Business groups statewide are praising the Legislature”™s passage of a power plant siting law, calling it long-overdue legislation that will bring new investment, jobs and eventually new sources of power to the state.
However, the enthusiasm was tempered by word that Gov. Andrew Cuomo has reiterated his opposition to the Indian Point nuclear power plants in Buchanan. Published reports said top aides of the governor met recently with Entergy, owner of Indian Point reactors 2 and 3, and told company executives the governor was determined to close the plant.
The much anticipated new siting law will streamline the permitting process for power plants greater than 25 megawatts. It will create a “one-stop” multi-agency board that will make siting decisions and require applicants to provide “intervenor funding” for communities affected by the proposed facilities. New York state had been without a power plant siting law since its expiration in 2003.
The governor, legislative leaders and a host of business organizations heralded the passage of the Power Act of 2011.
“New York has gone without (a) power plant siting law for nearly a decade,” said Assemblyman Kevin Cahill, chairman of the Energy Committee. “This new, permanent law strikes an appropriate balance between protecting public health and the environment and giving industry the certainty they need to develop new power plants to meet the demands of our recovering economy.”
New York Affordable Reliable Electricity Alliance (New York AREA) Chairman Arthur Kremer said, “As New York”™s economy returns to growth mode, and electric-powered cars expand in popularity, there will be enormous demand for new electricity sources. This is why New York must also maintain our current clean, non-carbon emitting baseload energy portfolio to meet growing demand in the years ahead, and minimize the amount of power we import from other states and Canada. With our existing power resources and new facilities being built, New York will have a brighter energy future.”
The Business Council of Westchester said the law “is a critical component to revitalizing New York”™s economy and making our energy costs more competitive” that will result in new power generation capacity as well as increased infrastructure investment that will create jobs.
William Mooney, president of the Westchester County Association, in a statement said the law is “a crucial step towards meeting New York”™s growing demands for electricity. It will also create much-needed jobs, facilitate out-of-state investment in New York state, and curtail the need to eventually purchase and import power from other states.”
Cuomo vs. Indian Point
The governor, in a visit June 30 to promote the state”™s new 2 percent property tax cap, also discussed his issues with Indian Point”™s location near population centers and the need for the state to find replacement power for the plant”™s 2,000 megawatts and to eventually close the facility. Cuomo”™s office did not return phone calls for comment.
James Steets, an Entergy spokesman, confirmed company officials met June 21 in Albany at the office of Howard Glaser, the governor”™s director of state operations, and that the company was informed by the governor”™s staff of his opposition to Indian Point”™s relicensing by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The meeting was held at the request of Entergy. The federal licenses for the two reactors at Indian Point expire in 2013 and 2015.
Entergy has challenged a state Department of Environmental Conservation policy position that it must build two cooling towers at its property it says would cost $1.5 billion. Entergy has proposed building a more modest wedge-wire screen system that is utilized at other power plants in the state, which would cost approximately $200 million.
In a statement, Steets wrote: “Indian Point provides 25 percent of New York City”™s and Westchester”™s power for subways, schools, police stations, firehouses, businesses and homes with virtually no emissions, at lower cost. Entergy”™s investment in recent years of more than a half billion dollars to upgrade safety and security, and rigorous independent inspections by multiple inspectors on site full-time help ensure Indian Point is safe.”
Steets told the Business Journal, “We were very clear in the meeting (with the governor”™s staff) that we intend to continue seeking license renewal for Indian Point.”
On June 21, Entergy notified the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission that the state DEC had not issued a final decision on the company”™s water quality certificate application within the required one-year time period. Entergy filed an application for an updated certificate in April 2009.
Entergy officials said the NRC could determine that the DEC had waived its authority to grant the permits because it had not issued a ruling in the required time period. Entergy is also working with the DEC to obtain “state pollutant discharge elimination” permits.
Steets said Entergy is committed to meeting the state”™s water quality standards but the state is holding up the relicensing process by not making a decision on its permits.
Alternative sources of energy?
In response to the governor”™s opposition to the plant”™s re-licensing, Steets stressed the positive economic impact the power plant provides: Entergy employs 1,100 people in Westchester, which constitutes a payroll of $130 million, and provides $25 million in annual property taxes and $45 million in annual revenue sharing to the state.
When asked about the cost if the state were to force the closure of Indian Point, Steets said: “It would be a multi-billion dollar proposition” for New York state to compensate Entergy for “shutting down one of its most important assets.”
Paul Steidler, a spokesman for New York AREA, said that while there are some power plants in the approval process and in the pipeline, their cumulative output would not come close to replacing the 2,000 megawatts Indian Point produces. He also said it will take more than six years, even with the new siting law, to get new plants up and running. In fact, new regulations related to the law are not expected to be in place for up to a year, he added.
“You can make a case that five or six years from now you are going to need 10 to 15 new plants in the greater New York City area to ensure that there is going to be affordable and reliable power to the region,” Steidler said.
Cahill countered that while Indian Point is very important to the state”™s power grid, “it is not the end of the world if it were to close.”
He said that if the state spent the next several years upgrading the transmission system, bringing online those power plants that are in the works and on the drawing boards as well as inviting new plants to be built, the impacts of closing Indian Point would be minimized.
While noting that the re-licensing is a federal matter that gives the state little say in the process, Cahill said that if Indian Point were proposed under the current power plant siting law, “it would not be built where it was built, if at all.”
If you close Indian Point you will raise the cost of doing bussiness in the State of New York. I also can not see how spending 1.5 billion on cooling towers makes any sence.
Jfarmer9