N.Y. Sues Feds Due to Hydraulic Fracking Concerns

According to reports, the United States government will ask a federal judge to dismiss a New York lawsuit that seeks to force a comprehensive review of how natural gas extraction might affect the 9 million residents of the state. Sources say the U.S. plans to ask for dismissal because the state of New York cannot prove injury and has no right to sue federal agencies. Reportedly, U.S. attorneys are relying on the principle of sovereign immunity, which protects the U.S. from lawsuits unless it waives that right.

According to New York’s lawsuit, the federal commission that oversees the Delaware River Basin has proposed regulations that will allow hydraulic fracking on 15,000 to 18,000 gas wells without a full environmental review. Hydraulic fracking is a process in which water, sand and chemicals are pumped underground to widen the cracks in the earth’s crust and release the natural gas.

Sources say the suit asks the court to halt the regulations until the federal commission complies with the National Environmental Policy Act’s requirements for a full review of all health and safety risks. The Delaware River Basin Commission supervises activities over a large gas deposit known as the Marcellus Shale. Reportedly, companies such as XTO Energy Inc. have pending applications with the commission requesting to explore the area. The lawsuit claims the commission has refused to carry out a full assessment of the effects exploration and hydraulic fracking can have on the environment.

Reportedly, the U.S. attorneys will contend that the harm to New York is “conjectural and hypothetical, and not actual or imminent.” The U.S. will also argue that the case is not yet ripe because the commission has not completed its review. Sources say the Delaware River Basin covers 58 percent of the land area of New York City’s water supply west of the Hudson River. According to the lawsuit, the reason targeted for exploration is protected by a 50 year-old agreement between the U.S. government, New York, New Jersey and Delaware.

According to New York’s lawsuit, the city of New York has spent around $1.5 billion to protect drinking water that flows from the watershed west of the Hudson. The lawsuit claims this money has gone to buying land to serve as a buffer for pollutants, maintaining sewage plants and regulating human activity.

Further, the lawsuit claims that more than 2,000 natural gas wells have been drilled in Pennsylvania which has resulted in the violation of hundreds of water pollutant laws. The above referenced case is New York v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 11- cv-2599, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York (Brooklyn).

The Impact of closing indian point

On Thursday, August 4, the City of New York released an independent analysis on the impact of closing the Indian Point nuclear power plant. The report, prepared by Charles River Associates on behalf of the city, looks at the implications of closure on the cost of energy, air quality, and the electrical grid’s continued ability to meet energy demands.

The report finds that the impacts would be significant regardless of what replacement options are selected. Under all scenarios, energy prices will rise and there will be a measurable increase in air emissions such as carbon and NOx. The report also finds that without replacement power generation, the reliability of New York City and the region’s energy supply would be seriously compromised.

To view the report, visit: http://www.nyc.gov/html/dep/html/home/home.shtml

To read additional coverage of the report, visit:

YNN:  Report: ‘significant impacts’ from Indian Point closure http://www.capitaltonight.com/2011/08/report-significant-impacts-from-indian-point-closure/
MidHudsonNews.com:  NYC report says electricity costs, pollution would rise if Indian Point is closed

http://www.midhudsonnews.com/News/2011/August/05/IP_NYCDEP-05Aug11.html

The power bill

by Jimmy Vielkind
Here’s a copy of the bill and its memo to resurrect Article X, which governs power plant siting in New York.

It also provides for on-bill financing, which is a corollary to the Green Jobs legislation passed two years ago. It allows homeowners who have benefited from subsidized retrofitting to pay for it — through the savings it causes — on their electrical bills. This is a big priority of the Working Families Party.

Legislators are expected to pass this sometime this evening.

Read the entire bill: Article X

The ‘quake canard

By JOHN DURSO JR.

Not letting a crisis go to waste, New York’s anti-nu clear establishment quickly seized on the tragic events in Japan to further its agenda. Leading this effort was Riverkeeper, the state’s best-known anti-nuclear group, which demanded not 72 hours after this historic tragedy that Indian Point be closed.

Shortly thereafter, an MSNBC report made the startling and utterly false claim that Indian Point is more at risk from seismic events than nuclear plants in California, where the San Andreas Fault is located.

The “news story” raised eyebrows at the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, whose data MSNBC sliced and diced to create what the NRC and others regard as bogus information.

As NRC spokeswoman Lara Uselding put it, “Somebody at MSNBC took numbers and threw them together to create the rankings. We have said that is not accurate, because the NRC does not rank plants by seismic risk.”

The NRC’s Neil Sheehan emphasized: “Nuclear power plants in the US remain safe . . . This determination is based on NRC staff reviews of updated seismic hazard information and the conclusions of the screening panel.”

The next wave of hysteria focused on the long-dormant Ramapo Fault, which in fact had been publicly labeled “dead” by Alec Gates, a leading Rutgers University geologist.

The media repeatedly carried statements that wrongly said the Ramapo Fault is on the site of Indian Point’s reactors. Actually, the fault isn’t on Indian Point’s property, is preglacial and has been inactive for more than 10,000 years. No wonder the US Geological Survey didn’t even factor Ramapo in its 2008 calculation of earthquake hazards.

To be sure, events in Japan are suggesting new steps to take to ensure the safety of Indian Point and all nuclear plants. President Obama and Energy Secretary Steven Chu have called for close examination of such issues; Energy, the owner of Indian Point, is embarking on its own 30-day review of the plant.

But, while the idea of an earthquake or seismic activity in our area may be news to many, Indian Point was built with the possibility of earthquakes, floods, hurricanes and other natural disasters very much in mind. In fact, the plant was designed and built to withstand double the size and magnitude of any earthquake ever recorded in the area and then some.

In fact, seismic issues at Indian Point have been looked at extensively as far back as the 1970s — and many times since.

A four-year, exhaustive scientific and engineering assessment of Indian Point found the plants were safe to merit license renewal for 20 years. In 2008, an independent safety-evaluation committee scrutinized 64 safety issues at Indian Point, including seismic design, and found the plant to be very safe. In 2004, following a Riverkeeper request, the NRC investigated seismic issues, and found Indian Point to be robust.

And Indian Point has received the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s highest safety rating, green, for the last six years.

There are basic differences between Indian Point and Fukushima. Fukushima is on an ocean, while Indian Point is about 35 miles inland. Tsunamis periodically occur in Japan (in fact, tsunami is a Japanese word); Indian Point is situated on bedrock, 30 feet above the Hudson River, and has a containment dome more than 4 feet thick to protect the reactor from inside and out.

The plant’s opponents, in other words, are intentionally exploiting the tragedy in Japan to further their political agenda, whipping up unfounded fears of Indian Point. They’re exposing themselves to be dishonest, crass opportunists.

Years of study consistently have found Indian Point to be safe and well-operated. It’s sad and shameful that Riverkeeper and others have exploited this nonissue.

John Durso Jr. is executive director of the New York Affordable Reliable Electricity Alliance, an umbrella for more than 150 business, labor and community groups (including Entergy, the operator of Indian Point).

JAPAN and New York’s Nuclear Power Plants

By Arthur Kremer, Chair of New York Area

As dramatic and relentless efforts continue to overcome the challenges facing three nuclear power plants in Japan, well-funded anti-nuclear activists are predictably using the disaster to again call for the closure of New York’s nuclear energy facilities, notably Indian Point. This ill-advised action would be a serious mistake to New York’s economy, environment, and even public health.

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has already thoroughly evaluated seismic issues at all U.S. nuclear power plants. In fact, every U.S. nuclear plant is designed to withstand the maximum projected earthquake in the geographic area of each site location.

We should keep in mind that the Japanese earthquake, the fifth strongest in recorded history, is not what damaged the plant. Rather, it was the resulting tsunami, which swept away diesel fuel supplies for the back-up power generators and damaged water intake structures that were needed for the automatic plant shutdown relative to cooling systems. The Fukishima Daiichi plants were designed for a tidal wave up to a maximum of 22 feet high and not the 33 foot high wave that hit on Friday. The areas of New York where nuclear plants are situated do not, and in all likelihood cannot, experience similar tsunamis.

In 2008, a panel of highly renowned, independent experts evaluated 64 safety issues at Indian Point, including seismic design, and found the plant to be very safe. Under intense scrutiny, Indian Point continues to earn the highest safety ratings from the NRC.

Furthermore, since 9-11, nuclear plants including Indian Point have been upgraded to factor for many scenarios, including a loss of back-up power. New practices, protocols and equipment have been employed since then to factor for the loss of back-up power at nuclear plants.

To close New York’s nuclear power plants, which provide 30 percent of the state’s electricity, for even a few weeks would lead to serious degradation of electric system reliability and in fact create new dangers for the public. The resulting electricity price hikes, at a time when oil and gasoline prices are soaring, would be a one-two financial punch for hard working New Yorkers – including thousands of employees who work in the region. It would also lead to greater reliance on fossil fuels and higher pollution.

Like you, our thoughts and prayers are with the people of Japan at this time of tragedy. There will be much to do to ensure the country recovers and that we learn many lessons from this disaster to better prepare and protect.

As nuclear power issues will certainly now be prominently in the news for some time, we respectfully ask that you consider the facts and not be unduly influenced by rhetoric and the political opportunism of some anti-nuclear activists in the weeks and months ahead.

DEC’S COOLING WATER INTAKE PROPOSAL: BAD POLICY FOR NEW YORK STATE.

On Thursday, May 6 New York AREA hosted a stakeholder meeting to brief its members and interested parties on a draft policy released by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. The policy concerns cooling intake structures for facilities across New York State, and will impact over 50 percent of New York’s electric generation.

In conjunction with the briefing, New York AREA has released an issue brief, “DEC’s Cooling Water Intake Proposal: Bad Policy for New York State” which provides a background and details the resulting consequences of the policy for New York, including:

• Higher utility bills
• Compromised electric system reliability
• Potential job losses

To read the full issue brief, please click this link: WATER

Thank you,
The New York AREA Team

Investor funds: Tackle climate peril

DiNapoli co-hosts forum with groups holding $13 trillion; action termed good business

By Brian Nearing

Among the 181 investment fund leaders issuing the statement at a conference in New York City was state Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli, who heads the $116 billion state pension fund, the third-largest in the nation.

“We cannot drag our feet on the issue of global climate change,” said DiNapoli. “I am deeply concerned about the investor risks climate change presents, and the human cost of inaction is unthinkable. As investors in the global economy, we can lead the way toward a future of lasting prosperity.”

The forum, co-hosted by DiNapoli, came as the United States prepares for negotiations, slated to begin in Copenhagen in December, to ratify a new international climate change treaty. The current agreement, the Kyoto Protocol, expires in 2012.

The outcome of the climate talks depends on U.S. congressional action on climate and energy legislation. The House passed a comprehensive bill in June, and Senate consideration of a similar climate bill is expected to begin within weeks.

Touted by organizers as the largest collection of investment funds ever to call for greenhouse gas limits, the $13 trillion combined total is equivalent to the entire U.S. economy for 2008. The investors’ statement called for greenhouse gas emissions to be cut globally by 50 to 85 percent by 2050, and for stepped-up government support for energy efficiency and low-carbon technologies.

A growing international scientific consensus has identified rising levels of carbon dioxide — emitted from the burning of oil, gas and coal — as the cause of climate change.

Long-term CO2 reduction targets will give investors “confidence about the future direction of climate policy. Investment decision-making is hampered by policy uncertainty and the absence of a binding reduction target,” according to the statement.

“If we fail to lead, if we adopt the attitude that we’re not going to act until enough other nations act, we will violate that duty. And we will run an even greater risk of leaving future generations a damaged planet and diminished hopes for prosperity,” said California State Treasurer Bill Lockyer, whose state also signed the investors’ statement. California has the nation’s two largest public pension funds.

Other state pension funds that signed include Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Nevada, New Jersey, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington.

International pension funds participating included those of Sweden, South Africa and the Canadian province of British Columbia.

NYS Plan for the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) Formula Grant

EECBG

BALCONY Unites Business & Labor for Common Purpose

Extracted from The Official Newsletter for the New York Affordable Reliable Electricity Alliance, Summer 2009
Employing a spirit of cooperation and collaboration, the Business and Labor Coalition of New York (BALCONY) has been at the forefront of seeking common ground among business and labor within the Empire State. Founded in 2006 by Alan Lubin, Executive Vice President of New York State United Teachers (NYSUT) and Bruce Ventimiglia, Chairman of the Saratoga Capital Management, BALCONY has been recognized as an effective, non-partisan coalition that has advanced significant public policy initiatives beneficial to businesses and workers alike.

Read the entire story: Newsletter Story

Read the entire Newsletter: Newsletter

Shocker: New Yorkers pay highest power bills in U.S.

by William Sherman

Turn on the lights or broil a burger and it will cost you more here than in any other city in the nation.

Metropolitan area consumers paid 59.1% more for electricity and 34.2% more for natural gas than the U.S. city average last month, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

For example, New Yorkers paid 21 cents a kilowatt hour in June for electricity, while the average of 87 urban areas around the country was 13 cents, bureau data show. For natural gas, measured in therms, New Yorkers paid $1.42 per therm, while the average was $1.06.

Energy experts and utility company officials said the disparity is the norm, actually narrowing a bit from last year.

The relatively higher cost of fuel used by power generating plants, transmission and labor costs, and taxes are the reason for the disparities, they said.

“Power plants in most of the country use coal as fuel, while in New York State, we use more expensive natural gas and oil and only about 13% of generation comes from coal,” said Ken Klapp, spokesman for the New York Independent System Operator, which manages the state power grid.

Sal Graven, spokesman for the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, said power delivery costs are higher here because “we’re remotely located from natural gas wells being drilled and you’ve got to deliver that gas to power plants and also to homes.”

Other areas of the nation, like the Pacific Northwest and upstate New York, have access to cheap hydroelectric power, “while we don’t,” said Ed Dumas, spokesman for the Long Island Power Authority.

Chris Olert, spokesman for Con Edison, noted that despite the disparity, the June bills for typical New York City and Westchester residents were 6.2% lower than those of June ’08.

“It was $92.57 last year and $86.85 this June,” he said. “The big difference for us in this area is higher fuel costs for generation and taxes.”