Salem generating station in Lower Alloways Creek Township. Salem produces enough electricity to power more than 700,000 homes. Photo provided by Constellation Energy.
The beginning at Oyster Creek
New Jersey’s nuclear story begins along the shores of Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station in Ocean County, where a bold experiment in energy quietly reshaped the state’s future. When it entered service in 1969, Oyster Creek was the largest boiling water reactor in the world.
Built in Lacey Township during a period of rapid postwar growth, Oyster Creek reflected a national optimism about atomic energy. Utilities and policymakers saw nuclear power as a near-limitless, low-cost solution to rising electricity demand.
The plant was developed by Jersey Central Power & Light (JCP&L), with engineering support from General Electric (GE). It was constructed in just four years, a pace that would be unthinkable in today’s world of oversight and protocols.
Oyster Creek would go on to operate for nearly half a century, becoming a fixture in New Jersey’s energy mix. But it would not stand alone for long.
Building a nuclear backbone
Historic images capturing the construction of the Salem Nuclear Plant during the 1960s and 1970s. Operating engineers from IUOE Local 825 were flown onto the island by helicopter to help build the infrastructure that would later provide permanent access to the site.
In the decades that followed, New Jersey expanded its nuclear fleet with the construction of three additional reactors along the Delaware River in Salem County: Salem Nuclear Power Plant Units 1 and 2, which came online in 1977 and 1981, and Hope Creek Generating Station, which began operation in 1986.
Together, these facilities formed one of the most significant nuclear generation hubs in the country. Salem’s two pressurized water reactors and Hope Creek’s boiling water reactor collectively generate thousands of megawatts of electricity, enough to power millions of homes.
Today, the Salem and Hope Creek plants supply roughly 40 percent of New Jersey’s electricity and approximately 80 percent of its carbon-free power. When all three nuclear plants were operating, they supplied roughly half of New Jersey’s electricity and more than 90 percent of its carbon-free power. The heavy reliance on nuclear energy helped keep New Jersey’s emissions relatively low compared to other states. In a state with limited land for large-scale renewable development, nuclear energy has become a cornerstone of green grid reliability.
Regulation and a 50-year pause
But even as New Jersey was building out its nuclear capacity, it was putting policies in place that would halt further expansion. The 1960s and 1970s marked the rise of the modern environmental movement. Public concern over pollution, industrial contamination and ecological damage grew sharply during this period, shaping both state and federal policy. The federal government established the United States Environmental Protection Agency in 1970, giving environmental regulation a far larger role in infrastructure and energy planning. At the same time, opposition to nuclear power expanded through the “No Nukes” movement, which raised concerns about reactor safety, radioactive waste and the long-term environmental consequences of nuclear development.
In 1973, the NJDEP enacted the Coastal Area Facility Review Act, commonly known as CAFRA. Passed in the wake of growing environmental awareness following events like the Santa Barbara oil spill, CAFRA was designed to regulate development along New Jersey’s ecologically sensitive coastline.
CAFRA required developers to demonstrate a viable long-term solution for nuclear waste disposal at the federal level, something that has remained unresolved for decades. The result was a de facto moratorium on new nuclear construction in New Jersey that lasted more than 50 years.
The closure of Oyster Creek
While policy stalled new development, Oyster Creek continued operating well beyond its original design life. By the 2000s, however, the plant faced mounting challenges.
Environmental groups raised concerns about its once-through cooling system, which drew large volumes of water from Barnegat Bay and contributed to fish mortality. Regulatory pressure increased, and in 2010, the plant’s owner agreed to close the facility rather than undertake costly cooling tower upgrades.
Oyster Creek shut down in September 2018. Since then, the site has entered a long-term decommissioning process led by Holtec International, which is overseeing the dismantling of structures and management of spent fuel. The process is expected to take decades, though much of the visible infrastructure will be removed far sooner.
What remains, for now, is the loss of roughly 600 megawatts of steady, carbon-free baseload power. While modest in scale relative to the regional grid, Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station’s output was reliable and available 24/7. Its retirement meant New Jersey had to replace not just electricity, but dependable capacity. Rather than adding enough replacement generation, the state retired Oyster Creek along with a number of natural gas generating stations. As a result, New Jersey shifted from being a net exporter of electricity to a net importer, relying more heavily on power generated elsewhere in the regional grid. New Jerseyans feel this in 2026 more than ever before, as utility prices continue to skyrocket.
A policy shift and a new future
Photo courtesy of the Office of Governor Mikie Sherrill via Flickr
Now, after decades of policy constraints and public debate, New Jersey is entering a new phase in its nuclear history.
In April 2026, Governor Mikie Sherrill signed legislation ending the state’s long-standing moratorium on new nuclear development. The law amends CAFRA to allow permits for nuclear waste storage facilities, provided they meet safety standards set by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The legislation also established a Nuclear Task Force, bringing together stakeholders including PSE&G, nuclear technology firms, labor representatives, and environmental groups. The group will evaluate advanced nuclear technologies, grid reliability needs, and future energy planning.
In the near term, the focus remains on extending the life of existing plants. In 2024, PSEG announced plans to pursue 20-year license renewals for Salem Units 1 and 2 and Hope Creek, potentially allowing them to operate into the 2050s and 2060s.
Nuclear power evolves with safety and environmental gains
Nuclear energy occupies a unique position in today’s energy mix. Like fossil fuels, it provides reliable, around-the-clock power that is not dependent on weather conditions. Unlike fossil fuels, it produces no direct carbon emissions during operation.
That does not mean nuclear energy comes without environmental challenges. Past concerns have included altered fish migration patterns, reduced oxygen levels and disrupted aquatic ecosystems caused by the discharge of heated water used in cooling systems. Radioactive waste and long-term storage also remain part of the conversation.
However, public policy and nuclear plant design have improved over time, reducing or eliminating many of these impacts. Older plants often used once-through systems, which withdrew large volumes of water and discharged it back at higher temperatures. Newer plants rely on closed-cycle cooling systems, which reuse water and significantly limit withdrawals. By cooling water in towers before recirculating it, these systems can reduce impacts on aquatic ecosystems by as much as 95 percent. Regulations under the Clean Water Act have placed limits on water withdrawals and reduced intake velocity, helping protect aquatic life.
The emergency response systems have also improved. Earlier plants relied on active safety systems, including pumps, diesel generators and human intervention. These systems introduced potential points of failure, as seen during the Three Mile Island accident. Modern reactors, known as Generation III and III+ designs, use passive safety systems. Water stored above the reactor flows downward using gravity, allowing cooling to continue without pumps or external power. In an emergency, these reactors can shut down automatically without human intervention. As a result, they are designed to remain safe even during power outages or equipment failures.
Nuclear power in the United States also has a strong safety record. Over decades of commercial operation, the industry has produced large amounts of electricity with comparatively low rates of worker injuries and fatalities. Measured by deaths per unit of electricity generated, nuclear is widely regarded as among the safest forms of large-scale power generation, with risks generally lower than coal, oil and natural gas.
From past to future
From the early optimism of Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station to the regulatory roadblocks of Coastal Area Facility Review Act, and now to a renewed push for innovation, New Jersey’s nuclear history reflects broader shifts in how energy is produced and regulated. With policy changes now in place and new technologies on the horizon, the next chapter is beginning.
Sources:
Bisconti Research, Inc. (2025). 2025 national nuclear energy public opinion survey: U.S. public support for nuclear energy remains high.https://www.bisconti.com/blog/public-opinion-2025
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. (n.d.). Coastal zone management enforcement policies. State of New Jersey. https://www.nj.gov/dep/cmp/czm_enforcepolicies.html
Public Service Enterprise Group. (n.d.). The PSEG family of companies. https://corporate.pseg.com/aboutpseg/companyinformation/thepsegfamilyofcompanies/-/media/78023DC5748742028073697ADEDFF2C7.ashx
Public Service Enterprise Group Nuclear LLC. (n.d.). PSEG Nuclear LLC.https://corporate.pseg.com/AboutPSEG/companyinformation/thepsegfamilyofcompanies/psegnuclearllc
Massachusetts Institute of Technology. (2024). Advanced nuclear power. MIT Technology Review.https://www.technologyreview.com/2024/01/18/1086753/advanced-nuclear-power/
