NUCLEAR OPERATORS in California, Connecticut, Illinois, and New York are asking state lawmakers for additional monies—above and beyond the market prices of electricity and electric capacity—to keep their plants open for business. These plant owners cite low energy prices and increasing operating costs among the factors that are making their plants uneconomic. Among the key arguments made for propping up these failing businesses has been their role in keeping the electric sector’s greenhouse gas emissions low enough to comply with state requirements and the federal Clean Power Plan.

In an article published in Forbes this past June, the Rocky Mountain Institute’s Amory Lovins argued that nuclear subsidies would offer more bang for the buck in emission reductions if spent instead on investments in new renewables: “A widespread claim—that dozens of nuclear plants, too costly to run profitably, now merit new subsidies to protect the earth’s climate—just collided with market reality,” Lovins wrote. He offered a comparison of the greenhouse gas emissions and costs of subsidizing Diablo Canyon in California versus long-term contracts for wind and utility-scale solar. New renewables, he found, are a no-brainer, even when matched against existing nuclear resources.

A Boston Globe editorial earlier this week called for the accelerated retirement of the Pilgrim nuclear plant in Plymouth, and provided a laundry list of safety concerns. Now slated to close in 2019, Pilgrim has faced shutdowns, unexpected fluctuations in water levels, and malfunctioning equipment. And that’s just in the last three weeks. Its age, proximity to Boston, history of safety violations, and classification as one of the three worst-run nuclear plants in the United States have begun to make Pilgrim more of liability than an asset to Entergy, its owner.

New England has abundant renewable resources with which to replace power sources that have reached the point of offering more safety risks than benefits to the public. Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island’s recent joint Clean Energy RFP provides incentives for more than 5,000 GWh of new renewable generation. Planning is well underway for 9,000-plus GWh of new transmission of hydro-electric generation from Quebec. In addition, the state’s recently enacted energy diversity legislation calls for another 5,600 GWh of offshore wind.

Pilgrim produces a little over 5,000 GWh of electric each year—or about 4 percent of New England’s total electricity sales. Sufficient resources have already been secured through the forward capacity market to allow for Pilgrim’s scheduled 2019 retirement. Even with the region’s electric sales expected to fall over time and 1,300 GWh of new rooftop solar expected by 2018, earlier retirement will depend on the regional electric system operator’s assessment of its capacity requirements and resources.

Meeting greenhouse gas reduction requirements in Massachusetts and its New England neighbors is a policy imperative. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s recent Kain decision makes this clear: emission reductions must meet the Commonwealth’s requirements in 2020 and beyond. That being said, a deteriorating nuclear plant with a disturbing safety record isn’t needed beyond 2019 to keep the lights on and has no place in plans for achieving a 25 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020.

Elizabeth A. Stanton is principal economist at Liz Stanton Consulting in Arlington.

CommonWealth Voices is sponsored by The Boston Foundation.

The Boston Foundation is deeply committed to civic leadership, and essential to our work is the exchange of informed opinions.  We are proud to partner on a platform that engages such a broad range of demographic and ideological viewpoints.