Indian Point Deserves a Fresh Look

Over the past several months, as I've been out and about in Yorktown — at local events, small businesses and in everyday conversations — one issue keeps coming up: the cost of energy.

People don't raise it in abstract policy terms. They talk about it in very real ways: a retiree whose fixed income is being stretched thinner, a small business owner watching overhead climb, and a young family wondering how to budget when utility bills seem increasingly unpredictable.

Energy affordability is no longer an abstract policy debate. It is a monthly reality.

As we debate rising costs, increasing electricity demand and the reliability of New York's grid, we need to ask how we got here — and whether decisions made years ago still make sense today.

At the center of that discussion is Indian Point.

Indian Point's two operating reactors once provided approximately 2,000 megawatts of reliable, carbon-free electricity from right here in Westchester County. Units 2 and 3 shut down in 2020 and 2021 following a 2017 agreement involving New York State and Entergy.

I recently discussed Indian Point with Westchester County Executive Ken Jenkins. He emphasized to me that Entergy closed the plant — not "us."

I found that characterization disingenuous.

Yes, Entergy ultimately shut the reactors and later sold Indian Point to Holtec International. But New York State was an active participant in the agreement that led to the closure, following years of efforts by the Cuomo Administration to shut the facility.

More importantly, debating who physically turned off the switch misses the larger question: Was it good energy policy to close approximately 2,000 megawatts of reliable, carbon-free generation before New York had fully developed the infrastructure necessary to replace it?

That question is even more relevant today because New York's energy strategy has changed dramatically.

Gov. Kathy Hochul is now pursuing a major expansion of nuclear generation. The state is exploring thousands of megawatts of additional nuclear capacity because reliable, around-the-clock, zero-emission electricity is increasingly recognized as necessary as demand grows.

Think about that contradiction.

New York helped negotiate the closure of approximately 2,000 megawatts of nuclear generation in Westchester. Today, the state acknowledges nuclear power can be an important part of maintaining a clean, reliable and affordable electric grid.

On March 6, I joined Congressman Mike Lawler and U.S. Secretary of Energy Chris Wright during their visit to Indian Point. Congressman Lawler called for rebuilding and reopening nuclear generation at the site, arguing that New York cannot continue eliminating reliable sources of energy while demand and costs increase.

During that visit, I also spoke with one of Holtec's chief engineers about what might ultimately be possible at Indian Point.

Our conversation wasn't limited to flipping a switch and restarting the old reactors. We discussed new forms of generation and what the existing site and infrastructure could potentially accommodate.

That distinction matters.

Indian Point already possesses something extraordinarily valuable that cannot simply be recreated overnight: an established high-capacity connection to the electric grid in the heart of the Lower Hudson Valley.

For decades, the site delivered approximately 2,000 megawatts into one of the most energy-intensive regions in the country. The transmission corridors, substations, interconnections and other infrastructure necessary to move enormous amounts of electricity are already there.

Meanwhile, New York is spending billions of dollars on new transmission projects to move electricity from where it is generated to where it is needed in Westchester and New York City. Building major transmission infrastructure is extraordinarily expensive and can take years of planning, permitting and construction.

Before spending billions more building elsewhere, shouldn't we determine what can safely and economically be accomplished with the infrastructure we already have?

Could existing reactors be restored? Could next-generation nuclear technology be located there? Could small modular reactors or another form of firm generation take advantage of the site's existing grid connection?

I don't pretend to have those engineering answers.

But neither should politicians.

Those questions should be answered by engineers, NYISO, energy experts, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and an independent feasibility analysis.

Holtec is already demonstrating in Michigan that restoring nuclear generation at a closed facility is no longer purely theoretical. Its Palisades project is pursuing the restart of a closed nuclear plant while also developing plans for next-generation small modular reactors.

That doesn't mean the same solution will work at Indian Point. Decommissioning has progressed, the facilities are different, and serious technical, regulatory, safety and economic questions remain.

But that is precisely why we should study it rather than dismiss it.

Unfortunately, some elected officials seem unwilling even to entertain that discussion.

County Executive Jenkins has publicly stated that reopening Indian Point is not welcome in Westchester and that "we do not need it — and we do not want it."

State Sen. Pete Harckham went further. When legislation was proposed to create a commission to study reopening Indian Point, he dismissed the idea, saying:

"Indian Point will be re-nuclearized when Elvis Presley makes his comeback tour."

He also characterized the discussion as a "pointless election year stunt."

I respectfully disagree with that approach.

It is easy to dismiss an idea with a clever line. Leadership requires something more.

An independent analysis may ultimately determine that restarting the existing reactors is unsafe, technically impractical or economically unsound. New nuclear technology may prove more practical. Another form of generation may make greater sense.

But shouldn't those conclusions come from engineers, experts and regulators after examining the facts?

This isn't about being pro-nuclear or anti-renewable. Solar, wind, hydroelectric power storage, natural gas and nuclear can all play roles in a diverse energy portfolio.

It is about reliability, affordability and responsible planning.

And the issue goes well beyond Indian Point.

New York closed Indian Point, rejected proposed replacement generation at Danskammer and Astoria, and simultaneously embarked upon an electrification strategy that will require substantially more electricity.

Electric vehicles need electricity. Heat pumps need electricity. Electrifying buildings requires electricity. That power has to be generated somewhere, and it has to be available when people need it — including on the coldest winter nights and hottest summer afternoons.

When local dispatchable generation disappears, replacement power must come from somewhere else. New generation, transmission, substations, storage and grid upgrades all cost money.

Westchester consumers are also exposed to significant wholesale-market volatility. During the 12 months ending March 2026, reported Westchester NYISO index prices ranged from approximately 5.95 cents per kilowatt-hour in April 2025 to 23.36 cents in January 2026.

It would be inaccurate to claim Indian Point's closure caused that January price. Natural-gas prices, weather, transmission constraints, generator availability and demand all affect wholesale electricity prices. Inflation, infrastructure investment, storm resiliency and delivery costs also contribute to higher utility bills.

But it would be equally wrong to pretend energy policy decisions have no economic consequences.

Indian Point's nuclear generation was largely insulated from short-term natural-gas price fluctuations. Removing approximately 2,000 megawatts changed the downstate resource mix at the same time New York began pursuing policies designed to substantially increase electricity consumption.

And replacing or moving that power requires infrastructure — infrastructure ratepayers ultimately help pay for.

This brings us to the larger issue: leadership.

Leadership isn't about defending yesterday's decisions because changing course is politically difficult. It is about looking at the facts as they exist today and making the decision that is best for the people we serve.

Sometimes that means reconsidering positions we have held for years. Sometimes the politically expedient answer isn't the responsible one.

I understand why Indian Point has been controversial. There were legitimate concerns about safety, the environment and its location in a densely populated region. Those concerns must be taken seriously.

But circumstances have changed.

New York is now telling us nuclear power is an important part of our clean-energy future. At the same time, families and businesses are struggling with energy affordability, electricity demand is projected to increase, and maintaining reliability will require enormous investment.

That is exactly when leadership requires us to ask difficult questions.

The question shouldn't be: "Who closed Indian Point?"

It should be: "What is the best energy decision for the people of Westchester today?"

If an independent analysis concludes that restoring generation at Indian Point is unsafe, impractical or uneconomical, we should accept that conclusion. But we should have the courage to conduct the analysis.

And if it shows that the site can safely support new nuclear technology or another form of firm generation that takes advantage of the tremendous infrastructure already there, political discomfort should not prevent us from considering it.

Public officials aren't elected merely to make the easy decisions. We are elected to make difficult ones, weigh competing interests and do what is best for the people we represent — even when that means reconsidering past policy.

Energy policy is too important to be driven by ideology or political expediency.

A reliable electric grid is fundamental to public safety, economic development and our quality of life. Affordability matters just as much.

A clean-energy transition that working families, seniors and small businesses cannot afford is not a successful transition.

Before New York asks Westchester families and businesses to shoulder billions more in energy infrastructure and transition costs, every reasonable option should be on the table.

That includes a fresh, independent and fact-based look at Indian Point.

Before we spend billions building somewhere else, shouldn't we first determine what we can safely and economically accomplish with the infrastructure we already have?

Follow the science. Follow the engineering. Follow the economics. And then have the courage to follow where they lead.

Clean energy. Reliable energy. Affordable energy. Westchester — and Yorktown — shouldn't have to choose just two.