# Infrastructure Past, Present, and Future Casebook/Three Mile Island
## Introduction

The Three Mile Island (TMI) nuclear power plant, located near Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, is one of the most well-known nuclear facilities in the United States due to the partial meltdown of its Unit 2 reactor in 1979. One of the most serious accidents in U.S. commercial nuclear power history, the meltdown led to major regulatory reforms and heightened public skepticism toward nuclear energy. Constellation Energy's 2024 plan to restart the Unit 1 reactor to provide power for Microsoft AI data centers offers an opportunity to examine the history and future of the plant.

### Timeline of Events

The Unit 1 reactor entered operation in 1974, and Unit 2 entered operation in 1978. On March 28, 1979, a series of mechanical failures and human errors caused a partial meltdown in the Unit 2 reactor, prompting inquiry from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the temporary shutdown of the Unit 1 reactor. In 1985, cleanup efforts progressed to a point that removal of damaged fuel could begin and the Unit 1 reactor could resume operation. The Unit 1 reactor remained in operation until 2019.
In September 2024, Constellation Energy announced its plan to restart operation of Unit 1 and sell power exclusively to Microsoft to meet AI energy demands. Licensing and approval for the project is, as of February 12, 2025, still ongoing.

### Key Actors

* Metropolitan Edison Company (Met Ed): The original operator of the Three Mile Island facility during the 1979 accident, later absorbed into larger utility companies.
* Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC): The federal agency responsible for overseeing nuclear safety and operations. The NRC played a crucial role in investigating the 1979 accident and enforcing new safety measures. To deal with the novel occurrence of reopening an already decommissioned plant, the NRC has established an inspection program for reactor reopenings.
* Constellation Energy: The current owner of TMI’s Unit 1 and the driving force behind its planned reopening. The company specializes in nuclear energy production and aims to leverage TMI’s existing infrastructure for clean power generation.
* Microsoft: The tech giant has entered into a 20-year agreement with Constellation Energy to use electricity generated by TMI’s Unit 1 for its AI data centers. The project aligns with Microsoft’s commitment to achieving carbon-negative operations by 2030.
* State and Local Governments: The Pennsylvania government and local municipalities are key stakeholders in the decision to reopen TMI. Economic and environmental concerns have been raised by different groups, with debates on job creation versus potential risks.
* Environmental and Advocacy Groups: Organizations advocating for and against nuclear power, including groups concerned about safety risks, radioactive waste disposal, and long-term environmental impacts.

## Evaluating the Reopening

The planned reopening of Three Mile Island reflects broader shifts in the global energy landscape. As AI and cloud computing demand skyrockets, major tech companies like Microsoft are seeking stable and sustainable energy sources. Nuclear power, despite its controversial history, remains one of the most reliable carbon-free energy options available. The decision to restart TMI also underscores the financial and technological viability of repurposing existing nuclear plants rather than building new ones from scratch. However, concerns remain about regulatory hurdles, safety measures, and public perception given the facility’s history.
Ostrom et al lay out a framework for evaluating institutional performance in providing infrastructure, used here for evaluating both response to the 1979 incident and the reopening as projects based on the metrics of efficiency, equity, accountability, and adaptability.

#### Efficiency

The efficiency metric is a gauge of whether the benefits of a project outweigh operating costs. Following the 1979 incident, the NRC introduced stricter safety protocols, operator training, and emergency planning to prevent future accidents. Safety precautions often come with higher operating costs; if the cost of operating a reactor safely—including the cost of safe disposal of waste materials—is greater than the benefit of the energy it produces, there is little reason to operate the reactor at all.
The response to the 1979 incident highlighted inefficiencies in communication and crisis management, which worsened the situation. Ostrom emphasizes that effective governance requires systematic evaluation to ensure reforms genuinely improve performance rather than add bureaucratic burdens. Some scholars argue that post-TMI regulations led to excessive oversight, reducing the competitiveness of nuclear energy. While safety improved, the financial burden on energy providers suggests that a cost-benefit analysis could have optimized efficiency in policy implementation.
The actual efficiency of reopening the plant remains to be seen based on Constellation Energy's success at delivering the needed energy in a cost-effective manner.

#### Equity

Ostrom et al define equity, or fairness, with two different metrics: fiscal equivalence, the idea that "those who benefit from a service should bear the burden of financing that service," with those deriving greater benefit paying more, and redistribution, moving money from wealthier areas or populations to lower-income areas or population. These aims are, frequently, in tension with each other.
Skarbek argues that fiscal equivalence ensures accountability by linking service costs to the benefiting population. Three Mile Island adds a complication to this calculation with the existence of a disserviced population in the aftermath of the incident. While population health studies in the aftermath were initially funded, Wilson et al found that long-term health follow-ups for affected communities were never fully conducted, raising concerns about misallocated public resources.
Skarbek highlights that broad-based taxation should support public goods like nuclear safety, ensuring costs align with beneficiaries. However, TMI’s financial burdens were unevenly distributed among stakeholders, suggesting future nuclear policies should include mechanisms to better allocate financial responsibility.
The reopening of the plant faces problems with fiscal equivalence as well; Microsoft being the sole power buyer should, in theory, mean achieving fiscal equivalence should be easy—have Microsoft pay for all of it. However, federal money being involved does put some risk and cost onto taxpayers. Constellation Energy reportedly seeking a $1.6 billion federal loan would, potentially, shift risks onto taxpayers in the event of a default, possible in the event of a failure to reopen; this is in addition to federal tax credits for the sale of energy, potentially worth $200 million per year.

## Acknowledgement and Works Cited

This casebook is a case study on the Three Mile Island nuclear plant reopening by Rawia Elhassan, Yihan Gao, Sage Kerr, Xiaomeng Li, and Jonathan Mulyar, created as part of Infrastructure Past, Present and Future: GOVT 490 (Synthesis Seminar for Policy & Government) and CEIE 499 (Special Topics in Civil Engineering) at George Mason University. This project is under the instruction of Professor Jonathan Gifford at the Schar School of Policy and Government and the Volgenau School of Engineering’s Sid and Reva Dewberry Department of Civil, Environmental, and Infrastructure Engineering
* ↑ "Three Mile Island Accident". World Nuclear Association. Retrieved 2025-03-07.
* 1 2 3 Valinsky, Jordan (2024-09-20). "Three Mile Island is reopening and selling its power to Microsoft | CNN Business". CNN. Retrieved 2025-03-07.
* 1 2 "Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1". US Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Retrieved 2025-03-07.
* ↑ "Three Mile Island - Unit 2". US Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Retrieved 2025-03-07.
* 1 2 Rogovin, Mitchell; Frampton, George (1980). Three Mile Island: A Report to the Commissioners and the Public. Vol. 1. US Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
* 1 2 Rogovin, Mitchell; Frampton, George (1980). Three Mile Island: A Report to the Commissioners and the Public (PDF). Vol. 2. US Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
* ↑ "Backgrounder on the Three Mile Island Accident". US Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Retrieved 2025-03-06.
* 1 2 "TIMELINE (Three Mile Island - 25 years later)". York Daily Record. 2004-03-27. https://www.proquest.com/docview/274235362/fulltext/44D7A21888A943E7PQ/.
* ↑ "Exelon To Retire Three Mile Island in 2019". T&D World. 2017-05-31. Retrieved 2025-03-07.
* 1 2 "Three Mile Island, Unit 1 / Crane Clean Energy Center (Pending)". US Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Retrieved 2025-03-06.
* 1 2 3 Ostrom, Elinor; Schroeder, Larry; Wynne, Susan (1993). "Chapter 5: Evaluating Institutional Performance". Institutional Incentives and Sustainable Development: Infrastructure Policies in Perspective. Theoretical Lenses on Public Policy. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press. pp. 111–125. ISBN 0-8133-1618-9.
* ↑ Ostrom, Elinor (2011). "Background on the Institutional Analysis and Development Framework". The Policy Studies Journal. 39 (1): 7–27 – via Wiley Online Library.
* 1 2 Skarbek, Emily (2021). "Fiscal Equivalence: Principle and Predation in the Public Administration of Justice". Social Philosophy and Policy. 38 (1): 244–265.
* ↑ Wilson, Robin T.; LaBarge, Brandon L.; Stahl, Lauren E.; Goldenberg, David; Lyamzina, Yuliya; Talbott, Evelyn O. (2023). "What have we learned about health effects more than 40 years after the Three Mile Island nuclear accident? A scoping and process review". Risk, Hazards & Crisis in Public Policy. 14 (2): 129–158. doi:10.1002/rhc3.12258. ISSN 1944-4079.
* ↑ Halper, Evan; Rein, Lisa (2024-10-3). "Three Mile Island owner seeks taxpayer backing for Microsoft AI deal". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2025-3-13. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |access-date= and |date= (help)