Category: Uncategorized

Sites of Resistance

For decades, mostly Downstate New York State politicians have simultaneously advocated for electrifying more appliances, home heating and cars while shutting down and blocking reliable sources of energy like nuclear, natural gas and dual-fuel power plants. Foundation-funded activists have assured them: when the time comes, they’ll be able to force Upstate and Western New York communities to turn their farmland and lakes into renewable energy and battery zones.

What they didn’t count on was that communities would stand together and fight back. Even as Downstate politicians try to steamroll local opposition and home rule with new mechanisms like the Office of Renewable Energy Siting, or rebrand their plans as being “publicly owned,” this list of local community groups is just a small sample of the deep, grassroots opposition to land-intensive, intermittent renewable energy in Upstate New York.

What did we miss? We’d love to hear from you. Get in touch with us!

1. Copake

Company: Hecate Energy
Opposing Groups: Sensible Solar for Rural New York
Project mW: 60
Project Size: 220 acres

Texas-based Hecate Energy has been one of the most notorious renewable energy developers in NYS, with several projects that have received organized community pushback over the years. One of the most contentious battles has been over the proposed Shepherd’s Run Solar project in the 3,300-person Town of Copake. Since 2020, there have been dueling lawsuits and appeals involving this project between the Town of Copake and various New York State agencies, contesting not only the project but the power of the Office of Renewable Energy Siting itself to override home rule.

Joining many of the lawsuits against the democratically elected government of Copake have been a hydra of heavily-foundation funded environmental organizations like the Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, the New York League of Conservation Voters, Scenic Hudson and New Yorkers for Clean Power.

In a September 2021 letter to his community, Copake Deputy Town Supervisor Richard Wolf summed up his frustration with the outside groups fighting against his town:

I’d like to make one more point: in their legal papers, neither ACE-NY nor the parties requesting to file an amicus brief, ever even mention Home Rule or the interests and concerns of Copake and the other petitioner-towns. They in effect argue that the petitioners don’t understand the existential threat of climate change and New York’s need to do something about it. Well, we DO get it. We’ve been saying for many months that we want to work with Hecate to develop a right-sized template for rural town solar projects, and that we will advocate for right-sized projects all around the State, so that New York can meet its ambitious renewable energy goals.

It’s safe to say that no one in Copake voted for the aforementioned groups to spend their considerable resources meddling in their affairs.

The latest update? In August of 2023, State Senators Michelle Hinchey and Pete Harckham sent a letter to ORES “underscoring the potential adverse environmental and agricultural impacts of Shepherd’s Run,” urging them to find a more “suitable location for the project.” Hinchey also recently introduced a bill to require ORES to more seriously consider agricultural impacts when siting renewable projects.

It doesn’t sound like they were successful. On August 25, Assemblymember Didi Barrett (who represents Copake) made the following announcement:

Concerned citizens can submit their comments here.

2. Middleburgh

Company: Borrego Energy
Activist Groups: Residents of Middleburgh NY
Project mW: 5
Project Size: 640 feet tall

In 2021, Borrego Solar, Inc. proposed building two industrial wind turbines as part of a community energy project on a farm about four miles outside of the village of Middleburgh, NY in Schoharie County.

The response from residents of the town was swift, and luckily for them, the local government was responsive to the grassroots energy that they showed.

A petition quickly went up that garnered close to 700 signatures:

“We, the residents, homeowners, and business owners of Middleburgh, NY and nearby affected towns, are opposed to the construction of large-scale industrial wind turbines in our town. These turbines will lower our property values, ruin our scenic views, kill wildlife, and have negative effects on the environment, tourism, and the health of residents living near them.”

By the end of May, 2022, the project was withdrawn by Borrego after the town changed its zoning ordinance to prohibit large-scale wind and solar energy projects.

“According to Don Airey, supervisor for the town of Blenheim and chair of the county board’s Energy Committee, the real issue for residents is the question of home rule. He protested the “unbelievable crassness of not only the wind and solar industries, but of our state legislators, our governor, and, you know, agencies like NYSERDA,” in forcing such developments on rural communities without giving them any say in the matter.”

3. Conquest

Company: NextEra Energy Resources
Activist Groups: Conquest Against Industrial Solar, The Rural Preservation and Net Conservation Benefit Coalition
Project mW: 200 + 20 mW of battery storage capacity
Project Size: 2,289 acres

In 2020, NextEra proposed what might be the largest solar array ever built in New York State in Cayuga County called the Garnet Energy Center. In 2021, it was reported:

“But the project is causing division among Conquest neighbors.

Long-time resident Eugene Moretti is against the project because he believes it would industrialize their quiet and for the most part, untouched community.

“We were never a partner, we were never consulted, there was never any outreach to say come here Conquest, come here citizens of Conquest this is something we want you to be a part of this, we want you to sign on,” Moretti said.”

Despite reservations from community activists and Charles Knapp, Town of Conquest Supervisor, in October of 2022, the NYS Board on Electric Generation Siting and the Environment trumpeted their approval of the project. A month later, The Rural Preservation and Net Conservation Benefit Coalition coalesced and filed a rehearing petition, on the grounds of the project’s impacts on wild birds.

Sadly, in February of 2023, the Board unanimously rejected the appeal.

4. Duanesburg

Opposing Groups: Duanesburg Neighbors

As a proactive measure in 2022, the Town of Duanesburg enacted a months-long moratorium on the construction of solar arrays. As of February of 2023, the town was still collecting feedback on the law while they sought to use zoning laws to balance the rights of property owners with the rights of neighbors.

5. Cortlandville

Company: RIC Development of New York
Opposing Groups: Concerned Citizens of Cortland
Project mW: 5
Project Size: n/a

Cortlandville, in Central New York’s Cortland County, is a hotbed of solar development. The latest is this 5 mW proposed for Route 2015, which comes on the heels of much bigger proposals that were highlighted by Concerned Citizens of Cortland:

“$90 million, 90-megawatt project proposed for Homer, Cortlandville and Solon.
$22.1 million, 20-megawatt project in Willet.
$27 million, 15-megawatt project in Lapeer.
project of up to 20 megawatts in Cincinnatus.
Two 5-megawatt projects on Riley Road in Cortlandville.
At least five, and possibly six, projects on properties owned by Gutchess Lumber in Cortlandville.”

The intensity of solar development has led to the resistance. One local resident even posted videos of the neighboring NextEra Energy solar farm from his house, highlighting the consistent hum that comes from the farm whenever the sun is shining.

6. Athens

Company: Freepoint Commodities
Opposing Groups: Saving Greene
Project mW: 5
Project Size: 43.4 acres

In July of 2023, it was announced that after years of Zoning Board fights and a lawsuit that made it to the New York State Supreme Court, a final ruling on a variance for the 43.4 acre Freepoint Solar farm was issued. According to Wave Farm, the Town of Athens Board passed a six-month moratorium on all solar projects for good measure.

Kris Martin, an Admin of Saving Greene: Citizens for Sensible Solar, wrote that solar developers are moving on to easier pickings in poorer parts of the state after this and some of the other proposed projects received organized opposition.

Also, thank you to the people at Saving Greene for having such a great website and we used one of their photos as the featured image of this blog post.

7. Glen

Company: ConnectGen
Opposing Groups: Glen Families Allied for Responsible Management of Land (GlenFARMLand)
Project mW: 250
Project Size: 2,000 acres

In May of 2023, ConnectGen presented plans on two solar megaprojects: Mill Point Solar 1 and Mill Point Solar 2. According to the Daily Gazette, opposition to the project has been strong:

“Widespread criticisms of the proposal have similarly remained consistent among locals concerned about the scope of the massive installation and its potential impact on the rural farming community.

“We still don’t think it’s a good fit for our community. There are better uses for this land,” said Steve Helmin, a resident and co-chair of Glen Families Allied for Responsible Management of Land (GlenFARMLand).”

In addition to fighting this project, GlenFARMLand is spearheading a #stopenergysprawl coalition.

8. Rush

Company: Invenergy
Opposing Groups: Residents United to Save our Hometown (RUSH)
Project mW: 180
Project Size: 2,000 acres

In 2018, the Blackstone-backed solar developer Invenergy signed a number of leases with farmers in Rush, NY to stitch together 2,000 acres of land for a solar mega-project. The group RUSH (Residents United to Save our Hometown) was formed in opposition, and as of the end of 2022, they had successfully delayed the project without a final victory.

In response to RUSH, Invenergy has formed an astroturf group called Finger Lakes for Clean Energy, where they are touting the project’s benefits, including the creation of three permanent jobs and 3,000 sheep that will graze the site.

9. Barre

Company: Apex Clean Energy
Opposing Groups: Clear Skies Above Barre, Inc.
Project mW: 180
Project Size: 33 Turbines, 650 Feet Tall

Since 2018, Clear Skies Above Barre has organized a door-to-door and online campaign to “protect the health, safety and welfare of the residents of Barre and surrounding communities that would be impacted by industrial wind development, that values a sense of community and neighborhood relations.”

Currently, they’re fighting against the proposed Heritage Wind Project, which promises to build what are believed to be the tallest wind turbines in the entire United States, and taller than any building in Western New York.

10. Collins

Company: EDF Renewables
Opposing Groups: Concerned Citizens of the Collins Wind Project
Project mW: 200
Project Size: 30-40 Wind Turbines

“We don’t want this to be the town of windmills and turbines… this is farm land. We want to keep it that way.”

One of the latest developing fights against renewables is in North Collins, NY.

“A few concerned citizens came together when they learned about The Collins Wind Project that was targeting prime farmlands in their hometowns. The goal of the project is to have 35-40 industrial wind turbines at a height of 650 feet each in the North Collins, Collins, Brant, Concord, and Eden areas.  With the negative impact this could have on safety and health of our communities our group quickly grew to over 1,000+ members in just two months. The Collins Wind Project would have the largest turbines in all of New York and only a few feet shorter than the largest in all of the United States!”

A fundraiser is currently running to help raise money to mount a legal defense.

11. Rotterdam

At the end of 2022, the Town of Rotterdam approved a yearlong moratorium on large-scale solar arrays, after the community had been targeted by multiple solar projects that caused backlash.

The moratorium in Rotterdam is part of the ongoing backlash in rural America against the encroachment of large wind and solar projects. These rejections are an inconvenient truth for the myriad NGOs, climate activists, academics, & corporations

— Robert Bryce (@pwrhungry) January 13, 2023

According to the Daily Gazette, the moratorium is a chance for the Town to take a step back and evaluate their options.

“Board member Joseph Mastroianni said he understands that solar energy plays a role in preserving the environment for future generations, but raised concerns about more short-term impacts that large-scale projects present for the town.

“The 12-month moratorium is going to allow us to understand particular projects as well as the general environment of this issue,” he said.”

12. Lake Ontario

Company: Apex Clean Energy
Opposing Groups: Save Ontario Shores, Inc.
Project mW: 200
Project Size: 45-70 Wind Turbines

In early 2015, Save Ontario Shores formed in opposition to a massive proposed development of wind turbines around Lake Ontario. Thanks to their tireless efforts, Apex Clean Energy withdrew their application this summer. However, SOS isn’t going anywhere; they are a plaintiff in a larger lawsuit against the state Office of Renewable Energy Siting.

13. Lake Erie

Company: Great Lakes Wind Project
Opposing Groups: Citizens Against Wind Turbines in Lake Erie (CAWTILE)

For years, environmental groups, renewable developers and liberal politicians have eyed Lake Erie as a potential place for what they believe is abundant and cheap wind energy. However, even the New York State Energy Research Development Authority (NYSERDA) no longer believed in January that such a project is feasible, mostly due to the brutally bad economics of wind power.

Leading the fight against such a project is Citizens Against Wind Turbines in Lake Erie. Despite the negative NYSERDA report, a Westchester-based State Senator is still insisting on pushing a project through.

To protect the interests of the neighboring communities, on August 19, CAWTILE partnered with legislative champions like Congressman Nick Langworthy, State Senator George Borrello, State Senator Pat Gallivan, Assemblyman David DiPietro, Assemblyman Andy Goodell and Erie County Legislator John Mills to put on a “It’s Not Over Till It’s Over” boat rally to show their opposition.

“Our Great Lakes are the lifeblood of our communities, providing recreation, clean water and economic vitality,”” Langworthy said in a statement supporting the group. “One of my first actions in Congress, introducing H.R. 426, the Lakes Before Turbines Act, will protect our environment and local economies from ill-conceived wind energy projects on these waters.”

What did we miss? Help us write part two of this article by getting in touch with us at info@nyenergyalliance.org and letting us know about your community’s fight against unfair renewable energy siting.

On April 25, 2023 the NYEA spoke at a public hearing of the Indian Point Decommissioning Board. The main topic of the night was Holtec’s plan to release water into the Hudson River as part of the Indian Point decommissioning process. As pointed out by Holtec this is already allowed by existing permits and has been done safely by previous plant operators for decades. However, “environmental” NGOs (most prominently Food and Water Watch but also Sloop Clearwater, The Sierra Club, and Riverkeeper) have jumped on this routine plan as another opportunity to attack nuclear energy. Their assertions have included:

• Overblown concerns about the safety of the tritium in the water and the effect it could have on tourism, nature, and health 
• Proposals of additional oversight and more expensive remediation (namely storage on site for decades) 
• Technocratic nitpicking about how the discharge license was for an operational plant, not a closed plant (as if that changes anything about the water) 
• Claiming it is Holtec’s corporate greed that makes them “cut corners” with this discharge plan in order to save a buck

Some even used this opportunity to continue their hypocritical attack against the Champlain Hudson Power Express transmission line, saying it would disturb the bottom of the Hudson and cause further pollution. 

The hypocritical content of these attacks reveals the anti-industrial nature of their source. The tritium has been discharged safely for years, and the radiation is much lower than what we are exposed to in our daily life or at a medical appointment. Permits can be reissued. And, as we point out in our statement, Holtec gets paid for whatever they do with the water; pour it into the river, hold it on site for decades, fire it into space, taxpayers will pay for it (it’s their whole business model). Whatever additional requirements Holtec is made to do, it will only be used as a precedent by these same groups to put further erroneous demands on future plants in the hopes of keeping them from even being built and not affect Holtec’s bottom line one bit.

Many also predictably brought up the numerous local, county, and state level representatives that have spoken out, and taken measures, against the discharge. All of these politicians are comfortable in the knowledge that new nuclear will not get built until the aforementioned NGO’s are overthrown, so get free brownie points by going against the “big bad company” with no downsides. 

Taken together, this should not be seen as a representation of the people’s will, but as a one win-win charade for everyone except the working people of New York. They are the ones left without reliable energy and without jobs, and they have to pay for the decommissioning. This whole process reveals yet again the lengths the anti-industrialists will go to achieve their policies in the name of the “environment.” The NGO’s should be ignored, the water should be discharged, and, most importantly, New York should focus on commissioning the cheap and reliable energy we all need to thrive.

Statement transcript:

Hello Indian Point DOB, NYS DPS, and fellow citizens, I am Brian Wilson with the New York Energy Alliance and thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight. I am here to comment on Holtec’s plan to discharge water from the Indian Point site into the Hudson and the general response to said plan. This process has degraded into a win-win charade for everyone except the working people of New York State.

For the quote-on-quote “environmental” NGO’s sounding the alarm and opposing this plan, this is just another chance to get their digs in against nuclear power while also trying to make it just that much harder to build another plant within the state. For Holtec, this just becomes another way to make money on the decommissioning of Indian Point. The water is going to be dealt with, and whatever ridiculous hoops they are made to jump through they are going to be paid for by you and I.

For politicians this becomes an easy photo op to go against the quote-on-quote big bad polluting corporation. They know a new nuclear plant will not be built in this state until the aforementioned obstructionist NGO’s are pushed out of power by labor and industry, so lose nothing in being against discharging the water.

The working people of NY, however, are only left with a lackluster and expensive theater performance. The decommissioning process should not be allowed to be bogged down by spotlight chasers trying to grab a megaphone. It should, instead, be executed in a reasonable and timely manner so that NY’s focus can switch from decommissioning to commissioning the cheap, plentiful, and reliable energy it needs for its industries and people to prosper.

ALBANY, N.Y. — Changing New York’s unique accounting method for greenhouse gas emissions has become an unexpected issue in state budget talks — sparking concern among environmental groups.

The proposal has support from the fossil fuel industry and would likely enable more combustion of natural gas and other fuels for longer than currently envisioned under New York’s climate law in a plan approved in December.

Gov. Kathy Hochul is supportive of the change, which was also proposed in a bill sponsored by Energy Committee Chair Sen. Kevin Parker on Monday, and it has come up in budget negotiations. Some other Senate Democrats are not supportive of the proposal.

“The 20-year methane accounting reflects the reality of the climate impact of burning natural gas,” said Sen. Liz Krueger (D-Manhattan), who chairs the powerful Senate Finance Committee, in a statement. “It is one of the strongest parts of the [state’s climate law]. Giving in to the polluter lobby by weakening our methane accounting will kneecap all our efforts going forward.”

New York is the one of only two jurisdictions to use a 20-year time horizon to account for the damaging effects of planet-warming gasses instead of 100 years. Maryland’s 2022 climate law also uses the 20-year metric.

This important distinction was a key provision pushed by supporters of the state’s Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act passed in 2019. It makes methane, the main component of natural gas, more potent than under the longer accounting timeline. Backers say this more accurately reflects the short-term warming impact of greenhouse gasses and the urgency around reducing emissions.

Hochul’s administration has been examining the issue of accounting for greenhouse gasses for the past few months.

The governor indicated in her State of the State address in January that she wants to link a proposed cap-and-trade policy for emissions in New York with other states. She directed state agencies to analyze the cost of using international accounting methods compared to the state’s law for cap-and-trade. California and other markets all use the 100-year timeline and incorporate the benefits of capturing emissions from biofuels before they’re burned.

“We’re getting closer to the time when these costs would begin to show up for New Yorkers,” said a person in the governor’s office who requested anonymity to candidly discuss negotiations. “New York has an outlier greenhouse gas emissions accounting methodology, and that emissions accounting methodology will drive additional costs to consumers as compared to the accounting methodology utilized by the rest of the world.”

The cost of using the CLCPA accounting metrics has not been fully analyzed, according to the governor’s office, and they’re focused on affordability as a key component in budget negotiations around cap-and-invest and climate policies.

The state’s most recent greenhouse gas inventory for 2022 shows emissions are about 170 million tons higher under the state’s accounting framework than the international standard used by the federal government and other states. That includes “upstream” emissions that occur outside New York.

“To achieve the CLCPA statewide emissions targets, New Yorkers would be financially responsible for eliminating those inflated emissions and out of state emissions,” the person in the governor’s office said.

Hochul’s top energy officials have publicly defended the estimated costs, which in the climate plan approved in December use New York’s accounting rules, as being a small fraction of the state’s economic output. They’ve repeatedly said that the net health and climate benefits outweigh those costs.

The CLCPA mandates that New York reduces emissions 40 percent from 1990 levels by 2030 and 85 percent by 2050, with the remainder offset to hit net zero. Under the current accounting, those reductions will require an aggressive electrification of buildings that currently rely on natural gas. There’s also little incentive under the current framework to use low-carbon fuels like renewable natural gas or biodiesel.

“At the end of the day, we just have to get to net zero, not absolute zero, and we have until 2050,” Parker said. “Part of what we have from the ecoterrorists is an attempt to move the goalposts.”

Environmentalists rally opposition

At least a dozen environmental groups have sent memos opposing Parker’s bill, S6030, since it was introduced on Monday including Sierra Club, Earthjustice, NY Renews, New York Lawyers for the Public Interest, Food and Water Watch and Environmental Advocates NY.

“Governor Hochul would side with the fossil fuel industry to torpedo New York’s landmark climate law, along with her own budget proposals to address the climate crisis, should she move forward with a proposal to weaken the state’s accounting for methane emissions,” said Earthjustice’s New York policy advocate Liz Moran. “The Governor and the Legislature still have the opportunity to make this a winning budget for the climate, but that is thrown to the wind if they cave to fossil fuel interests to gut New York’s climate law.”

Parker said the 20-year timeline makes achieving the state’s climate goals more expensive, as utilities pass costs along to ratepayers. He also said New York using its own accounting method ignores the need for a global solution to reduce emissions.

“It creates an easier time horizon and cost horizon for companies to use as they go into this process,” he added. “At the end of the day, something that works is better than something that’s fast.”

Proposals to give rebates to New York residents from climate funds raised under a cap on pollution would address concerns about cost for residents, said New York City Environmental Justice Alliance executive director Eddie Bautista.

“That would make sure that costs are not regressive,” he said. “The senator’s bill endangers the emissions goal that environmental justice communities have fought for for decades.”

Accessing federal money

National Grid, one of the state’s largest gas and electric utilities, and National Fuel, the largest gas-only utility, have previously pushed to change the accounting framework.

The forestry industry, the Clean Fuels Alliance that represents producers of alternative fuels and airlines are all supportive of Parker’s proposed measure. One argument they’re making is that New York needs to align its accounting with federal standards for companies to easily access incentives from the Inflation Reduction Act.

“If we don’t have this accounting we could lose billions of dollars of new investment,” said John Bartow, executive director of the Empire State Forest Products Association. “It’s more expensive to accomplish our emissions reductions using a 20 year” accounting method.

Bartow cited a report prepared by Tristan Brown, an associate professor at SUNY ESF, that seeks to calculate benefits of the state supporting use of low-carbon fuels.

These groups have also been supportive of a low-carbon fuel standard for transportation, which would incentivize displacing fossil fuels with biodiesel and other alternatives. Detractors are wary this would simply prolong the use of combustion engines that still emit co-pollutants rather than accelerate electrification.

Another change in the bill that’s drawn support from groups pushing for broader use of low-carbon fuels is requiring Department of Environmental Conservation to change the way it accounts for burning renewable natural gas produced from sources like crops or cow manure. Right now, DEC calculates those as very similar to burning fossil fuels.

“You’re severely discouraging investments in New York from low carbon fuel providers who might otherwise come to the state,” said Floyd Vergara, the director of state governmental affairs for the Clean Fuels Alliance of America. He said the group is not involved with the push to change the time horizon for greenhouse gas accounting.

Assemblymember Deborah Glick (D-Manhattan), who chairs the Environmental Conservation Committee, is not persuaded. She said federal officials have indicated that funding from the IRA will be based on individual projects, not the state’s plans.

“It clearly is the fossil fuel industry that is trying to stir up that there’s a big problem,” Glick said. “It’s a complete red herring.”

Glick said she would not support the Hochul administration’s pitch to change the accounting under the cap-and-trade proposal.

“It’s all very preliminary, but not good,” she said. “We’re not interested in doing things that erode the goals of the CLCPA. You set aggressive goals. You understand that you work as hard as you can to reach a goal, sometimes you don’t, but you don’t undermine your goal at the outset.”

With the Build Public Renewables Act (the BPRA) going into the NYS Assembly yet again, and its anti-worker NGO coalition pushing for its final passage, it is worth revisiting its major flaws. For those unaware, the BPRA nominally would allow the New York Power Authority (NYPA), who historically built and operated nuclear, hydro, hydrocarbon, and transmission resources for the benefit of all New Yorkers, to get into the game of building and operating renewable energy projects. However, as many other articles across the political spectrum have pointed out, the bill would bar NYPA from ever building another nuclear plant ever again, force the premature closure of its modern NYC peaker plants (actually making the grid dirtier), reduce NYPA’s flexibility, is undemocratic with its empowering of unaccountable NGOs, depends on wonky means testing in an attempt to reduce energy prices, and would bar municipalities and state buildings from purchasing power from local, non-renewable, sources (unless a bunch of wonky criteria is met). Many of these problems were addressed in a much improved version of this bill included in Governor Hochul’s budget proposal. However, this is not enough for the NGOs behind this bill who are still pushing for the original bill’s passage. This shows they are more ideologically committed to their preferred energy source than providing cheap and reliable electricity for working people of this great state and the industries that fuel its economy.

It is worth going into more detail for the last issue raised above, as many of the deep dives into the BPRA have not looked closely at the municipal power procurement provision (it was a late addition to the bill). The specific language for this part of this bill, condensed down, is as follows (section 34 of the BPRA):

“…the authority shall be the sole provider of electricity to all state owned, leased, controlled, or operated buildings and … the authority shall be the sole provider of electricity to all municipal owned, leased, controlled, or operated buildings that use electricity.” (Note the only way out of this is if NYPA’s power is more expensive or if the municipality can get 100% renewable power elsewhere).

This is a nonsensical addition to the BPRA that would allow even greater overreach by NYS in pursuing its irrational energy policy. Not only have municipalities lost their constitutional right to oppose renewable projects and may be forced to subsidize renewable projects, they will now be forced to, somehow, guarantee the power they buy is renewable too. How does this make sense for the cities and towns of Syracuse, Rochester, Oswego, Ontario, Scriba, Fulton, Pulaski, Pultneyville, Lyons and many others to not get there electricity form the abundant and cheap nuclear power that is right next door; or for Downstate municipalities not to be able to have all options on the table as reliability margins grow thinner? What is more likely to happen is a shell game of renewable energy credits (RECs) where towns now have to buy pieces of paper saying their buildings are “green” while still getting their actual power from whatever grid they are on. Our courthouses, city halls, and DMV offices are not powered by paper, but by electrons, and this will just lead to further costs to overburdened municipalities.

New York State’s climate policies are hurting the working people of this state and is being pushed to pursue even more irrational ones. We do not need a gun to our head forcing us to build and buy unreliable electricity; we need cheap reliable power that treats local governments and people as a partner and not as an obstacle. If you found yourself in agreement with what was said here, this Sunday (March 26^th 2-4:30 PM) at the Columbia Greene Community College Theater many speakers who are experts on this topic are gathering to talk about the wider NYS Climate Law and the damage it is doing to New Yorkers. The NYEA will be sending a representative to attend, and we hope to see you there.

On March 1, the Otsego County Board of Representatives stood up for their constituents by voting unanimously to oppose a key provision of Gov. Kathy Hochul’s executive budget. Under Hochul’s proposed change to Real Property Tax Law, local municipalities would lose the right to assess solar and wind projects at full value, in effect forcing local taxpayers to subsidize corporate development in their communities. With artificially low appraisal values, communities would be deprived of important tax revenue needed to sustain public services.

New York state energy policy has run into significant opposition in upstate New York. Although this resistance might be characterized as NIMBY behavior, much of the activism is motivated by the gradual obliteration of communities’ rights to home rule, as defined in Article IX of the state constitution. Communities are increasingly deprived of the means to protect their resources and to share in the benefits of needed development.

New York has been undermining home rule for a long time. Earlier deregulation of the power industry divided up the energy pie between private (inevitably nonlocal, out-of-state or even global) corporations and large state-run agencies (the New York Power Authority). The option of municipal ownership and control over power generation and transmission, previously established by nearly 50 New York communities, has been effectively shut down. Today large corporations, many of them foreign-owned, have moved into the upstate energy business. New York State Electric and Gas, which has long served much of central New York, is now owned by a Spanish company. The developer of a large proposed solar project in nearby Herkimer county is a French corporation.

More recently, to implement its goal of 100 percent clean, carbon-free electricity by 2040, the state in 2020 created the Office of Renewable Energy Siting, which stripped local communities of the right to evaluate and permit large renewable-energy projects (over 25 megawatts). As a result, local governments have been bypassed on the most important energy policy decisions of the day. The right of our communities to manage their own energy needs – perhaps the best long-term solution to the energy problem — has been lost, and it needs to be restored.

Without local control, clean energy needed to fight climate change will be extracted from our communities and exported elsewhere. Otsego County will become an energy colony run by distant government agencies and global corporations. Our resources will be taken without our approval and without compensation. The industrialization of our rural landscape will be a net loss to us. The profits generated will leave the community.

Solar and wind projects may well be necessary, but currently they are not an economic benefit for upstate communities. Quite the opposite: They industrialize large tracts of land and in return offer few jobs and token benefits to residents, who must bear the externalized costs of the environmental impacts on their communities.

If renewable energy is to be exported from upstate counties to other communities, the playing field needs to be leveled. That can only be done on terms acceptable to municipalities. Impacts would have to be mitigated to their satisfaction, and significant financial benefits would have to be retained locally.

Some communities would choose to accept renewable-energy projects in return for the financial benefits, if those benefits were legally guaranteed. Others would choose to forgo energy projects to protect other assets more important to them. In the end, projects would be vetted by a democratic community decision-making process. They would end up located where they are most wanted and needed, and where they would have to share their profits. The question is who decides: corporations and state agencies, or the people? If home rule is restored, the people will decide.

Adrian Kuzminski is a member of Sustainable Otsego, a nonpartisan political action committee in central New York focused on sustainable living, economic independence and home rule.

Clean hydrogen production is underway at the Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station in Oswego, New York. The facility is the first-of-its-kind in the United States to generate clean hydrogen using nuclear power. 

This nuclear milestone is part of a $14.5 million cost shared project between the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and Constellation to demonstrate how nuclear power plants can help lower the cost and scale-up the production of clean hydrogen.

Constellation will use the hydrogen generated on-site to help cool the power plant.

Demonstrating Clean Hydrogen Production

DOE supported the construction and installation of a low-temperature electrolysis system at the Nine Mile Point nuclear power plant that leverages the facility’s existing hydrogen storage system.

Constellation’s new Hydrogen Generation System produces hydrogen without emissions by using electricity generated at the plant to split water into hydrogen and oxygen.

The system started producing clean hydrogen in February to supply hydrogen for plant operations—a process that was previously dependent on trucked-in deliveries of hydrogen made from fossil fuels. 

“This accomplishment tangibly demonstrates that our nation’s existing reactor fleet can produce clean hydrogen today,” said Dr. Kathryn Huff, Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy. “DOE is proud to support cost-shared projects like this to deliver affordable clean hydrogen. The investments we’re starting to make now through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and Inflation Reduction Act will further expand the clean hydrogen market to create new economic and environmental benefits for nuclear energy.”

“Hydrogen will be an indispensable tool in solving the climate crisis, and Nine Mile Point is going to show the world that nuclear power is the most efficient and cost-effective way to make it from a carbon-free resource,” said Joe Dominguez, president and CEO of Constellation. “In partnership with DOE and others, we see this technology creating a pathway to decarbonizing industries that remain heavily reliant on fossil fuels, while creating clean-energy jobs and strengthening domestic energy security.”

Scaling-Up Clean Hydrogen Infrastructure

Roughly 95 percent of the hydrogen produced in the United States is currently sourced from fossil fuels—opening up new market opportunities for nuclear energy.

The Hydrogen Generation System at Nine Mile Point is one of four projects supported by DOE to demonstrate clean hydrogen production at commercial nuclear power plants.

In addition to these demonstrations, DOE is investing billions through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and Inflation Reduction Act to develop and mature clean hydrogen production in the United States to help lower emissions and create new job opportunities for American workers.

It also supports the Department’s Hydrogen Shot goal of reducing the cost of hydrogen by 80 percent to $1 per 1 kilogram in 1 decade. 

Constellation plans to monitor the performance of the new system as it considers the possible deployment of other hydrogen systems at additional sites.

A county dairy farm says it may be forced to downgrade or even close due to good farmland potentially being sold to solar project developers.

John and Laura Knight, along with Travis and Julia Olmstead, penned a letter on behalf of Mid-Knight Dairy LLC to the Chautauqua County Agricultural Farmland Protection Board. The farm is located at 3232 Fluvanna Townline Road in the town of Ellicott.

In their letter, they said they stand to lose well-drained, valuable ground that borders their farm that they’ve rented for 35 years. The landowners are apparently looking to lease the property for a solar farm.

“There is no land that even comes close to the caliper of ground that we would lose to a potential project,” they wrote.

The authors said they financially cannot compete with this type of development.

“We cannot place the blame entirely on our neighbor. Who would not jump at the opportunity to receive the amount of money that solar companies can pay? Their offer far exceeds anything in rent or even if we were to make an offer to buy the land ourselves,” they wrote.

Mid-Knight Dairy members added that should this land no longer be available, their costs to farm are going to go up and they’re going to be using more gas and oil. “If we lose this land we will have to pick up more land miles away.

We will spend far more money on fuel, tractor tires and labor. Again, more fossil fuel used all in the name of ‘clean energy,’” they wrote

And if they cannot find alternative land, other drastic measures may be taken. “If we cannot find suitable land we may be forced to sell cows or the farm due to a shortage of forages to feed our animals. A loss of a local farm like ours means more food will need to be transported from further away,” they wrote.

The dairy farm started in 1836 and has grown from 30 to 150 cows. “Good, close farmland is a crucial part of our family business. For many farms like ours losing prime cropland can be catastrophic,” they wrote.

Representatives with Mid-Knight Dairy said politicians must look at the big picture.

“We are not against renewable energy but we think that placing solar farms on prime farmland is shortsighted. How will we feed the rising human population if we destroy good farmland? We must protect our most valuable resource: land used for food production. We can live without many things in life, food is NOT one of them,” they wrote.

Steve Kimball, chairman of the county Agricultural Farmland Protection Board forwarded their letter to the county legislature. He said this is not the first time their board has received such comments.

“The potential negative effects of solar projects will be significantly felt by farmers as productive farmland is converted from agricultural uses,” he said.