How politics complicated Cuomo s energy plan Capital New York

Transcription

1 LOGIN CITY HALL ALBANY MEDIA POLICY How politics complicated Cuomo s energy plan MOST POPULAR 1 Former Vice Media editor says company killed stories over brand partner concerns 2 Cuomo administration edited and delayed key fracking study 3 Protesters condemn Gillibrand and Schumer s Israel support 4 The 60-second interview: Andrew Sullivan, founding editor, The Dish 5 Edited fracking study shows Cuomo s style Governor Cuomo announces the Recharge New York initiative in (Governor Andrew Cuomo via Flickr) By David Giambusso 5:59 a.m. Oct. 1, 2014 It can seem, at times, like the Cuomo administration is doing battle with itself as it seeks to move New York State toward reliance on cleaner sources of energy. In April, the Cuomo administration s Public Service Commission rolled out its Reforming Energy Vision, promising to ramp up renewable energy, smart grid technology, microgrids and energy storage. The administration dedicated $1 billion for solar investment. And it established a $1 billion Green Bank to finance renewable energy projects. These initiatives were among the most ambitious in the country. But even as Governor Andrew Cuomo was touting the proposed reform of the state s power grid, his administration shepherded deals to rescue two aging coal-fired plants from the scrap heap and turn them into gas-burning facilities, despite the fact that utility companies said they weren t needed at all. In the cases of both the Dunkirk and Cayuga MORE ON CAPITAL power plants in western and central New York, D.E.C. to hold issues conference the administration was motivated, on gas facility understandably from a political perspective, by Urban Green Council training the opportunity to announce the creation of workers on green building jobs. That s probably why the plan proceeded Con Ed boosts efficiency at NYCHA even though the facilities don t seem to be housing needed, and even though they will effectively require subsidy by electric customers in the surrounding areas to stay in operation. 1 of 5 10/8/14, 8:08 AM

2 It s also why the plan is going ahead even though it s at odds with the state s overall clean-energy goals, to an extent that the governor still isn t prepared to talk about: The administration is currently in a legal battle with national environmental groups for refusing to release data on how much emissions the two plants will produce. In December, Cuomo announced the Dunkirk power plant in western New York s Chautauqua County would be reopened and repurposed to burn natural gas while still retaining the option to burn coal. Today s announcement is another example of government working for the people, Cuomo said in December. This agreement will result in a larger, cleaner power plant at Dunkirk that will meet reliability needs, reduce costs for consumers, create jobs and stabilize the local property tax base. State and industry officials argued rescuing Dunkirk would also rescue the local economy. The town, with a population of roughly 12,000, relied on the plant for 42 percent of its tax revenue, and 30 percent of its school funding, state officials said. Dunkirk pays roughly $8 million into Dunkirk s economy each year, according to information provided by the state. The catch: electric customers in the area will pay $20 million a year a total of $150 million to keep the plant open while it reconfigures itself to burn natural gas. That s in addition to paying for whatever power the plant produces. It was a political calculus by the Cuomo administration because the Dunkirk plant is a significant part of the tax base in that community, said Christopher Amato, a lawyer for Earth Justice who has been engaged in a tortuous legal battle with state regulators to see emissions details from both plants. The governor has worked hard to court western New York voters after getting embarrassed in parts of the region by his 2010 Republican opponent Carl Paladino. He even put Dunkirk s reopening on a recent mailer in his primary tussle with Fordham Law professor Zephyr Teachout, who spent much of her short but intense time in the spotlight taking Cuomo to task for his non-position on fracking. Cuomo s press office did not comment for this article. But prior to Cuomo s announcement about the Dunkirk plant, National Grid which like most utilities is wont to advocate for more capacity said it was redundant. Transmission upgrades address the local reliability and based on... information received to date, appear to be less costly than potential generation solutions, the utility said in an October 2013 presentation to state officials. The utility said it was not opposed to repowering Dunkirk, but maintained, National Grid is not willing to enter into a re-powering contract voluntarily that would require its customers to pay more than the costs of providing reliable service with a lower cost transmission solution. Two months later, that is exactly what happened. Now, Cayuga power plant in Lansing is experiencing a similar rebirth, again over the recommendations of the region s utility and again with limited transparency on how much pollution it will emit. 2 of 5 10/8/14, 8:08 AM

3 New York State Electric and Gas issued an analysis of Cayuga in May 2013 that said, The transmission reinforcement option provides the most certainty to customers with regard to cost, schedule and operational risk. Still, Cayuga is in negotiations to repower, also in a way that will require more money from ratepayers. The P.S.C. has yet to sign off on the deal but has asked NYSEG to negotiate with the plant. NYSEG maintains it would prefer not to reopen the plant, and some local leaders agree. By the time they d be closing this plant in two or three years, sustainable development could be built that would more than cover the shortfall, said Carol Chock, a Democrat in her second term on the Tompkins County Legislature. The P.S.C. has ordered the public to cover all operating costs, labor, materials, capital expenditures, local taxes and depreciation while allowing the plant investors to keep all of the profit. For environmental advocates, the costs are secondary to the plant s environmental impact, which, at the moment, the state is making impossible for them to assess. When lawyers for Earth Justice a 40-year-old, national environmental law fund sought emissions details from the plants, they were rebuffed by state regulators. When Earth Justice asked for records under Freedom of Information laws, the state and plant owners argued that detailed emissions analyses were protected, as their release would put the plants at a competitive disadvantage. Other plant owners could use the data to reverse engineer Cayuga and Dunkirk s methods. Earth Justice agreed to sign a non-disclosure agreement, protecting the plant s information. The state then said since the New York Independent Systems Operator conducted the analysis, they should not be compelled to hand over the information, already in the possession of the P.S.C. Earthjustice is seeking to compel the NYISO which is not a party in this proceeding to disclose information that the NYISO has stated is protected by agreements made with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), said James Denn, a spokesman for the P.S.C. in the only on-the-record response from the state for this story. 3 of 5 10/8/14, 8:08 AM

4 To which Amato, the lawyer for Earth Justice, responded, They re no longer really in competition with anybody because they are being subsidized by the ratepayers. What was the point of having a nondisclosure agreement if documents are going to be withheld based on trade secrets? Earth Justice, on behalf of The Sierra Club and a group of ratepayers, filed a lawsuit Monday in state Supreme Court in Albany seeking to have the P.S.C. approval of Dunkirk overturned. A version of this article appeared in the October issue of Capital magazine. MORE: ALBANY ENERGY MAGAZINE ANDREW CUOMO DUNKIRK GAS GREEN BANK INFRASTRUCRTURE LAW POWER PLANT REFORMING ENERGY VISION SOLAR Author: David Giambusso MORE IN ENERGY D.E.C. to hold issues conference on gas facility AROUND THE WEB MORE FROM CAPITAL Schneiderman on New York as 'model' pro-choice state Cuomo has yet to act on 258 bills passed this year Duffy lauds students' efforts on sexual assault awareness Hochul discusses family connection to domestic abuse 4 of 5 10/8/14, 8:08 AM

5 1 Comment Capital New York! Login Sort by Best Share Favorite Join the discussion John D 2 days ago The NYISO was put in place to enforce free market principals. What is going on here? why are all of these BIG plants getting special deals under the table? If all of these large plants are going to get special deals, then why on earth do we need to fund the NYISO???? 1 Reply Share Subscribe d Add Disqus to your site % Privacy ABOUT US EVENTS ADVERTISE CONTACT PRIVACY POLICY TERMS AND CONDITIONS 5 of 5 10/8/14, 8:08 AM