The rejected Op-Ed below was written in response to a recent Newsday Story titled: 

NY will Not Alter Renewable Energy Policy

Governor Hochul has been pushing the NYS into the land of renewable energy with plans to have 70% of energy demand from renewables by 2030. On Long Island, that means windmills off our shores; new transmission lines (Propel/Transco) and numerous battery storage (BESS) facilities. Although all vendors violently disagree, these projects are, of course, related. That is made clear in a NYISO promotional document which states:

“Driven by the goals of the CLCPA, the PSC declared the Long Island Offshore Wind Export Public Policy Transmission Need in March 2021. The need sought to increase the export capability from Long Island to the rest of the state to ensure access to a minimum of 3,000 MW of offshore wind.” On June 13, 2023, the NYISO Board of Directors selected one project (Propel/Transco) identified as the more efficient or cost effective solution.”

This makes it abundantly clear that these projects are all interrelated. They may not be 100% dependent on each other, but they are definitely connected. Why the big rush? Because of climate change. Heaven forbid anyone should question such lofty aspirations, but I will.

Windmills

In particular, I note the following from page 76 of Volume II of the Final Environmental Impact Statement for Vineyard 1, an off-shore wind project off the coast of Martha’s Vineyard. It reads (my emphasis)

“The additional GHG emissions anticipated from the Proposed Action (Vineyard 1) over the 30-year period would have a negligible incremental contribution on existing GHG emissions. Therefore, the Proposed Action would have negligible impacts on climate change during these activities and an overall minor beneficial impact on GHG emissions compared to the generation of the same amount of energy by the existing grids… Overall, it is anticipated that there would be no collective impact on global warming as a result of offshore wind projects, including the Proposed Action alone, though they may beneficially contribute to a broader combination of actions to reduce future impacts from climate change.”

This FEIS, coming from the Biden EPA in 2021, is, if anything, biased in favor of wind energy, and the best outcome they can come up with is a negligible impact on climate change.

But there are costs as well. At Vineyard 1, off Nantucket, a windmill blade broke during commissioning(!) and closed the beaches on Nantucket for several days. Imagine a similar incident closing Jones Beach and/or Long Beach for several days. Lost business for local stores, lost sales taxes for the County, cleanup costs to collect and remove the debris and the inevitable lawsuits that would be filed. For what? A negligible impact on climate change.

Propel

Propel is the new estimated $3.26 billion transmission backbone required to move wind power to upstate NY. The project calls for roughly 90 miles of new transmission cables across Nassau County, Long Island Sound and into Westchester. The pitch is that they are modernizing the grid because the existing grid is old. The problem with that statement is that the Propel plan will replace exactly zero miles of the existing grid. This is not about modernization, it is about a whole new infrastructure to move wind power upstate. I'll concede that there are likely some local benefits as well, but the primary purpose is to move wind power. 

Propel claims this will add about $2 /mo. to electric bills because the cost is spread over ratepayers across the entire state. Of course, this is not the only new transmission project and all those projects will be spread over the entire state too.  So how much will it really add to our electric bills? They won’t discuss that. And of course, we have had some inflation since the 3.26 billion cost estimate was made, and when was the last government project that did not go massively over budget? 

NYS recently agreed to pay more than $150/GWH (15 cents per kwh) to a windmill company, but on my last bill, I was paying less than 12 cents per kwh for power. And because wind is intermittent, battery facilities must pick up the slack. How much is that going to add to my bill? It’s not hard to see Long Island’s electric bills skyrocketing. Why? To pay for a negligible impact on global climate change. 

And don’t forget the enormous disruption as Nassau County roads from South Shore to North shore are torn up exacerbating the typical traffic problems we experience every day over the four year construction project. And don't forget the concern about EMF emissions from these underground cables if you are unlucky enough to be on their route.

And here is the kicker. The Potomac Economics report that analyzed the transmission project proposals for NYISO came to this conclusion in May of 2023 (my emphasis):

Given the estimated investment lead time of around six years and small benefits before 2040, it is premature to move forward with a capital-intensive transmission project at this time. These results support the following conclusions and recommendations:

·       It is not advisable to move forward with one of the proposed transmission projects at this time given the magnitude and timing of the potential benefits. This process could be reinitiated in future years if warranted.

·       If the NYISO determines that it must or should select a project, we recommend that it reconsider its recommendation of T051 [Propel] since it does not appear to be the most cost effective project.

·       We recommend that the NYISO provide initial estimates of costs and benefits of generic potential transmission solutions to the PSC to inform future PPTN determinations.

Why is NY rushing to build a project that is premature and not the most cost effective? To have a negligible impact on climate change.

Battery Storage

The experience at Moss Landing should be more than enough to convince anyone thinking logically that maybe we are acting in haste when installing these battery facilities, especially in residential areas. At Moss Landing, health impacts and heavy metal contamination have been reported more than 20 miles from the site of the fire. Draw a 20 mile radius around the proposed Glenwood Landing storage site and you will find that it encompasses most of Nassau County!

The site at Glenwood Landing has an elementary school within ½ mile and a middle and high school within about 1 mile. Exactly how would anyone be able to evacuate? At Moss Landing, the gov’t recommended that people who could not evacuate shelter in place and ‘wear a well-fitting respirator’. How many homes in the area do you think have well-fitting respirators lying around the house?

The local Fire Department has informed the Town that they are incapable of handling an emergency at the BESS facility, and several more have followed that lead. Yet somehow these facilities should still be constructed. Why? For negligible impact on climate change.

And it’s not just BESS systems. Did you see the 60 Minutes segment on the aftermath of the wildfires and the problems that lithium batteries are causing? If not, here is a link. After you watch, think about the broader implications. Insurance costs have to increase substantially. A burned out house now has to contend with contamination from burning batteries and the cost of clean-up and rebuilding is substantially higher. How does this make sense?

I fully understand the desire for clean energy, but rushing headlong into these projects at a cost in the tens of billions makes absolutely no sense. The enormous cost, both in terms of dollars and public safety, far outweighs the benefit of a 'negligible impact on climate change'. This is nothing more than ‘feel good’ environmentalism - that is, do something that makes us feel better, even if it makes no difference to the problem whatsoever. Think plastic recycling… People think that because they put plastic in a blue bin it is magically recycled. The reality is that 95% of it is not recycled. They choose to ignore that fact because it allows them to feel good about filling that blue bucket. In this case, these uneconomic choices are also potentially dangerous and most certainly disruptive to life on Long Island. There are cases where we will need to make sacrifices for the sake of progress, but there is scant evidence that this is one of them.