In 2016 Pacific Gas and Electric, the owners of the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant in San Luis Obispo, California, announced that it would begin its decommissioning process to prematurely shut down the state’s largest source of reliable, clean energy by 2025. PG&E released its joint proposal with several other organizations, including the 1245 local chapter of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) electrical union. The premature closure of the plant would result in the loss of around 500 union jobs at the plant and utility. So why would the union representing the over 500 workers support the closure of such a large supplier of reliable jobs?
According to representatives of the union, support for Diablo Canyon’s decommissioning is not entirely synonymous with support against the plant or nuclear energy. The then-utility director of the IBEW, Jim Hunter, noted in 2016 that the plant’s closure raised “real concerns about the stability of the American power grid” and argued “that shutting down clean, reliable baseload power sources is a wrongheaded approach,” but coupled this sentiment by stating that “combined with the severance package and the potential for decommissioning work after the closure, the impact of this shouldn’t be felt for a long time.” This choice to accept PG&E’s decision to shut down an energy source that provides nearly 10% of California’s electricity generation demonstrates a short-term justification for the long-term loss of jobs and tax revenue.
Illinois tells a much different story. Prior to the passage of Illinois Senate Bill 2408, these facilities were positioned to shut down due to short-sighted policies and flawed electricity “markets” for failing to compensate the nuclear power plants for generating dispatchable carbon-free electricity year-round to meet demand. The bill corrected this market failure by extending zero-emissions credits to the three nuclear plants alongside monetary investments into solar and wind, etc. While the success of the bill is the combination of efforts from a myriad of actors, union support played a critical role. Hundreds of union workers gathered on the steps of the Illinois State Capitol calling on legislators to pass the bill to subsidize the nuclear plants, fighting for both their livelihoods and their community’s tax revenue.
An op-ed in the Chicago Sun Times authored by IBEW international president Lonnie Stephenson highlighted the effects that closing these nuclear plants would have not just on the union workers that he represents, but on the tax revenue of local economies and the energy grid statewide. Stephenson noted that
“The premature closing of the Byron and Dresden nuclear plants is a blow to Illinois families on so many levels. It’s a strike against the economy because it will cost Illinois thousands of middle-class jobs. It’s a disaster for the local community, which counts on these plants to supply nearly $63 million in tax revenue. And it’s a setback to Illinois’s ambitious efforts to combat climate change and eliminate greenhouse gases from its energy mix.”
The influence of union support did not go unnoticed, with Illinois’ Republican 38th district state Senator Sue Rezin noting in a webinar with the American Nuclear Society that when it came to the success of SB 2408, “the IBEW and the AFL [American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Workers] really did push the bill.” Additionally, Donnie Colston, the current Director of the IBEW Utility Department, commented in the same webinar that the “Illinois IBEW was so important and effective in passing the state bill because they are constantly politically active in their legislative bodies.”
So why has union support for Diablo Canyon looked so different from the efforts of organized labor in Illinois? And on a more macro level, if nuclear energy provides so many stable, high-paying jobs, then why are we not seeing more support from unions to keep existing plants open and support new builds? The answer to these questions might simply be communication. According to Colston, the issue lies in “communicating the value of nuclear [energy]”. Specifically, the value that nuclear energy provides in terms of employment and wages, transition capability, and tax revenue for communities.
Nuclear energy jobs pay more. In fact, according to a report released by the National Association of State Energy Officials in 2020, nuclear energy supports an average median hourly wage of $41.32, beating out fossil fuels for the top spot in the energy sector. To put this into perspective, nuclear workers “earn 105 percent more than the national median but account for less than one percent of total energy jobs”.
This cannot be said for other energy industries. The median hourly wage of wind and solar workers averages out to be $25.95 and $26.59, respectively. These numbers fall below both coal and natural gas, and present a dilemma for workers whose current fossil fuel jobs will begin phasing out as a result of the country’s transition to cleaner energy sources. Many industry workers worry that they will receive a pay cut if they see an employment change from fossils to renewables and hope that promises of pay increases “through organizing, through developing unions” will pay off. However, labor organizing in the renewables industry lags significantly behind that of fossils and nuclear. According to the 2020 US Energy and Employment report, about 4 percent of solar and 6 percent of wind workers are unionized. On the other hand, for nuclear energy, “unionization rates are 12 percent, double the national private sector average of 6.2 percent”. To add icing to the cake, these high-paying, union jobs will last. In comparison with fossil fuels, the second-largest provider of permanent jobs on-site with 107, nuclear energy provides twice as many at 237. Further, nuclear facilities can remain in operation for up to 80 years (potentially more), securing jobs for multiple generations of workers.
In sum, not only does nuclear pay more, but these positions are more likely to last and be protected through unions as well. Nuclear energy provides the most economically beneficial transition for workers in the industry, and this should not go unnoticed.
Nuclear energy provides a unique transition from fossil fuels that is unseen by other forms of energy. These facilities can directly replace retiring fossil fuel plants, utilizing aspects of the remaining infrastructure and allowing workers to remain in their communities as opposed to moving to find work elsewhere. Further, many of the job functions of those in the fossil industry overlap with those in nuclear, making the transition not only feasible but efficient as well. The shorter amount of time workers need to spend learning a new trade, the faster they are able to get to work. Colston of the IBEW noted that “there is a natural transition between [fossil and nuclear] power plant workers. We can retrain, we can run additional apprenticeship programs to move our workforce from one power generating facility to another”. Wyoming is beginning to see the benefits of this transition. Following legislator discussions of shifting Wyoming energy away from fossils and towards nuclear, the state will be the site for TerraPower’s first demonstration reactor. Not only will this nuclear energy plant bring clean, sustainable energy to the state, but it will also bring an influx of new high-paying positions — over 2000 direct jobs during peak construction. The region of this nuclear facility is largely dominated by coal, and this project demonstrates the ability for nuclear to provide for the livelihood of numerous contractors and others in industry-adjacent sectors. Allowing industry workers to stay in their communities and take advantage of good union jobs adds an element of stability to the U.S. transition away from fossils and towards cleaner, more sustainable energy.
The benefits of nuclear power are not isolated to the industry workers. Tax revenue generated from nuclear benefits communities as well. Specifically, nuclear plants “on average deliver around $400 million annually to the economic livelihood of local communities”. This revenue funds schools, police departments, fire departments, and surrounding infrastructure. The inverse effect occurs with the loss of a nuclear plant, reducing property values and tax revenue not just from the plant itself, but from sales and income taxes as well. According to the National Association of State Energy Officials, the largest impacts “[are] on education funding by up to 80 percent, reducing gateways to a longer-term recovery”. Zion nuclear facility presents a valuable case study to demonstrate these effects. Following the loss of their nuclear facility in 1998,
“the town lost $19 million in annual property tax revenues, approximately 50 percent of the Zion’s tax base. To help address the deficit, the town doubled property taxes, resulting in an exodus of both businesses and residents, making it difficult to attract homebuyers and continuing the negative tax cycle…. Zion ‘had to eliminate 14 police officers, eight public works employees, and five jobs in the building department,’ according to then-Mayor Al Hill in 2018. This has led to diminished response times for emergencies and underserved populations.”
Not only does this demonstrate an incentive for new nuclear builds to boost local communities, but also the critical importance of maintaining operations of existing facilities as well. The loss of a nuclear power plant does not just substantially affect the power grid, but the livelihoods and communities of those in the area as well.
Discussions about nuclear energy are often isolated to circles of politicians, engineers, and climate change activists- but seldom include the opinions and concerns of those that build the infrastructure and maintain the power grid. Explicit union support for the expansion of nuclear energy is a vital missing piece to both combating climate change and securing the jobs of thousands of hardworking blue-collar American workers. In order to garner this support, communicating the value of nuclear energy to these workers, their families, and their communities must be improved.
