NIPSCO is again weighing the possibility of nuclear energy generation decades after activists led it to abandon its plans to build a nuclear power power plant along the Lake Michigan shoreline in Porter County.
The Merrillville-based electric and gas utility scrapped its controversial Bailly Nuclear Power Plant that was under construction near Chesterton in 1981 after protracted legal and regulatory fights with environmental groups.
But now NIPSCO is phasing out the coal it's long burned as utilities nationwide look to combat climate change. The utility is diversifying its energy production to include wind, solar, the grid and a natural gas peaker it's looking to develop in Wheatfield as a backup to provide a baseline of power when the wind isn't blowing or the sun isn't shining.
NIPSCO determined it would ultimately be cheaper, more sustainable and more reliable to phase out fossil fuels as their use declines internationally, which will cause production to drop. It's looking into technological advances such as long-term battery storage.
"We're in this transition with respect to our generation," NIPSCO President and Chief Operating Officer Vince Parisi said in a recent interview. "We're really a company that embraces an all-of-the-above mentality. Obviously, we have natural gas. We have a little bit of coal that we're phasing out. Over the years, we've developed a lot in the renewable space, both with solar and wind. We have some batteries we're developing as well. We're looking at new technologies to see if things could play in this market.
"We have an application for a natural gas peaker to provide the energy customers ultimately need. Part of the goal is to continue to develop along that path, to continue to be open to new technologies. We're having conversations around small nuclear reactors, modular reactors in the nuclear space. That's certainly something we'll look at and see how that develops over the coming years to see if that has a place for us."
NIPSCO is reviewing all its options for how it will generate electricity in the future as it continues to build out wind and solar farms in farmland downstate. It would be years away from nuclear power generation if that's the route it chooses to take as part of a larger diversified electricity generation portfolio.
"People are looking at it. The technology has been around small nuclear reactors for a very long time. The regulatory landscape is relatively similar to what it was for decades. For it to be economically viable and good for our customers we have to look at that component and that piece of it, to make sure we're doing the right things," Parisi said. "I do think it's something that will continue to be looked at. It's something that will take folks developing it in a few places before we get comfortable with it. I do think it's something that's viable."
Region resident Jeff Terry, a professor of physics and associate dean at the Lewis College of Science and Letters at Illinois Tech in Chicago, said small nuclear reactors could ensure NIPSCO was still able to maintain a baseload of electricity after phasing out fossil fuels.
"I think it's a great idea to make sure NIPSCO has a baseload capability in their generation portfolio," Terry said. "Natural gas peakers aren't baseline and they're shutting down coal. They can rely on the grid for a while but that can lead to problems. They will need baseline generation, especially if AI, data centers, electric vehicles and everything that will drive demand."
A utility in Wyoming recently broke ground on a small nuclear reactor that will take six years to build out. It's the only one now under construction in the country, Terry said.
"At the moment, it's still fairly expensive and there's no real set U.S. policy to encourage more," he said.
Small nuclear reactors are nowhere near as large as the traditional nuclear power plants like the Cook Nuclear Plant along Lake Michigan in Berrien County in Southwest Michigan. Large nuclear power plants can generate 1,000 megawatts while small nuclear reactors typically generate more around the range of 300 megawatts.
The upfront cost of a small modular reactor is much cheaper than the $15 billion it would take to develop a traditional nuclear power plant, Terry said. But more could have to be developed to ensure there's enough capacity in the system.
"With electric vehicles, data centers and if we electrify cooking demand could skyrocket," he said. "Peakers are just meant to fill a gap during the cycle, not operate at full scale all the time for a baseload."
Wind and solar are still intermittent and weather-dependent, Terry said. Batteries currently can't store a lot of electricity and can only only store power for a relatively small period of time.
"There's no sun at night and it isn't always windy," he said. "You can't rely on the grid and power generated from other locales too much. It eventually gets dangerous. It's really important to have some baseline capability."
NIPSCO spent more than $205 million to try to build a nuclear power plant during the 1970s, when the estimated cost skyrocketed from $187 million to more than $187 billion. It faced a very vocal grassroots opposition from the Bailly Alliance and the Concerned Citizens Against the Bailly Nuclear Site that included neighbors, environmentalists, professors and union members.
The utility wanted to build a cheaper, more efficient source of energy, landing permission from the Atomic Energy Commission in 1970 to build a nuclear plant between Ogden Dunes and Dune Acres in the center for greatest demands for power. It hoped to make nuclear power its main way of generating electricity, saying it was cheaper and cleaner than coal.
Porter County residents immediately raised concerns about safety and a threat to the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore. They filed more than 50 legal challenges, objecting to the potential of radioactive emissions, water draining, a possible threat to the ecology of the Indiana Dunes and health concerns about residents living just a few miles away in communities like Portage and Gary when nuclear plants are supposed to be built in sparsely populated areas in the event of an accident and fallout.
Workers at the nearby Bethlehem Steel mill also feared being caught behind shutting down the mill in the event of a Chernobyl-like meltdown.
Activists scored some legal victories but NIPSCO won an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. Then it discovered the site was on an old peat bed and the pilings couldn't hit bedrock. Delays, inflation, a ballooning cost and public opposition ultimately doomed the project.
But in the four decades since there, concerns over climate change have drastically shifted the landscape, Terry said.
"There are still a lot of crazies, but climate change wasn't really a concern at the time. People feared another ice age was coming," he said. "Now most people are not arguing climate change, except at the fringe edges of what's causing it. There's a widespread realization you have to do something to phase out fossil fuels."
"Utilities are trying to find the right mix of wind, solar and other energy sources and nuclear could enter the mix to ensure baseline capability."
"There's no perfect solution. You have to adjust as you go," he said. "It can cost money if you go in the wrong direction before coming to the right solution. Some environmental groups are still against nuclear, but more people are coming to the realization you can't sit and do nothing. There was a lot of performative opposition in the 1970s but that crowd is getting older now. It's interesting to see what will happen."