Despite the creation of a 21-person decommissioning advisory committee for the 45-year-old Pilgrim nuclear power station in Plymouth in anticipation of the plant’s closing, will Pilgrim actually close in 2019? That’s not at all certain.

For a variety of reasons a celebration of the anticipated closing no later than May 31, 2019 may be premature. For one, we have only the word of Entergy, Pilgrim’s owner, on the closure date. There is no binding agreement or regulatory requirement to that effect. Pilgrim could legally continue to operate, if Entergy so chose, well beyond 2019, until 2032 to be precise. There is little reason to believe the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) would ever shut it down for safety reasons.

Pilgrim’s original 40-year operating license expired in 2012, but the plant was granted a 20-year extension by the NRC, as have 84 other old nuclear stations. While Pilgrim’s continued operation would be a very bad idea, given its Fukushima-like design and history, and especially for those of us living in trapped circumstances downwind, it isn’t at all out of the realm of possibility.

At the moment, market forces have made the cost of wholesale nuclear electricity uncompetitive with that produced by natural gas, and increasingly with renewables like wind and solar. Also the huge cost of safety upgrades to all the outdated plant equipment, and other vulnerabilities revealed by the Fukushima disaster in 2011, that the NRC might (emphasis on might) require have combined to force strictly business decisions to close a number of the old nuclear behemoths, including Pilgrim.

As a result, some 14 first generation nuclear plants, now past their intended life span, and despite license extensions have already been or are scheduled to be closed — including Vermont Yankee and Indian Point. The announced closing dates are between now and 2025. Were they all to close on schedule, about 90 of the old first generation plants would remain operational. Those with license extensions would presumably continue until their current 60-year licenses expire, or until their tired reactor vessels spring a leak, whichever comes first. Such a leak is unfixable and fatal for a reactor, not to mention potentially for downwinders. Unsurprisingly, there is even pressure on the NRC from some corporations in the nuclear industry to extend licenses to 80 years, twice as long as the plants were originally intended to operate. Corporate greed, it seems, knows no limit.

Just now, the market forces driving these plant closures are not likely to change drastically in the next two years, especially with the Trump administration saying it wants to increase the production of fossil fuels, which, if that occurs, will lower the cost of natural gas even more. That would put even more pressure on nuclear plant owners to close money-losing, tired old facilities. From a public safety point of view, that would be welcome.

On the other hand, there are also contrary indications coming from the Trump administration to the effect that the president would like to see the old reactors continue operating. This flies in the face of the market, not to mention the technological obsolescence and physical limitations these old machines face. What might Trump do to reverse the closures that are in the works now? Who knows? But the obvious mechanism is money. Billions, perhaps more in federal subsidies on top of the billions the nuclear industry already gets, to pay for more band-aids, and to guarantee corporate profits despite adverse market conditions.

Such a short-sighted scenario would contradict Mr. Trump’s other stated goal of reducing the government’s role in the marketplace. So far the president has evidenced nothing but contradictions in his policy pronouncements, and this would be just one more on a rapidly growing list. We’ll have to wait and see what he tries to do.

What would Entergy do if the federal government offered to pay for plant upgrades, and guarantee a profit on the electricity produced? You know as well as I do.

So what might be done to remove the uncertainty about the closure of Pilgrim? Here’s a precedent: The announcement in late 2016 of a binding agreement to close the two troubled reactors at Indian Point on the Hudson is a model worth pursuing. Those reactors are in a three-state metropolitan area with a total of about 20 million people within 50 miles, including New York city.

Not unlike Pilgrim, Indian Point’s operation history has been troubled, to say the least, for decades, and strenuously opposed by citizens’ groups and environmental organizations alike, to no avail. It took the initiative of Governor Andrew Cuomo, who opposed the continued operation of the plants saying they were a “ticking time bomb,” and the Riverkeeper organization (which I once chaired) to bring Entergy to the table and hammer out a binding agreement on the closing dates. One reactor will shutdown in 2020, and the other in 2021.

What would it take to get Gov. Charlie Baker to the table with Entergy, Pilgrim Watch, and the Cape Downwinders to hammer out a similar agreement for definite closure of Pilgrim in 2019, regardless of what the Trump administration decides to do? Unclear. The governor, although up for reelection, has been essentially feckless regarding Pilgrim. His comments so far have been to say essentially that Pilgrim is in the hands of the NRC, in which he has confidence, he says. That’s quite a stark contrast with his counterpart in New York. And the new decommissioning advisory committee is dormant.

Anyone who has paid attention to the NRC’s behavior knows that you can be confident of only one thing: that the NRC will protect the interests of the nuclear industry first and foremost, not the safety of those who live downwind, like all of us here on the Island.

Perhaps Governor Baker can be persuaded to take a more active role in this crucial issue. Perhaps all he needs is some education. A phone call to Mr. Cuomo might help. After all, Mr. Baker’s office in Boston is closer to Pilgrim (35 miles) than the Vineyard (38 miles). And in the 50-mile radius around Pilgrim, with its population of five million, there must be some potential votes from those concerned for their safety.

Richard Knabel lives in West Tisbury. This is the second in a series.