Your June 11 editorial, "Power politics," spoke of setting an example for the nation by embracing clean, renewable energy within the context of the currently debated Article X siting law. Yet you also stated that it is unrealistic to assume that alternative energy sources alone can meet the demands of today.
You were correct on both counts, which is why it is imperative that the state's next power plant siting law be fuel-neutral, ensuring that New York does not face threats to its electric system reliability.
New York already sets an example for the nation through its Renewable Portfolio Standard program, which aims to have 25 percent of the state's power provided through renewable resources by 2013. However, by 2011 (according to the New York Independent System Operator), New York's energy resources will have dipped to a level that puts electric system reliability in jeopardy.
The reason: New York needs additional generation but does not have a power plant siting law that facilitates the development and construction of this much-needed generation. What kind of example would it set for the country if New York were unable to provide its own reliable power?
To avoid such a circumstance, New York's siting law must be open to all technologies that conform to the state's existing environmental regulations (which happen to be among the strictest in the country).
If a plant can operate within New York's existing regulations, why shouldn't it be part of the solution to meet rising energy demand? Clean coal technology has the potential to allow plants to operate at near zero emissions; nuclear power already achieves that goal. It makes no sense to institute a policy that excludes their contributions.
GAVIN DONOHUE
President and CEO
Independent Power Producers of NY
Albany
No comments:
Post a Comment