replace over 4 GW of something that's almost always on (nuclear) with less than 3 GW of something that's almost always off (renewables) isn't exactly how you set the state up for future success.

The report from NYISO does highlight a common problem between nuclear and other sources of generation, which is the issue of actually getting the power where it needs to go. If most of the energy demand is downstate, then additional dependencies and bottlenecks come into play. Transmission capacity becomes a problem to get the power from upstate.

Then there is Indian Point. As we previously reported, Energy Secretary Chris Wright has pushed to revive the roughly 2 GW facility, whose retirement increased reliance on fossil generation. Hochul opposes reopening it while championing new construction upstate.

A restart would require substantial work, however, a precedent is already being set with other restarts around the country, most notably at the Palisades. If there is true concern in the state for meeting baseload needs, then outright rejecting the restart of a nuclear facility becomes confusing.

Opponents are arguing nuclear spending could crowd out faster alternatives, so Senator Kevin Parker's pending legislation would impose a 30-month pause on taxpayer and ratepayer support for new or restarted nuclear facilities while a task force studies costs and alternatives.

As we have highlighted a few times now, selective nuclear enthusiasm extends well beyond Albany.