Category: Uncategorized

Later this year, environmentalists around the world will celebrate the 60th anniversary of the Storm King decision. The official tale is well-rehearsed: courageous locals rose up to stop a corporate behemoth from defacing Storm King Mountain with a monstrous hydroelectric plant.

But what if that story is more of a myth than a memory?

What if the project would have been nearly invisible, tucked beneath the mountain while leaving it intact?

What if the host community of people, who actually lived in Cornwall, overwhelmingly supported it?

What if organized labor backed it, prominent politicians endorsed it, and the plan promised not destruction, but revival: clean power, jobs, and desperately needed investment in a declining region?

What if Storm King wasn’t stopped because it was evil, but because it was too good? 

And how many preventable deaths and hospitalization occurred in New York City because it wasn’t built?

Storm King marked a turning point in American history, where a powerful alliance of elite families, foundations, and ideological operatives learned how to kill a future they couldn’t control. It was the moment when the postwar dream of progress and development gave way to something darker.

Sign up for New York Energy Alliance’s mailing list here.

The Case for the Storm King Plant

In the 1960s, New York City was at a breaking point. Electricity use had more than doubled since the end of World War Two, and office towers filled with lights, elevators and early computers were being built at a dizzying pace. 

Brownouts and blackouts were becoming increasingly common in Manhattan and the Bronx, especially during the hottest days of the year when demand would spike. Consolidated Edison, the local utility company, relied on an aging patchwork of oil and coal-fired plants that were located within city limits. These plants were largely the source of massive amounts of air pollution in the city.

In particular, Con Ed’s Astoria Energy Complex, consisting of the “Big Allis” Ravenswood peaker plant, the Astoria Generating Station, and the Charles Poletti Power Plant, was the nucleus of what is now known as “Asthma Alley,” where there are disproportionate health impacts from air pollution to this day.

These two factors meant that Con Ed was desperate for reliable and clean sources of energy that were close enough to the city’s grid to help shoulder the load. The addition of Indian Point 1 in 1962 helped, but electricity demand kept increasing at a rate of 7% a year.

That’s when the Storm King hydropower plant, 60 miles north of New York City on the Hudson River, was proposed. A 2,000 megawatt pumped-storage facility, it would have been among the largest in the world and added more than 25% to Con Ed’s capacity.

“The Cornwall plant would do much to cut down the amount of air pollution in New York City… it would enable us to reduce the amount of coal and oil burned in New York and to shut down several hundred thousand kilowatts of our older steam electric generating units.”

M.L Waring, senior vice-president of Con Ed

A Plan With Many Supporters

The Storm King project was very popular in its host community of Cornwall and the nearby city of Newburgh. Village and Town citizens, officials and labor leaders were vastly in favor of the project for the benefits it would provide: economically, environmentally and in funding infrastructure improvements for their community.

The biggest booster of the plant was the Village of Cornwall’s mayor, Michael Donahue.

Con Edison will pay annual taxes of $500,000, and with these increased revenues we shall be able to construct a new village hall, library, village garage, parks, a recreational center, nature trails, and municipal ski slopes.

Village of Cornwall Mayor Michael Donahue, 1964

Cornwall’s tax assessor, Wesley Rowland, estimated that the $400 million facility would contribute approximately $100 million to the town’s existing $132 million tax base. It was an enormous boost for a community of only 10,000 residents.

In nearby Newburgh, the struggling city had just gone through a vicious multi-year welfare crisis. A $165M industrial development project just five miles away was needed to “bolster its depressed economy, to provide employment, and to add stimulus to the rebirth of Newburgh.”

Organized labor also stood firmly behind the Storm King project, viewing it as a rare chance to bring long-term, well-paid employment to a region suffering from chronic underdevelopment. Construction unions, engineers, and utility workers all testified in support of the hydroelectric plant, emphasizing jobs, economic stimulus, and the project’s environmental compatibility.

Henry P. McArdle, business representative of Local 825 of the Operating Engineers Union, said the plant would offer years of steady employment.

“This would [be] long-term employment for these men,” he said. “There are few jobs for men in the area.”

Con Edison also offered to clean up the waterfront in Cornwall, which was littered with industrial waste. The Cornwall Local reported that 1,700 people signed a petition in support, with only 100 opposed.

The Opposition: From Aesthetics to Fish

Initial designs for the facility had transmission lines running across the Hudson River and a small but noticeable intake area on the waterfront. In an early flyer about the plant, Consolidated Edison zoomed in on the design rendering to show detail, which gave the false impression that the project was going to swallow the mountain whole. 

“An artist’s rendering… showed the side of the Mountain cut away, leaving a gash… It was this illustration, in particular, that roused lovers of the Highlands to action.”

Albert Butzel, 2014

New renderings were quickly created, but it was too late. The original is the one that was plastered everywhere.

A group of “old money” Hudson River families saw the project as a threat to their legacy of conservation efforts in the region. Several of them were clustered across the river and to the south in Garrison, NY.

“From a very early point, diehard opponents of Con Ed’s plans would refuse to see the project in isolation; instead, they would come to view it as a harbinger of the industrialization of the Hudson River valley. Perhaps more importantly, many environmentalists, feeling overwhelmed at the changes they had witnessed during their lives, developed a militant, winner-take-all attitude when it came to land-use struggles. 

Carl Carmer [took]… a definitive stand: ‘It is my conviction that those who would destroy the beauty of our landscape should be fought off, not appeased. Appeasement is a postponement and if we are to preserve the landscape of the America we have come to love, postponement is the equivalent of complete surrender.’”

Robert Lifset, Power On the Hudson, 2014

Alexander Saunders was one of the leaders of the opposition to the plant. From his estate in Garrison, he said “we don’t feel this is the right area for industry. Of course, there are a lot of people on the welfare rolls in Newburgh, but as a businessman, I can tell you it doesn’t represent a very high calibre for a work force… the ideal land use for this area should be for recreation for people from New York City.”

Saunders was the chairman of the Scenic Hudson Preservation Conference and the Hudson River Sloop Clearwater organization started with a party at his house.

For these new preservationists, the Storm King battle was not about securing improvements or concessions; it was about fighting an indefinite war against industrial society in all its forms. Once it was clear that the plant would be virtually invisible on the Hudson River and an aesthetic argument would be impossible, the activists seized upon the idea of fish and fishermen being affected by the plant.

This strategic pivot was led by Bob Boyle, the future mentor to Robert F. Kennedy Jr., in his sensational 1965 Sports Illustrated article, “A Stink of Dead Stripers.” Writing with a hysterical verve, Boyle abandoned the dry legal terrain of viewshed arguments and plunged instead into a lurid story of ecological doom, spinning a pile of decomposing fish near the Indian Point nuclear plant into a casus belli for total war over Storm King.

“Perhaps, ironically, the Hudson River, the living river, may yet be saved by dead fish long thought buried in an obscure dump.”

Robert Boyle

After publishing the article, Boyle met with two Scenic Hudson leaders, and congratulated them for their ongoing legal case against the plant. 

“He wanted them to know that the Hudson River in the vicinity of the Storm King plant was one of two principal spawning grounds for America’s Atlantic Coast striped bass population… “The striped bass spawn here,” Boyle said, “and it’s a very important area for larvae and plankton, and the pump storage plant will suck up the eggs and young.” [Scenic Hudson co-founder] Duggan recognized that this was the issue that could win the case. She rose with a gleeful smile and proclaimed, “They’re going to kill the fish! They’re going to kill the fish!” She was so excited, recalls Boyle, “It was like Churchill hearing Pearl Harbor had been bombed.”

John Cronin, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., The Riverkeepers, 1999

This strategic pivot was also noted by Con Ed:

“[The opponents are] still not satisfied; they now purport to espouse seriously a whole series of objections based on what will surely be shown here to be insupportable, far-fetched and exaggerated theories of disaster to flora, fauna, dikes and water supplies. One opposing witness has even taken the desperately extreme position that the plant should not now be built underground and invisible, the witness will know it’s there.”

James O’Malley, Con Ed Chief Counsel, 1966

This extremism was even noted by New York Senator Robert F. Kennedy, who testified to Congress that he “cannot believe that our marine biologists are unable to offer assistance in meeting this problem on the Hudson. I cannot believe that a solution to the problems with the Storm King project…. cannot be found.” 

He also noted that Con Ed had offered to build a screen shielding the intake pumps at Storm King, and believed a solution could be found to the fish life questions.

Alfred Perlmutter, a professor of biology at New York University said that “one active sport fisherman would have as much effect on striped bass egg larvae” as the project would.

It was the romanticism of fish and fishermen on the Hudson River that stretched out an open-and-shut case over aesthetics into something that could go on indefinitely. Environmental non-profits spawned like fish in the Hudson; the old guard of the Hudson River Conservation Society led to Scenic Hudson, which led to the Rockefeller-supported Clearwater, the Ford Foundation-supported National Resources Defense Council, the Rockefeller/Harriman-led Hudson River Valley Commission, and the Hudson River Fisherman’s Association, which soon morphed into the Robert F. Kennedy Jr.-led Riverkeeper group.

The Death of Storm King 

Storm King was a David & Goliath fight, but it’s quite possible that Con Ed was David and the old money hydra it faced was Goliath. By the 1970s, changes to the U.S. monetary system and interest rates meant that what was once a $150M plant was slowly turning into a $1B project, where the economics could never pencil out despite an ongoing energy crisis and multiple blackouts in New York City.

The financing was made even more difficult because the national response to the energy crises of 1970s was, as Jimmy Carter put it, to put on a sweater and turn the heat down. Con Ed could not rely on steady growth in electric demand to pay for the plant. Additionally, the plant became leverage for Con Ed in negotiations with environmentalists over building cooling towers at Indian Point nuclear plant.

The Village of Cornwall’s Mayor Donahue never stopped advocating for the plant. “They’ve had conservationists all the way from Australia talking about Storm King,” he said in 1973. “They never want to know what the local people think.”

In 1976, he continued: “We – the project supporters – contend that the Cornwall plant is in the public interest. We firmly believe that it would contribute substantially to the economy of this community, that it would enhance the preservation of scenic beauty and that it would enhance the preservation of scenic beauty and that it would not affect conservation of the river’s fishery.”

According to a Con Ed official, the construction of the plant would have supported a $35M annual payroll and employed 1,500 Orange County employees from eight county labor unions. 

A union workman, reacting to one of the endless delays in the project, was blunt:

“We are all bitter as hell. This whole controversy has been ginned up by outsiders. Why should I lose my job because some guy may not be able to catch his limit of striped bass off his pleasure boat?”

But after years of lawfare, the plant was killed in closed door negotiations in 1980 between Con Ed and 10 other organizations, mediated by Russell Train, former head of the EPA and Malthusian head of the World Wildlife Fund.

A Final “What If”

Today, the proposed alternative to the “Asthma Alley” power plants in New York City is to locate dangerous lithium-ion battery plants right inside major population centers, with a mandate to build six gigwatts of battery storage statewide by 2030. The peaker plants are still running.

The cognitive dissonance over energy and the environment that resulted from the Storm King case is almost too much to take in. The added air pollution, asthma hospitalizations, increased energy costs, and now, the desperate crunch for clean energy storage in New York State makes seeing the sordid affair as an “environmental” landmark utterly absurd.

As for the good Mayor Donahue, he served as Cornwall’s beloved mayor for 28 uninterrupted years ending in the late 1970s. The lost promise of the Storm King plant was the great “what if” of his tenure, forever beyond his grasp. After the settlement, Con Ed donated land to the Village of Cornwall which was later dedicated as Donahue Memorial Park, in his memory. Approaching the park, you might only notice one plaque:

If you move to the left, buried behind foliage, you’ll find a second plaque dedicated to the memory of Mayor Donahue. You can see the faded tribute to him below, with Storm King Mountain in the background to the right:

In 2009, the more prominent plaque was added with much controversy. The addition was protested by Donahue’s surviving daughters, as it commemorated the elite environmentalists that Donahue fought against for 15 years.

The plaque faces outward toward Storm King Mountain, gleaming and well-maintained. Behind it, Donahue’s original plaque is nearly hidden—faded, weather-stained, and shrouded by overgrown foliage, like the memory of the future he once fought for. It maybe be obscured—purposefully hidden from the light of day—but Donahue’s plaque still stands, like the truth, waiting to be rediscovered.

In a sharp rebuke to the Jeffersonian-DSA model of 100% renewables under the BPRA, New York signals a return to the Hamiltonian-FDR vision of state-directed infrastructure for industrial growth and prosperity.

This week, Governor Kathy Hochul announced that the New York Power Authority will pursue at least one gigawatt of new nuclear power, marking the first major state-led nuclear development effort in a generation. It’s a small step, but a decisive one. And it confirms what the New York Energy Alliance and our allies have argued all along: true energy policy means production, not restriction. Growth, not rationing. Hamilton, not Jefferson. 

For years, energy policy in New York has been dominated by a strain of neo-agrarian technocracy with the veneer of climate activism. It’s a dark mix of Andrew Cuomo’s political ambitions in the mid-2010s, combined with RFK Jr.’s anti-nuclear mysticism, Mark Jacobsen’s fuzzy climate math and Mark Ruffalo’s screams.

The Build Public Renewables Act (BPRA), backed by the DSA and green NGOs constituted in the so-called Public Power Coalition was its latest expression. It claimed to follow in the footsteps of FDR, but it really was an act of eco-sabotage against the grid that he helped build. It is a plan to destroy firm power, starve nuclear energy of public investment, and tie New Yorkers’ public infrastructure to the whims of the weather. 

This agenda would have used the power of the state to bully rural communities into trading farmland, forests, and viewsheds for seas of solar panels, while urban activists sneered about “bulldozing landowners.” But with Hochul’s nuclear directive, that premise has been rejected. By empowering NYPA to build nuclear, the state is reembracing what FDR called freedom from want, not through artificial scarcity, but through abundant, sovereign infrastructure.

“Translated into world terms,” FDR wrote, “that means economic understanding which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants, everywhere in the world.”

The order affirms that public investment should be directed toward projects of scale, permanence, and sovereignty, breaking the degrowth priesthood that treated baseload power as blasphemy. New Yorkers understand that you cannot run a civilization, let alone reindustrialize it, on intermittent power.

This pivot is not just a policy shift. It’s a philosophical one.

Jeffersonianism has always viewed man as a liability to be managed. It sees energy as a problem to be solved with behavioral nudges and shrinking footprints. 

Hamiltonianism, by contrast, views man as a creative, transformative force made in the image of God. It believes in using science, credit, and statecraft to uplift humanity, not to manage its decline. It builds nuclear plants, hydro dams, and transmission lines. It powers productive industry. It sees energy not as something to be trimmed, but as the lifeblood of independence, culture and prosperity.

FDR was a Hamiltonian. He didn’t see state-directed infrastructure as a utilitarian project, but an American one: to electrify farms, power factories, and erase the line between town and country. He believed in projects that could “transcend mere power development,” “distribute and diversify industry,” and help lead “logically to national planning… involving many states and the future lives and welfare of millions.” He believed in projects that could “touch and give life to all forms of human concerns.”

That spirit didn’t end at the water’s edge. FDR saw the TVA and the St. Lawrence-FDR Power Project in Massena, NY not just as domestic triumphs, but as models for the world, using public credit and state planning to build lasting peace and productive international development. He knew the alternative to such planning was collapse.

In New York Energy Alliance’s public testimony, policy statements, and media appearances, we have called for a real energy agenda, which includes NYPA returning to its roots and leading the nation in building modern infrastructure that serves the general welfare.

Today’s announcement suggests the tide is turning. Hochul’s directive signals that the American System is alive: long-term public investment in high-productivity infrastructure, aimed not at managing decline but expanding the human horizon.

We know one reactor is not enough. The road ahead is long, and the resistance, from the same anti-nuclear mystics who sabotaged Indian Point, will be fierce. And as trendy as it might be, this moment does not call for blind “abundance” utilitarianism, but as FDR put it, an “enlightened administration” that can “adapt existing economic organizations”, like NYPA, to the service of the people.

So yes, this moment matters. Because it proves the dam is cracking. The ideology of managed decline is faltering. The anti-human energy consensus is losing its grip. And in its place, something older and nobler is beginning to stir: It’s time to build.

Utilities, whether investor-owned or publicly controlled, must serve everyone in the community. And the Hudson Valley is far more than just a leftist environmentalist enclave—it’s home to working families, small businesses, and industries that depend on reliable, affordable energy to survive.

But Assemblymember Sarahana Shrestha’s Hudson Valley Power Authority Act (HVPA) is not a pragmatic energy policy—it’s an ideological experiment.

In an inauspicious preview of what “energy democracy” will look like, Shrestha has blasted any opposition to her Hudson Valley Power Authority Act agenda as “misinformation.”

But the real misinformation is her refusal to address the actual consequences of her bill: using the crisis of rising energy costs to justify a hostile takeover of Central Hudson, one that could increase costs, disrupt service, and impose a rigid ideological agenda that prioritizes wind and solar over affordability and reliability. Her bill treats 90,000 natural gas households and businesses as an endangered species—not customers whose needs should be met.

While Assemblymember Shrestha invokes Franklin Delano Roosevelt to support her arguments, she ignores a fundamental truth: FDR believed in abundant, affordable energy as a foundation for economic growth. When he advocated for public power in 1932, he was backing the creation of the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)—a model that thrived because it embraced a balanced energy mix, including nuclear, coal, natural gas, and hydro. TVA never pursued energy austerity—Shrestha does.

Shrestha’s rebuttal fails to address the following indisputable truths:

• Massena Electric customers still worry about their bills despite Shrestha’s claim in September that “no one worries about their bills anymore.”
• The informal evaluation of Central Hudson’s acquisition shared by Shrestha suggests potential shortfalls in servicing debt could be covered by either: a surcharge on ratepayers (i.e. higher energy bills) or state and county budgets (taxpayers). Either way, residents and businesses will foot the bill.
• Public officials are being pressured to unconditionally endorse the HVPA without any verified cost-benefit analysis or rate comparison between HVPA or Central Hudson.
• The HVPA Board and Observatory are stacked with politicians, activists and academics – not engineers or grid operators.
• Before a single meeting of the “democratic” HVPA Board and Observatory can be held, the HVPA bill has already mandated a study to set a timeline for the “phaseout” of natural gas infrastructure.
• Actually existing public utilities are blaming Shrestha’s “Build Public Renewables” Act for threatened rate hikes. (Will they be attacked by Shrestha for spreading misinformation?)
• Public power utilities regularly renegotiate PILOTs; there is nothing binding that says that tax payments will remain equal to what Central Hudson pays now in perpetuity.
• The HVPA campaign was crafted before input was sought from the IBEW Local 320, which represents hundreds of Central Hudson workers. Five months after the bill was introduced and publicized, an email blast was sent out asking if any DSA followers knew anyone who worked at Central Hudson.

Hudson Valley Residents Deserve Honest Answers

Hudson Valley residents and businesses don’t need blind ideology masquerading as an energy cure-all. They need representatives who are willing to tackle the underlying causes of high energy prices, shifting away from the destructive course that was set by the climate and energy policies of Andrew Cuomo and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in the 2010s, and toward the truly anti-entropic and abundant vision of FDR. The HVPA remains an experiment that is too risky and costly to be conducted on our dime.

If New York’s climate laws are to be believed, our state must reach net zero emissions by 2050. According to the most absolutely optimistic official estimates, it will cost about $15B a year, or $375B to get there (while the majority of the benefits aren’t expected to directly help New Yorkers). The $375B will come from some combination of higher utility bills, taxes, bond measures, or private investment.

There isn’t a consistent county-by-county accounting of how many emissions are generated where, but three counties in the Mid-Hudson Valley have quantified what their total, community-wide annual emissions are: Dutchess, Orange and Ulster County.

What are New York State’s total emissions?

Depending on the year, the total annual GHG emissions for NYS are around 350 MMT CO₂e.

How many emissions come from the Mid-Hudson Valley?

According to their most recent reports (numbers are in million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent):

Dutchess County: 2.6 MMT CO₂e
Orange County: 5.9 MMT CO₂e
Ulster County: 2.1 MMT CO₂e

Total: 10.6 MTC02e

By dividing the regional 10.6 MMT CO₂e figure by the statewide 350 MMT CO₂e figure, we reach the conclusion that the Mid-Hudson Valley is responsible for about 3.04% of New York State’s total emissions.

How much will it cost for the Mid-Hudson Valley to reach net zero?

Assuming a total emissions figure of 10.6 MMT CO₂e, and a total price tag of taxes and consumer costs of $375B, we can deduce that it will cost the residents of the Mid-Hudson Valley $11.4B to decarbonize by 2050.

Dutchess County: $2.79B
Orange County: $6.32B
Ulster County: $2.29B

Indian Point Closure Added CO₂ Equal to the Mid-Hudson Valley’s Entire Annual Emissions

According to various estimates, the premature closure of Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant in 2021 led to an increase in emissions by anywhere from 8 to 15 MMT CO₂e a year, due to the emissionless nuclear energy being replaced by new natural gas plants in Middletown and Dover Plains.

The average estimate is the closure resulted in an increase in emissions of roughly 11.5 MMT CO₂e, which is 0.9 MMT CO₂e more than the entire emissions put out by all of the Mid-Hudson Valley.

What should New York do with this information?

Over the last two years, we have written about many of the consequences of New York’s irrational energy policies, including:

• How Upstate and Western NY Communities are Fighting Back Against Renewable Energy Projects
• Unjust Transition at Indian Point: How Politicians and Non-Profits Betrayed New York With Pseudoscience
• How the Home County of the Environmental Movement is Questioning NY’s Climate Mandates
• They Aren’t Coming For Your Firewood. But New York’s Energy Plan is Still Not Good.
• Where in New York State Did Electric Prices Go Up the Most Since 2017?
• New York Energy Alliance Applauds Comptroller DiNapoli’s Report Highlighting Critical Failures in the CLCPA Implementation

Sign up for our newsletter!

To help foster energy affordability and reliability for New York families and businesses, we at New York Energy Alliance reiterate our call for:

• A comprehensive review and reassessment of the CLCPA’s goals and implementation strategies.
• Transparent and accurate cost estimates to inform the public and ensure financial accountability.
• A realistic plan that explores all viable energy sources, especially the expansion of nuclear and hydro power, to ensure reliable and affordable energy for all New Yorkers.

The New York Power Authority has wrapped up its formal conferral process and has moved to hosting public hearings on its planned implementation of the Build Public Renewables Act (BPRA). The green’s, as always, are pushing public comments to try to make their unrealistic and expensive plan seem more popular than it actually is. We at NYEA would like you join us in counterbalancing this narrative. There are both in-person and online hearings left to attend.

At the online evening session, we will be reiterating what we said in the latest round of the conferral process; that NYPA should focus on building a reliable and affordable grid for all New Yorkers. NYPA cannot make the impossible possible. We will also highlight that true community interest should be at the heart at whatever NYPA decides to do. Our friends at the Stop Energy Sprawl coalition have noted that NYPA has already partnered on unpopular renewable development projects in order to bail them out. This feels only a few steps away from NYPA using eminent domain authority to push projects through (though so far NYPA has insisted it has no interest in using such powers at this time).

We encourage you to make your voice heard. If you are unable to attend any of the sessions please write to NYPA here.

This week, The Future Energy Economy Summit was held in Syracuse. The event was a long time coming: it’s the first step in New York State acknowledging that the climate policies of Andrew Cuomo and the anti-nuclear mysticism of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and co. are incompatible with an electrified, reindustrializing, and clean future.

The delusions of a depopulated, deindustrialized New York State powered by sunshine and gentle breezes are slowly being replaced by reality: New Yorkers want good jobs, affordable energy and viewsheds that aren’t dotted with toxic solar panels and wind turbines.

That’s going to mean that natural gas infrastructure and extraction are not tomorrow’s stranded assets, but important investments in our future.

And it’s going to mean what was once unthinkable: that the Promethean fire of nuclear energy development, as dreamt of by presidents like John F. Kennedy and Dwight Eisenhower, will be unshackled from the tight grip of “no-growth” environmentalism, represented by dozens of groups who are, by their own logic, now climate deniers arguing against emissionless energy:

Looks like quite a broad swath of NY’s climate/environmental movement banding together against Hochul’s new nuclear push — 153 groups just sent an open letter, and some of them have been protesting outside her summit today pic.twitter.com/ssaAcKIszZ

— Colin Kinniburgh (@colinreads) September 5, 2024

Homeowners and businesses are experiencing the first price shocks of the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA), and while utilities like Central Hudson and National Grid are the popular scapegoats for now, it won’t be long before the true underlying policies are identified and re-written.

Our recent analysis of “day-ahead” prices since 2017 found that New York communities that have emphasized intermittent renewables like solar and wind have the most expensive energy in the state, while communities in Western and Central New York that rely on nuclear and hydro have the cheapest energy in the state.

It’s not a question of state ownership vs. private monopoly; it’s a question of production and ideology. Does a prosperous future involve abundant, 24/7 energy, or energy that relies on the weather?

New York Energy Alliance was pleased to join Stop Energy Sprawl, Nuclear New York and New York Energy and Climate Advocates in a join statement calling for sensible energy policies before the conference. We also were featured in a Democrat & Chronicle article by journalist Thomas Zambito in the aftermath:

On the streets outside the Syracuse Marriot Thursday, anti-nuclear groups carrying signs reading “Nuclear No” held a rally to challenge Hochul’s newfound interest in nuclear power.

“Our Governor is wining and dining dirty energy snake oil salesmen when she should be doubling down on clean, renewable energy buildout — New Yorkers are having none of it,” said Laura Shindell, the state director of Food & Water Watch, one of the leaders in the 2014 effort to get the state to ban natural gas fracking. “Our climate future is at a crossroads, and Hochul is perilously close to taking a dangerous step in the wrong direction.”

Joining Shindell was Cornell University professor Robert Howarth. “She (Hochul) does unfortunately have this infatuation with nuclear power, this distant shining object that‘s way off there somehow that she thinks might help as part of the solution,” Howarth told the crowd. “We need to tell her she’s wrong.”

More than 150 groups opposed to nuclear power signed a letter urging Hochul to recommit to deploying wind and solar power to achieve the state’s climate goals.

They were countered by the New York Energy Alliance, which supports an all-of-the-above approach to solving the state’s energy issues, using nuclear power to complement natural gas and hydropower.

“The Governor is soft-launching the inevitable,” said Brian Wilson, a leader in the alliance. “The last 50 years of New York’s energy and environmental policies have been short-sighted and destructive for our state, and drastic changes are needed before she and the Democrats are left holding the bag. We cannot electrify everything and re-industrialize on solar panels and wind turbines. Professors and activists cannot keep the lights on, but nuclear, natural gas, and hydro can.”

Recently, NYS has admitted that its unreachable energy goals are unreachable (see “CES Biennial Review Report” 07/01/2024). This lead to the expected calls from anti nuclear green NGOs for NYPA to speed up its implementation of the BPRA to meet the renewable energy “shortfall.” NYPA seems to be feeling this pressure, as they have reached out to their conferral participants, of which NYEA is one (pg. 19), on feedback on the process thus far. The questions posed, and our response, is listed below.

• Please share your thoughts on the State’s progress toward CLCPA goals.
• Please share your thoughts on how NYPA can or should support CLCPA.
• Please share your thoughts on what NYPA is already doing to support CLCPA.
• Do you have anything else you would like to share for the record?

Thank you for reaching out to us for our opinion on this matter. Our answer to the stated questions is informed by the recent interview given by your VP of Renewable Project Development and the recent PSC report that states NY’s CLCPA 2030 renewable goal will not be met. This announcement has spurred many to call on NYPA to use its new authority from the BPRA to fill this gap.

We at NYEA feel that NYPA is moving at a correct pace, and that no pace is possible to reach a goal that was from the beginning unrealistic. NYPA has set a timeline and is working to understand the best way for it to use its unique advantages to produce renewable energy in New York while being mindful of public perception. From our first conversation with NYPA, we feel NYPA does not want to ram rod development through localities that do not want it, and its process thus far is indicative of that. As stated in the above mentioned interview, the BPRA does not force NYPA to step in if the 2030 goals are declared unreachable, as the bills most ardent supports try to characterize. To even attempt to do so will cause the public relations nightmare NYPA has wanted to avoid from day one.

Also, it should be made clear, NYPA does not own any renewable manufacturing capacity. It is affected by the same supply chain delays and cost overruns as any other developer. NYPA cannot magically make a turbine or panel appear, there absence a core reason for the delays.

NYEA maintains the same position that NYPA should look to re-enter nuclear generation, especially looking forward to the CLCPA 2040 goals. NYPA seems very willing to enter public-private partnerships, maybe one avenue could be partnering with NY’s last nuclear operator, Constellation, on a joint project.

With this most recent announcement, we believe the State should re-assess it goals and set ones that are achievable and serve the actual interests of New Yorkers: reliable, cheap, abundant electricity for all New Yorkers. As for NYPA, it should stay the course it is on until such time more sensible heads prevail. NYPA cannot perform miracles, it is too busy delivering electrons.

The New York Energy Alliance (NYEA), a grassroots organization dedicated to advocating for abundant and reliable electricity for New York State families and industries, commends New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli for his recently released audit report, “Improved Planning Needed for New York To Achieve Its Clean Energy Goals.” The report shines a spotlight on the significant shortcomings in the implementation of the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA), corroborating the concerns NYEA has consistently raised regarding rising energy costs and the negligible impact on emissions reduction.

Key Findings of the Comptroller’s Report:

Inadequate Planning and Outdated Data:

The Public Service Commission (PSC) has been found to rely on outdated data and incorrect calculations in its planning efforts, failing to adapt to new laws and directives that influence clean energy demand and supply.

The PSC’s lack of a backup plan highlights a critical gap in strategic planning that undermines the basis of the legislation.

Project Cancellations and Delays:

The audit revealed that the PSC did not adequately plan for the historical project cancellation rate, with only 30% of awarded renewable projects completed as of April 2023. 

Renewable Energy Contracts and Cost Estimates:

The PSC failed to account for the financial implications of expiring renewable energy contracts, directly leading to higher costs and financial uncertainty for everyday consumers and industries.

The absence of reasonable cost estimates and verification of other entities’ projections further exacerbates the financial risk, particularly for New Yorkers already struggling with rising utility bills.

Emerging Risks and Challenges:

The audit identifies other significant risks, including severe weather events, supply chain issues, and delayed infrastructure projects like the Champlain Hudson Power Express line, which was once the clean energy panacea for the cruel and unnecessary closure of Indian Point Nuclear Plant.

NYEA’s Perspective:

The Comptroller’s findings echo NYEA’s longstanding concerns about the CLCPA’s implementation. Since its inception, the CLCPA has imposed enormous financial burdens on taxpayers and ratepayers, with estimates ranging anywhere from $44 billion to $3 trillion. Despite these costs, there has been no substantial decrease in emissions, undermining the very purpose of the legislation.

Local communities, particularly in Upstate and Western New York, have been forced to bear the brunt of land-intensive renewable energy projects, often without adequate consideration of their environmental and economic impacts. NYEA has documented resistance from numerous communities against these projects, highlighting the need for a more balanced and community-focused approach.

Senator Peter Harckham and other CLCPA champions have made lofty promises about a “just transition,” but the reality has been far from just. The closure of reliable energy sources like nuclear and natural gas plants, without viable alternatives, has only led to increased energy costs and instability.

Sensible and Realistic Policies

NYEA urges state agencies, particularly the PSC and NYSERDA, to take the Comptroller’s recommendations seriously. We call for:

• A comprehensive review and reassessment of the CLCPA’s goals and implementation strategies.
• Transparent and accurate cost estimates to inform the public and ensure financial accountability.
• A realistic plan that explores all viable energy sources, especially the expansion of nuclear and hydro power, to ensure reliable and affordable energy for all New Yorkers.

The New York Energy Alliance stands ready to work with policymakers, industry stakeholders, and communities to achieve a sustainable and pragmatic energy future for New York State.

When New York’s Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act was signed in 2019, word was that the new mandates would reduce electricity costs for the average person.

“Benefits of New York State’s Climate Leadership: Affordable Energy | Reducing energy consumption and utility bills by increasing access to ever-improving clean, efficient, and reliable energy solutions.”

– CLCPA Fact Sheet

“Energy affordability is a big issue for all New Yorkers. Nobody wants to spend more of their hard-earned money on energy… relying on fossil fuels to power our homes, businesses and transportation needs exposes New Yorkers to continued volatility and price increases.”

– Addressing Energy Affordability Concerns

One of the more sober evaluations of the CLCPA in 2019 was written by the the nonpartisan Citizens Budget Commission:

“As additional renewable resources come online, costs can be expected to increase, at least in the short term, and variability among regions may also increase.”

Which prediction was more correct? In our comprehensive analysis of the last seven years of electricity prices, we have found found that costs have skyrocketed statewide alongside the adoption of renewable energy and electric vehicles.

1. Average electricity costs went up anywhere from 29 to 74%

Based on monthly “day-ahead” averages compared from 2017-2020 to 2021-2024, every region saw significant increases in costs The average region’s costs went up by 51% (not weighted for population).

Zone A (West): 29%
Zone B (Genesee): 44%
Zone C (Central): 43%
Zone D (North): 51%
Zone E (Mohawk Valley): 46%
Zone F (Capital Region): 74%
Zone G (Hudson Valley): 59%
Zone H (Millwood): 58%
Zone I (Dunwoodie): 58%
Zone J (NYC): 52%
Zone K (Long Island): 52%

2. The Capital Region and Hudson Valley Increased the Most

The Capital Region is where the climate laws like the CLCPA were passed, and the Hudson Valley, the birthplace of the environmental movement, is where the laws were largely drafted and lobbied for. Tragically, ratepayers in their NYISO regions were hit hardest by the changes in New York’s electricity markets.

	Capital Region (2017-2020 Average Day-Ahead Electricity Price) vs. (2021-2024)	Hudson Valley (2017-2020 Average Day-Ahead Electricity Price) vs. (2021-2024)
January	$53 —> $74	$49—> $69
February	$29 —> $67	$28 —> $58
March	$29 —> $44	$28 —> $37
April	$26 —> $42	$26 —> $36
May	$22 —> $51	$22 —> $42
June	$23 —> $47	$24 —> $45
July	$28 —> $61	$29 —> $56
August	$26 —> $59	$27 —> $57
September	$24 —> $53	$24 —> $51
October	$24 —> $47	$24 —> $45
November	$30 —> $60	$29 —> $49
December	$39 —> $71	$36 —> $62
Average	$32 —> $48	$32 —> $44

While the entire state was subject to market and geopolitical forces beyond its control, certain attributes of each region’s power grid either inoculated it or made price shocks more extreme. For the Capital Region and Hudson Valley, it was the rapid adoption of rooftop “behind the meter” solar, combined with total reliance on natural gas without hydroelectric production or nuclear power that did them in.

Capital Region Power Production Profile:

76% Natural Gas & Oil
15% “Behind the Meter Solar” (Up 220% since 2017)*
7% Hydro
2% Methane/Refuse

Hudson Valley Region Power Production Profile:

87% Natural Gas & Oil
12% “Behind the Meter Solar” (Up 341% since 2017)*
1% Hydro

* Solar percentages refer to nameplate capacity

3. Western and Central NY’s Nuclear & Hydro Outperformed Upstate’s Gas & Solar

While the Hudson Valley and Albany’s green activists got the headlines and protest footage in the name of building solar panels and shutting down nuclear plants like Indian Point, it was the humble people of Western NY that got to enjoy cheaper power that also happens to be carbonless.

The Moses Niagara hydro plant, as well as three nuclear plants near Oswego and Rochester carried the load to help Zone A (29% increase) and Zone B (44% increase) and Zone C (43% increase) have significantly lower increases than the Capital Region (74% increase) and the Hudson Valley (58% increase). As you can see, Zones A, B and C also were able to affordably accommodate rapid buildouts in intermittent renewables thanks to the baseload provided by hydro and nuclear.

Western Region Power Production Profile:

69% Hydro
15% Gas & Oil
9% “Behind the Meter Solar” (Up 520% since 2017)*
5% Wind

Genesee Region Power Production Profile:

46% Nuclear
37% Solar (Up 652% since 2017)*
11% Gas & Oil
4% Wind

Central Region Power Production Profile:

42% Oil & Gas
36% Nuclear
11% Solar* (Up 737% since 2017)*
10% Wind
1% Hydro

* Solar percentages refer to nameplate capacity

4. Costs Increased Most in the Winter and Summer

When comparing the 2017-2020 period to the 2021-2024 period, the only brief respite in brutal price increases is in March and April, where unusually mild winters have helped ease the burden on New York electricity consumers.

Month	Average Statewide % Increase in Costs from 2017-2020 Period to 2021-2024 Period
January	42%
February	100%
March	22%
April	27%
May	59%
June	89%
July	88%
August	111%
September	109%
October	83%
November	59%
December	73%

Conclusion

The trends in this article are set to continue for the foreseeable future. The roster of upcoming additions to New York’s energy grid are fully saturated with intermittent renewable energy that increases the day-to-day variability of the grid and electricity prices:

Environmentalists and solar energy lobbyists of Albany remain convinced that New York just needs to ignore the massive increases in consumer prices and keep overbuilding solar and wind.

But it’s time for Albany to admit that it has a problem. Only a rational energy policy that considers consumer costs, reliability, land use AND emission reductions in a holistic manner will help New York thrive again.

A perennial topic of New York State’s unjust energy transition is home heating. The way we heat our homes has, since day one, been a vector for how the state plans to meet the CLCPA’s renewables and emissions targets. The primary strategy is to replace “non-renewable” and CO₂ emitting natural gas and propane with electric heat pumps supported by a somehow renewable and emission free grid. However, in between these two options is wood, which is CO₂ and particulate emitting, but also renewable (so renewable, in fact, the high efficiency units qualify for the same federal tax credit heat pumps get). Many, rightly so, believe New York is on its way to ban wood burning because of its supposed drawbacks. The most recent trigger for this speculation is New York City’s implementation of stricter wood burning regulations on its pizzerias, leading some to ask if this is the beginning of the slippery slope? The answer, thankfully, is no. But the reason reveals yet again that NYS’s energy plans are anything but rational.

The problems with heat pumps are numerous: need for greater home insulation, upfront cost, and dependence on an increasingly unreliable grid (James Hanley’s report Cold Reality elaborates on these problems in depth). The one that matters most here is the fact that in the coldest parts of the state (namely the North Country) current models of heat pumps, combined with older homes, cannot consistently heat homes to a comfortable level. New York’s climate architects themselves (the CAC) admit as much, stating they [cold weather NYers] “may need supplemental heat (wood, home heating oil, propane, or gas).” This shows why New York State won’t ban firewood, not because they don’t want to, but because to openly say a whole swath of New Yorkers will definitely go cold due to policy decisions is political suicide.

This is absurd. Firewood’s renewableness is not its main draw; its ability to work in blackouts, that the fuel is stored at the home, and that it can be harvested by the average person are. If green politicians and their lackeys cared about NYers, they would be pursuing policies that address the issues firewood helps solve; making the grid more reliable, making electricity cheaper, and expanding pipeline infrastructure. Instead, they glom onto the renewables of firewood as a way to smooth out the rough spots in their nonsensical energy goals.

The lesson here isn’t to let our guard down (if they could ban firewood, they would) it is that New York’s energy plan is irrational to its core. New Yorkers across the state, in a wide variety of conditions, need the ability to heat their homes. When the state only allows heating sources that fit its political agenda, this becomes much harder to do. It is long past time for this irrational plan to be scrapped, and one that ensures all homes are heated comfortably and affordably to go in its stead.

New York’s Dutchess County is widely seen as the birthplace of the modern environmental movement. It remains a big part of its beating heart today. But new testimony submitted by Dutchess County’s government in a utility rate case suggests that local leaders are no longer singing kumbaya with their hometown non-profits like Scenic Hudson and the late Pete Seeger’s Hudson River Sloop Clearwater.

An environmental juggernaut on the Hudson

Some of the most ferocious green attacks against power plants and electrical infrastructure have been launched from the shores of the Hudson River in Dutchess County’s Beacon, Rhinebeck, and Poughkeepsie, preserving a state of arrested development just 60 miles north of New York City. Scenic Hudson and Hudson River Sloop Clearwater maintain their headquarters in Dutchess County, and parts of the county have been represented by environmentalist firebrands like Congressmen Richard Ottinger, Maurice Hinchey, and State Assemblymember Sarahana Shrestha, a proponent of socialist degrowth via the Build Public Renewables Act. Pete Seeger was famously spurred into action about the Storm King plant because he didn’t want to look upon an “eyesore” from his cabin on Mount Beacon.

In 2019, New York State passed “landmark climate legislation” called the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA), which mandates that the state use 70% renewable energy by 2030 and 100% carbon-free energy by 2040. To actually implement the bill, it will cost taxpayers, ratepayers, taxpayers and utilities will have to spend somewhere between $44B and $3T, and the people that wrote the bill say that their estimate is a “spitball.” 

Dutchess County commented on the scoping plan of the CLCPA, concluding, “What must be done to implement the plan is gargantuan, and state government will need to grow in a gargantuan fashion to accommodate all the Plan implementation requirements. New York will become the most-regulated State in the Nation and the most overburdened with Climate commitments. At the end of the day how much balance is there in a $3 trillion dollar price tag to reduce carbon in the atmosphere by approximately .3 ppm over the next 30 years costing every New York State man, woman and child approximately $150,000 in new State costs alone?”

People looking for an answer to that question could look to a quote from Scenic Hudson attorney Dale Doty in 1963’s Storm King pumped storage plant lawsuit. From Embattled River: The Hudson and Modern American Environmentalism:

“In his brief, Doty questioned whether cheap electricity better served the public interest than “preserving the beauty of one of America’s great scenic and historic landscapes.”

While the Scoping Plan of the CLCPA was finalized in early 2023, the plan is in a state of limbo while a carbon tax scheme called “Cap and Invest” is being drafted, with the goal of a 40 percent reduction in emissions by 2030 and and 85 percent by 2050. The emissions math was crafted by Cornell University climate wonk Robert Howarth, who the Biden Administration tapped in to make the case that natural gas is worse for the climate than coal.

While Cap and Invest looms, the battle over the future of the electrical grid is being fought over at the state’s Public Service Commission, where regulated electrical utilities like Central Hudson and Orange & Rockland are making the case to pay for the mandated green infrastructure upgrades by increasing ratepayer bills by 6-16%. Dutchess County is primarily served by Central Hudson.

Predictably, a hydra of green organizations are testifying to have their cake and eat it too. Alliance for a Green Economy, Beacon Climate Action Now, Communities for Local Power, Energy Justice Law and Policy Center, Shrestha, Ulster County Government’s Jen Metzger (who helped pass the CLCPA as a State Senator) and more all testified in some way that Central Hudson should eat the cost of mandated green infrastructure upgrades, and some suggested that they should not maintain gas infrastructure for the hundreds of thousands of people who depend on it. It should be noted that, already, utilities in New York State earn some of the lowest returns in the United States. This is part of the time-honored anarchist method of using regulations and mandates to “monkeywrench” critical infrastructure and capture it or shut it down.

You can learn more about our analysis of the rate cases here.

This is where Dutchess County is fighting back.

Dutchess County: “Extreme societal risk” from replacing reliable infrastructure with renewables

Dutchess County is responsible for roughly 41% of Central Hudson’s electric revenues and 44% of its natural gas revenues. They retained Poughkeepsie-based energy consultant Allan Page to testify on their behalf at the Public Commission’s Central Hudson hearing.

Here are some of the quotes from his testimony, which matches other testimonies in decrying Central Hudson’s flawed billing system, but actually addresses the root causes of why the utility is seeking such a large increase in ratepayer fees:

1. In commenting on the Draft Scoping Plan, the County points out the economic pain being imposed on individuals and businesses and the extreme societal risk created by replacement of reliable, secure energy infrastructure with intermittent renewables. 

2. The feasibility of meeting arbitrary timing mandates is slim to none… the State will require that residents help fund trillions of dollars of unproven energy systems.

3. Up until the middle of the 1990s, Central Hudson arguably had the lowest electric rates in the Northeast… [it] controlled its organizational destiny… under a vertically integrated corporate structure. 

4. Electric customers have carried much of the load for reducing carbon in the State of New York… which ranks as the lowest per capita carbon producing state in the nation.

5. For this 39% increase in carbon reduction costs, what can the Central Hudson customer expect as a tangible direct return? The answer is a worldwide amount of carbon reduction… Central Hudson’s efforts are expected to reduce ambient CO2e emissions globally and the effects will not necessarily be limited to any area… on a global basis, the impacts are too small to be meaningful. 

6. Not only will the Dutchess County Central Hudson customer receive no benefit from CO2 reduction, but in fact, if you believe the projects of the IPCC, ambient carbon in the atmosphere will continue to increase over time from now until 2050 and beyond. Such projections are based upon the fact that all nations are not committed to reducing national carbon generation. 

7. In between the current state of the hydrogen industry, understanding and expending customer funds on accelerating such understanding on the part of Central Hudson operations, comes at a cost with limited customer benefits. The proposal to reduce EV acceptance barriers through education and reducing potential customer EV anxiety at a price tag of some $1.5M in customer funding is better performed by competitive entities looking to market EV’s… carbon reduction in the fossil fueled vehicular segment of the New York economy does not fall under the Commission’s list of responsibilities.

8. From the current day to 2050 the state measures success through partnerships, outreach and education, and workforce and economic development. Implementing the plan produces no measurements of… cost savings, or reducing climate change threats, or reducing carbon in the atmosphere in Dutchess County.

9. Up until the present rate cases, the focus of the County has been to seek win-win rate orders in which Central Hudson gains as well as the County by serving a customer of Central Hudson and a County citizen. 

10. Implementing the CLCPA has compounded the complexity of electric billing in the state, with DERs, community solar, PSC climate affiliated orders layering in more changes to customer billing which must conform to not easily understood tariffed language… one such way of reducing complexity is to be most deliberate and thoughtful in regard to implementing the CLCPA.

11. There are voluntary and regulatory investments proposed or required to facilitate and support carbon reduction and environmental justice objectives as established within the CLCPA. The voluntary investments ($4M+) should be held in abeyance until required by regulation.

Across the Hudson River from Dutchess County is the much more liberal Ulster County, Central Hudson’s other territory. Few other places in New York State are more ridden with foundation-funded doomsday climate NGOs and politically aligned with the CLCPA and other climate mandates (Ithaca and parts of Brooklyn, perhaps). To a person, letters from Ulster County Executive Jen Metzger, the Ulster County Legislature, State Senator James Skoufis, State Senator Michelle Hinchey, Kingston Mayor Steve Noble, agreed the rate increases were unconscionable, but the cause was solely attributed to bad billing practices and Central Hudson’s corporate shareholder greed. Only in testimony from Dutchess County (as well as State Senator and former Poughkeepsie Mayor Rob Rolison) did anyone surmise as to how climate mandates are the main cause of the coming unconscionable rate increases.

A Brave Statement on Behalf of Everyday Citizens

While dozens of articles have been written about liberal Ulster County politicians beating a dead horse about greedy Central Hudson and their incompetent billing practices, none have been written in the region about how the potentially trillions of dollars of “landmark legislation” mandates and nudging have been piled onto Central Hudson, by extension, the working class of ratepayers and taxpayers. If Roger Caiazza of Pragmatic Environmentalist had not highlighted Dutchess County’s testimony, and their hard break with the local environmentalist organizations holding the state hostage, it’s hard to know if anyone would have seen it.

The truth of their statement is especially brave knowing that the threat of chaos from nearby organizations like Riverkeeper, Scenic Hudson, Clearwater, Food and Water Watch, Communities for Local Power, Sierra Club of the Mid-Hudson Valley, Partners for Climate Action Hudson Valley, NYPIRG, Indivisible and more is forever looming.

We at New York Energy Alliance stand with the Dutchess County government in their advocacy for everyday Hudson Valley residents’ checkbooks.

Buchanan NY’s Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant closed in 2021, dying a death of a thousand paperwork cuts over 40 years at the hands of non-profit organizations like Riverkeeper and Scenic Hudson, and politicians like Governor Andrew Cuomo and presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. This has been to the detriment of the tax base of Buchanan, the electricity consumers of New York, and the state’s supposed climate goals (fossil fuels replaced all of the carbonless electricity produced by the plant).

One of the biggest questions around the plant’s closure was the fate of the 1,000+ strong workforce directly employed at Indian Point. The opponents of the plant, like Cuomo, State Senator Pete Harckham, Riverkeeper, the National Resource Defence Council (NRDC) and more, have been champions of a policy called “Just Transition” for the workforce, by replacing their lost jobs by guaranteeing them a place in the decommissioning process.

Big Promises

“In the CLCPA, we talk about a ‘just transition,’ ” said Senator Peter Harckham (D-Peekskill). “This [the closure of Indian Point] is going to be the poster child for that.”

In 2019, Harckham introduced legislation that “require[s] whoever is doing the decommissioning to hire from the facility and pay workers what they were being paid,” he said, reaffirming the commitment months later in 2020.

Another prominent voice was Kit Kennedy, the Managing Director of the NRDC:

“We also need to ensure that the community around Indian Point and the workers at the plant are supported in the transition to a future without Indian Point.”

Riverkeeper, which spearheaded the fight to close the plant, wrote in 2017 that a “thorny, vital but as yet unanswered question” included how to “achieve a just transition for plant workers and surrounding communities to life after Indian Point.” 

Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, another long-time adversary to the plant, wrote “it’s time to turn our focus to ensuring economic and workforce development… includ[ing] retaining workers with valuable institutional knowledge and technical skills, and retraining and placement in similar industries.” Their environmental director, Manna Jo Greene, added “we have to get to work, put the plan into place, find the financing and create those wonderful jobs. That’ll be part of the solution.”

With all of the various stakeholders assured that jobs would be protected, in 2021, Holtec, New York State, Westchester County, the Town of Cortlandt, the Village of Buchanan, Hendrick Hudson School District, the Public Utility Law Project and Riverkeeper all collectively entered and supported a Joint Proposal to the Public Service Commission that affirmed that “Holtec’s decommissioning plan yields considerable economic, social and environmental benefits to the surrounding community.”

The Tritium Conspiracy Theory

One of the linchpins of the decommissioning of nuclear plants is the safe and legal disposal of “liquid effluent water” which contains a minuscule amount of a radioactive substance called tritium. Tritium is used in glow-in-the-dark items like exit signs and dials in watches. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, Tritium is “produced naturally in the atmosphere when cosmic rays strike atmospheric gases… release of tritium from [nuclear reactors] are at fractions of the natural background production rates.”

The amount of radiation exposure that the average American receives from living near a nuclear plant that is disposing of liquid effluent is minuscule: someone could drink a liter of water directly from the liquid effluent tank, and receive a dose of radiation equivalent to eating 10 bananas. Taking a cross-country flight from New York to Los Angeles exposes passengers to the equivalent of drinking tritiated water every day for a year. 

For 60 years, Indian Point discharged liquid effluent water into the Hudson River at a concentration that was 1/100th or below the legally required limits. In 2023, Holtec was scheduled, as per their decommissioning plan, to release 1.3M gallons of tritiated water into the Hudson River, a tiny fraction of a fraction of what has already been harmlessly released. 

In a stunning betrayal of the “Just Transition” promised for Indian Point union workers, every nearby environmental organization and related politicians fearmongered about the tritiated water releases in an ignorant and unscientific Orwellian campaign to further demonize nuclear energy. They insisted on a costly alternative of storing the water onsite, a move that delayed decommissioning by eight years, caused 138 layoffs right before Christmas, and went against the advice of the workers working on the plant and the wishes of the town where the plant is located.

The president of Riverkeeper said that the safe discharges were “an affront to the people who love the Hudson but fear for their health and the damage tritium discharges can bring to the river and to their communities.” Hudson River Sloop Clearwater called for the “Save the Hudson Bill” to be signed into law, which would prevent any radioactive material from decommissioning nuclear power plants to be released into the Hudson. And Pete Harckham, who said just three years ago that the Indian Point decommissioning would be the “poster child” for Just Transition, authored the State Senate version of the Save the Hudson Bill that would be responsible for laying off 138 workers at Indian Point.

“This bill may be well intentioned, but it would stop the decommissioning of Indian Point and lead to substantial long-term job losses in the Hudson Valley. The concerns raised by the bill’s sponsors have been addressed, and the EPA has developed environmentally conscious procedures that our members are following closely. A handful of misguided activists from outside our community shouldn’t be allowed to stop a worthy project that is providing critical blue collar jobs.”

Bill Banfield, spokesperson for the North Atlantic States Regional Council of Carpenters

It made no difference. Hundreds of thousands of people signed a petition calling for the signing of the bill, thanks in part to Riverkeeper’s misleading Facebook ads:

Governor Kathy Hochul signed the bill into law on August 18, 2023, and the layoffs came right around Christmas.

What’s next?

With the bill passed, there is now no pragmatic solution on what to do with the water. As such, the decommissioning work is largely now delayed until a solution can be found. With up to an eight year delay, this means that certain contractors cannot move to the next project and instead will just be laid off. This will also delay the handover of the property to the Town of Buchanan, delaying any opportunity to start the site’s next chapter.

The activists’ preferred solution is to “store on site.” This will put the water in casks to wait at least one tritium half life (12 years) so that it can be released in a less radioactive state. However, the Town of Buchanan passed a resolution in July favoring discharges into the Hudson River, and banning the storage of the water on site. 

When this topic first came to public forum, New York Energy Alliance was in a superminority calling for the discharges going forward unimpeded (20 for vs. 120 against by our count). 

Watch:

Now that the chickens are coming home to roost and the negative consequences of an avoidable delay have revealed themselves, the greens are trying to have their cake and eat it too. They want to still be seen as the good guys standing up for the environment against the big bad company while deflecting the blame that they caused the jobs to be lost, at Christmas no less. We stand with labor, Holtec, the Town of Buchanan, and other sensible citizens in continuing to call out this charade.