When public officials reach for over-the-top metaphors, more often than not it\u2019s an effort to distract the public from the question at hand.\u00a0 Such was the case when Governor Cuomo argued that the state should spend billions of ratepayer dollars to shore up New York\u2019s aging nuclear power plants.<\/p>\n
Last week, the governor defended his plan when a reporter asked if nuclear had a role in the state\u2019s energy portfolio. \u00a0The governor responded that there were protesters for virtually all of the state\u2019s energy sources, including gas, coal and nuclear. He said, when combined with renewables, nuclear was an important energy source going forward.<\/p>\n
\u201cUnless we\u2019re willing to go back to candles, which would be uncomfortable and inconvenient, we need energy generation,\u201d Cuomo said.<\/p>\n
Of course, the issue is not whether the state should subsidize nuclear power or return to candle power.\u00a0 The question is should the state spend big bucks to prop up a 20th<\/sup> century power source that has a host of significant problems?<\/p>\n The Cuomo Administration is arguing to preserve the plants because they\u2019re an emissions-free power source. \u00a0The plan to preserve the facilities is being included in the state\u2019s Clean Energy Standard plan, which mandates that New York receive about half its power from renewables, such as solar and wind power, by 2030.<\/p>\n The agency handling the decision is the Public Service Commission.\u00a0 The PSC is considering a plan\u00a0that offers nearly $1 billion in ratepayer-financed subsidies over each of the next two years to save nuke plants battered by rising costs and competition from cheap natural gas.<\/p>\n That subsidy is likely to grow to the multibillion-dollar range over the 12-year period proposed by the state.\u00a0 Approval of the subsidies would make New York one of the first states to reward nuclear plants.<\/p>\n The PSC outlined the plan in January, saying that the subsidy could cost anywhere from $59 million to $658 million by 2023.\u00a0 But recently the Administration disclosed that the actual amount would be closer to $1 billion over the first two years. \u00a0And that costs would climb steeply thereafter. \u00a0The plan could cost $8 billion over the next 12 years, with all of the cost passed on to New York\u2019s ratepayers by adding the subsidies to monthly utility bills.<\/p>\n From the state\u2019s perspective, the subsidies are a way of putting a dollar value on the benefits of a reliable carbon-free power source. \u00a0The Administration also argues that the estimates of costs to ratepayers\u2019 utility bills do not consider possible rising energy costs as well as the cost of providing energy if the plants were shut down due to lack of public financial support.<\/p>\n Propping them up for now, supporters say, will give the state time to foster a stable mix of renewable energy sources.\u00a0 The plants accounted for about a third of the power New York generated last year, as well as more than half of its emissions-free energy.<\/p>\n Those rosy estimates ignore other costs \u2013 there is plenty of fossil fuel burned to mine and transport the uranium used in the energy production process and, of course, there are the issues of disposal of the radioactive wastes and the dangers associated with these power plants generally.<\/p>\n Right now and for the foreseeable future, the plants themselves are the storage sites for radioactive wastes, which must be kept secure for thousands of years.\u00a0 As seen in the recent Japanese disaster, these types of power plants can cause devastating damage if an accident occurs.<\/p>\n In addition to possible public health concerns, it was that staggering sum in the growth of the ratepayer subsidy\u2014revised upward close to the end of the comment period– that caused watchdog groups to question whether the state is about to approve a major industry bailout with minimal public scrutiny \u2014 even though it is the public\u2019s utility bills that will grow.<\/p>\n The Administration has set an aggressive schedule for consideration of its plan with only a two-week public comment period. \u00a0The PSC is expected to act at its August 1 meeting.<\/p>\n That\u2019s an extremely tight timetable.\u00a0 Too often, the Cuomo Administration has advanced costly plans without adequate public review.\u00a0 The multi-billion dollar new Tappan Zee Bridge still does not have a financial plan that would let the public know of future increases in roadway tolls, for example.<\/p>\n It is the public\u2019s money.\u00a0 If they are informed, and agree to accept the costs and risks, then the plan is worth debating.\u00a0 But it is wrong to move ahead without a robust public debate.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" When public officials reach for over-the-top metaphors, more often than not it\u2019s an effort to distract the public from the question at hand.\u00a0 Such was the case when Governor Cuomo argued that the state should spend billions of ratepayer dollars to shore up New York\u2019s aging nuclear power plants. Last week, the governor defended his […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1708","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nypirg.org\/capitolperspective\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1708","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nypirg.org\/capitolperspective\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nypirg.org\/capitolperspective\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nypirg.org\/capitolperspective\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nypirg.org\/capitolperspective\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1708"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/www.nypirg.org\/capitolperspective\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1708\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1712,"href":"https:\/\/www.nypirg.org\/capitolperspective\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1708\/revisions\/1712"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nypirg.org\/capitolperspective\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1708"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nypirg.org\/capitolperspective\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1708"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nypirg.org\/capitolperspective\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1708"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}