You are on page 1of 4

Cayuga Repowering Proposal Submi ing Public Comments to the Department of Public Service

Public Comments about the Cayuga Repowering Proposal are due by August 16th. You can mail comments to:   Hon. Jeffrey Cohen Acting Secretary of the Commission New York State Public Service Commission Empire State Plaza Agency Building 3 Albany, NY 12223-1350 You can email comments to: You can also submit 4000 character comments online: Go to h p:// and click “Post Comment” in the upper right hand corner. The most effective comments are ones that are wri en by people who are affected by the decision (be sure to say how you are) and that include well-informed arguments. Please focus your arguments on the question facing the PSC, repowering with fracked gas or permanently retiring the facility and making cost effective transmission upgrades. Here are some arguments in opposition to the repowering of the plant with fracked gas:
Increased Demand for Dirty Fracked Gas and More Fracking Infrastructure in New York State The economic viability of the natural gas repowered Cayuga Plant relies on the assumption that the price of   gas will remain inexpensive and consistent. The only way for prices to remain stable is for the industry to extensively exploit the Marcellus Shale region, which   will increase the pressure to begin High Volume Horizontal Hydraulic Fracturing for gas in New York State. Not only does this increase the long-term use of gas, it also begins the building of a network of pipelines to transport this gas. This region's energy future should not be tied to fracking. This conversion of the plant would require an 18 mile pipeline to be built to connect to the Dominion pipeline in Freeville. Rights of way for the pipeline will be taken from private

negatively impacting landowners and disrupting sensitive ecological habitats. NYSEG Ratepayers. and then burning it. This means that people living near fracking pads will face serious public health risks. Frontline communities. Workers. Furthermore. groundwater contamination. Methane is a Potent Greenhouse Gas. Gas-fired plants. like the one proposed. According to a study done by Professors Robert Howarth and Tony Ingraffea of Cornell University. up to 370 million dollars. a similar plant exploded killing six people and injuring over 60. the greenhouse gas effect is close to that of burning coal and in fact may be much worse. Fracked gas has an intensely adverse effect on climate change. Pipelines are disruptive. and should not be considered a solution. Fracked methane gas is a potent greenhouse gas. In 2010 in Connecticut.Analyzing a similar repowering proposal in Dunkirk. Who is impacted by repowering to fracked gas? Landowners. further industrializing this region. . running through and damaging farms and sensitive ecological habitat.Most of the gas will come from fracking in shalefields across the country.Rights of way for the pipeline will be taken from individual landowners by eminent domain. The Dominion pipeline would disrupt the farmland it runs through. Increasing demand for gas also increases the likelihood of fracking in New York. when we take into account the full life cycle of extraction of methane gas via fracking. National Grid calculated that the number of jobs lost due to the impact of the rate hikes would exceed the number of jobs created at that plant itself.The cost for the conversion of the plant. which allows the government to expropriate private property for public use.landowners by the use of eminent domain. Not a Bridge to Sustainability A change from burning coal to the use of fracked gas will promote rapid climate change. are unsafe and prone to deadly explosions. The pipeline would also justify other pipeline expansion projects regionally. the effects of industrialization and the destruction of agricultural ways of life. NY. particularly when looking at a span of time over 20 years. many times more damaging than carbon dioxide. Lower income folks will be disproportionately affected by these rate hikes. will be paid for by ratepayers. transmission of the gas. in a time when many are already struggling.

even the economic viability of the converted plant is in question. would have to pay less on their energy bills. rather than repower the plant. A just transition for the town of Lansing could be provided by paying the Payment in Lieu of Taxes to the Lansing Central School District using funds such as the Regional Greenhouse Gas .Indigenous people. The alternative to repowering. offering a more economically efficient alternative that   avoids commitment to fracked gas and negates the need for a new major pipeline to provided the gas. an oversight which creates a false choice between accepting the fracked gas conversion or having to forgo any plants. rate payer will be expected to pay up to 370 million dollars to convert the plant to run on gas. Environmentally Sustainable Alternatives Need to be Explored Numerous credible alternatives to fossil-fuels have not been considered in this repowering proposal. upgrading transmission lines would be far more cost-effective meaning that NYSEG ratepayers. due to the relatively high cost of coal . NYS currently has more than enough electricity to meet its needs and simply has a problem with the transmission of adequate electricity to the area’s customers. Furthermore. they pointed out that the price of gas is likely to fluctuate more than estimated in the Cayuga Power Plant’s repowering proposal. the plant would again become insolvent as the price of gas skyrockets. even though the plant is only needed to produce energy during peak demand. In NYSEG’s review of the repowering proposal. This means that ratepayers are already paying 30 million additional dollars a year to keep the plant open. Economically Unsustainable The Cayuga Power Plant is currently insolvent. Transmission updates would therefore utilize existing resources to meet the area’s needs. According to the analysis conducted by the Sierra Club. With Obama pushing America to become a “net exporter” of fossil fuels and the price of gas becoming tied to the global market. is a more effective immediate solution.The proposed repowering constitutes a violation of Native treaties including the 400-year old Two Row Wampum Treaty and ignores the rights of indigenous communities who have been living on this land for thousands of years. However. already struggling in a weak economy. Ratepayers should not have to subsidize corporate profits and should only be asked to pay for effective long term solutions. NYSEG and the Sierra Club’s alternative proposal to upgrade transmission lines.

there will be li le or no incentive to close it or convert it to renewable energy a er repowering to natural gas is completed. would create a shi towards environmental sustainability. Options for the Cayuga Plant like wind. We should use the plans for the Cayuga Plant and the opportunity the NYS Energy Highway Plan to get us started in that direction.7 billion dollars scheduled for use in the development of clean renewable energy resources. Cornell Professors Howarth and Ingraffea. solar (with feed in tariffs). and energy efficiency. Transmission updates should be embraced as a solution to the immediate issue. According to a recent study by Stanford Professor Jacobson. This disrupts the myth that the repowering by natural gas may be considered a bridge to sustainability. now is the time to embrace renewable energy. The New York State Energy Highway Plan has 5. and create long term. We can no longer delay action to move towards a sustainable future.Initiative (RGGI). rather. local jobs and not damage the tax base. safe. economist Jane e Barth and others. Considering the large costs involved if the Cayuga Plant is repowered to use natural gas. . but should be accompanied by a project to transition Tompkins County to long-term environmental and economic sustainability. and by 2030 we could be at 85% of this goal. RGGI funds have been used in Massachuse s in a similar manner when coalfired plants have been retired. The possible closing of the Cayuga Plant provides an exceptional opportunity to introduce renewables into our area. it is possible to move NYS totally to clean renewable energy resources by 2050 if we start now.