Got $811 million?
If state officials have their way, this is the rate increase they soon will be charging New Yorkers because of their obsession with closing the Indian Point nuclear power plant.
Why are we in this mess?
Officials have spent valuable time and resources seeking to close Indian Point, which is the state's largest electricity generator. Their legal battle against a major clean energy source persists on many fronts, despite repeated independent findings that the plant is safe and closure would be expensive for consumers, cost thousands of jobs, and harm the grid's reliability.
The federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission, following the most thorough license review of any plant in America (nearly six years), judged the plant safe. Its staff recommended license renewal. Yet, state legal challenges make it likely the renewal process will drag on for years, while the plant, fortunately, will continue to operate.
Now the state wants to compel new measures that are premature and ill-conceived.
In October, the state issued a blueprint for an energy highway, proposing needed fundamental improvements to its transmission infrastructure, which would relieve bottlenecks and allow more efficient power distribution, a wise use of state resources.
A relatively unnoticed section urged the state to fast-track study and implementation of a contingency plan to replace Indian Point if license renewal is denied. The New York Public Service Commission saw this and ordered Con Ed and the New York Power Authority, Indian Point's primary customers, to develop a plan.
They filed a proposal on Feb. 2. Many have already raised strong objections, including Senate Energy Committee Chairman George Maziarz. To its credit, the Public Service Commission has extended the public commentary period several weeks to March 20. The filing asks the commission to order the Indian Point replacement plan by September.
What does the $811 million entail?
$300 million to institute energy efficiency programs with little tangible results. While that may provide benefits, there is no guarantee because efficiency has been a top federal and state policy for several years.
$511 million for three major transmission projects. If Indian Point receives its license renewal, New Yorkers still would be stuck with the bill for the aborted projects.
The $811 million is a fraction of the overall bill. Indian Point's closure would mean thousands of jobs lost at the plant and affiliated companies, reduced tax payments to the state and the communities that Indian Point serves, and higher prices as new generators eventually come to New York to replace Indian Point's competitively priced power.
Before asking New Yorkers to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on transmission grid improvements, we need to determine what the best improvements are for the whole system — and not just for replacing Indian Point.
The state justifies contingency planning because license renewal is not assured, but that uncertainty is because of the state's delaying tactics. The state is trying to be a victim and a proponent, setting up an indefensible situation for itself. The state should get out of its own way and abandon its opposition to Indian Point, allowing more sensible transmission and generation planning for a better overall state energy system.
New Yorkers would be better served by a plan that includes Indian Point and provides additional energy resources to support this large, baseload power generator so we have the electricity we will need.
It is one thing to ask New Yorkers to pay a little more to improve the transmission grid significantly so we can better cope with storms such as Hurricane Sandy. It is another to do it to promote a losing campaign against a vital power source.
Jerry Kremer is the former chairman of the Assembly Ways and Means Committee and a principal author of the state's power plant siting law. He now is the chairman of the New York Affordable Reliable Electricity Alliance.