Battle Still Rages over NY's New Clean Energy Standard Program

Three months after New York adopted its new Clean Energy Standard, which subsidizes some nuclear power plants along its path to independence from fossil fuel sources, voices both in favor and opposed to the program have gotten, if anything, louder.

The plan had lots of support and opposition in the Hudson Valley from the beginning. It is meant to move the state along its road to energy independence from fossil fuels. The plan is to cut carbon emissions by 40 percent and expand renewable power to account for 50 percent of electricity generation by 2030. As part of that work, it would subsidize struggling nuclear power plants in upstate New York, providing a zero emissions credit to plants that are on the verge of closing.

For example, the Upstate Energy Jobs Coalition, a group representing community, education and labor leaders in upstate and central New York, sent out a press release this week highlighting the positive comments around nuclear energy’s contribution to electricity reliability and emissions reduction contained in the 2016 Reliability Needs Assessment and the Power Trends 2016 report both issued recently by the New York Independent System Operator (ISO).

“As these reports support, and as we have urged for months, adopting the Clean Energy Standard (CES) proposed by Governor Cuomo is essential to retaining the many benefits that nuclear energy plants provide for all New Yorkers,” said L. Michael Treadwell, CEO of the County of Oswego Industrial Development Agency and UEJ member. “Without upstate nuclear plants, the state would lose 25,000 jobs and $144 million in annual tax revenue. The environmental impact would also be very bad, since these plants prevent 16 million tons of carbon emissions from being released into the air. Lastly, all New Yorkers would face increasing energy costs – totaling $1.7 billion more each year across the State – if these plants are not saved.”

Meanwhile, some opponents have formed a loose coalition that includes environmental groups, consumer protection organizations and energy companies.

Their recent press release says in part "Despite their varied interests, these groups have all come forward to publicly oppose the $7.6 billion corporate bailout, and all agree the plan amounts to an ill-conceived government overreach into ratepayers’ pockets. Though the PSC has attempted to characterize these opponents as merely the voices of the fossil fuel industry, some of the state’s and country’s most vocal advocates for environmental protection and fair business markets have expressed strong public opposition to the nuclear bailout plan. Most of the groups have submitted requests for the PSC to rehear the case for the subsidy, and to have the state reevaluate the deal with much greater oversight and public input."

And they included several quotes from recent submissions to the state's Public Service Commission:

“The sections of the Order related to the nuclear subsidies contain numerous assumptions and statements not supported by any technical basis, reasonable policy, or fact,” said Michel Lee, a lawyer who submitted comments on behalf of the Sierra Club, Indian Point Safe Energy Coalition, Physicians for Social Responsibility and the Council on Intelligent Energy and Conservation Policy. “The PSC did not weigh new sustainable renewable energy and efficiency technologies and systems (solar, wind, off-shore wind, tidal, geothermal efficiencies, retrofits, transmission improvements, and storage, etc.) against outdated, costly, polluting unsustainable nuclear power generation.”

“The Commission ordered the State’s utilities and load-serving entities to each pay their proportionate share of the State’s total electric load. Effectively this means that the four downstate utility service territories will be required to absorb nearly 60% of this two-year $965 million rate increase,” said New York State Assembly Members Jim Brennan, Amy Paulin, Jeffrey Dinowitz, Charles Lavine and Steve Englebright in a letter to the PSC. “But there is no way that the downstate system uses 60% of the output of those nuclear plants — such a mandate is unfair and unreasonable.”

As opposition became vocal, Arthur “Jerry” Kremer, chairman of the New York Affordable Reliable Electricity Alliance (New York), sent out an issue brief backing the program that included this list of 10 reasons why the CES helps New York.

1. It preserves billions in annual economic benefits. The PSC analyzed the economic impact of
the state’s upstate plants. Bottom line: keeping them online ensures $4 billion over the next two years in
net contributions to the state’s economy, from wages, tax payments, etc.[ii]
2. There are a host of other energy taxes that can be cut. Today, 20-25 percent of the typical
New Yorker’s electricity bill already consists of taxes and fees, some for general revenues and others for
energy programs.[iii] There are many ways to cut taxes and fees without sacrificing a program that
ensures billions in economic value to the state.
3. Without the ZEC plants will close, jobs will be lost and communities will be decimated.
Just as other nuclear plants have closed in the United States, so too would the upstate ones by early 2017.
The situation is dire and requires immediate action.
4. When fuel prices rise, the subsidies are reduced. Today, energy fuel prices are low. Most
experts expect them to rise significantly, especially in the coming years. The ZEC is evaluated every two
years. As such, with higher prices there will be lower subsidies.
5. A diverse, in-state power supply is very positive. The loss of the nuclear plants would mean
New York will be more dependent on out-of-state fossil fuels. During times of peak demand (the hottest
days in the summer and the coldest in winter), it will be harder and more expensive to get this power.

6. If New York’s non-emitting nuclear plants close, the state’s carbon emissions will spike.
Today, nearly 60 percent of New York’s non-carbon emitting power is from nuclear plants. Without these
plants, carbon emissions would increase by 31 million tons annually, the equivalent of adding six million
cars to New York’s roads.
7. The additional emissions will have a societal cost of $1.4 billion. This is due to public health
cost increases and other societal damage from climate change.
8. As a large coastal state, it is in New York’s interest to be a leader on climate change. By
exercising leadership on climate change, as Governor Cuomo has done through the Clean Energy
Standard, New York helps to spur actions by others.
9. Long and thorough review. The PSC held numerous public hearings about the CES, received
thousands of comments about it, and spent more than seven months studying the issue before
unanimously adopting it.
10. The measure has strong public support. Among those supporting the CES and ZEC are
numerous business organizations, labor unions, environmentalists, and elected officials throughout the
state.

SEE: Support, Opposition to NY Plan to Subsidize Nuclear Power Plants Strong in the Hudson Valley