PUBLIC HEARING: TO EXAMINE AND ANALYZE THE PLANS, CONTENTIONS, AND ARGUMENTS PUT FORWARD IN RELATION TO THE INDIAN POINT CONTINGENCY PROCEEDING BEING CONDUCTED BY THE NEW YORK STATE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

Radiation & Public Health Project 11 12 13 ---oOo--- 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 SENATOR MAZIARZ: Good morning, everyone. 2 If I could call this hearing to order, 3 I, first of all, want to state for the record that 4 today is Monday, September the 30th, at 5 approximately 10:15 p.m. [sic]. 6 We are starting a meeting of the 7 Senate Energy Committee, a public hearing on the 8 Indian Point contingency plan. 9 For all those who are present, I want to 10 thank you all for your attendance. 11 Apologize probably for the long line -- long, 12 hot line that you had to wait in to get through 13 security to get into this building. 14 I appreciate your patience, as do my 15 colleagues. 16 I'm joined today by Senator Patricia Ritchie 17 from the North Country. 18 I do want to say, just again for the record, 19 that we have had responses of members of the Senate 20 and this Committee who will attend. 21 Those of you who are familiar with these 22 hearings know that members do come and go based on 23 their own time considerations. 24 I certainly appreciate all of their 25 attention. 1 We will be joined shortly by 2 Senator David Carlucci; Senator Eric Adams, who is, 3 I think, soon to be Brooklyn Borough President 4 Eric Adams; Senator Felder, and Senator Dilan, have 5 all RSVP'd that They will come for at least a part 6 of this hearing. 7 We are here today to examine and analyze the 8 proceeding currently before the Public Service 9 Commission to examine contingencies in the event, 10 "in the event," of the closure of Indian Point 11 Energy Center. 12 There are currently proceedings before, not 13 just the Public Service Commission, also before the 14 Department of Environmental Conservation, and also 15 before the federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 16 Of most concern to this Committee is: 17 The contingency plan, how much that would 18 cost. 19 It's been estimated to cost almost, "almost," 20 $1 billion to close Indian Point; 21 Where the power would come from to replace 22 the current power that is produced by Indian Point; 23 And where the revenue would be derived from 24 to pay for those costs. 25 And I can tell you, myself, and speaking on 1 behalf of the members, at least the upstate members, 2 Senator Ritchie and myself of this Committee, and 3 the other upstate members of the Senate, we 4 certainly do not want to see those costs, that 5 burden -- that financial burden, placed upon 6 businesses and residents outside of the Indian Point 7 service area, and most particularly, those in 8 Upstate New York. 9 I have personally visited the Indian Point 10 facility. 11 I have seen how safe that particular facility 12 is, both from the standpoint of natural disasters, 13 and manmade disasters, terrorist attacks, and so 14 forth. 15 As I said, we are most concerned, "most 16 concerned," with maintaining a clean, positive 17 operating facility, and what should happen if these 18 various agencies determine that something other than 19 what's currently being done would replace 20 Indian Point nuclear plant. 21 So with that, I do want to thank my colleague 22 Senator Ritchie. 23 She traveled a great distance to be here 24 today. 25 She has been an extremely good partner on the 1 Energy Committee in going forth. 2 And, certainly, I've heard from her, in my 3 opinion, almost far too often, about protecting -- 4 protecting the area of the state that she represents 5 from any increased costs in energy facilities. 6 Senator Ritchie, would you like to -- care to 7 make any opening statement before we go to our first 8 witnesses? 9 SENATOR RITCHIE: Sure. 10 I would just like to thank Senator Maziarz 11 for calling this hearing on Indian Point. 12 This issue is extremely important to me, as 13 I represent the district that Nine Mile 1 and 2 in 14 Fitzpatrick are located. 15 They generate a third of the electricity 16 upstate. 17 They actually -- they actually have over a 18 thousand employees, and are very important, not only 19 to the rate that people pay in New York State, but 20 also important to the economy of my district. 21 So, I look forward to hearing the comments 22 today, and appreciate the opportunity to ask some 23 critically important questions I think that may not, 24 at this point, address some of the issues that may 25 come later with regard to the other three nuclear 1 plants that are in my district. 2 SENATOR MAZIARZ: Thank you very much, 3 Senator. 4 Our first witnesses, and we appreciate very 5 much them taking the time to be here today: 6 Is Gil Quinones, the president and CEO of the 7 New York State Power Authority. 8 Thank you very much, Gil; 9 And, also, Rajendra Addepalli, the deputy 10 director of the Office of Electric, Gas & Water for 11 the New York State Department of Public Service. 12 They're going to be testifying together. 13 I assume, Mr. Quinones, you're going to go 14 first. 15 Thank you very much, Rajendra, for being 16 here. 17 Oh, I'm sorry. 18 GIL QUINONES: It's actually the opposite. 19 SENATOR MAZIARZ: The opposite, okay. 20 I'm shocked that the -- 21 GIL QUINONES: I yield my time to him. 22 SENATOR MAZIARZ: -- NYPA would not go first. 23 [Laughter.] 24 RAJENDRA ADDEPALLI: Good morning. 25 Good morning, Senator Maziarz and 1 Senator Ritchie. 2 Thank you for giving us the opportunity to 3 come and discuss these issues with you this morning. 4 What I will do in my testimony is answer a 5 few questions, some of which that you have raised 6 this morning: 7 Why are we doing this contingency plan? 8 What is in this plan? 9 And, what is the cost of this plan? 10 And, who's going to pay for it? 11 And, how does it comport with the competitive 12 wholesale markets that are in place? 13 So, starting with, "Why do this plan, 14 contingency plan?" numerous entities have done 15 reliability analysis in the state, including the 16 New York ISO and the City of New York, Con Edison, 17 and others. 18 And as part of the analysis, they examined 19 what the reliability ramifications would be if 20 Indian Point were not available post 2015 December. 21 And they've all identified that, in summer 22 2016, there will be reliability violations, and, so, 23 there's a need to address that concern. 24 And so how do we, address in, general 25 retirements of plants in New York State? 1 Over the last number of years, numerous 2 plants have retired, thousands of megawatts. 3 We do have at the commission a policy 4 statement for retirement of generation units. 5 The policy statement asked the generators, 6 about 80 megawatts, to file their notice six months 7 in advance if the plant were to retire or mothball. 8 And once a notice is filed, the commission 9 conducts an analysis of the ramifications of the 10 plant shutdown, working with the New York 11 Independent System Operator and with the host 12 utility (local utility). 13 If there are no reliability issues, the 14 plants are allowed to shut down. 15 But if there are reliability concerns, they 16 need to be addressed, either by the utilities 17 through their solutions, such as transmission 18 upgrades, but sometimes they may take time, in which 19 case the generator may be asked to stay open through 20 a commercial arrangement. 21 The most recent examples -- many -- in the 22 last number of years, many units have been allowed 23 to retire because there were no reliability 24 concerns. 25 But in two cases recently, there were 1 concerns, and the utilities said they would need 2 time to build their transmission solutions, and the 3 generators were asked to stay open through a 4 commercial arrangement; namely, for the Dunkirk unit 5 and for the Cayuga unit. 6 So, in this case, though, if the unit is not 7 available post 2015 December, and we only get a 8 six-month notice, or even a year notice, it's very 9 difficult to replace the magnitude of the resources 10 that we are talking about. 11 There is a lead time needed to replace 12 through either generation or transmission or demand 13 reduction. 14 We have less than three years to go; and, so, 15 the commission has an obligation to ensure the 16 reliability is maintained, that the lights stay on. 17 So it's efficient and effective to have a 18 plan in place to ensure that the lights stay on. 19 So, in that context, the commission asked 20 Con Edison, the primary downstate utility that would 21 be affected, to work with the Power Authority, and 22 other parties, like, the Department of Public 23 Service staff, to come up with a reliability 24 contingency plan, and Con Edison and NYPA filed one 25 in February 2013. 1 So what does the plan consist of? 2 The plan -- the reliability contingency plan 3 had three prongs of solutions to address the 4 reliability needs. 5 The first prong is the proposed certain 6 transition projects between Con Edison and the 7 Power Authority, and one element of New York State 8 Electric and Gas. 9 These transmission solutions could be put in 10 place by 2016 summer, and would address part of the 11 reliability need. 12 The second prong was to put in certain 13 demand-reduction measures that would also help 14 reduce need, or alleviate the concerns. 15 The third prong, even after doing these two, 16 we need more resources to fill the gap, so, they 17 proposed issuing an RFP (request for proposals) to 18 get additional incremental new generation or 19 transmission solutions. 20 And they asked the commission to approve this 21 plan. 22 And the commission, so far, has taken the 23 following steps: 24 One, allowed the utilities to move forward 25 with these three transmission projects, subject to 1 halting and other conditions, given the lead time 2 that is needed to implement the plans; 3 Second, it allowed the RFP to move forward; 4 to be issued, and get responses; 5 And, third, it asked Con Edison to work with 6 the NYSERDA and improve the demand-reduction plan. 7 So what is in front of the commission right 8 now is these multitude of solutions that would help 9 address the reliability need: certain transmission 10 projects proposed by the utilities, certain demand 11 reductions proposed by the utilities, and the 12 responses to the RFP. 13 The commission asked the department staff to 14 review the RFP responses, because Con Edison and 15 NYPA are also in the play with their transmission 16 projects, for unbiasedness. 17 The department staff has been reviewing these 18 proposals, and is expected to find out which is the 19 optimal portfolio solutions that would meet the 20 reliability needs, keeping the costs low to 21 consumers, and addressing the risks that are 22 entailed in selecting these projects. 23 So that's the, in essence, contingency plan. 24 And in terms of what does it cost, clearly, 25 each of these solutions would lead to certain 1 investments up front that would be made, whether 2 it's transmission or demand reduction or a 3 generation solution. 4 In addition to satisfying the reliability 5 need, what these solutions would also provide are 6 benefits to consumers; economic benefits to 7 consumers, in terms of reduced energy prices and 8 reduced capacity prices. 9 So one has to look at, what is the net cost 10 to ratepayers of this portfolio of solutions? 11 Again, our interest is to minimize the cost 12 to ratepayers, and, to reduce the risks associated 13 with them. 14 And, so, the first order of business for us 15 would be to analyze, What if Indian Point stayed 16 open, would these solutions still cost ratepayers 17 money? 18 But, if the benefits exceed costs, even if 19 Indian Point stayed open, then it would be in the 20 interests of the ratepayers to pursue such solutions 21 that make sense, that not only provide reliability 22 benefits, but provide economic benefits. 23 So that analysis is underway in terms of 24 selecting the optimal portfolio that would 25 reduce/minimize costs, maximize benefits, and reduce 1 risks. 2 In terms of, "How would the costs be 3 allocated?" the commission asked the department 4 staff to come up with a straw proposal to address 5 how to allocate the costs. 6 The staff star proposal essentially 7 articulated a so-called "beneficiaries pay 8 approach," which means, those who would benefit from 9 these projects should pay for them. 10 And the benefits were focused on reliability 11 benefits: who would otherwise be affected, in terms 12 of reliability, through these projects? 13 They are the ones benefiting from a 14 reliability perspective, so they should pay for 15 these projects. 16 It's called a "reliability-based 17 beneficiaries approach." 18 So that's the straw proposal. 19 And, we conducted two technical conferences. 20 We received numerous comments. 21 There are other entities that have proposed 22 other approaches, such as, the beneficiaries should 23 be thought of more broadly. 24 If there are other benefits beyond pure 25 reliability benefits, they should be accounted for 1 in the cost-allocation approach. 2 So those comments are also being examined. 3 And, the commission would deal with this 4 issue, along with the selection of the optimal 5 portfolios, as to how the costs should be allocated. 6 And some of the parties have suggested 7 different approaches for different elements of this 8 plan. 9 For example: 10 Certain demand-reduction measures, costs 11 should be allocated this way; for certain 12 generation, it should be done a little bit 13 differently; and, for transmission, yet differently. 14 So, they're all being analyzed by us at this 15 point. 16 And the next question that comes up is, 17 Why -- or, how does this comport with the existing 18 marketplace? 19 And as I said before, if there is certainty 20 and there is adequate lead time, it's more than 21 likely the market would address the needs. 22 We would not have to intervene in any 23 fashion. 24 But given the unique circumstance here, there 25 is uncertainty, and, given our obligation to keep 1 the lights on, we have to do this contingency plan. 2 So what we did to comport with the 3 marketplace, the first instance of asking for a full 4 replacement of the power, this is over 5 2,000 megawatts of a power plant, the reliability 6 plan that the commission sought is looking at a bare 7 minimum needed for reliability purposes, just around 8 1450 megawatts. 9 So, you're not trying to replace the full 10 amount, but just to meet the -- enough needed for 11 reliability purposes. 12 Second, the RFP that the Power Authority 13 issued, many elements in the RFP, especially dealing 14 with the generation, comport with market-price 15 signals of how efficiently they should be 16 dispatched. 17 And, third, many of the -- there are 18 provisions in the RFP to halt the project. 19 Should the commission find new information in 20 the coming months and years that suggests that there 21 is no need for this project, it could be halted if 22 it makes sense. 23 So, in these terms, it is trying to be as 24 responsive to the needs. 25 So, in conclusion, it is appropriate, and it 1 is necessary, for the commission to address this 2 contingency plan, to meet the reliability needs to 3 keep the lights on. 4 And, we are not taking a position as to 5 whether Indian Point should be open or should shut 6 down. 7 That's not our view. 8 Our view is purely focused on keeping the 9 lights on. 10 And, what are the next steps? 11 We intend to recommend to the commission, in 12 the very near future, the optimal set of solutions 13 that would help address the reliability need, 14 minimizing net cost to ratepayers, reducing the 15 risk, and also deal with the cost-allocation 16 recommendation. 17 That concludes my remarks, and Mr. Quinones 18 will provide his. 19 SENATOR MAZIARZ: Thank you. 20 GIL QUINONES: Thank you very much. 21 Good morning, Senator Maziarz. 22 Good morning, Senator Ritchie. 23 Good to be with you here in southeast 24 New York. 25 As you know, we meet a lot upstate in your 1 areas. 2 My name is Gil Quinones. 3 I am the president and chief executive 4 officer of the New York Power Authority. 5 Thank you for the opportunity to testify 6 today regarding the nature and importance of 7 generator-reliability contingency plans. 8 As I will discuss in more detail, contingency 9 plans allow for advanced measures to prepare for 10 large power-plant retirements, such as the potential 11 closures of the Indian Point Energy Center in 12 Westchester County or the Dunkirk and Cayuga coal 13 facilities in Western New York. 14 Given the uncertainties surrounding the 15 continued operation of such facilities, and in light 16 of their size, impact on transmission flows, and 17 proximity to load centers, such preparations are 18 critical to the continued resilience and reliability 19 of this state's interconnected electric system. 20 In 2012, Governor Cuomo proposed an 21 Innovative Energy Highway Initiative to upgrade and 22 modernize the state's power system. 23 I was privileged to serve as a co-chair of a 24 task force that the Governor named to oversee 25 development of a series of recommendations to bring 1 this far-reaching proposal to fruition. 2 One of our most significant recommendations 3 called for the development and implementation of 4 reliability contingency plans, to prepare for 5 potential large power-plant retirements. 6 The task force recognized that recent and 7 pending environmental regulations, coupled with low 8 demand growth and low natural gas prices, could lead 9 to accelerated retirements of older facilities in 10 the state, creating uncertainty for the power 11 supply. 12 The recommended action addressed a critical 13 aspect of this problem. 14 By virtue of plant size, location, or issues 15 regarding the timing of potential retirements, the 16 electricity market may not be in a position to 17 respond adequately to the shutdown of certain power 18 plants once retirement is announced. 19 This is the potential case with Indian Point, 20 a nuclear power plant of approximately 21 2,000 megawatts located in the village of Buchanan, 22 about 30 miles north of the state's major load 23 center in New York City and owned by subsidiaries of 24 Entergy Corporation. 25 As I have indicated, the need to address 1 actual or potential power-plant retirements goes 2 well beyond Indian Point. 3 In fact, the New York Independent System 4 Operator recently reported that the owners of 19 of 5 the state's generating facilities, representing 6 almost 1700 megawatts of capacity, have either 7 retired them during the past 17 months or served 8 notice of their intent to do so in 2013. 9 Just over a month ago, Entergy itself 10 announced that it intends to close its 635-megawatt 11 Vermont Yankee nuclear plant by the end of next 12 year, essentially, giving the ISO-New England region 13 only a one-year lead time to prepare for their 14 retirement. 15 Nationwide, the retirements of five nuclear 16 reactors have been announced within the past year. 17 This is an industry trend that we cannot 18 ignore. 19 The Indian Point situation is exacerbated by 20 the plant's importance to the New York City load 21 center, and by the fact that the federal license for 22 one of the two units expired two days ago, and the 23 other is scheduled to expire in December 2015. 24 Although Nuclear Regulatory Commission 25 regulations allow continued operations until the 1 license-renewal process is complete, significant 2 uncertainty persists regarding whether Entergy will 3 be able to obtain all the permits and approvals 4 required to keep both units operating for an 5 extended period beyond the expiration of their 6 licenses. 7 Thus, in adopting the Energy Highway Task 8 Force's recommendation, the Public Service 9 Commission, in a November 30, 2012, order commenced 10 a proceeding specifically to solicit a reliability 11 contingency plan for Indian Point. 12 As you have heard from Mr. Addepalli, 13 Con Edison and NYPA developed a contingency plan for 14 Indian Point, and filed it with the commission 15 earlier this year. 16 The plan identified 1,450 megawatts of 17 reliability deficiencies that would occur in the 18 event Indian Point shuts down. 19 Part of the plan called for NYPA to issue a 20 request for proposals to solicit a target 21 1,350 megawatts in generation and transmission 22 proposals from private developers, which we did on 23 April 3rd. 24 As Mr. Addepalli indicated, DPS 25 (Department of Public Service) staff is now 1 evaluating responses to the RFP. 2 I would now like to address two issues that 3 have been raised in public statements related to 4 this hearing. 5 First, contrary to what has been alleged, no 6 Power Authority revenue from any source, including 7 the Niagara Power Project or the St. Lawrence FDR 8 project, will be used to subsidize projects arising 9 from the RFP. 10 Second, NYPA has no role in determining 11 whether Indian Point will be retired. 12 Our involvement in the RFP and 13 contingency-planning process is intended only to 14 prepare for a possible shutdown. 15 The Power Authority, in fact, is unable to 16 predict whether or when the Indian Point Energy 17 Center will be retired; yet, it is that very 18 uncertainty surrounding Indian Point's relicensing 19 and permitting issues that makes it critically 20 important to plan ahead to prevent the significant 21 adverse impacts on the state's electric system that 22 will occur if suitable replacement power is needed, 23 and unavailable. 24 The Indian Point contingency plan is a 25 prudent and essential insurance policy for the 1 state's citizens. 2 It will provide us with the best possible 3 combination of reliable, economical, and 4 environmentally compatible power sources. 5 In contrast, the failure to act now in timely 6 fashion would represent a striking abdication of the 7 state's responsibilities and would violate the most 8 basics standards of effective public policy. 9 This concludes my prepared remarks, and 10 Mr. Addepalli and I will be pleased to take your 11 questions. 12 SENATOR MAZIARZ: Thank you very much, 13 Mr. Addepalli and Mr. Quinones. 14 We appreciate, again, you being here today. 15 And I believe we are going to just put some 16 graphics up here. 17 But, before we do that, let's -- 18 Oh, okay. 19 Gil, this document is from NYPA's Prosperous 20 Conference that was held in relation to replacement 21 generation under the Indian Point contingency plan. 22 This meeting was held on April the 12th of 23 this year. 24 You certainly recognize this document, don't 25 you? 1 GIL QUINONES: Yes. 2 SENATOR MAZIARZ: Could you just explain this 3 document, and, you know, what it means, for the 4 benefit of our Committee. 5 GIL QUINONES: Well, the -- what this is, is 6 an illustration of how the capacity markets work. 7 The bottom line, And I think, you know, 8 rather than going through the details on the 9 three bullets above, I think what you're interested 10 in is that last bullet, that "the seller does not 11 bear mitigation risk." 12 SENATOR MAZIARZ: Exactly. 13 Because when you just testified was, it's not 14 going to cost NYPA -- it's not going cost NYPA's 15 ratepayers any money. 16 And, you know, this doesn't seem to agree 17 with that statement. 18 GIL QUINONES: Well, let's -- first of all, 19 I think we need to rewind. 20 I don't want to prejudge what the commission 21 will select in terms of the optimum portfolio. 22 We don't know, at this point in time, whether 23 the recommendation of the commission will have a 24 rate impact. 25 We don't know yet, you know, and I don't want 1 to prejudge that. 2 And what this basically says is that, in the 3 event that a power plant is selected and there is a 4 capacity mitigation, which is the current market 5 rules, that that risk will be -- will not be borne 6 by the developer. 7 And that is a true statement. 8 SENATOR MAZIARZ: Okay, if the contingency 9 plan, I mean, if Indian Point is to -- is to -- 10 let's say, be recommended for closure, you know, 11 what you're saying is, that NYPA will not 12 participate at all in the cost of replacing that 13 2,000-plus megawatts of power? 14 GIL QUINONES: NYPA's role is, if a power 15 plant is selected, part of -- as Mr. Addepalli 16 described, there are three buckets: you have demand 17 reduction, you have transmission projects, and you 18 have power plants. 19 If a power plant is selected, the design of 20 the RFP is for NYPA to be the counterparty for that 21 power plant. 22 But, also, as Mr. Addepalli described, if -- 23 and, again, I want to emphasize the "if" -- if that 24 is the case, the beneficiaries of that reliability 25 solution will bear the cost, not NYPA itself. 1 But, again, I think it's important, I just 2 want to emphasize, it's really important, that we 3 all not prejudge that there is a significant cost to 4 this contingency plan that hasn't been determined, 5 and let's wait until the commission submits its 6 decision on what the potential solution is, and what 7 are the costs associated with it. 8 SENATOR MAZIARZ: I have more questions, but 9 I'll let Senator Ritchie go. 10 SENATOR RITCHIE: I have a few questions. 11 I guess I would like to start by just trying 12 to get, you know, my mind around what's going on. 13 This contingency plan, has this happened 14 anywhere else? 15 GIL QUINONES: When you say "anywhere 16 else"...? 17 SENATOR RITCHIE: It's first time that -- 18 with Indian Point that this has been put into place, 19 this proceeding? 20 RAJENDRA ADDEPALLI: In a very formal way, 21 this may be one that caught the attention of many 22 stakeholders, but, as I mentioned before, we have 23 had many power plants retire in the state, and in 24 certain cases, we -- there were reliability 25 concerns, and we had proceedings in front of the 1 commission, through which, "What needs to be done to 2 address the reliability need?" 3 And utilities have proposed transmission 4 projects, but said that it will take time, so, there 5 was an agreement reached with the generator to keep 6 them open during a period, through commercial 7 arrangements. 8 So, we had proceedings before the commission, 9 but this is of a different ilk, given the magnitude 10 of what we are looking at, and a multitude of 11 solutions that are available here, possibly, to meet 12 the need, and the lead time that is required here to 13 meet the need. 14 So, we have done retirement plans before, but 15 this is a big size, relatively speaking. 16 SENATOR RITCHIE: When you previously had 17 retirement plans, had the facilities indicated that 18 they were going to retire the plant, or -- 19 I guess -- 20 RAJENDRA ADDEPALLI: Yes. 21 SENATOR RITCHIE: -- it looks like there's a 22 little bit of difference here, because, and correct 23 me if I'm wrong, I've not seen anything that shows 24 that Entergy has indicated that they don't want to 25 continue and -- with the relicensing. 1 And what you're just describing there is 2 something completely differently; correct? 3 RAJENDRA ADDEPALLI: Correct. 4 That's a very good observation. 5 In the other cases, the retirement policy 6 only requires a six-month notice from the 7 commission. 8 And, the generators complied with the 9 request; six months ahead, they told us that they 10 would retire. 11 And we analyzed, and there was a need in 12 those couple of cases. 13 Not all, a couple of those cases. 14 Here, the situation could be different, if 15 they announce six months ahead, or a year ahead, and 16 say, We will not be available. 17 In the other cases, there was an opportunity 18 to keep them open through a commercial arrangement. 19 If the NRC denies license, that opportunity 20 doesn't exist. 21 So, there is a different reliability concern 22 here, and different opportunities, or lack of 23 opportunities. 24 SENATOR RITCHIE: So you're saying -- 25 RAJENDRA ADDEPALLI: This distinguishes it 1 from other -- 2 SENATOR RITCHIE: -- so this plan is only put 3 in place if, in fact, the licenses aren't renewed, 4 or, if Entergy decides that they don't want to 5 continue? 6 Is that what you're saying? 7 RAJENDRA ADDEPALLI: That's correct. 8 And if -- the lead time is the big issue: how 9 much of a lead time do we need to bring in 10 substitute resources? 11 If the lead time is six months, then we 12 don't -- we won't have to do much now. 13 But many of these transmission or demand 14 reduction or generation take time, two to 15 three years at least. 16 And, so, that's the difference. 17 SENATOR RITCHIE: So if their license is 18 renewed and Entergy is going continue, then this 19 plan goes away? 20 RAJENDRA ADDEPALLI: The license-renewal 21 process, it's not clear if it would happen anytime 22 soon, and -- but you cannot take the risk of waiting 23 until the last minute, only to find that it may not 24 happen. 25 So, as I said, we have halting provisions in 1 the plan. 2 That, if we find new information in the 3 coming months and years, and if that tells us there 4 is no need for this plan to continue, we should take 5 another look and say, Should we stop some of these 6 projects? 7 And, at that time, we'll make an evaluation, 8 what makes economic sense. 9 SENATOR RITCHIE: So I guess, for 10 clarification: 11 If the licenses are renewed and Entergy 12 decides they are going to continue with the plan, if 13 nothing changes, then it is the intent that this 14 plan would be halted? 15 RAJENDRA ADDEPALLI: It's a question of 16 timing, Senator, when you would learn about it. 17 If you learn about it in 2015 fall, it may be 18 too late, because the replacement solutions, 19 perhaps, would be on the way, most of the way. 20 And also, as I mentioned before, we want to 21 minimize costs to ratepayers. 22 So, if there are solutions that would make 23 sense, in that the benefits exceed costs to 24 ratepayers, even if Indian Point stayed open, it 25 would behoove for us to move forward with those 1 solutions that minimize rates to ratepayers. 2 SENATOR RITCHIE: So I guess one of the 3 concerns for me, as somebody who represents an area 4 that has three nuclear facilities, is that 5 considering, now, this seems to be a new contingency 6 plan, a new proceeding, I'm wondering, why would any 7 facilities take the risk of investing money to 8 upgrade if, in fact, at any time, the PFC could, you 9 know, swoop in and decide that there's going to be 10 an opportunity to put a contingency plan in place? 11 RAJENDRA ADDEPALLI: The contingency plan 12 came about because of the uncertainty and (a) of the 13 plant being available, and (2) because of 14 reliability concerns. 15 With those three plants that you mentioned, 16 one has to look at, is that even a question? 17 There may be no issues associated with 18 relicensing at all in the near future. 19 And, second, if one or two -- not that I'm 20 suggesting that they shut down, but if they were to 21 announce, is there a reliability concern? 22 So, there are other threshold conditions that 23 had to be met. 24 We have -- 25 GIL QUINONES: Yeah, if I could just add, 1 I think the fundamental difference between the 2 plants up in your area that you represent, and 3 Indian Point, is that Indian Point is currently 4 under a relicensing proceeding before the federal 5 Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 6 And that uncertainty really is the 7 motivation, was the motivation, for us to be more 8 proactive, rather than sitting back and waiting 9 what -- what -- you know, what may happen in that 10 proceeding. 11 We wanted to be more proactive, the State, 12 through the Public Service Commission, to make sure 13 that reliability; safe, reliable electricity, is 14 available to the citizens, especially here 15 downstate. 16 That's the fundamental difference: the plants 17 upstate are not going through a relicensing process 18 before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 19 SENATOR RITCHIE: And I understand that, but 20 for me, personally, it looks like we're starting a 21 precedence here -- 22 SENATOR MAZIARZ: Exactly. 23 SENATOR RITCHIE: -- that, you know, this 24 time maybe you're saying, because it's relicensing 25 is coming up, but that doesn't mean, next time, now 1 that you've started the precedence, that it doesn't 2 have to be at a time that the plant is up for 3 relicensing. 4 So, I will say for me, personally, it's a big 5 concern. 6 SENATOR MAZIARZ: I would add to that 7 concern. 8 I think, you know, that, you know, this 9 becomes the prototype. 10 Eventually -- eventually, all those plants 11 will be up for relicensing. 12 And, you know, if -- I assume that not any of 13 them are the size of the magnitude of the generator 14 that Indian Point is, and I think that -- that's why 15 I think this proceeding before the PFC has to be 16 monitored very closely, because of what 17 Senator Ritchie pointed out, this could become the 18 prototype of what's going to happen. 19 And I also think, to comparison -- and 20 I apologize, I don't know if you were finished or 21 not -- but, the comparison with Vermont Yankee is 22 somewhat disingenuous for me. 23 Vermont Yankee I think was a 600-, maybe 24 600-plus-megawatt plant. 25 I don't exactly -- I'm not very familiar with 1 the location of Vermont Yankee, but I can't believe 2 it's in a -- in an area similar to, or with a need 3 similar to, where Indian Point is located, you know, 4 with such a large population, serving a capacity -- 5 serving a city like New York. 6 So, I just don't think that's a very fair 7 comparison either. 8 I'm sorry, Senator, were you finished? 9 SENATOR RITCHIE: I'm all set. 10 Thank you. 11 SENATOR MAZIARZ: Okay, I wanted to make that 12 point about Vermont Yankee. 13 I really don't have any other questions. 14 Unfortunately, Senator Carlucci, I'm told, 15 is, like, downstairs, on his way up here. 16 So, if you would not go too far, he may have 17 some questions for you later on. 18 May we call you, if you could stick around 19 for just a little while? 20 GIL QUINONES: I -- 21 SENATOR MAZIARZ: You can't. 22 GIL QUINONES: I can't. 23 I have to move on to another function. 24 SENATOR MAZIARZ: Okay, that's fine. 25 Thank you. 1 We appreciate it. 2 GIL QUINONES: Thank you very much. 3 RAJENDRA ADDEPALLI: Thank you. 4 (Pause in the hearing.) 5 (The hearing resumed, as follows:) 6 SENATOR MAZIARZ: Thank you. 7 Our next appearance is by Stuart Nachmias, 8 the vice president of energy policy for Con Edison. 9 Stuart. 10 Thank you very much for being here. 11 Thank you very much. 12 STUART NACHMIAS: Thank you. 13 Good morning, Senator Maziarz, 14 Senator Ritchie. 15 SENATOR MAZIARZ: Good morning. 16 STUART NACHMIAS: My name is Stuart Nachmias, 17 and I'm Con Edison's vice president for energy 18 policy and regulatory affairs. 19 And thank you for the opportunity to present 20 our views on the Indian Point contingency plan 21 currently before the New York State Public Service 22 Commission. 23 I'd like to note up front, that in developing 24 and presenting the Indian Point contingency plan, 25 Con Ed took, and continues to take, no position on 1 whether Indian Point should close or is likely to 2 close. 3 However, it has, and continues to be, our 4 position that if policymakers determine that 5 Indian Point will be shut down, a plan to replace 6 the electricity output of the facility needs to be 7 developed and in place prior to any shutdown. 8 On November 30, 2012, the New York State 9 Public Service Commission issued an order, stating 10 that the loss of Indian Point Energy Center could 11 result in significantly reduced reliability at the 12 time of shutdown, and for several years thereafter 13 until replaced. 14 According to the commission, the value of a 15 reliability contingency plan to address reliability 16 concerns associated with the closure of the nuclear 17 power plants at the Indian Point Energy Center is 18 increasingly apparent. 19 Accordingly, the commission's order required 20 that Con Edison, in conjunction with the New York 21 Power Authority, develop a contingency plan to 22 address the needs that would result for the summer 23 of 2016 if Indian Point were to retire. 24 The plan would enable the State to be ready 25 for the closure of such a large generation facility, 1 whether or not the facility is actually closed at 2 that time. 3 In other words, the directive in the 4 commission's November 30th order indicates that the 5 commission has deemed it necessary and appropriate 6 for the State to pursue a policy that prepares for 7 the possible closure of Indian Point, even though 8 that decision has not yet been made. 9 Just a bit about the Indian Point Energy 10 Center facility: 11 I think it was mentioned by the prior folks, 12 it's owned by Entergy, and consists two nuclear 13 facilities, Units 2 and 3, each capable of producing 14 approximately 1,020 megawatts, for a total of 15 slightly over 2,000 megawatts, and they operate 16 under a license from the Nuclear Regulatory 17 Commission. 18 It's our understanding Entergy has submitted 19 a timely request to the Nuclear Regulatory 20 Commission to extend its license, which is currently 21 pending. 22 Indian Point's annual energy output of, 23 roughly, 16,000 -- million-megawatt hours accounts 24 for approximately 30 percent of Con Edison's service 25 area's annual consumption -- that's 10 percent of 1 the state's consumption -- and, it's currently 2 required to maintain electric system reliability in 3 the state. 4 If replacement resources are not in place 5 prior to a shutdown of Indian Point, the 6 New York ISO may be required, at certain times and 7 under conditions, to interrupt customers to match 8 electric supplies with customer demand. 9 The shutdown of the Indian Point units would 10 also increase the price of electricity for 11 consumers. 12 Indian Point's electricity also provides 13 economic and environmental benefits to our region 14 and to other New York State electricity consumers. 15 The shutdown of the units would increase the 16 price of electricity for consumers, would increase 17 greenhouse gases and other air emissions in the 18 region, and would potentially impact the local 19 economy. 20 The shutdown would also adversely affect the 21 fuel mix used to generate electricity in 22 southeastern New York, resulting in the increased 23 use of fossil-fuel-based supplies. 24 As a result of these potential impacts, new 25 facilities and infrastructure must be built and 1 placed into service before a permanent shutdown can 2 occur. 3 This means new transmission and replacement 4 resources will need to be designed, receive all 5 required permits, be constructed, tested, and placed 6 into operation ahead of such shutdown in order to 7 avoid reliability-criteria violations and other 8 negative impacts. 9 Further, it's our understanding, that while 10 the license-renewal process will take many years, 11 the final decision could happen very quickly, and 12 once that decision happens, a shutdown, if it's 13 required, would happen quickly as well. 14 In response to the commission's directive, on 15 February 1, 2013, Con Edison and the New York Power 16 Authority filed a proposed Indian Point contingency 17 plan. 18 The plan focused on responding to the 19 commission's order, and presenting the commission 20 with realistic and cost-effective options to have 21 alternative sources of energy in place should 22 Indian Point close, and to meet the earliest 23 possible date that such closure could impact the 24 state's energy system, which is by the summer of 25 2016. 1 In developing the plan, we considered the 2 project should make sense even if Indian Point were 3 to remain open, which is a possible outcome. 4 The proposed plan featured the following 5 elements: 6 As was stated, we identified the reliability 7 need to be approximately 1,450 megawatts in the 8 summer of 2016 should Indian Point shut down. 9 We have a proposal to implement approximately 10 100 megawatts of peak-demand reduction, in 11 conjunction with Con Edison, NYSERDA, and the 12 New York Power Authority. 13 Con Edison and NYPA proposed to begin 14 development of three transmission solutions with, 15 PFC approval, so they can be in place by the summer 16 of 2016. 17 An RFP was issued by NYPA, to solicit other 18 new incremental generation and transmission 19 proposals from third parties that could be in place 20 by summer of 2016. 21 A mechanism that would enable the commission 22 to halt project development if it becomes clear that 23 the projects are not needed by 2016, while also 24 providing for cost recovery to developers of actual 25 costs incurred up to that time. 1 And, we requested an independent evaluation 2 of all proposals by the Department of Public 3 Service, which would then recommend to the 4 commission which projects should move forward to 5 completion. 6 The plan emphasized that it was essential 7 that work begin promptly, with the suggested 8 schedule to have facilities in place by summer of 9 2016. 10 One of the key elements of our plan was the 11 proposal for Con Edison and NYPA to move forward 12 with three transmission projects: 13 A second 345-kV transmission line from Ramapo 14 to Rock Tavern; 15 The unbottling of generation on Staten Island 16 via transmission investments; 17 And, third, a Marcy South Series Compensation 18 Project from Fraser to Cooper Corners 19 reconductoring. 20 The three projects were included in the plan 21 for two key reasons: 22 First, due to the nature of the projects, we 23 would be able to build and construct them and have 24 them in place by the summer of 2016; 25 And, second, these projects will provide 1 benefits to consumers throughout New York, 2 including, increasing electricity flows across the 3 state's transmission system, enhancing economic 4 development in the form of job creation during 5 construction, and ongoing operations, stabilizing, 6 and potentially increasing local tax revenues and 7 enhancing wholesale power-market competition. 8 Of course, these projects would also 9 alleviate most, but not all, of the needs resulting 10 from the shutdown of the Indian Point Energy Center. 11 The Indian Point contingency plan lays out 12 options for the State to prepare for a possible 13 Indian Point Energy Center shutdown. 14 It proposes transmission projects that make 15 sense for customers throughout the state even if the 16 plant is still in service, and presents a mechanism 17 to add new third-party resources that would be 18 needed if the plant is shut down. 19 In other words, the plant is a roadmap for 20 advancing projects that support the future of the 21 state's electric infrastructure, while, at the same 22 time, preparing for the potentially large-impact 23 event, the shutdown of Indian Point. 24 Moreover, since the plan is developed to 25 benefit customers both with and without 1 Indian Point, Con Edison has proposed, and other 2 New York transmission owners have supported, that 3 the costs associated with the transmission projects 4 should be shared across the state, with the heaviest 5 share of cost being paid by downstate customers, 6 from the Lower Hudson Valley, south. 7 We believe such a cost allocation makes 8 sense, as benefits from these transmission projects 9 will accrue throughout the state. 10 In summary, because of the significant size 11 of the Indian Point Energy Center and the potential 12 impact of such a large shutdown, should it occur as 13 a result of state policy, it's reasonable to pursue 14 a contingency plan now. 15 Our contingency plan recognizes that we need 16 to be prepared for that potential shutdown of 17 Indian Point, and will also support an electricity 18 system that can both be reliable and resilient to 19 support the state's future. 20 Thank you for the opportunity to discuss our 21 perspectives on the Indian Point contingency plan, 22 and I'm available to respond to any questions that 23 you may have. 24 25 1 SENATOR MAZIARZ: Thank you very much, 2 Mr. Nachmias. 3 We appreciate your appearance here today very 4 much. 5 I do want to just note for the record that 6 we've been joined by my colleague 7 Senator David Carlucci. 8 Senator, thank you very much for being here. 9 I did indicate at the beginning of the 10 hearing that you were on your way, so, I did do 11 that. 12 Mr. Nachmias, let me go right to, I think, 13 maybe the very last point that you made, that sort 14 of jumped off the page at me, where you said 15 something that seemed to me to controvert what 16 Mr. Quinones and Mr. Addepalli said earlier, that 17 the costs of a potential shutdown of Indian Point 18 should be shared across the state by people who 19 benefit from it. 20 "Across the state," to me, includes 21 North Tonawanda, New York, where I live, and get 22 no -- absolutely no benefit at all from 23 Indian Point, and, Senator Ritchie's area up in the 24 North Country. 25 Why would you contend that the cost should be 1 borne by people who live there? 2 STUART NACHMIAS: Well, these projects are 3 being done for a variety of reasons, and one is 4 public policy, and, there are benefits from these 5 projects across the state. 6 So, in addition to -- 7 SENATOR MAZIARZ: What are the benefits? 8 STUART NACHMIAS: In addition to the capacity 9 and energy benefits, there are opportunities for 10 additional renewables development, and there have 11 been proposals for wind resources in the upstate 12 area. 13 The project also increases the flow of energy 14 from upstate to downstate, which will allow more 15 generators upstate to be dispatched. 16 It provides additional stabilization, in 17 terms of jobs, in terms of tax revenues, in those 18 local communities, and potentially keeps some of 19 those units in service. 20 I think we heard that some of the local 21 retirements of generators in various parts of the 22 state potentially result in local issues there. 23 So there are benefits across the state, and 24 so we do think it's appropriate that consumers 25 across the state pay for these transmission 1 solutions, but we do have a proposal that has the 2 heaviest share of those costs to the downstate 3 region. 4 SENATOR MAZIARZ: So what you're saying is, 5 that costs would be shared, but the heaviest 6 burden -- the heaviest financial burden, let's say, 7 would be borne by ratepayers within the Con Edison 8 service territory? 9 Is that -- 10 STUART NACHMIAS: It's by ratepayers in the 11 southern part of the state, so, it's not only 12 Con Edison. 13 SENATOR MAZIARZ: Well, right -- 14 STUART NACHMIAS: Yeah, but in the southern 15 part of the state? 16 SENATOR MAZIARZ: -- but I assume Con Ed has 17 the overwhelming majority -- 18 STUART NACHMIAS: Yes. 19 SENATOR MAZIARZ: -- of those ratepayers. 20 STUART NACHMIAS: Yes. 21 SENATOR MAZIARZ: So, again, I will go back 22 to the beginning of your statement. 23 STUART NACHMIAS: Sure. 24 SENATOR MAZIARZ: I wanted to start there at 25 the end, because that one had the most impact, 1 but -- at least the most impact on me. 2 You indicated very clearly, that if 3 Indian Point -- if this contingency plan held that 4 be Indian Point were to close down, that there would 5 be a price increase for consumers, and that air 6 quality would suffer? 7 Did I hear that correctly? 8 Or -- 9 STUART NACHMIAS: From a greenhouse-gas 10 perspective, certainly, Indian Point is a favorable 11 plant, and so there would be, certainly. 12 And also from a cost perspective, on a 13 marginal cost basis. 14 So, there would be both cost impacts and 15 environmental impacts. 16 We do think that our proposed projects 17 mitigate the cost that would otherwise be incurred 18 without them. 19 So, it would allow the dispatch of the most 20 economically efficient and cleanest generation from 21 around the state, and would allow for development of 22 renewables. 23 So, we do think that the proposal we have 24 would mitigate those impacts, but there still would 25 be impacts from the result of Indian Point closing. 1 SENATOR MAZIARZ: Well, I've got other points 2 to make, but I want to turn it over to my 3 colleagues. 4 Senator Ritchie. 5 SENATOR RITCHIE: So I, of course, have a 6 huge concern when you say that the cost is going to 7 be borne across the entire state, for a number of 8 reasons. 9 I represent St. Lawrence County, with the 10 NYPA facility. 11 I know Senator Maziarz has a NYPA facility 12 out in his area. 13 And I already think that my area gets 14 shortchanged when it comes to what happens there. 15 Secondly, I have three nuclear power plants 16 in Central New York and Oswego that could increase 17 their generating capacity, from what I'm told, 18 except for, there's an issue with the congestion 19 with the transmission lines. 20 So I'm not sure how I could possibly be 21 supportive of a plan that would increase the rates 22 to those in my district, considering we have a NYPA 23 facility there, that we already ship power out; we 24 have three nuclear plants, that we ship out; but 25 have capacity to actually do more, if we could do 1 something about the transmission issue. 2 And, you know, I noticed earlier that -- 3 during the contingency plan, apparently, there are 4 three transmission lines that they're looking at. 5 I guess, for me, I wonder why the 6 transmission issue that's causing the congestion 7 from those in Central New York and Western New York 8 is not the first one on the top of this list, versus 9 the three that are listed. 10 So, I definitely have concerns. 11 And, you know, the same as what 12 Senator Maziarz said, it seems to be in direct 13 contrast to what we just heard from the two previous 14 speakers. 15 STUART NACHMIAS: So, thank you, and good 16 morning. 17 Exactly what you describe, these projects -- 18 by the way, two of these three projects are also in 19 another proceeding before the Public Service 20 Commission, to relieve that congestion and allow 21 additional power to flow from upstate to downstate. 22 And in recognition of that, we have proposed 23 that the beneficiaries are across the state, and 24 that there are some additional costs, but there 25 would be commensurate benefits. 1 Ultimately, you know, the cost allocation 2 that gets approved will be done by the regulators. 3 They will consider, you know, the cost of the 4 projects, and the potential benefits, including the 5 benefits that we have suggested. 6 But it is exactly, I think, the point that 7 you just made with generation in upstate, that could 8 be dispatched further and provide additional flow 9 that would benefit those generators. 10 Those are clean, efficient resources. 11 They're good for the state, and would be a 12 benefit across the state. 13 SENATOR RITCHIE: You can correct me if I'm 14 wrong, but I thought you just said that Indian Point 15 was a clean generation there too? 16 STUART NACHMIAS: Well, that's true, but this 17 plan is what -- what would be the dispatch, both 18 with or without Indian Point. 19 And, certainly, in the case without 20 Indian Point, Indian Point is, certainly, from a 21 greenhouse-gas perspective, a clean plant, but there 22 would be additional dispatch that would happen, and 23 we want the cleanest, most efficient dispatch. 24 And, so, the additional transmission would 25 allow that, so it would mitigate what impacts would 1 potentially happen without these solutions. 2 SENATOR RITCHIE: So I guess I will just ask 3 you: 4 How would you propose that I would go back to 5 the district that I represent, or any of the 6 North Country that myself or Senator Little 7 represents, and tell them that they're now going to 8 bear the cost of what's -- or, at least part of the 9 cost with regards to the retiring of Indian Point, 10 if that proceeds? 11 STUART NACHMIAS: I think, you know, that the 12 Public Service Commission has considered all the 13 benefits. 14 There are a variety of environmental 15 benefits, benefits to local generators, local jobs 16 in the upstate communities, property taxes that are 17 supported, by the fact that these projects do allow 18 additional flow of power across the state, and that 19 is something that was viewed in a process through 20 regulators, and those benefits were all considered. 21 SENATOR RITCHIE: I just have one other 22 question. 23 I see that you're the co-author of the plan 24 with NYPA. 25 I guess I would like to know how that came 1 about. 2 STUART NACHMIAS: It was a -- the order by 3 the Public Service Commission ordered Con Edison and 4 NYPA to submit the plan; and, so, that's what we 5 did. 6 SENATOR RITCHIE: Senator Maziarz. 7 SENATOR MAZIARZ: Thank you, Senator Ritchie. 8 Senator Carlucci. 9 SENATOR CARLUCCI: Yeah, thank you, 10 Chairman Maziarz. 11 Just a question, you had talked about 12 economic development. 13 Could you elaborate on some of those 14 proposals; specifically, you mentioned Ramapo to 15 Rock Tavern? 16 STUART NACHMIAS: So, thank you, and welcome. 17 It's nice to see you. 18 The Ramapo-Rock Tavern project, there is an 19 existing transmission line from the Rock Tavern 20 substation, which is in central Hudson territory, 21 through to the Ramapo substation in Orange and 22 Rockland territory. 23 The proposal is to add a second 24 345-kV transmission line along that right-of-way, 25 so, it is using an existing right-of-way. 1 It's a project that had -- got its Article 7 2 permitting back in the 1970s. 3 And, so, there are certainly going to be jobs 4 that result from the construction work to install 5 that, that additional feeder. 6 SENATOR CARLUCCI: Do you have any numbers in 7 terms of proposed jobs or estimates? 8 STUART NACHMIAS: You know, I don't have that 9 number offhand, but, the project is a, roughly, 10 $125-million project. 11 SENATOR CARLUCCI: And, then, would there be 12 an increase in property taxes that would have to be 13 paid? 14 STUART NACHMIAS: Well, to the extent that 15 transmission -- you know, transmission assets do pay 16 taxes, so there could be taxes associated with that. 17 But also importantly, that transmission line 18 enables more power to flow from upstate to 19 downstate, so there will be more generation 20 dispatched in the upstate area, and that helps 21 support, I think, the financial viability of some of 22 those units, with their associated taxes. 23 SENATOR CARLUCCI: You mentioned the second 24 345 line. 25 What does that mean in terms of generation, 1 or, in terms of moving electricity? 2 STUART NACHMIAS: So two of the solutions, 3 that project, together with the project that the 4 New York Power Authority is implementing called the 5 "Marcy South Series Compensation," those 6 two projects, together, will move about another 7 400 megawatts of power, to flow from upstate into 8 the southeast New York region. 9 SENATOR CARLUCCI: Thank you. 10 SENATOR MAZIARZ: I'm sorry, were you 11 finished, Senator? 12 SENATOR CARLUCCI: Yes, thank you. 13 SENATOR MAZIARZ: Thank you very much. 14 Mr. Nachmias, I just wanted to make a couple 15 more points. 16 You know, you mentioned about the potential 17 closure, and encouraging renewables, and that 18 everyone should share in the cost of that. 19 You know, this Committee, with 20 Senator Carlucci, Senator Ritchie, myself, the other 21 members, and with the Assembly, and certainly with 22 Governor Cuomo, have done a lot in the last 23 two years to encourage renewables, to incentivize 24 renewable energy, particularly solar, wind, and so 25 forth. 1 But I have to tell you, it is very difficult. 2 It is a lot easier said than done. 3 I am currently involved in my district with a 4 wind-generation project, which has pitted neighbor 5 versus neighbor, family member versus family member, 6 animosity that will last generations, over the 7 siting of one windmill on a farm. 8 The Power Authority just, probably, two or 9 three years ago, not under the leadership -- I want 10 to make it very clear -- not under the leadership of 11 Gil Quinones, spent, probably, millions of dollars 12 on an offshore wind project in Upstate New York, in 13 Lake Ontario and Lake Erie, that, after spending 14 millions of dollars on, went bust. 15 So, you know, again, that was public money 16 that was spent for siting of renewable sources. 17 Not that -- not that -- I want to be very 18 clear, I'm not opposed to that, this Committee is 19 not opposed to that. 20 We've done everything to encourage that. 21 But to say to take 2,000-plus megawatts off 22 the grid and it's going to be replaced by renewables 23 in Upstate New York, or that -- you know, that's 24 just very difficult. 25 Very difficult. 1 And I want -- I know you represent -- or, I'm 2 sorry, are affiliated with a company in the far -- 3 the far eastern region. 4 And I just wanted to let you know, and 5 I think Senator -- I believe Senator Ritchie would 6 agree with me, I certainly don't speak for her, but, 7 it's a lot easier said than done. 8 Thank you. 9 Any other questions? 10 Oh, I'm sorry. 11 Senator Carlucci. 12 SENATOR CARLUCCI: The plan that's put forth, 13 have you taken into considering, like 14 Senator Maziarz talked about, renewable energy 15 sources that are coming online, or new conservation 16 practices? 17 How about new projects that are online to be 18 built, or proposed? 19 Was that taken into consideration? 20 STUART NACHMIAS: Well, the New York ISO, in 21 its planning process, would already consider 22 projects that are moving along in the pipeline, in 23 its plan, so, anything incremental to that would be 24 eligible. 25 And certainly the thought was, that we could 1 facilitate some incremental renewable energy. 2 Also, there's a 100-megawatt component of the 3 plan that focuses on energy efficiency, demand 4 response, support of some localized CHP. 5 So, there's a variety of components of the 6 plan that would address some of the elements that 7 you speak to. 8 SENATOR CARLUCCI: Are you aware if the -- 9 there's a proposed desalinization plant in 10 Rockland County. 11 Has that been taken into consideration with 12 the plan, in terms of energy consumption? 13 STUART NACHMIAS: Not that I could speak to 14 right now, that I'm aware of. 15 I guess, if that is already in the load 16 forecasts, then it might be, but, I don't know 17 whether or not it is yet in the load forecast. 18 SENATOR MAZIARZ: Any other comments or any 19 anything you'd like to add, or any observations you 20 would make on that? 21 STUART NACHMIAS: I appreciate the 22 opportunity. 23 I think my comments, and the comments from 24 the folks before, are somewhat aligned, in terms of 25 moving forward, and just preparing the State. 1 But I appreciate the opportunity to be here 2 today. 3 Thank you. 4 SENATOR MAZIARZ: I would make this 5 observation, though, Mr. Nachmias, that, you know, 6 you represent the -- you know, the private sector in 7 the energy field; you know, and Mr. Quinones and 8 Mr. Addepalli represent, kind of, the public sector, 9 public agencies. 10 You know, so -- you know -- and I realize you 11 started off by saying that Con Ed does not take a 12 position on the open or closure of it, and I can 13 appreciate that. 14 But, eventually, you know, down the road, 15 we're going to need your type of expertise -- they 16 are going to need your type of expertise on what's 17 best for your customers. 18 Thank you. 19 STUART NACHMIAS: Thank you. 20 SENATOR MAZIARZ: Our next appearance will be 21 by T. Michael Twomey, the vice president, external 22 affairs, from Entergy Wholesale Commodities. 23 Hi, Mike. 24 T. MICHAEL TWOMEY: Good morning. 25 SENATOR MAZIARZ: Thank you very much for 1 being here today. 2 T. MICHAEL TWOMEY: Thank you for inviting 3 me. 4 SENATOR MAZIARZ: How's business? 5 T. MICHAEL TWOMEY: Well -- 6 SENATOR MAZIARZ: My father would say, 7 "It could always be better." 8 T. MICHAEL TWOMEY: Could always be better. 9 Good morning, Senator Maziarz, 10 Senator Ritchie, Senator Carlucci. 11 I appreciate the opportunity to appear at 12 this hearing. 13 My name is Mike Twomey and I am the 14 vice president, external affairs, for 15 Entergy Wholesale Commodities. 16 Entergy Corporation, the owner of 17 Indian Point, is one of the largest nuclear 18 operators in the United States. 19 It purchased Indian Point Unit 3 and the 20 James A. Fitzpatrick facility in Oswego in 2000 from 21 NYPA, and Indian Point Unit 2 was purchased from 22 Con Edison in 2001. 23 In the last 10 years, Entergy has invested 24 more than $1 billion in the Indian Point facility, 25 including hundreds of millions of dollars to 1 strengthen and enhance safety and security. 2 Indian Point provides the following economic 3 benefits: 4 More than 1,000 full-time jobs that generate 5 more than $140 million in annual employee payroll, 6 more than $350 million in annual local purchases, 7 approximately $75 million in annual property-tax 8 payments and value-sharing-agreement payments to 9 state and local governments, and more than 10 $1 million in annual charitable contributions to 11 non-profit organizations located within the 12 Lower Hudson Valley and New York City. 13 According to an economic study done by the 14 Nuclear Energy Institute in 2004, Indian Point 15 generates close to $1 billion in annual economic 16 activity for the region. 17 Indian Point has an excellent safety record 18 and ranks among the most reliable in the nation. 19 The NRC reporting regime includes full-time 20 resident inspectors who have unrestricted access to 21 plant information, as well as to any and all 22 personnel. 23 For 2012, Indian Point, once again, 24 maintained all "green" NRC performance indicators 25 and inspection findings following more than 11,000 1 hours of review by that independent agency, placing 2 the station in the overall "green" category of the 3 NRC's oversight program. 4 According to the New York ISO, Indian Point 5 currently provides between 25 percent and 30 percent 6 of the electricity needed to serve New York City and 7 significant parts of Westchester County, supplying 8 approximately 2,000 megawatts of baseload power to 9 homes, businesses, municipalities, hospitals, and 10 other critical regional infrastructure. 11 According to a study prepared by 12 Charles River Associates commissioned by the 13 New York City Department of Environmental Protection 14 in 2011, Indian Point's retirement would lead to a 15 2- to 3-billion-dollar increase in wholesale energy 16 costs through 2030 for New York City consumers. 17 Statewide, the increase would be 10 to 18 12 billion for the same period. 19 These increased wholesale energy costs would 20 be in addition to the cost of building new 21 generation and transmission infrastructure, which we 22 believe would be at least 2000 -- excuse me, at 23 least $2 billion based on most likely scenarios. 24 New Yorkers already pay the highest statewide 25 average residential electric rates in the contiguous 1 United States, based on 2012 data from the 2 Energy Information Administration. 3 Mr. Nachmias mention this had earlier: 4 According to the CRA report, New York would 5 see approximately a 15 percent increase in carbon 6 emissions under most conventional scenarios, with, 7 roughly, a 7 to 8 percent increase in nitrogen oxide 8 commissions. 9 Nuclear power plants do not burn hydrocarbons 10 to generate electricity so they produce, virtually, 11 no greenhouse gases. 12 In 2011 alone, U.S. nuclear plants prevented 13 the release of more than 600 million metric tons of 14 carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. 15 This is nearly as much carbon dioxide as is 16 released annually from all U.S. passenger cars. 17 Proposed national and regional 18 carbon-reduction goals simply cannot be met without 19 nuclear plants. 20 Some critics of the facility mischaracterize 21 Indian Point's contribution to the regional grid by 22 looking only at the amount of power it delivers to 23 utilities under purchase-power agreements, including 24 a 500-megawatt purchase-power agreement with Con Ed 25 we have in place through 2017, rather than looking 1 at the total amount of power the plant provides. 2 In fact, utilities typically supply their 3 needs with a mix of PPAs and open-market 4 purchases. 5 The mix of these purchases from Indian Point 6 can change, but approximately 2,000 megawatts from 7 the facility is continuously provided to the 8 New York electric system. 9 Indian Point submitted an application for a 10 renewed operating license to the NRA in April 2007. 11 The NRC staff has issued a final supplemental 12 environmental impact statement and a final 13 supplemental -- excuse me, safety-evaluation report, 14 both of which support license renewal. 15 Before the NRC can issue a final decision on 16 Indian Point's license-renewal application, however, 17 it must resolve 13 pending contentions filed by 18 New York State and two environmental organizations. 19 Nine of these contentions were tried before 20 the ASLB in 2012, and the remaining four will be 21 likely tried in early 2014. 22 The Indian Point license-renewal proceeding 23 is the most complex license-renewal proceeding ever 24 conducted by the NRC. 25 It will not be completed for several years. 1 The Timely-Renewal Doctrine established in 2 the federal Administrative Procedure Act, and 3 incorporated in NRC regulations, provides that if a 4 licensee submits a timely application for license 5 renewal, then the existing license does not expire 6 until the application has been finally determined by 7 the agency. 8 The NRC regulations require reactor licensees 9 to submit license-renewal applications five years 10 before expiration in order to qualify for 11 timely-renewal protection. 12 Indian Point submitted its application for 13 license renewal more than five years before the 14 expiration of the existing Indian Point licenses. 15 Therefore, until the NRC license-renewal 16 process is complete, the current operating licenses 17 for Indian Point Units 2 and 3 will not expire, but 18 will, instead, be extended by operation of federal 19 law. 20 The NRC has completed specific inspections of 21 Indian Point designed for licensees who will likely 22 operate under the Timely-Renewal Doctrine. 23 Over the weekend, on September 28th, 24 Indian Point Unit 2 entered the period of extended 25 operations, after receiving notifications from the 1 NRC that the plant had passed the appropriate 2 inspections, and provided the NRC with the requisite 3 assurances that various commitments are being met 4 and will continue to be met. 5 Going forward, the NRC's regulations will 6 continue in full force during the timely-renewal 7 period. 8 In connection with the license-renewal 9 application, Indian Point has made appropriate 10 filings with the New York State Department of 11 Environmental Conservation and the New York State 12 Department of State to address state-related 13 license-renewal issues. 14 Given the limited time available for this 15 hearing, I will not discuss those filings in detail. 16 I would simply like to note that the record 17 before NYSDEC demonstrates that Indian Point is 18 entitled to a water-quality certificate. 19 Indian Point's operations are protective of 20 the Hudson River which is in better shape today than 21 it was in 1973. 22 And, with respect to NYSDOS, the record is 23 clear that Indian Point either does not need a new 24 consistency determination under the Coastal Zone 25 Management Act, or, in the alternative, is entitled 1 to such a determination under the standards 2 applicable to such a request. 3 Finally, as part of the license-renewal 4 proceeding, the NRC accepted public comments. 5 More than 200 business, community, and labor 6 groups from New York submitted comments in support 7 of license renewal, including The Business Council 8 of New York State, the Partnership for New York 9 City, the New York Urban League, the New York Energy 10 Consumers Council, the NAACP New York State 11 Conference, the Westchester County Association, the 12 New York State AFL-CIO, and Teamsters Joint 13 Council 16, among others. 14 The reliability contingency plan proceeding: 15 In a November 30, 2012, order, the New York 16 PSC opened a docket to evaluate the potential 17 retirement of Indian Point. 18 While the PSC recognized that Indian Point 19 has a pending license-renewal application, it, 20 nevertheless, directed Con Edison, with the 21 assistance of NYPA, to develop and file a 22 reliability contingency plan. 23 On February 1, 2013, Con Edison and NYPA 24 filed a joint plan in which they proposed a set of 25 three transmission projects and an incremental 1 100-megawatt energy-efficiency program that would 2 cost customers, in total, according to the filing, 3 more than $800 million. 4 While that figure has received a lot of 5 attention in the media, it is important to note that 6 those projects would not come close to replacing 7 Indian Point's full 2,000 megawatts of capacity. 8 The total cost of replacing Indian Point's 9 capacity would likely be 2 to 2 1/2 billion dollars: 10 the 800 million for the projects referenced above, 11 and, at least one 1,000-megawatt CCGT, which would 12 cost approximately 1 to 1 1/2 billion dollars. 13 The 2- to 2 1/2-billion-dollar figure 14 represents infrastructure and program costs only, 15 and does not include the higher energy costs that 16 would also be incurred. 17 Indian Point submitted an alternative 18 proposal in response to the NYPA RFP. 19 Our proposal offers the most economic 20 alternative to any of the other options because it 21 is based on market pricing which is substantially 22 lower than the cost of constructing new resources. 23 Entergy submitted a proposal to provide 24 competitively-priced electricity from Indian Point 25 beginning in 2016, and requiring no public 1 subsidies. 2 Entergy's proposal would save billions of 3 dollars in unnecessary expenditures. 4 The best reliability contingency plan for 5 New York is to support Indian Point relicensing. 6 Mr. Quinones referred to the reliability 7 contingency plan as an insurance policy. 8 Well, it's an insurance policy they're 9 proposing for an event that New York can prevent 10 from happening. 11 The only uncertainty, with respect to 12 Indian Point relicensing, concerns arguments and 13 positions taken by New York State. 14 Entergy will continue to urge New York State 15 agencies to work collaboratively with the company to 16 reduce any license-renewal uncertainty. 17 In addition, we remain willing to work with 18 New York State agencies and public utilities in a 19 constructive manner to continue to provide New York 20 consumers with a safe, reliable, and environmentally 21 beneficial source of power. 22 This concludes my prepared remarks, and I'm 23 available to answer questions. 24 25 1 SENATOR MAZIARZ: Thank you very much, 2 Mr. Twomey. 3 I'm going to turn it over to my colleagues 4 first before I ask my questions. 5 Senator Ritchie. 6 SENATOR RITCHIE: You talked about the safety 7 record at the plant. 8 Could you just elaborate on specifics? 9 Has there ever been a leak? 10 Has there ever been an issue where you had to 11 evacuate the plant? 12 I mean, could you just elaborate on the 13 safety issue? 14 T. MICHAEL TWOMEY: I'm not aware of any 15 situation where we had to evacuate, but, there 16 certainly are, from time to time, in any industrial 17 facility, there are steam leaks, there are other 18 activities. 19 The NRC, and the nuclear industry, requires a 20 level of reporting that is unmatched in any 21 industrial enterprise. 22 We are more transparent than any industrial 23 facility, and as a result, any routine, to minor, to 24 more serious event, is reported, is discussed, is 25 reviewed, is corrected, and is dealt with. 1 And the safety record, overall, for the 2 facility, which has been operating for more than 3 40 years, is better than, or as good at least, as 4 any industrial facility in the country. 5 SENATOR RITCHIE: Could you just explain to 6 me what happened at the Vermont Yankee plant? 7 T. MICHAEL TWOMEY: Yes. 8 Vermont Yankee is a relatively small nuclear 9 facility, a little over 600 megawatts, and, it 10 operates in the New England Independent System 11 Operator zone. 12 It is a standalone unit, so it doesn't have 13 the benefit of, for example, Indian Point is a 14 two-unit site, so there are economies of scale. 15 Your overhead costs are spread across two 16 units. 17 So, for example, we have to provide security 18 at Vermont Yankee for one unit that produces only 19 600 megawatts. 20 We also provide security at Indian Point 21 which has 2,000 megawatts. 22 So, in a sense, you're dealing with 23 Vermont Yankee, with a small facility, that doesn't 24 generate the same level of revenue, but incurs many 25 of the same costs. 1 And with the low price of natural gas 2 recently in the last couple of years, that facility 3 became less competitive in the marketplace, and 4 that's because, although there is a relatively low 5 cost to produce electricity, which is what the price 6 is based on that the plant receives from the market, 7 the overhead costs are higher, and their regulatory 8 costs, there are increased investments that we've 9 made in the plant. 10 We have invested more than $400 million in 11 Vermont Yankee since we bought it. 12 And those fixed costs, those overhead costs, 13 you do not get in market pricing. 14 So as those costs either stay steady or 15 increase, you don't have an ability to recover 16 those; only your production costs. 17 And, ultimately, that facility, we made the 18 very tough decision that it was not economical to 19 continue to operate it. 20 And as a result, we've announced that that 21 facility will cease power production at the end of 22 the current operating cycle, which is expected to be 23 at the end of 2014. 24 SENATOR RITCHIE: Are there similarities 25 between that facility and Fitzpatrick? 1 T. MICHAEL TWOMEY: There are many, quite 2 frankly. 3 Fitzpatrick, from our perspective, is also a 4 single-unit facility. 5 It's also in a difficult market, and it is 6 situated in a way that is not unlike Vermont Yankee. 7 We have announced, and we did announce, the 8 day we made the Vermont Yankee announcement, that we 9 intend -- currently intend to refuel Fitzpatrick 10 next October, but that is an item, quite frankly, we 11 have to review on a regular basis. 12 SENATOR RITCHIE: So could you just explain 13 to me, if Indian Point is retired, would that have 14 any other consequences, separate, to Fitzpatrick? 15 T. MICHAEL TWOMEY: Well, you know, there 16 was, what would be the effect on Fitzpatrick of a 17 closure of Indian Point? 18 I don't know. 19 I mean, I will say this, we have no intention 20 of retiring Indian Point. 21 The only uncertainty regarding Indian Point 22 is whether we receive the licenses from the federal 23 Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 24 The staff at the Nuclear Regulatory 25 Commission, which has been looking at this question 1 for six years, has reviewed all the technical 2 information, and I believe it's close to 3 28,000 hours of review. 4 They've concluded that the plant is safe and 5 can continue to operate. 6 The uncertainty about Indian Point's 7 continued operation is largely due to actions by 8 New York State. 9 So when I discuss this, it's not that we 10 would choose to retire it; it's that New York would 11 withhold permits. 12 And we've got some legal arguments that we 13 believe are very strong, that those permits are not 14 needed, but, nothing's a guarantee. 15 So, we don't intend to retire Indian Point, 16 but, if Indian Point were not to obtain the 17 necessary licenses, I don't know what the effect on 18 Fitzpatrick would be. 19 I don't know that it would help very much the 20 situation in Upstate New York because the markets 21 are so different. 22 You would likely see other generation built, 23 transmission investment. 24 You would see the 2 to 2 1/2 billion dollars 25 get spent, which, of course, would be paid for by 1 customers; 2 You would see higher energy bills that would 3 be paid for my customers; 4 And you would see degraded air quality that 5 everybody would suffer from. 6 SENATOR RITCHIE: One last question: 7 Have you seen, I guess, anything like this 8 happening with a facility that hasn't said that it 9 was going to look at retiring the facility, with 10 this contingency plan being set into motion? 11 T. MICHAEL TWOMEY: I have not seen -- 12 I'm sorry. 13 Senator, I have not seen anything like this. 14 You know, you asked some questions earlier 15 about Fitzpatrick and the upstate plants. 16 Fitzpatrick went through a license-renewal 17 proceeding only a few years ago. 18 There was no objection from the State of 19 New York to that relicensing. 20 New York gave the permits that were needed, 21 and the facilities were relicensed. 22 That has not been the case with respect to 23 Indian Point. 24 SENATOR RITCHIE: In your estimation, 25 considering the way this played out with this 1 contingency plan, do you believe that it would be 2 harder to convince people in the future to invest in 3 facilities, considering there's -- you would never 4 know whether this was going to come into play? 5 T. MICHAEL TWOMEY: I will say that it would 6 depend on the facility. 7 We are in a bit of a unique situation. 8 You have had other retirements where the 9 owners of those facilities made the decision, on an 10 economic basis, given the marketplace, that it was 11 not in their interests to continue to operate. 12 In this case, Indian Point is being 13 challenged in a way that no other generation 14 facility in the state of New York has been 15 challenged by the State. 16 And, so, I guess if you were thinking about 17 investing, you'd have to gauge, what would the risks 18 that you might be targeted for closure, in the term 19 of your investment recovery. 20 SENATOR MAZIARZ: Senator Carlucci. 21 SENATOR CARLUCCI: Thank you. 22 Mr. Twomey, you talked about New York State 23 denying permits to Indian Point. 24 Can you elaborate on that, why do you think 25 that is? 1 T. MICHAEL TWOMEY: Well they haven't denied 2 any permits yet, just to clarify. 3 We filed an application for a water-quality 4 certificate with the New York State Environment -- 5 Department of Environmental Conservation. 6 The staff of NYSDEC recommended a denial. 7 But as of today, and the application's now 8 been pending for either three, four, maybe even 9 five -- yeah, I guess it's four years, there's been 10 no final action by NYSDEC, which is one of the legal 11 arguments we've raised, is that the NRC process 12 gives states one year to act. 13 And it's been four years, or at least 14 four years -- I'd have to check my dates -- but 15 New York has not made a final decision. 16 And with respect to the NYSDOS 17 (New York State Department of State), we've got an 18 application for a CZMA consistency determination 19 pending. 20 We believe that the record shows that we're 21 entitled to the permits. 22 We are in the hearing process with NYSDEC. 23 I certainly don't want to prejudge the 24 process. 25 We believe our witnesses have put on a 1 compelling case. 2 We are certainly hopeful that the outcome of 3 that process will be positive. 4 We've also submitted a comprehensive 5 application to NYSDOS. 6 We're certainly hopeful that that will be 7 reviewed with the same standards applied to our 8 filing, that are applied to other filings by similar 9 facilities. 10 SENATOR CARLUCCI: So it boils down to the 11 recommendation of staff from the New York State 12 Department of Environmental Conservation? 13 T. MICHAEL TWOMEY: At this point, yes. 14 SENATOR CARLUCCI: And what were those 15 recommendations; why were they denying this? 16 T. MICHAEL TWOMEY: Well, they raised various 17 issues. 18 They raised an issue regarding rail -- 19 radiological -- proposed radiological effects on the 20 river. 21 Since that time, NYSDEC has actually settled 22 that issue with us. 23 The staff has settled that issue with us. 24 The biggest issue they've raised -- 25 SENATOR CARLUCCI: So it's from the DEC, but 1 now the Department of State has -- 2 T. MICHAEL TWOMEY: No, the DEC will issue -- 3 will make a decision regarding that question. 4 The NYSDOS question is under the Coastal Zone 5 Management Act, which has up to 44 policies. 6 It's not clear to me what policies the 7 department will find are applicable. 8 And for those that they find applicable, it's 9 not clear whether we will be approved or denied, on 10 which ones. 11 They could determine, for example, that 17 of 12 the 44 are relevant, and we could prevail on 15 and 13 lose on 2; we could prevail on 2 and lose on 15. 14 We just don't know. 15 The decision timeline for that has not run 16 yet. 17 So what the New York State Department of 18 Environmental Conservation, switching back to the 19 proposed denial by the staff, their biggest issue, 20 I would say, is probably the question of whether we 21 should install two Yankee Stadium-size cooling 22 towers on the Hudson River on either side of the 23 facility, you know, as disruptive and negative 24 consequences as those would provoke. 25 For example, the saline level in the 1 Hudson River is such that, if you install cooling 2 towers, you'd have output at the top of the cooling 3 towers that would affect people who have asthma. 4 But, nevertheless, the NYSDEC staff has 5 proposed that cooling towers would be a better 6 proposal than the current cooling system. 7 We proposed an alternative, with wedge-wire 8 screens, that we think achieves all the objectives. 9 But those are the issues that are being tried 10 in front of the administrative law judges, and we 11 don't have a decision from the judges yet. 12 We're hopeful that our evidence will be 13 viewed more compelling -- as more compelling than 14 the evidence that's been submitted by the opponents. 15 SENATOR CARLUCCI: So, now, is this -- are 16 they stating that there is toxins that are spilling 17 out from the spent fuel rods? 18 T. MICHAEL TWOMEY: That issue has been 19 raised by one of the environmental organizations, 20 and I'm not sure that it is actually germane to the 21 NYSDEC proceeding. 22 I know that that issue's been raised by 23 certain environmental agencies, with the NRC, but, 24 certainly, that question's been raised from time to 25 time. 1 And we've opposed it, and we've indicated 2 that we don't think there's been any harm to the 3 Hudson River, and we will continue to do so. 4 SENATOR CARLUCCI: So it's Entergy's belief 5 that there has been no toxins spilled into 6 groundwater or the Hudson River? 7 T. MICHAEL TWOMEY: No. 8 What our position has been, is that, if there 9 have been releases, those releases have been 10 consistent with whatever permits we have in effect, 11 and that they haven't adversely affected the public 12 health and safety. 13 I can't say that there have been no releases, 14 I'm not the expert on that, but I do believe that we 15 have said repeatedly that we have not had an adverse 16 effect on the river. 17 SENATOR CARLUCCI: But you would acknowledge 18 that there has been releases of toxins, like 19 strontium-90 and caesium-137 and tritium? 20 T. MICHAEL TWOMEY: I don't know about the 21 specifics of the releases, but those are all 22 regulated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 23 And I believe that we are in compliance with 24 whatever groundwater standards we're required to be 25 in compliance with. 1 SENATOR CARLUCCI: The Nuclear Regulatory 2 Commission allows for these toxins to be in our 3 groundwater? 4 T. MICHAEL TWOMEY: The nuc- -- well, first 5 of all, I mean, there's radiation -- there's 6 background radiation all over the country. 7 Above-ground atom-bomb testing in the '50s 8 ensured that we would all have some level of 9 background radiation regardless of where we live, 10 and, the NRC has an obligation to ensure the public 11 health and safety. 12 I'm not the expert on which, what the levels 13 are, but it is not a zero-release regimen. 14 It is a "protect the public health and 15 safety" regimen. 16 And we certainly believe we do that. 17 SENATOR CARLUCCI: Okay. 18 Now, talking about the spent fuel rods, what 19 is the plan for those fuel rods? 20 Where are they kept right now? 21 T. MICHAEL TWOMEY: Well, they're kept on the 22 site, which is where they'll remain until the 23 federal government honors its obligation to come and 24 pick up spent fuel, which is an obligation that's 25 been in place for many years. 1 SENATOR CARLUCCI: So what happens if that 2 obligation doesn't come to fruition? 3 T. MICHAEL TWOMEY: Well, we have two methods 4 of storing the fuel. 5 We have spent-fuel pools, which is where the 6 spent fuel rods go initially. 7 And then we've constructed dry-cask storage 8 facilities, and we are moving spent fuel on some 9 regular basis -- I don't have the schedule in front 10 of me -- into dry-cask storage where it can remain 11 in casks that are actually designed to be picked up 12 by the Department of Energy. 13 SENATOR CARLUCCI: So the dry-cask storage, 14 that's located right there on the grounds of 15 Indian Point? 16 T. MICHAEL TWOMEY: Correct. 17 SENATOR CARLUCCI: Now, how big of a facility 18 is that, and how much can it contain, in terms of -- 19 T. MICHAEL TWOMEY: Well, eventually, we can 20 store all of the spent fuel that is generated in 21 Indian Point in dry-cask storage at the facility. 22 We have it -- we have one pad in place 23 already, at least one. 24 We may have to construct another pad, but, we 25 do have room on the site to store all the spent 1 fuel. 2 SENATOR CARLUCCI: When did that start, the 3 dry-cask system? 4 T. MICHAEL TWOMEY: I'm not 100 percent sure. 5 It was within -- certainly, since we bought 6 the plant. 7 My estimate, Senator, would be in the last 8 five to six years. 9 We can certainly get back to your office with 10 more details on that question. 11 SENATOR CARLUCCI: How long would you have to 12 store them in the dry cask? 13 T. MICHAEL TWOMEY: Well, we would store them 14 in the dry casks until the federal government picks 15 up the spent fuel. 16 And that could mean a regional facility or a 17 single national repository, depending on how that 18 works out. 19 SENATOR CARLUCCI: What's the cost to 20 maintain the spent fuel rods? 21 T. MICHAEL TWOMEY: I don't have that figure 22 in front of me. 23 I mean, we -- certainly, we pay the cost. 24 SENATOR CARLUCCI: Right. 25 T. MICHAEL TWOMEY: Consumers don't pay the 1 cost, because we don't -- that's one of the costs 2 that I mentioned that we don't get to include in the 3 price that we charge for power. 4 So, from a New York-consumer standpoint, the 5 cost is zero. 6 SENATOR CARLUCCI: But you don't have any 7 idea what that actually costs the company? 8 T. MICHAEL TWOMEY: I don't know that. 9 I did not come prepared to answer that 10 question today, but that's -- again, we can provide 11 that to your office as a follow-up. 12 SENATOR CARLUCCI: Great. 13 So Entergy has plans to spend money on the 14 containment of these fuel rods for, how long? 15 T. MICHAEL TWOMEY: For as long as we have 16 to. 17 SENATOR CARLUCCI: So what happens if Entergy 18 goes bankrupt, let's say, and those costs are borne 19 by Entergy right now, who would pay that to contain 20 those spent fuel rods? 21 T. MICHAEL TWOMEY: We do have 22 decommissioning trust funds, and those funds allow 23 for the spending -- for money to be spent on 24 spent-fuel management. 25 SENATOR CARLUCCI: And that's money set aside 1 by nuclear-power companies? 2 T. MICHAEL TWOMEY: Correct. 3 SENATOR CARLUCCI: That can't be passed on to 4 the consumer either? 5 T. MICHAEL TWOMEY: No. 6 SENATOR CARLUCCI: And do you have an idea of 7 percentage of budget what that is for you guys? 8 T. MICHAEL TWOMEY: I do not have that 9 number. 10 SENATOR CARLUCCI: Now, when we talk about 11 where Indian Point is, you know, one of the big 12 contentious points is that it's in a highly 13 populated area. 14 I live in the zone that would have to be 15 evacuated. 16 Where -- the evacuation plan, how does that 17 work? 18 Could you walk us through that? 19 T. MICHAEL TWOMEY: Well, we do have experts 20 who spend every day worrying about that issue. 21 I would note, primarily, that, first of all, 22 Indian Point's location near New York City is not 23 unique. 24 There are nuclear facilities operating near 25 Boston; Washington, D.C.; Chicago; Detroit; Miami; 1 Philadelphia; Pittsburgh; major cities all over the 2 United States, and particularly on the eastern 3 seaboard. 4 In fact, the last figure I saw is, roughly, 5 one-third of the United States citizens live within 6 50 miles of a nuclear facility. 7 They're a critically important part of our 8 energy infrastructure, and, you know, a decision to 9 reject nuclear power because of its proximity to 10 nuclear -- excuse me, to populated areas would 11 really be a rejection of nuclear power all over the 12 country. 13 And, it provides about 20 percent of the 14 nation's power. 15 SENATOR CARLUCCI: Right, but -- 16 T. MICHAEL TWOMEY: And from a clean 17 energy -- 18 SENATOR CARLUCCI: -- we're -- this is being 19 specific to Indian Point and the -- you know, the 20 geological fixtures that we have there, in terms of 21 a large river, you know, constrained modes of 22 transportation, so we've got to look at it case by 23 case. 24 And just the evacuation plans for 25 Indian Point have never really been explained to me 1 thoroughly, in terms of understanding how we would 2 actually evacuate that large amount of people across 3 things like the Tappan Zee Bridge or the 4 George Washington Bridge. 5 So, is that something that you're confident 6 in? 7 And, how that would work? 8 And, are you able to evacuate that area, that 9 we are called is "in the zone," in that short period 10 of time? 11 T. MICHAEL TWOMEY: Well, first of all, 12 I think -- the answer is, yes, we're very confident 13 in the effectiveness of the plan. 14 The plan is really not just an Entergy plan. 15 It requires coordination with federal 16 agencies, FEMA, state agencies, local officials. 17 Those plans are detailed. 18 They are regularly reviewed. 19 They are practiced. 20 I -- there is a wealth of information about 21 those plans, and I am not the best resource for you 22 on that question. 23 And what I'd like to do is, we can provide 24 your office with a detailed description of the plan. 25 Now, the evacuation area is proposed, in the 1 event that you needed to, is only about 10 miles 2 outside the facility. 3 And those plans are highly dependent on what 4 exact type of an event you have, and what you would 5 need to do. 6 But, as I say, there are experts who, really, 7 their full-time job is to worry about this every 8 day. 9 SENATOR CARLUCCI: The thing that I'm trying 10 to understand is, when we talk about that 10-mile 11 radius. 12 T. MICHAEL TWOMEY: Right. 13 SENATOR CARLUCCI: So it's 10 square miles 14 around the facility? 15 T. MICHAEL TWOMEY: I believe it's 16 10 miles -- yeah, if you picked the center of the 17 plant, it would be a 10-mile circle. 18 SENATOR CARLUCCI: So when you talk about 19 evacuating that area, it's really not a complete 20 evacuation, and that's what troubles me, in terms of 21 what I've been told is, it depends on what the wind 22 conditions are. 23 T. MICHAEL TWOMEY: Correct. 24 SENATOR CARLUCCI: Who signs off on that 25 plan? 1 T. MICHAEL TWOMEY: Well, FEMA, the NRC, 2 state and local officials. 3 SENATOR CARLUCCI: And right now, you're 4 confident that that's all moving forward? 5 T. MICHAEL TWOMEY: Very. 6 SENATOR MAZIARZ: Thank you very much, 7 Mr. Twomey. 8 I think that's it. 9 T. MICHAEL TWOMEY: I appreciate the 10 opportunity to appear. 11 Thank you. 12 SENATOR MAZIARZ: All right, thank you very 13 much. 14 We've been going now for almost two hours. 15 We're going to take an absolute five-minute 16 break. 17 Okay? 18 Thank you. 19 (A recess was taken.) 20 (The hearing resumed, as follows:) 21 SENATOR MAZIARZ: Our next witness is 22 Tom Rumsey. 23 Tom is the vice president of external affairs 24 for the New York Independent System Operator. 25 Tom, thank you very much for being here 1 today. 2 THOMAS RUMSEY: Thank you, Chairman. 3 And good afternoon to Chairman Maziarz, 4 Senator Ritchie, and Senator Carlucci. 5 I appreciate the opportunity to speak today. 6 We have submitted a pretty detailed response 7 to the hearing notice, but I'd like to summarize 8 that in about a page and a half, if you will, 9 double-spaced, and then get to your questions. 10 The New York Independent System Operator is a 11 not-for-profit organization, independent of the 12 state government, and, we take no position as to the 13 closure or continued operation of Indian Point; only 14 to the impacts of both. 15 We serve three key functions for the state of 16 New York: 17 We're responsible for the reliable operation 18 of New York's bulk electric system in accordance 19 with all national, regional, and state reliability 20 requirements; 21 We administer New York's competitive 22 wholesale electricity markets; 23 And, finally, we conduct short- and 24 long-range planning for the bulk electric system for 25 the state of New York. 1 The three key points that I'd like to make 2 regarding the hearing today is: 3 One, to meet reliability requirements, 4 approximately 1100 megawatts of replacement power or 5 resources would have to be in place prior the 6 closure of the Indian Point center to maintain 7 reliability standards; 8 Two, due to New York's existing transmission 9 limitations, likely solutions to the closure would 10 be new generation, additional demand response or 11 distributed generation, and limited transmission 12 upgrades; 13 And, three, these proceedings have 14 highlighted the aging New York's infrastructure -- 15 Sorry, now I'm much louder. 16 It's like bad karaoke. 17 -- New York's aging infrastructure. 18 The opportunity that we have in front of us 19 to upgrade the historic bottlenecks throughout the 20 grid would benefit both upstate, it would help 21 expand renewables throughout the state, and, with or 22 without Indian Point, we shouldn't lose that 23 opportunity. 24 Please refer to the more detailed responses 25 that we submitted for further details, and I'd like 1 to entertain any questions you have. 2 SENATOR MAZIARZ: Thank you very much, Tom. 3 That was very short. 4 THOMAS RUMSEY: Yes, sir. 5 [Laughter.] 6 THOMAS RUMSEY: It's the fourth time we've 7 been here, sir, and, same message. 8 SENATOR MAZIARZ: Tom, can the system take a 9 closure by a 2,000-plus megawatt generator without 10 having an impact on rates and reliability, just, 11 overall? 12 THOMAS RUMSEY: Overall, right now, where 13 Indian Point is located, by our analysis, you'd have 14 1100 megawatts of a gap with resources. 15 Those resources would have to be in place 16 prior to the discontinued operation, or we'd have -- 17 we would not able to meet reliability standards. 18 Now, those resources can be transmission, 19 distributed generation, new generation, any 20 combination, but they'd have to be available before 21 you can close. 22 SENATOR MAZIARZ: Is the New York ISO taking 23 part in the contingency planning process with the 24 PFC? 25 THOMAS RUMSEY: We are the technical resource 1 for the State, so as they ask certain projects to be 2 modeled, we will model them for them, but we are not 3 a co-signer of the plan. 4 SENATOR MAZIARZ: But have they asked? 5 THOMAS RUMSEY: They have. 6 SENATOR MAZIARZ: Thank you. 7 Senator Ritchie. 8 SENATOR RITCHIE: Just one question. 9 Talking about -- Entergy was talking about 10 the fact that they're in the relicensing process, 11 and it would be extended until the decision is made. 12 So I guess I'm trying to understand how all 13 this would take place, that Entergy won't know until 14 the end of that process; meantime, they have a 15 2016 deadline. 16 So I'm trying to understand how we could put 17 something in place of what the loss is going to be 18 with that kind of timetable, given the fact that we 19 don't really know when the decision will be made. 20 So, I don't really understand how this can 21 all take place at the same time. 22 THOMAS RUMSEY: So as previous members -- or, 23 testifiers have said, we've seen, roughly, 24 5,000 megawatts of generation retire. 25 When a generator puts in their notice to 1 retirement, the local -- or, the transmission owner 2 and the New York System Independent Operator analyze 3 the loss of that resource to see if there's any 4 reliability violation, or if we need them to 5 continue. 6 We've had two cases where -- Dunkirk and 7 Cayuga, where there have been local reliability 8 needs; and, therefore, a contract is struck between 9 the transmission owner and that asset owner to 10 continue operations until a -- what's called a 11 "gap solution," until a permanent solution can be 12 reached. 13 In this case, going down that path, you've 14 seen one reactor now, as Mr. Twomey said, a couple 15 days ago their license has, quote/unquote, 16 "expired", but extended, because they've -- you 17 know, the federal law allows them to continue if 18 they've requested their relicensing on time. 19 One avenue would be, that once the asset 20 owner or the NCR tells us -- or, notifies that the 21 plant is not going to continue, we then take them 22 out of the base case, which is our planning 23 document. 24 Right now, we count them in because there is 25 no indication that they will not continue. 1 We do do a sensitivity analysis, where we 2 model the grid without Indian Point, but the base 3 case that can drive market solutions has them in 4 because, again, no final decision has been reached. 5 One scenario, is that they would retire, but 6 enter into a commercial agreement until the 7 replacement resources were in; so they would 8 continue until this "1100" gap was filled. 9 Under the process the PSC is going under, 10 they're being more proactive to get those resources 11 identified and on the grid before a decision is 12 reached. 13 SENATOR RITCHIE: And so what happens if that 14 takes place and, Indian Point, its relicensing goes 15 through? 16 What happens at that point? 17 THOMAS RUMSEY: There's two options -- 18 there's really only two scenarios. 19 One is, that power is economic, and it will 20 come into the grid and operate. 21 Those -- again -- or, there could be 22 transmission upgrades that we believe are long 23 overdue, and those would be beneficial in either 24 scenario. 25 Second, if they were to come in and they were 1 uneconomic, we would mitigate them so that they 2 didn't have an impact on the markets. 3 SENATOR MAZIARZ: Senator Carlucci. 4 SENATOR CARLUCCI: No questions. 5 SENATOR MAZIARZ: Oh. 6 Tom, thank you very much. 7 THOMAS RUMSEY: You're more than welcome. 8 Have a great day. 9 SENATOR MAZIARZ: Our next witness is 10 Gavin Donohue, president & CEO of Independent Power 11 Producers of New York. 12 Mr. Donahue, thank you. 13 GAVIN J. DONOHUE: Thank you, Senators. 14 I had "good morning," but I'll say, good 15 afternoon. 16 SENATOR MAZIARZ: Yeah. 17 GAVIN J. DONOHUE: Thank you, Senators, and 18 Senator Maziarz, for inviting me here today. 19 IPPNY represents over 80 generators, power 20 marketers, and other participants in New York's 21 competitive energy market, including Entergy, the 22 owner of Indian Point. 23 I've provided a comprehensive written 24 testimony to the Committee, so I'll do my best to 25 try not to be redundant and summarize it within the 1 10 minutes. 2 SENATOR MAZIARZ: Thank you. 3 GAVIN J. DONOHUE: Over the last 13 years, 4 IPPNY members have provided over 75 percent of the 5 state's electricity. 6 Independent power producers have invested in 7 excess of $10 billion to purchase, construct, and 8 operate their facilities, and the generator 9 community pay in annual taxes of over $600 million 10 in New York State. 11 IPPNY members utilize cutting-edge 12 technologies, fuel types such as co-generation, 13 nuclear, hydro, coal, wind, oil, landfill gas, 14 natural gas, energy-from-waste, and biomass. 15 Indian Point is a prime example, providing 16 over 20 percent of New York City and 17 Westchester County's electricity, investing over a 18 billion dollars in upgrades, and paying over 19 $75 million in taxes, and employing over a 20 thousand folks at their facility. 21 Over the last 13 years, the competitive 22 electricity market has led to savings for energy 23 consumers. 24 Wholesale energy prices have declined since 25 restructuring. 1 With an all-time low in 2012, an average 2 price of $45.23 per megawatt hour, compared to the 3 previous low of $48.63 in 2009. 4 Reduced air emissions across the state, CO2 5 has been reduced by 37 percent, SO2 by more than 6 94 percent, and NOx by 80 percent. 7 And we also have a much more efficient and 8 reliable system, which I'll touch on later. 9 New York State has also added 10 10,000 megawatts of generating capacity, and over 11 6,000 megawatts of renewable energy across the 12 state. 13 Competition in New York has also transferred 14 the financial risks from the consumers and 15 ratepayers to private investors. 16 It's encouraged innovation and investment in 17 a wide variety of technology sources to maintain 18 this robust system. 19 As a trade association representing wholesale 20 energy generators and suppliers, one of IPPNY's 21 primary goals is to ensure the continued development 22 and enhancement of those competitive electricity 23 markets. 24 Today we're here to talk about the proposed 25 reliability contingency plan, which I'll refer to as 1 the "RCP," we believe interferes and harms the 2 competitive nature and the successes of the markets 3 here in New York. 4 The proposed RCP is an unnecessary attack on 5 the marketplace, and harkens back to the days of 6 command-and-control of over 15 years ago. 7 The RCP is furthering the shutting down of an 8 operationally viable, safe, and existing generator, 9 while attempting to give preferential treatment to 10 certain transmission projects at the expense of the 11 public through a guaranteed cost-recovery mechanism. 12 Throughout the Energy Highway process, IPPNY 13 has repeatedly argued that any market intervention, 14 such as the reliability contingency plan proceeding, 15 is contrary to the nature of electric-industry 16 restructuring, detrimental to markets, and chills 17 New York's investment goals. 18 One of the goals of New York State is to be 19 open for business, and in the energy industry, 20 regulatory certainty and consistency are key 21 components to ensuring that private investment is 22 maintained here in New York. 23 The RCP is defective and contains many 24 implementation flaws. 25 Major acts -- aspects of the implementation 1 rely on future actions by the State Legislature and 2 the FERC, over which the PSC and other state 3 agencies, such as New York Power Authority, do not 4 have jurisdiction. 5 The RCP does not provide any guidance or 6 alternative solutions if the Legislature does not 7 pass the required legislation. 8 While mentioning FERC, I would be remiss if 9 I didn't mention that FERC has been unambiguous as 10 it relates to mitigating new uneconomic generation. 11 And the important point here is, that 12 ratepayers and consumers could pay twice under this 13 scenario, based on current policy, on how you 14 mitigate uneconomic power. 15 It's very important, as legislators, for you 16 to realize that if uneconomic power is brought into 17 the marketplace, it is very detrimental to the 18 ratepayers here in this state. 19 Touching on the planning process, I think 20 it's safe to say that the New York ISO has experts 21 in the planning area, that do a great job, that deal 22 with the market participants in real time, they 23 realize the problems that the market has, they see 24 what the trends are in the marketplace, and that's 25 how they do their planning process. 1 And the planning process that really is going 2 on at the PSC, under the RCP, is really a one-time 3 thing and isn't consistent with how the markets have 4 been run for the last 15 years. 5 Beyond the competitive energy markets and 6 questionable changes to system reliability, the 7 number one question that's been in the room today is 8 "Who will pay for the contingency plan?" 9 The PSC has advocated for a 10 "beneficiaries pay" model, but that determination as 11 to who the beneficiaries are, and what the ultimate 12 cost of this proposal, is unclear. 13 The proposed RCP exposes consumers to these 14 unnecessary costs, and sends non-market investment 15 signals to power-project developers. 16 What ratepayers need to know, that if the 17 project is built through a contract with NYPA, who 18 it is -- who it is expected will be reimbursed by 19 other utilities, and that project is halted for any 20 reason, the developer of the project will not be 21 responsible for its costs. 22 Further -- and, Senator Maziarz, you touched 23 on this this morning -- in its April presentation to 24 parties interested in the RFP, NYPA explicitly 25 stated that, quote, "Seller project developer does 1 not bear mitigation risks." 2 So who does bear that risk? 3 Do Senator Ritchie's constituents, does 4 Senator Maziarz's constituents, bear that risk? 5 And I think one of the issues that really has 6 come out of this hearing is the fact that that is 7 undetermined, and it adds value to why we're having 8 this hearing today. 9 When projects are built on market signals, 10 those are primarily built on the backs of investment 11 companies and their board of directors, and not on 12 the ratepayers. 13 I think, in conclusion, what I'd like to say 14 about reliability, I mentioned at the beginning of 15 my statement, is that the July heat wave, I think, 16 showed a new record for demand here in New York. 17 There was excellent performance by the 18 generators and the utilities. 19 The high level of asset availability has 20 never been seen like that before. 21 All units that could be available were 22 available. 23 We had no brownouts -- no significant 24 brownouts or blackouts. 25 And I think, you know, reliability should be 1 weighed here, and I think that that is one of the 2 true tenants of the benefits of competition. 3 New York has some of the best competitive 4 energy markets in the state. 5 We shouldn't walk away from those for 6 unneeded or a perceived problem in the energy 7 markets for reliability. 8 Planning is okay, but let's do planning under 9 a structure that actually makes some sense. 10 So with that, Senator, I'll conclude my 11 remarks. 12 SENATOR MAZIARZ: Thank you very much, 13 Mr. Donohue. 14 We appreciate you abbreviating your remarks. 15 Do you think -- I mean, you had high praise 16 for the ISO, and I do too, and their relationship 17 with this Committee has always been very 18 professional and very positive. 19 But do you think that, going through this 20 process with the PSC, and the Power Authority, and 21 all of the other providers, both the private-sector 22 utilities, that they're not taking reliability into 23 consideration? 24 GAVIN J. DONOHUE: I think the ISO certainly 25 is. 1 I think the PSC is trying to plan, but I also 2 think that there's a planning process in place that 3 says, We don't need resources till '21, '22. 4 As we heard earlier, this is very unique to 5 this power plant and this situation. 6 What I think is something this Committee 7 needs to realize, is that there's limited capital 8 dollars. 9 And when New York doesn't show that it's open 10 really for business, those dollars are going to 11 Pennsylvania or somewhere else. 12 So, the continued regulatory uncertainty as 13 to how we're going to maintain our energy policy, 14 going forward, this type of proceeding, and the fact 15 that we don't have answers to questions like 16 "Who's gonna to pay?" sends those investments 17 somewhere else. 18 And I think that it's very important for the 19 Committee to understand that. 20 SENATOR MAZIARZ: Thank you. 21 Senator Carlucci? 22 Senator Ritchie. 23 SENATOR RITCHIE: Just one question: 24 Are your members concerned about the 25 precedence that this contingency plan, the way that 1 it's been put in motion, the precedence that it's 2 going to set, as far as, you know, this is 3 Indian Point; next time around it could be somebody 4 else? 5 GAVIN J. DONOHUE: There's a lot of problems, 6 you know, with this process, because of the lack of 7 clarity. 8 And I would say, Senator, that we are 9 concerned. 10 SENATOR MAZIARZ: Thank you, Mr. Donohue. 11 Thank you very much. 12 Our next witness is Paul Haering, 13 vice president of engineering and environmental 14 sciences [sic] for Central Hudson Gas & Electric. 15 PAUL HAERING: Good afternoon, 16 Senator Maziarz, Senator Ritchie, Senator Carlucci. 17 My name is Paul Haering. 18 I'm vice president of engineering and system 19 operations for Central Hudson Gas & Electric. 20 In addition, I chair the technical working 21 group of the New York State Assessment and 22 Reliability Study, or what's called "STARS." 23 This is a study of the transmission system, 24 which began in 2008. 25 It was conducted and funded by the state's 1 transmission owners, utilizing some expertise from 2 the New York ISO, and a consultant, ABB. 3 The same group of companies is acting 4 together to form what is called the 5 "New York Transco," utilizing the results of the 6 STARS study, and has provided a comprehensive 7 portfolio of projects as part of the Governor's 8 Energy Highway Request For Information process. 9 So, first and foremost, the primary concern 10 related to the retirement of Indian Point, as we 11 have heard this morning, is the reliability impacts 12 on the state transmission system. 13 And there have been several studies that have 14 been identified: the New York ISO studies, as well 15 as the STARS studies. 16 Both of those studies have identified there 17 are transmission security deficiencies of over 18 1100 megawatts with the retirement of that facility. 19 In addition, there are what's called 20 "resource-adequacy issues" and "voltage issues" on 21 the system. 22 In addition, recently, there was an 23 announcement of another generator in the downstate 24 area called "Danskammer" that is going to retire. 25 It had a major damage that was caused as a 1 result of "Superstorm Sandy." 2 Those impacts further exacerbate the 3 identified deficiencies. 4 So I think what's important, as we've heard, 5 is that, in order to retire the plant, there needs 6 to be some mitigation or some process in place to 7 address the deficiencies. 8 But I think what's also important is to 9 understand the economic impacts on consumers of the 10 loss of this resource, and that is a significant 11 concern to Central Hudson and its customers. 12 And we see the impacts as really threefold: 13 One is, that there's going to be higher 14 market prices, and I'll talk a little bit about 15 that; 16 There's also the costs associated with these 17 contingency plans; 18 And then, in addition, beginning in the 19 summer of 2014, the NYISO will be implementing 20 what's called a "new capacity zone" in the 21 Lower Hudson Valley, and that will have another 22 dramatic impact on capacity prices for the same 23 consumers that are potentially going to be harmed by 24 the closure of the facility. 25 So when it comes to wholesale market prices, 1 the retirements of the Indian Point has been 2 quantified in a study that was performed for the 3 New York State Department of Environmental 4 Protection, by Charles River Associates. 5 That report had identified that the 6 wholesale-price increases of the retirement could be 7 upwards of 1.5 billion annually. 8 In addition, obviously, there's economic 9 impacts with regard to jobs, and the economic 10 benefits of the plant as well. 11 In addition, this contingency-plan case that 12 is -- the PSC has ongoing, first of all, has to 13 identify what the contingency plans are; and then, 14 second, is trying to address how these costs should 15 be allocated. 16 We also -- as these utilities have several of 17 these transmission projects that are included in the 18 proceeding -- 19 [Technical difficulties.] 20 -- subject to halting, as we've heard 21 previously. 22 But in addition, NYPA has this RFP process, 23 and we -- also, there are energy-efficiency and 24 demand-response programs that are going to be 25 administered by NYSERDA and Con Edison. 1 Although we take no position -- 2 Central Hudson takes no position with regard to the 3 decision to retire the plant, we do agree that there 4 needs to be -- we need to be prudent and be prepared 5 for the eventual -- if there is a decision to retire 6 the facility. 7 We also feel it's prudent to move forward 8 with the solutions at a pace that makes them -- 9 makes sure they're in place prior to the retirement 10 date, but we also feel that there are certain 11 solutions, that I could characterize as what I'll 12 call "no-regret" solutions. 13 They go beyond the benefits of just 14 addressing the reliability impacts of Indian Point. 15 And some of those are -- what are 16 characterized as these "transmission projects." 17 Several of these transmission projects that 18 are included in this contingency-plan proceeding are 19 also in a separate proceeding in front of the PSC 20 called the "AC Transmission proceeding case." 21 These projects, emanating from Edic, 22 Upstate New York, all the way down to the 23 southeastern portion of New York, will facilitate 24 and ensure that existing generators upstate have 25 ability to serve downstate markets. 1 So, the constraints that exist on the 2 transmission system today will be eliminated as a 3 result of these projects. 4 It also goes a long way in addressing the 5 reliability impacts of the Indian Point, if 6 Indian Point were to be shut down. 7 As currently proposed in these proceedings, 8 PSC has two different cost-allocation models, so the 9 same project that's in the AC case has a different 10 cost allocation than what's in the Indian Point 11 case. 12 So we see there's a huge disconnect and issue 13 that the PSC has in front of it, in terms of how 14 it's gone about the process with regard to these 15 proceedings. 16 It is our position that there are these 17 broader benefits with regard to these 18 AC Transmission projects that, arguably, we consider 19 no-regrets, and should be expedited, and allow the 20 state transmission owners, and, eventually, the 21 New York Transco, to begin to build those projects 22 and have them in service as quickly as possible. 23 Regarding the RFP process, Central Hudson 24 feels that the competitive energy markets 25 administered by the NYISO are the best way to ensure 1 reliable and low-cost, competitively-priced supply 2 for the state's consumers. 3 As currently proposed, NYPA would enter into 4 bilateral contracts with these project developers; 5 ultimately, then, through reimbursement agreements, 6 pushing costs back onto consumers. 7 As currently proposed, the costs that would 8 flow back to our consumers is about 7 percent of 9 these total project costs. 10 And Central Hudson's a fairly small utility. 11 We're about 3 percent of the load in the 12 state. 13 So, 3 percent of the load, and 7 percent of 14 the cost of these contracts. 15 Also, the full impact of these costs would 16 be -- need to be coupled with the proposed new 17 capacity zone which goes into the -- in effect in 18 the summer of 2014. 19 Right now, the current estimates are, these 20 new capacity-cost prices will raise consumer costs 21 in the Hudson Valley, anywhere from 200 to 350 22 annually. 23 In terms of Central Hudson's customers, about 24 10 percent for residential customers, about 25 15 percent increase in bills for commercial 1 customers. 2 We feel that there's other options that could 3 be pursued with existing generators in the 4 Hudson Valley that could significantly mitigate the 5 price impacts. 6 So, Senator Maziarz, Senator Ritchie, and 7 Senator Carlucci, I really appreciate the 8 opportunity to speak to you this morning -- or, this 9 afternoon. 10 We feel this is a critical issue in front of 11 the State, and appreciate the Committee evaluating 12 this. 13 And I'm happy to answer any questions. 14 SENATOR MAZIARZ: Thank you very much, 15 Mr. Haering. 16 We also appreciate your attendance here 17 today. 18 Let me just state, because you went through 19 it rather quickly there: 20 Did I understand you to testify that the 21 closure of Indian Point could have an economic 22 impact on energy rates, by the way of increased 23 costs, to the tune of 1.5 billion annually? 24 PAUL HAERING: That was the number that 25 I read, that was included in the CRA report that was 1 done for the New York State Department of 2 Environmental Protection. 3 SENATOR MAZIARZ: And does it indicate how 4 that would be allocated across the state? 5 Would that be just customers -- energy 6 customers within, let's say, Westchester, 7 New York City, the -- 8 PAUL HAERING: Senator, I believe the way 9 this -- 10 SENATOR MAZIARZ: -- the eastern portion of 11 the state? 12 PAUL HAERING: -- it would be statewide, but, 13 probably, the majority of those costs would be seen 14 in increases in the downstate area. 15 SENATOR MAZIARZ: You understand that that is 16 almost a -- diametrically opposed to what was 17 testified to here earlier today by some previous 18 witnesses? 19 PAUL HAERING: I -- that may have been the 20 case. 21 SENATOR MAZIARZ: Thank you. 22 PAUL HAERING: Okay. 23 SENATOR MAZIARZ: Senator Ritchie? 24 SENATOR RITCHIE: No questions. 25 SENATOR MAZIARZ: Senator Carlucci? 1 SENATOR CARLUCCI: No questions. 2 SENATOR MAZIARZ: You know, my colleagues 3 don't have any other questions. 4 I just think that's -- you know, that is the 5 crux of the issue right here, is who's going to pay 6 for it? 7 PAUL HAERING: I agree. 8 And I think the other point is, that there 9 are solutions out there that provide broader 10 benefits. 11 And we feel that some of those solutions 12 would address some of the concerns that both you and 13 Senator Ritchie have, relative to what the benefits 14 are upstate, and allowing the plants upstate that 15 could provide benefits downstate, by relieving the 16 bottlenecks of the transmission system. 17 SENATOR MAZIARZ: I certainly agree with 18 that, and that's why, I can't speak for the other 19 member of this Committee, but this Committee, myself 20 as the Chair of it, have been extremely supportive 21 of the Governor's Energy Highway Proposal. 22 Thank you very much, Mr. Haering. 23 We appreciate it. 24 PAUL HAERING: Thank you. 25 1 SENATOR MAZIARZ: Next we're going to have 2 three individuals: James Slevin, Dominic Marzullo, 3 and James Spry. 4 They represent the Utility Workers Union. 5 Thank you very much, gentlemen, for being 6 here today. 7 JAMES SLEVIN: Senator Maziarz, 8 Senator Ritchie, and Senator Carlucci, thank you 9 again today for having us here. 10 I'm not going be long into it, repetitive, 11 and to a lot of statements that were there before. 12 And, I gave a written testimony, submitted in 13 prior, earlier part of this week. 14 With me today I have two vital people in my 15 organization: 16 Dominic Marzullo is a business agent that 17 represents my 400 members that work in Indian Point; 18 And, Jimmy Spry is an executive board member, 19 but also an employee at Indian Point. 20 So, I think they come with a vital message, 21 that you're going to hear from them also. 22 No doubt, this Committee has -- it's great to 23 see what the actions they're looking at, at the 24 contingency plans that are -- that the talk of the 25 economic impact on the ratepayer, but it's also an 1 economic impact on the labor side of it. 2 In the jobs that we have at Indian Point, I'm 3 not just a member looking at these membership that's 4 up there, but it's also my other members that work 5 around the system. 6 I represent a lot of generating facilities. 7 I know that they're tired. 8 They're working, they're putting the 9 capacities out they can. 10 I also represent a lot of utility workers 11 that are out on the street, trying to work very hard 12 doing what they do, day in and day out. 13 But this impact of -- if they look to close 14 Indian Point, is also an impact that's going to have 15 on the labor market. 16 And what's going to happen is, is there will 17 be a job loss. 18 If we don't have the power to produce out 19 there to those people that are in Westchester County 20 and the city of New York, those will be impacted 21 greatly. 22 "Greatly." 23 Nobody will come here to build if we don't 24 have that facility and we don't have the generation 25 that goes out there every day in the market. 1 You know, some people say that, you know, 2 with decommissioning, that there would be jobs 3 there. 4 Well, I can tell you from a sister local out 5 in California, San Onofre, there was 1600 jobs, down 6 to 400 jobs. 7 They were only temporary jobs until they 8 finally closed that plant down. 9 But there is a tremendous impact, 10 economically, to my membership, and the labor market 11 out there. 12 So like I said earlier, I'm not gonna keep it 13 long here. 14 SENATOR MAZIARZ: Thank you. 15 JAMES SLEVIN: I have great members out 16 there. 17 I want you to listen to the testimony of 18 Dominic Marzullo. 19 SENATOR MAZIARZ: Mr. Marzullo. 20 DOMINIC MARZULLO: Good afternoon, 21 Senator Maziarz, Senator Ritchie, and 22 Senator Carlucci. 23 Thank you for having me here. 24 My name is Dominic Marzullo. 25 I'm a business agent for the Utility Workers 1 Union of America, Local 1-2, which represents 400 2 men and women who work at Indian Point. 3 Indian Point has been the most extensively 4 inspected nuclear plant in history. 5 It has received the NRC's highest safety 6 rating of "green" for 8 years in a row. 7 In addition, the NRC's inspection of 8 Indian Point has undergone an in-depth, 9 comprehensive evaluation by independent panel made 10 up of experts in the nuclear safety, emergency 11 preparedness, and public policy. 12 The panel's conclusion was, that Indian Point 13 meets all NRC requirements, and that the planned 14 safety systems are both well-maintained and 15 reliable. 16 When I was a designer at Indian Point, 17 I designed the installation of radiation monitors 18 throughout the Unit 2 facility. 19 Safety is paramount to me, and I am proud of 20 the work I did. 21 I accept nothing less than excellence at 22 Indian Point. 23 Since acquiring Indian Point a decade ago, 24 Entergy has invested hundred of millions of dollars 25 in safety technology and security upgrades for the 1 plant. 2 If there were any concerns for our members' 3 safety at Indian Point, at any time, in any way, 4 you [sic] can assure you that Local 1-2 would be in 5 the forefront of demanding the safe operation of the 6 facility. 7 In addition, to all of our members in the 8 Indian Point, of course, work close to the plant; 9 therefore, they will be the first to be affected by 10 any safety problems. 11 In addition, most of the men live quite 12 close. 13 They certainly would immediately raise any 14 concerns that they had about the plant's safety, as 15 any problems would greatly impact themselves and 16 their families. 17 What I am happy to note, that there's, no 18 time, has ever been any problems. 19 We wouldn't let it happen. 20 The safety of our members and the public is 21 our first order of business. 22 Indian Point is a vital resource. 23 It would be devastating that it should not be 24 relicensed. 25 Thank you very much. 1 SENATOR MAZIARZ: Mr. Spry. 2 JAMES SPRY: Senator Maziarz and members of 3 the Committee, thank you. 4 My name is James Spry. 5 I'm a member of the executive board of Local 6 1-2, and I work at Indian Point. 7 Just a little bit about my background: 8 I was in the nuclear navy for nine years. 9 I served aboard the USS Carl Vincent and the 10 USS Nimitz. 11 I was a reactor operator on those ships. 12 I also worked at a facility close to Miami, 13 Turkey Point, for 3 1/2 years as an instrumentation 14 specialist. 15 And I've worked at Indian Point for 23 years 16 as an operator, and I'm now a planner there. 17 I am an advocate for nuclear power, at 18 Indian Point, and this country, so you know that. 19 I would like to add some common sense to the 20 debate surrounding Indian Point, in the hope that it 21 will help its continued operation and lead to its 22 relicensing. 23 The fact is, if I and my fellow workers at 24 Indian Point were not confident about the operation 25 and safety of the facility, we would not work there. 1 We, obviously, would be the first ones 2 impacted if there were any safety problems. 3 I live nearby the Indian Point, within 4 3 miles of the plant. 5 I've lived there since 1993. 6 And I also lived there from '87 to '89 in 7 another stint there. 8 My kids go to school there. 9 I have other relatives that live right there 10 in that town and they've all gone to school. 11 Both of my boys were born in the area. 12 If there was the slightest concern in our 13 minds as to the plant's safety, do you think any of 14 us would live there or have our families live 15 anywhere near the plant? 16 We work very hard every day to make sure that 17 Indian Point is run safely, as that is in the best 18 interests of ourselves, our families, and all 19 New Yorkers. 20 We want the people of this state and our 21 state government to realize that we would not do 22 anything which would endanger the people of 23 New York, and would be the first to warn the public 24 if there were any danger from the Indian Point 25 plant. 1 That's the common sense we are looking for as 2 we, the real experts, witness ideological and almost 3 hysterical opposition to this safe, clean source of 4 power. 5 With no real energy plan in sight, please 6 consider that Indian Point directly supports 7 11,000 jobs in the Hudson Valley, in addition to the 8 1200 employees there. 9 Just think of the devastation that would be 10 caused should nearly 14,000 New York families find 11 themselves out of work. 12 That's the grim picture that awaits us all if 13 Indian Point closes. 14 And please keep in mind that we would be the 15 first to blow the whistle if there were any real 16 danger from the operation of Indian Point. 17 JAMES SLEVIN: So as you heard from the 18 testimony here, my members' safety is a vital, vital 19 issue to them, day in and day out; to them and their 20 families. 21 And it's an important message we bring from 22 the Local back out to them. 23 And, we will undertake any questions you may 24 have. 25 1 SENATOR MAZIARZ: Thank you very much, 2 Mr. Slevin, Mr. Marzullo, and Mr. Spry. 3 I have to say that, I believe it was at 4 Senator Carlucci's request, I don't think 5 Senator Ritchie was in the Senate at the time, that 6 we did visit Indian Point for a tour. 7 I was very impressed with the workforce 8 there, with the safety procedures that were in 9 place. 10 We also did have a meeting with individuals 11 on both sides of this issue, much like this, right 12 there in -- in, I believe it was Rockland County. 13 I'm not sure which town it was -- 14 SENATOR CARLUCCI: Stony Point. 15 SENATOR MAZIARZ: -- Stony Point, yes. 16 We did do that. 17 But I have to say, that we have reached out, 18 we have visited there. 19 And the members of the Committee, again, 20 I think I can speak, that they were most impressed 21 with the workforce there. 22 And, you know, we are -- we are -- are -- by 23 this hearing, by that hearing, by that meeting, by 24 visiting there, you know, we are looking to gain the 25 type of information from all sides on this 1 particular issue. 2 So, I really don't have any questions. 3 Senator Carlucci, if you'd like to? 4 SENATOR CARLUCCI: Yeah, just a question: 5 The workforce, what's the average salary of a 6 member at Indian Point? 7 JAMES SLEVIN: The average salary is about 8 $900,000 a year -- uh, I mean, $90,000 a year. 9 [Laughter.] 10 SENATOR MAZIARZ: I was just about ready to 11 move. 12 [Laughter.] 13 SENATOR CARLUCCI: I think we heard from 14 James Spry about your level of experience. 15 What is the typical level of experience of an 16 employee in the union? 17 Is it as extensive as Mr. Spry, or, do you 18 have entry-level employees? 19 JAMES SLEVIN: Yeah, we represent -- our 20 union represents, from water companies, to 21 generating companies, to utility companies, out 22 there, so it all varies into it. 23 But, some come from background in the 24 military, and some come from just right off the 25 street. 1 We do pride ourselves on trying to take 2 people from the state of New York, and try to make 3 sure that we get jobs coming into New York. 4 SENATOR CARLUCCI: How many members do you 5 have in New York State? 6 JAMES SLEVIN: Close to 9,000. 7 SENATOR CARLUCCI: And you have 400 at 8 Indian Point? 9 JAMES SLEVIN: Yes. 10 SENATOR CARLUCCI: Okay. 11 But at Indian Point, what's the level of 12 expertise, in terms of -- 13 JAMES SPRY: I would say we have a 14 super-experienced crew. 15 I mean, our average age has got to be 16 mid-40s. 17 Most people -- a lot of the operators came 18 from the military, military background. 19 And some came from, you know, different 20 institutions, and they got trained there. 21 But, most of the people have extensive 22 experience in nuclear power. 23 SENATOR CARLUCCI: So it's not like this 24 would be the first facility you would work at? 25 In terms of representing utility workers, 1 there's not really that much entry-level positions 2 in your union at Indian Point? 3 Or -- 4 JAMES SLEVIN: Occasionally, in a maintenance 5 side or a warehouse side, you may have those entry 6 levels. 7 We don't do the hiring. 8 Entergy does the hiring. 9 But we make sure that they look for a skilled 10 person, because, in our union, we really pride 11 ourselves on competent, skilled people. 12 SENATOR CARLUCCI: So it sounds like you have 13 to be highly skilled, have a certain level of 14 experience. 15 So if the facility were to close, I take it 16 that the employees here wouldn't look for other work 17 in the area. 18 They would look for work in a nuclear power 19 facility. 20 Is that correct? 21 JAMES SLEVIN: That would probably be, yeah. 22 I mean, it's not as easy going into a regular 23 generating facility and just learning that. 24 It's a different atmosphere. 25 SENATOR CARLUCCI: Thank you. 1 SENATOR MAZIARZ: As I recall, there was a 2 pretty extensive training facility, though, for 3 incoming employees when they were hired, by -- 4 I remember -- 5 DOMINIC MARZULLO: Yes, there is, but there's 6 ongoing, yearly, people have to, you know, requalify 7 and get their training. 8 You know, on and on. 9 Especially the operators, they go to classes 10 every year. 11 You know, these are people that actually turn 12 the wrenches and, you know, have the plant 13 operating. 14 So, they're constantly being retrained. 15 JAMES SLEVIN: Yeah, I mean, they, uh -- like 16 Dominic had said, we negotiate a lot of training for 17 them. 18 We make sure that they get, always part of 19 their skills, and enhanced, and further technology, 20 and things like that. 21 So, it's always ongoing. 22 It never has stopped. 23 No companies really come to us, because, the 24 energy market is changing, day in and day out, and 25 they want to make sure they're competitive in it. 1 SENATOR CARLUCCI: How many different unions 2 are represented at Indian Point? 3 JAMES SLEVIN: Oh, from millwrights, to 4 plumbers, to carpenters; there's a multiple. 5 SENATOR CARLUCCI: But you're the largest? 6 JAMES SLEVIN: We represent majority of the 7 employees up there, yeah. 8 SENATOR MAZIARZ: Senator Ritchie? 9 SENATOR RITCHIE: I have a couple questions. 10 As far as the longevity of your -- the 11 members that are there, when one of your members 12 goes to work at the facility, do they usually stay 13 the duration, or do they usually look for other 14 employment? 15 JAMES SLEVIN: No, they enjoy working there. 16 They feel safe and secure there. 17 And they -- most of them come in and want to 18 retire from the facility. 19 JAMES SPRY: What I would say is that, 20 I worked at Turkey Point in, uh -- south of Miami. 21 And when I worked there, they had a turnover 22 rate of 50 percent in, like, 2 years. 23 No one's from there. 24 A lot of the people come from out of state, 25 they go there and get trained, and they take off, 1 you know, because they're not from Miami or that 2 area. 3 But here at Indian Point, we get very few 4 people that leave once they are employed and get 5 settled in. 6 We have very few defections after hire. 7 SENATOR RITCHIE: Do you have a number of 8 people who are actually seeking employment at the 9 facility? 10 JAMES SLEVIN: Oh, yeah. 11 We get it all the time. 12 The utility workers, it's a great skilled 13 market to be in. 14 A lot of young men coming out of high school 15 and, you know, looking for employment, it's a great 16 field, it's a moving field. 17 All of my facilities that I represent, I do 18 get a good number of -- 19 JAMES SPRY: Well, as we speak, there are 20 plans to bring in 18 new employees, and that would 21 be at entry level, in the maintenance area. 22 We have constantly brought in operators, 23 because the licensed operators are -- you know, you 24 have to have those to operate the facility. 25 And they've been -- we've been bringing them 1 in for years. 2 But, we haven't hired any new maintenance 3 people in a while, maybe within ten years. 4 And, they've interviewed, and they're ready 5 to hire, I believe, eighteen, as we are talking now. 6 SENATOR RITCHIE: I guess just a comment, 7 that because I have three nuclear facilities in my 8 district, I can say wholeheartedly that, the 9 community, this is one of the places that are 10 premium jobs, that those, you know, are looking to 11 get into. 12 And once they get there, they stay until they 13 retire. 14 And, so, I just -- as an observation, just 15 would like to say, not to take it lightly when we 16 were talking about these jobs, because it's not just 17 a job. 18 These are jobs, at least from my perspective, 19 that people strive for, that provide in salary, that 20 is something that you can sustain your family on, 21 something that you work to achieve. 22 It's not -- it's not just a job; it's a 23 career. 24 JAMES SLEVIN: Yeah, and I agree with that, 25 Senator Ritchie. 1 It's, also, we don't just look at our 2 membership as jobs. 3 We look at families, and growths of families. 4 I mean, there's a lot of my members have -- 5 don't live far from the plant. 6 I don't live that far. 7 I live just north of it. 8 And it's a great place to bring people up. 9 And I see a lot of my members doing the same 10 thing: starting their careers, and starting 11 families, and making a better life for them and 12 their children. 13 Yeah. 14 SENATOR MAZIARZ: Thank you very much, 15 gentlemen. 16 JAMES SLEVIN: Thank you. 17 SENATOR MAZIARZ: Our next witness is 18 Darren Suarez of The Business Council. 19 Darren. 20 Mr. Suarez. 21 Thank you very much, Mr. Suarez. 22 We appreciate The Business Council testifying 23 here today. 24 DARREN SUAREZ: Thank you, Senator Maziarz, 25 and thank you Senator Ritchie and Senator Carlucci, 1 for having us here today, and for the opportunity to 2 speak about Indian Point, and really to address the 3 PSC proceedings. 4 As stated, I am Darren Suarez, the director 5 of government affairs for The Business Council. 6 I appreciate the opportunity to speak with 7 you. 8 I'm appearing before you on behalf of the 9 members of The Business Council in New York State to 10 once again express our opposition of the 11 Public Service Commission's current pursuit of an 12 Indian Point contingency plan. 13 The Business Council is the leading business 14 organization in New York State representing the 15 interests of large and small firms throughout the 16 state, through the -- though, 72 percent of our 17 members are small businesses. 18 All totaled, our members employ more than 19 1.2 million New Yorkers. 20 The commission's current course to fast-track 21 an expensive, economically unsustainable contingency 22 plan for the potential retirement of Indian Point is 23 predicated on unsubstantiated beliefs regarding the 24 relicensing of Indian Point. 25 The commission's current course of actions 1 has already cost ratepayers substantially, and has 2 the potential to cost ratepayers substantially more, 3 while the probability of Indian Point's imminent 4 closure appears remote. 5 The Business Council, on numerous occasions, 6 has urged the commission to halt the current 7 proceedings before additional economic damage is 8 done to the ratepayers of the state of New York. 9 Moreover, the commission, instead, should 10 commit to advocating for the relicensing of 11 Indian Point because of the undeniable importance 12 the facility has had on the delivery of clean, safe, 13 reliable, and affordable energy. 14 The New York State Business Council is proud 15 to join with the broad and diverse support for the 16 Indian Point in New York. 17 Numerous polls have demonstrated that the 18 Westchester community is generally favorable towards 19 Indian Point. 20 Indian Point is a safe facility, and it is -- 21 its continued operation has proven positive impacts 22 on jobs, the economy, and the environment. 23 The Business Council is deeply troubled that 24 the current future ratepayer costs resulting from 25 the proceeding on a motion to -- of the commission 1 to review generation retirement plans, and that 2 The Business Council has long held that the 3 affordable energy rates are vital to the growth of 4 New York's economy, particularly the manufacturing 5 sector. 6 The commission -- the Indian Point 7 contingency plan has been established by the 8 commission to cost consumers $811 million. 9 The costly, unnecessary trial balloon assumes 10 the State will somehow prevail before the 11 Nuclear Regulatory Commission and close New York's 12 largest power generator, the Indian Point nuclear 13 power station, which produces 11 percent of the 14 state's electricity. 15 The current contingency plan requires 16 ratepayers to subsidize whatever costs are incurred 17 even if Indian Point's licensure is renewed and the 18 projects are left unfinished because they are no 19 longer necessary. 20 The PSC has already authorized nearly 21 10 million in expenditures to study the proposal, 22 a cost the that Downstate New York and New Yorkers 23 will pay through their energy rates. 24 New York's ratepayers could be left on the 25 hook for hundreds of millions of dollars in 1 undeveloped, mothballed, useless projects. 2 Most troubling is that the Indian Point 3 contingency plan is predicated on the rejection of a 4 critical component of our energy infrastructure 5 which is owned and operated safely by a private 6 company who has made significant investments in the 7 state of New York. 8 Ratepayers should not be paying for plans or 9 asked to subsidize the elimination of Indian Point 10 when Indian Point should not cease to operate. 11 Indian Point is essential to the 12 affordability and reliability of electricity in 13 New York. 14 The license-renewal process has been 15 approached on two tracks: one of those reviews, the 16 safety; and the other, the environmental issues. 17 An application must provide -- an applicant 18 must provide the NRC an evaluation that addresses 19 the technical aspects of the plant's aging, and 20 describe the ways that those effects is managed. 21 It must also prepare an evaluation of the 22 potential impacts on the environment that the plant 23 operates for another 20 years. 24 The NRC reviews the application and verifies 25 the safety and evaluation through inspections. 1 The State of New York has not supported the 2 license renewal, and the State has publicly opposed 3 the license renewal, because of concerns regarding 4 the close proximity of the facility to a population 5 area and to environmental concerns. 6 Pursuant to the NRC relicensing process, 7 energy needs -- Entergy has applied to the State 8 Department of Environmental Conservation for the 9 issuance of a water-quality certificate permit. 10 DEC, in 2010, after extensive submittals by 11 Indian Point, refused the issuing of the permit, 12 arguing that the plant's everyday operations and 13 effluents present an ongoing risk to the people and 14 wildlife. 15 Entergy has appealed the decision, and that 16 process is ongoing. 17 One specific concern the DEC has, is that 18 they're focused upon the impingement and 19 entrenchment and heat shock to numerous fish species 20 in the Hudson River. 21 The dangers to fish -- the danger to fish is 22 more substantial. 23 The plant's swallows and expels -- the plant 24 takes in 2.5 billion gallons of water per day to 25 cool its generation facilities. 1 To address the impingement and entrenchment 2 and heat shock, DEC has suggested the development of 3 the construction of cooling towers. 4 The retrofitted cooling towers for a nuclear 5 facility is without general precedent. 6 To place cooling towers on the site, the 7 company would have to blast 2 million cubic yards of 8 rock and granite over a period of four years in 9 order to make the space for the towers that are the 10 size of two Yankee Stadiums. 11 The conversion alone to the plant would cost 12 $1.1 billion in construction and would last until 13 2029. 14 Additionally, the facility would be down a 15 year without producing electricity, resulting in 16 additional significant loss. 17 As an alternative to the cooling towers at 18 Indian Point, Entergy has proposed the development 19 of cylindrical wedge-wires (CWW) screens that will 20 protect a greater number of fish eggs and larvae 21 than the cooling towers over the 20-year license 22 period. 23 From the -- for Indian Point to install 24 wedge-wire technology, it could take three to 25 five years, and cost $200 million. 1 Thus far, DEC has rejected the CWW screens as 2 an available technology, in part, because there are 3 no applications of CWW screens on nuclear 4 facilities, but, the uncertainties associated with 5 DEC's proposed cooling towers are far more 6 technically significant than those with CW [sic] 7 screens. 8 Thus, the DEC's position on the availability 9 of CW [sic] screens at Indian Point is inconsistent 10 with DEC's position on the availability of cooling 11 towers at Indian Point. 12 In conclusion, I leave you with a quote from 13 the New York City Department of Environmental 14 Protection's commissioned report, by the 15 Charles River Associates, "Indian Point Retirement 16 Economic Analysis." 17 "Every replacement option studied will result 18 in a cost of an increase to energy consumers through 19 the state, either through the increased market 20 prices or subsidies to new generators. 21 If the market is allowed to function without 22 subsidies for new generation, consumer prices will 23 see marked increases. 24 The market would see wholesale cost increases 25 of approximately $1.5 billion per year; or, roughly, 1 10 percent increase in our base-case scenarios. 2 New York City consumers would pay 3 approximately $300 million per year for wholesale 4 energy; or, approximately, a 5 to 10 percent 5 increase. 6 Indian Point's retirement will force greater 7 reliance on fossil-fueled generations resources, 8 increasing the sensitivity of electricity prices to 9 volatility in natural gas prices." 10 Thank you very much for this opportunity to 11 speak with you today. 12 SENATOR MAZIARZ: Thank you, Mr. Suarez. 13 We appreciate the position and the opinion of 14 The Business Council. 15 Senator Ritchie, any comments or questions? 16 SENATOR RITCHIE: Just a couple of questions. 17 Darren, how significant a factor are energy 18 costs when a business is looking to either expand or 19 to locate in New York State? 20 DARREN SUAREZ: They're a significant factor 21 in businesses choosing to be here, to locate, but, 22 also, continued operations. 23 And, that's, more and more of our facilities 24 are competing against other facilities, on an 25 international basis, even in their own -- and even 1 in their own company. 2 And it is a major contributing factor as to 3 where they will locate. 4 SENATOR RITCHIE: How do you feel this 5 proposal to shut Indian Point down would affect 6 businesses looking to either expand or to locate 7 here? 8 DARREN SUAREZ: It's gonna have a -- it -- 9 certainly, the uncertainty associated with it will 10 have a chilling effect for those that are projecting 11 out what their costs would be. 12 And it will -- and the 811 million that's 13 projected to be in the PSC's costs for replacement 14 will have an effect on where companies choose to be. 15 SENATOR MAZIARZ: Thank you very much, 16 Mr. Suarez. 17 We appreciate it. 18 Next, we're going to hear from, one at a 19 time, but two former members of the New York State 20 Assembly, Jerry Kramer, from the Affordable, 21 Reliable Energy Alliance; and, John Ravitch, of 22 The Business Council of Westchester County. 23 Good morning, Mr. Kramer. 24 Thank you for being here. 25 ARTHUR "JERRY" KRAMER: Chairman Maziarz, 1 Senator Ritchie, Senator Carlucci, you know, you've 2 heard a lot today, and I'm going to sort of harken 3 back to the days when I sat on your side of the 4 rostrum, as to the questions that I think have been 5 raised that I think are very legitimate for the 6 Legislature to consider in evaluating this 7 particular proposal. 8 The very resolution by which the 9 Public Service Commission imposed this new mandate 10 on Consolidated Edison has as its language that 11 it's, quote, "increasingly apparent that 12 Indian Point," you know, "is in jeopardy of 13 closing." 14 And, clearly, the Public Service Commission 15 is not listening to the Charles River, the various 16 studies, and listening to the company. 17 There's no dialogue going on between the 18 Public Service Commission and the utility, to ask it 19 exactly what its potential position is, but, you've 20 heard it today. 21 I don't envy Consolidated Edison under these 22 circumstances, because they're sort of in the 23 position of Woody Allen's old line about, "The lion 24 and the lamb shall lie down, but the lamb won't get 25 a good night's sleep." 1 [Laughter.] 2 ARTHUR "JERRY" KRAMER: The problem that you 3 have here, is that Consolidated Edison continues to 4 have an ongoing relationship with the Public Service 5 Commission, and they're not in very much of a 6 position to say, That we're not going proceed to do 7 exactly what you're mandating on us. 8 But, let's look what they're really mandating 9 on Con Ed and the ratepayers. 10 $811 million is the number that's in the 11 PSC resolution. 12 So, let's start out with that at base. 13 And we've also heard today that there's a 14 halting procedure, and we can stop at any particular 15 point. 16 When you stop contracts of the magnitude that 17 are involved here, there are penalties involved. 18 The contract just doesn't end because you 19 say, As of midnight tomorrow, this contract ceases 20 to be operable. 21 Secondly, whoever heard of projects of this 22 nature without costs overruns? 23 They just don't happen. 24 They happen in all types of municipal work, 25 and they happen in this type of work of this 1 magnitude. 2 So I think what you're faced with here, is 3 that this is an open-ended cost for all of the 4 ratepayers in New York State, from Buffalo to 5 Montauk Point. 6 And there's just no rationale that -- and 7 there's nothing in here that's a limiting factor as 8 to what these costs are. 9 I know Senator Maziarz said we've had these 10 discussions in other forums, but this money would be 11 better spent on strengthening the grid, actually 12 making the grid work. 13 It's nice to build a windmill if they let you 14 in some part of New York, but it only connects to 15 the library, and about a mile away, and that's as 16 far as the energy goes. 17 And we're not wheeling energy in and out of 18 this state in an easy fashion. 19 So, you know, with respect to the 20 Public Service Commission's mandate on Con Ed, it 21 really is very open-ended. 22 And being the purpose of this hearing, is to 23 look at ratepayer costs and competitive markets. 24 I think we have to keep in mind that there's 25 a lot more information that I think that the Panel 1 should be privy to from the Public Service 2 Commission as this moves forward, and talking to 3 Con Ed. 4 By the way, Con Ed is going to spend 5 $375 million to harden the grid. 6 I consider that a meaningful expenditure. 7 As will other utility companies around the 8 New York State in the next year or two, to try to 9 make the grid more, if you will, sustainable, should 10 we have another 100-year storm, and another 11 blackout, which was 10 years ago. 12 I think there's another problem here, and 13 that's got to do with, the two of you were not in 14 the Legislature when the Shoreham debate took place, 15 but why isn't there, as a component in this PSC 16 study, the environmental impact of a closing? 17 Today, if you get a Long Island Power 18 Authority bill, there's still a line on there that 19 says "Shoreham Plant," so that the people of 20 Long Island are continuing -- and the Rockaways, are 21 continuing to pay for the closing of the Shoreham 22 nuclear power plant. 23 Aside, you know, you've heard from the union 24 representatives with respect to the number of people 25 who are gonna lose their jobs, but the economic 1 impact throughout the region, from Indian Point, 2 according to the Nuclear Energy Commission study 3 some years ago, is $750 million a year. 4 You're talking about all of the different 5 vendors and others who rely on Indian Point, and 6 that goes far beyond the Westchester region. 7 So, how can you ignore the concept of what 8 would happen if Indian Point closed, and not 9 remember the debacle of Shoreham, which still, to 10 this day, lingers in that region, and the people are 11 paying the price for it. 12 Municipalities overtaxed the facility, when 13 it wasn't even opened. 14 I can be almost sure, that in the case of 15 Indian Point, municipalities and surrounding region 16 have taken their fair share of taxes from utility 17 companies, as they always do. 18 So you've got this other factor, which is the 19 Shoreham nuclear facility, how you can ignore 20 history? 21 It means, unfortunately, that we're doomed to 22 repeat it. 23 I think, also, the only part of the 24 Charles River Study that was not mentioned this 25 morning, was the one that New York consumers will 1 pay between 10 and 12 billion more in higher 2 electricity costs through 2030. 3 That's a pretty astounding number as a result 4 of closing of one facility. 5 And the last point I want to make is, is my 6 continuing concern, on behalf of our organization, 7 and as a person who served on your side of the 8 rostrum, what kind of signals are New York State 9 sending to the people who are sitting in Chicago on 10 a couple of billion dollars worth of money, who want 11 to invest in energy? 12 New York right now is sending out the 13 following signals: 14 No hydrofracking. 15 Wind is opposed. 16 No nuclear. 17 And the real question becomes, is, you know: 18 Do we really -- you know, we can have an 19 energy highway, but who wants to drive on it? 20 I said, so the real question is: 21 We have to reach the point in time where 22 we're starting to send positive signals about 23 investing in New York. 24 And this particular type of thing, 25 encouraging, you know, in effect, on the part of the 1 State, the closing of a facility, not understanding 2 the economic impact of it, really is, What message 3 are we sending? 4 I mean, the fact of the matter is, you know, 5 Senator, you mentioned about the wind project in 6 your district. 7 A proposal was made by the Long Island Power 8 Authority to build a windmill 5 miles off of 9 Jones Beach, and over a thousand people showed up at 10 each of the hearings in opposition to it, because 11 they claimed it would cause visual destruction of 12 their view of the ocean. 13 And that got a thousand people to come out 14 and oppose it. 15 So the answer is: 16 There's a big global decision that we all got 17 to make; and that is, you know, What message is 18 New York going to continue to send to the rest of 19 the country, when we want them to invest here? 20 And this PSC project, if you will, which 21 I guess is, sort of, almost like a shotgun wedding, 22 surely isn't particularly good for the people in 23 New York State. 24 And it's the kind of thing that, hopefully, 25 your Committee will get into it a lot more deeper, 1 because I think the long-range costs go far beyond 2 $811 million. 3 That's -- that's my testimony. 4 SENATOR MAZIARZ: Thank you very much, 5 Mr. Kramer. 6 Some very good points were made. 7 I think it's fair, the comparison with the 8 Shoreham and the closure there. 9 I appreciate that. 10 And I can tell you that -- that the reason 11 we're having this hearing here today, and we've had 12 other hearings, and we visited Indian Point, and, we 13 have listened to those people who want -- are in 14 favor, I should say, of closing Indian Point, and 15 they'll be testifying later on today, we're 16 interested in all opinions and all aspects of this, 17 but we certainly are very concerned about the effect 18 on jobs, on businesses, and on energy rates, because 19 of exactly what you pointed out, the ability of 20 people to invest in the state of New York. 21 Senator Ritchie? 22 SENATOR RITCHIE: No, no questions. 23 SENATOR MAZIARZ: Thank you very much. 24 ARTHUR "JERRY" KRAMER: Thank you for your 25 time. 1 SENATOR MAZIARZ: Thank you very much, 2 Mr. Kramer. 3 John Ravitch, executive vice president & CEO 4 of The Business Council of Westchester. 5 JOHN RAVITZ: Good afternoon. 6 SENATOR MAZIARZ: Thank you very much, 7 Mr. Ravitz. 8 JOHN RAVITZ: Senator Ritchie, how you are 9 you? 10 SENATOR MAZIARZ: I thought I'd point out 11 earlier that you and Mr. Kramer were both former 12 members of the Legislature. 13 It didn't seemed to go over so well, so... 14 [Laughter.] 15 SENATOR MAZIARZ: And both members of the 16 Assembly, too. 17 Something that neither Senator Carlucci, 18 Senator Ritchie, nor myself had the pleasure of ever 19 serving there. 20 JOHN RAVITZ: Well, it was always a pleasure 21 seeing you walking through the Chamber. 22 Lots of fresh air. 23 The hat that I wear now, I'm the 24 executive vice president and COO for The Business 25 Council of Westchester. 1 The BCW is the county's largest and most 2 influential business membership organization. 3 We represent about thousand members, ranging 4 in size from the multi-international corporations 5 and mid-sized businesses, to professional firms, 6 not-for-profit organizations, and small business 7 owners, in every sector of the county's diverse 8 economy. 9 I want to just piggyback on what Mr. Kramer 10 talked about, and really drill down a little more, 11 in terms of what the impact would be in 12 Westchester County if Indian Point were to close. 13 And to do that, I have left with you, 14 Mr. Chairman and Senator Ritchie, a report that 15 The Business Council of Westchester commissioned 16 last September on an assessment of energy needs in 17 Westchester County, and how it would affect the 18 county, how it would affect our economy, and how it 19 would affect, obviously, the individual residents of 20 Westchester County. 21 And I just want to share a few specifics that 22 came out of this report, that I think are important 23 for the record, if Indian Point were to close. 24 Electric rates would increase by 6.3 percent 25 or more, with consumers paying more than 1 $374 million per year in added electrical bills. 2 By 2020, the probability of electrical 3 outages would increase by 280 percent. 4 Carbon emissions, a leading contributor to 5 global warming, would increase by more than 6 6 million tons annually, which is the equivalent of 7 adding 1 million more vehicles on our roads in 8 Westchester County. 9 As a result of higher electrical rates and 10 the closure of Indian Point, Westchester County 11 would lose more than 3300 jobs, many of them 12 high-paying jobs, representing over $200 million per 13 year in lost wages. 14 Westchester County would also lose 15 $75 million per year in property tax and revenue 16 sharing with the State. 17 And, contributions to local charitable 18 organizations would decline by $2 million annually. 19 Overall, the downstate regional economy would 20 be drained by some $11.5 billion, and that's 21 inflation-adjusted numbers. 22 As you know, Indian Point currently provides 23 2,065 MW of electric generations for Westchester and 24 the New York City area, producing over 25 16 billion kilowatt hours per year. 1 This represents 59 percent of Con Ed's retail 2 electrical sales, and 25 percent of all electrical 3 sales in New York City and Westchester. 4 The BCW report noted that, currently, there 5 are no plans by any entity, public or private, to 6 replace those electrical energy and capacities 7 produced by Indian Point plants. 8 And the report stated, quote, "Projected 9 energy efficiency, demand-side management, and 10 renewable resources cannot be added in time to 11 offset the output of Indian Point, at least for 12 foreseeable future." 13 So I will leave the full report for you and 14 other members of the Committee to review, and, 15 obviously, if you would have any follow-up 16 questions. 17 I would be remiss, Mr. Chairman, and 18 I understand Senator Carlucci had to leave, because 19 he mentioned the issues of evacuation and safety 20 plans. 21 Prior to joining the BCW, I served as the CEO 22 for the American Red Cross in Westchester County; 23 and, also, the COO for the Red Cross in New York -- 24 Greater New York region. 25 That gave me the opportunity to not only 1 observe, but to participate in many training 2 exercises that the staff of Indian Point put on, and 3 asked for the Red Cross's involvement in those 4 tabletop exercises. 5 They were thorough. 6 They went through a lot of different 7 scenarios that needed to be gone through. 8 They reached out to those of us who would be 9 serving as first responders, and the other 10 organizations that would play a key role, if an 11 evacuation plan had to be put into place. 12 And it also showed me, that they had not only 13 put in the resources for these plans, but other 14 resources as well for the community at large. 15 So, during those 4 1/2 years at the 16 American Red Cross, serving as the CEO in 17 Westchester County, the transparency, the working 18 relationship on a daily basis, I know is very strong 19 with the local county municipalities that would be 20 involved, as well as the state and federal agencies. 21 So, I just wanted to, I would be remiss 22 again, if I didn't have the opportunity to share 23 that with you as well. 24 25 1 SENATOR MAZIARZ: Thank you, Mr. Ravitch. 2 We appreciate that. 3 Senator Ritchie? 4 SENATOR RITCHIE: No, no questions. 5 Thank you. 6 SENATOR MAZIARZ: Thank you very much, John. 7 JOHN RAVITZ: Thank you. 8 SENATOR MAZIARZ: Appreciate it. 9 You said, pretty much, what some previous 10 speakers have said. 11 So, we're now going to go, and I apologize in 12 advance if I mispronounce his name, 13 Phillip Musegaas, from the Hudson River Program, 14 director of Riverkeeper. 15 Philip. 16 Philip, I'm sorry. 17 How did I do? 18 PHILLIP MUSEGAAS, ESQ.: That's quite all 19 right. 20 You did fairly well. 21 SENATOR MAZIARZ: Okay. 22 PHILLIP MUSEGAAS, ESQ.: It's Musegaas. 23 SENATOR MAZIARZ: Musegaas. 24 Boy, I didn't do good at all. 25 PHILLIP MUSEGAAS, ESQ.: I've heard a lot of 1 worse, so... 2 Thank you. 3 SENATOR MAZIARZ: Thank you very much for 4 being here today, Phillip. 5 We appreciate, your organization, your 6 willingness to come here and testify, certainly. 7 PHILLIP MUSEGAAS, ESQ.: Thank you, Senator. 8 We appreciate the chance to -- for 9 Riverkeeper to provide our perspective on the 10 Public Service Commission's contingency planning, 11 and also to respond to some of the questions that 12 you raised in a letter to us, inviting us to testify 13 today, which I'll get to at the end of my testimony. 14 And I'll abbreviate the written testimony 15 I submitted. 16 I would like to take a couple of minutes at 17 the end to -- 18 Thank you. 19 -- to respond to some of the earlier comments 20 that were made today. 21 That's maybe one benefit of going almost 22 last, is that you can listen to other folks testify, 23 and have some -- hopefully, some constructive 24 responses. 25 SENATOR MAZIARZ: Sure. 1 Sure, thank you. 2 We appreciate it. 3 PHILLIP MUSEGAAS, ESQ.: Riverkeeper is a 4 member-supported organization. 5 We have about 5,000 members in the Hudson 6 Valley. 7 And our mission is to defend and restore the 8 Hudson River and its tributaries, and to protect the 9 drinking-water supply for 9 million New York City 10 and Hudson Valley residents. 11 We've been actively involved on a wide range 12 of Indian Point safety and environmental issues, 13 actually, since the plant was built, when we were an 14 earlier iteration of our organization. 15 We've become much more involved on safety 16 issues regarding Indian Point since -- 17 unfortunately, since 9/11. 18 And we have a campaign currently underway, 19 which I'm sure you're aware of, to prevent the 20 relicensing of Indian Point, and retire and 21 decommission the plant. 22 In my testimony, I'll briefly summarize 23 Riverkeeper's participation in the PSC proceeding 24 that we're discussing today. 25 And, I'd also like to mention, and I put into 1 the record, an independent study that was 2 commissioned by Riverkeeper, not in the context of 3 this proceeding, but, actually, at the outset of the 4 Indian Point Nuclear Regulatory Commission hearings, 5 we partnered with Natural Resources Defense Council, 6 and we hired a company called "Synapse Energy 7 Economics" to basically prepare a report -- a series 8 of two reports, but I'll talk about the later one 9 today, that sets out a road map for replacing 10 Indian Point's power under slightly different time 11 frames than we're discussing today. 12 So, just to keep that in context. 13 And then I'll also talk about the concerns 14 you raised in your letter regarding the loss of 15 jobs, and a little bit regarding the cost impacts. 16 I also want to mention, just -- you know, 17 there was some discussion with Senator Carlucci 18 especially about the various legal proceedings that 19 are going on; very complicated, overlapping 20 proceedings. 21 Riverkeeper is an active party in the 22 Nuclear Regulatory Commission proceeding. 23 I'm the lead attorney in that. 24 We're also a party in the consolidated 25 proceeding before the DEC, regarding the 1 pollution-discharge permit under the Clean Water Act 2 that is being litigated right now for Indian Point; 3 And, the water-quality certification, which 4 I believe the Entergy spokesman mentioned. 5 So, I want to give you a little more context 6 on those, granted we have time on that. 7 Riverkeeper's position is that Indian Point's 8 continued operation presents a risk to the 9 20 million people living and working within 50 miles 10 of the plant, and its operation continues to take a 11 severe toll on the aquatic life in the Hudson; hence 12 we have the these permit proceedings before the DEC, 13 to try to require Indian Point to upgrade its 14 environmental cooling-water intake system to prevent 15 that impact. 16 Due to its location, its history of 17 accidents, which I'm prepared to talk about if you 18 so desire, radioactive water leaks, and unsafe 19 storage of nearly 2,000 tons of toxic nuclear waste, 20 Riverkeeper believes the risk of continuing to 21 operate Indian Point clearly outweighs its benefits. 22 And I would be happy to provide any 23 information, if that's helpful to the Committee, and 24 to the Chairman, regarding these safety issues. 25 SENATOR MAZIARZ: Sure. 1 PHILLIP MUSEGAAS, ESQ.: We're an active 2 party in the Public Service Commission proceeding, 3 as I mentioned, and we joined with the 4 Natural Resources Defense Council and the 5 Pace Energy and Climate Center in submitting 6 comments early in the proceeding on the Indian Point 7 contingency plan. 8 In general, we support the plan. 9 I think we appreciate the testimony that was 10 given earlier today by Mr. Quinones, and by the 11 Con End spokesperson, about the plan. 12 In our comments, we urged for stronger 13 consideration of increasing the amount of energy 14 efficiency and demand-response tools beyond 15 100 megawatts. 16 And, certainly, I have submitted our comments 17 which have more detail on that to the Committee 18 today. 19 In terms of energy-efficiency potential, our 20 comments actually reference the 2012 Synapse report 21 which I mentioned, which found that a 1.5 percent 22 annual demand reduction can reasonably be achieved 23 in New York over the next decade, leading to 24 approximately 21,000 gigawatts of cumulative savings 25 by 2022. 1 And as I mentioned earlier, our 2 energy-replacement study looked at replacing 3 Indian Point's power, assuming that the reliability 4 concerns would not come in until about 2020. 5 So, looking at different assumptions than 6 I believe NYISO and Con Ed does. 7 So just to -- if you think about why the 8 numbers are so different, that's certainly why. 9 The 2012 Synapse report I mentioned earlier, 10 just very briefly, provides a road map to replacing 11 Indian Point's power using entirely clean renewable 12 energy and energy-efficiency measures in equal 13 parts. 14 And I put that report in my testimony, and 15 I'm happy to answer questions on that as well. 16 Their report showed, again, that we believe 17 Indian Point's power can be replaced on time to 18 avoid any reliability concerns, and can be done 19 affordably. 20 Our experts estimated that, under their plan, 21 which is more aggressive in terms of energy 22 efficiency and more aggressive in renewables, that 23 the ratepayer cost increases to Downstate New York 24 ratepayers would be, roughly, about 1 percent a 25 month, which equates to about $1.20 a month in rate 1 increases. 2 Again, that's reflecting very high use of 3 energy-efficiency measures and a higher reliance on 4 renewables, so that's separate. 5 We didn't look at transmission upgrades that 6 are being looked at in this proceeding, so, it's in 7 the context of this, but it's based on some 8 different assumptions. 9 Finally, I want to just go to a couple of the 10 issues you raised in your letter to us. 11 One is regarding the loss of union jobs. 12 There was some discussion by previous 13 testifiers about the idea that -- of course, there's 14 a lot of discussion about, if you close Indian Point 15 in kind of a vacuum, that you're going to have a 16 massive loss of jobs and a massive loss of economic 17 resources in the -- economic benefits to the region. 18 In terms of decommissioning, we believe that 19 it would be very helpful to the public, and actually 20 to the Legislature, and we would make an informal 21 request, I think, at this point, for the Chairman 22 and this Committee to consider doing a study of what 23 kinds of jobs would be required at Indian Point 24 during a decommissioning of the plant. 25 You know, if we're talking about the 1 potential of retiring Indian Point, that, of course, 2 leads then to the decommissioning of the plant. 3 And based on other nuclear plants that have 4 been decommissioned around the country, we believe 5 it's worth the study, because I think that that's a 6 high number of jobs that are -- people that are 7 currently employed at Indian Point could be employed 8 in decommissioning the plant. 9 And, decommissioning is not a simple 10 exercise. 11 It's a very complex process. 12 It takes -- I think, other plants, it's taken 13 anywhere from 10 to 15, to nearly 20 years to 14 decommission older nuclear plants. 15 And, so, Indian Point, in particular, has 16 a -- is a very dense site. 17 We have the concern, and the problem with the 18 radioactive water plumes that are in the groundwater 19 underneath the site now. 20 And, so, decommissioning is going to take 21 additional time and additional resources, but, it 22 will provide jobs, and it will provide many of the 23 same skilled jobs that are currently being employed 24 at the plant. 25 So, you know, we don't take the idea of job 1 loss lightly by any means. 2 We're concerned about the river, and our 3 focus is on the environment, but, we certainly think 4 that we should have a full understanding of the 5 impacts of closing. 6 And that not only means the immediate job 7 losses, but, what kinds of jobs will be there long 8 term, in terms of decommissioning, and also in terms 9 of managing and securing the spent fuel that will be 10 on site. 11 The nuclear waste that Senator Carlucci 12 mentioned will be on site for the foreseeable 13 future, unfortunately. 14 In addition, I wanted to talk about the -- 15 very briefly about the -- this question about how 16 much power Indian Point supplies to New York City 17 and Westchester County. 18 And I think we all hear the "25 percent" 19 number quite a bit. 20 I think there's debate whether Indian Point's 21 public power-purchase agreements are the only power 22 they sell, versus a number -- versus selling power 23 into the open market, versus private contracts with 24 the power. 25 I think it would benefit all of us, and 1 benefit the public, to really get a sense of what 2 the actual percentage is; and not only what 3 Indian Point is capable of sending into the grid, 4 and in terms of raw capacity power, how much it 5 represents in terms of percentages, but, actually, 6 on a daily basis, or a monthly basis, what is the 7 percentage of power it supplies, literally, into the 8 marketplace? 9 Finally, you mentioned in your letter of 10 August 28th, I think your concerns, and they're 11 justifiable concerns, about the -- and correct me if 12 I'm wrong about this, but the length of time that 13 it's taken the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to kind 14 of work through the relicensing proceeding. 15 One thing I do want to mention is that, up 16 until the present time, the NRC proceeding and the 17 state permit proceedings had been moving along at a 18 parallel rate. 19 Where they overlap is in -- is in the DEC's 20 denial of the water-quality certification, which 21 happened in 2010. 22 And in terms of the SPDES permit that 23 regulates the cooling-water intake, that's a 24 separate proceeding. 25 So those have been going on, in one form or 1 another, since 2004, a few years before Entergy 2 applied for relicensing. 3 The relicensing proceeding has been going on 4 from 2007 to now. 5 One of the major delays in that proceeding 6 was, the time it took the Nuclear Regulatory 7 Commission staff to actually complete the 8 environmental impact study. 9 It took about four years just to get through 10 the initial draft and the final EIS, and then they 11 supplemented that with an additional study, which 12 has just been completed, and gone through the 13 public-comment process now. 14 So, I just want to give you a sense of the 15 context. 16 It's a very large, complicated proceeding, 17 but, some of the delays have been caused, certainly, 18 the proceeding takes longer because New York State's 19 Attorney General and Riverkeeper and the Clearwater 20 are active parties. 21 We raised a number of contentions that have 22 to be heard in the hearing, and that takes time, but 23 there has been a very slow process on the NRC staff 24 side. 25 So just want to give that you context so you 1 understand the process a little better. 2 Finally, I just want to comment a little bit 3 on a few things that the Entergy spokesman said, and 4 not in a desire to get into a debate, but in a 5 desire to give you our perspective and make sure 6 you're fully informed. 7 SENATOR MAZIARZ: Sure. 8 Thank you. 9 PHILLIP MUSEGAAS, ESQ.: Mr. Twomey, 10 I believe, mentioned the NRC staff has completed its 11 final safety-evaluation report for Indian Point. 12 That's actually incorrect. 13 They completed an initial report, but they 14 are doing the second supplement to that. 15 And so, again, with the staff, the NRC staff 16 is taking a very long time on this application. 17 We are still waiting for a supplement. 18 And we have to wait for that to be complete 19 before we can move forward with the second round of 20 hearings on these safety issues, because the safety 21 issues that still have to be heard in the hearing 22 are directly related to the work that the staff is 23 doing. 24 We've also heard a lot of discussion today, 25 not only by Mr. Twomey, but I believe by a number 1 of other testifiers, regarding the Charles River 2 Associates report that was commissioned by 3 New York City to look at Indian Point replacement. 4 And there was repeated mention of the very 5 high economic costs and the high ratepayer costs 6 that would ensue for -- if Indian Point were closed 7 down and replaced. 8 I think it's critically important that the 9 Committee, and both of you here, are aware that, in 10 that study, New York City, for reasons I'm not clear 11 on, presented a replacement scenario that relied on 12 about 1,000 megawatts of offshore wind power and 13 1,000 megawatts of, I believe, a single, very large 14 natural-gas plant. 15 So, the replacement scenario they chose is 16 inherently a very expensive scenario, and it's 17 very, very different than what we are looking at 18 today, in terms of Public Service Commission's 19 replacement of using generation -- some new 20 generation, some new upgraded transmission projects, 21 and then this energy-efficiency portfolio. 22 So, the reason you're hearing numbers that 23 are so high is because New York City chose some of 24 the most expensive ways to replace Indian Point's 25 power, particularly using offshore wind. 1 It's a very expensive form of power. It's 2 coming -- the price is coming down slowly, but, in 3 the context of all the replacement sources that 4 we're looking at and options that we're looking at, 5 it's probably on the very expensive end. 6 And, so, I just think it's important that we 7 note that. 8 Mr. Twomey also mentioned that DEC had not 9 made a final decision on this water-quality 10 certification for Indian Point. 11 In fact, DEC did make a final decision in 12 2010; in April of 2010. 13 And I'm happy to follow up after the hearing 14 and send you a number of letters, both the denial 15 letter, and, subsequent correspondence from the DEC, 16 both to the state of New York and to the 17 Nuclear Regulatory Commission, literally, explaining 18 that this was an agency decision to deny the 19 water-quality certification, which is needed for 20 Indian Point's license renewal. 21 And the State, in that denial, gave Entergy 22 the option and the opportunity to request a hearing 23 to challenge that denial. 24 And that's the hearing process that we're in 25 now. 1 So, it's more than just a semantical 2 difference. 3 The state has taken a position that -- and 4 denied that permit. 5 And then, the reason that's important in this 6 context is, that is one of the two state permits 7 that -- where the State has some veto authority, in 8 a legal context, to prevent the relicensing. 9 The second one is the Coastal Zone Management 10 Act review, which other people have mentioned is 11 underway now, and that possibly could conclude 12 within the next year. 13 So, we could have a decision by the 14 Department of State, I think, within a year or so, 15 whether that -- whether they are going to approve or 16 deny that's -- that consistency review. 17 And I'm happy to answer questions about that. 18 I also want to mention, there was -- 19 I believe Senator Carlucci asked a number of 20 questions about spent-fuel storage and nuclear-waste 21 storage at the site. 22 Mr. Twomey mentioned that Entergy has 23 decommissioning funds that could be used to pay for 24 the cost of storing spent fuel. 25 That's actually not technically correct. 1 The NRC regulations don't allow 2 decommissioning funds to be used for the ongoing 3 cost of storing spent fuel. 4 Decommissioning funds are solely in the fund, 5 and kept separate from other operational costs, to 6 pay for the cleanup of the site. 7 And, theoretically, down the road, if there's 8 still spent fuel on the site, Entergy would have to 9 pay for that. 10 But I want to be clear that this is not 11 Riverkeeper saying this. 12 These are NRC regulations: keep those things 13 separate. 14 The reason for that is, power companies, like 15 Entergy, have very actively been suing the federal 16 government in the Federal Court of Claims to recoup 17 the costs of storing all the spent fuel on their 18 site. 19 They've been suing the Department of Energy, 20 and they've been winning in federal claims court; 21 and so, there are damages, in the number of billions 22 of dollars coming back to companies, like Entergy, 23 and other companies that run nuclear plants, to 24 offset that cost. 25 Just a final comment: 1 You know, there's a lot of, I think, very 2 compelling testimony about people that work at the 3 plant, and others, saying how the plant has an 4 excellent safety record. 5 Riverkeeper's long-range concerns about the 6 radioactive water leaks that -- which have gone into 7 the Hudson River. These were undetected leaks until 8 2005. 9 We've raised concerns about the risk of the 10 plant, as you know well. 11 I also want to note that, in terms of safety 12 and security, two independent security guards, over 13 the past year, have filed lawsuits against 14 Indian Point, and raised whistleblower claims with 15 the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, regarding 16 significant security concerns, and alleged security 17 lapses, at Indian Point. 18 And one of these, at least, I know is a 19 decorated army veteran. Served in Afghanistan, and 20 I believe in Iraq. 21 So these are, again, not just disgruntled 22 employees. These are people that worked at the 23 plant for years, that alleged that they are serious 24 security concerns. 25 So I think there are active concerns about 1 safety and security at Indian Point that we need to 2 keep in mind. 3 But -- oh, I'm sorry. 4 One other thing, if I may. 5 I don't want to go over time. 6 Senator Ritchie, you asked a number of 7 questions about the -- about the Nine Mile Point and 8 Fitzpatrick plants. 9 I just wanted to make sure that you were 10 aware, and that the Committee was aware, that, 11 actually, all three plants that are on the 12 Great Lakes -- the Ginna, Nine Mile Point, and 13 Fitzpatrick -- have all been relicensed by the 14 Indian -- not by the Indian Point -- by the 15 Nuclear Regulatory Commission for 20-year license 16 terms. 17 And so, in terms of concerns about this 18 similar type of scenario unfolding for those plants, 19 they have been relicensed for second terms. 20 In -- I know for Fitzpatrick, that plant went 21 through its 401 certification process with the State 22 and was granted a 401 certificate, because it 23 complied with it, and it's -- I believe put in 24 systems that the DEC required to minimize its impact 25 on the Great Lakes marine ecosystem. 1 So, different factual contexts than 2 Indian Point's. 3 Indian Point's, essentially, been challenging 4 New York State's requirements to install 5 closed-cycle cooling, and to do other things at the 6 plant, for over 10 years now. 7 And, so, that's one reason why we're in this 8 permitting proceeding with the State that's now 9 overlapping with the nuclear-renewal proceeding. 10 That's all I have today. 11 Thank you for giving me a chance to speak. 12 SENATOR MAZIARZ: Thank you very much, 13 Mr. Musegaas. 14 We appreciate your perspective, and you 15 coming here today. 16 Just a couple of points before I ask 17 Senator Ritchie if she has anything. 18 You know, you talked about the employees. 19 And, you know, it's interesting, how we have 20 all these different studies, and some of them lead 21 to much, almost diametrically opposed conclusions, 22 but, that's the way it goes. 23 And, you know, as far as the, you know, 24 people being employed by the decommissioning of the 25 plant, I would just add this perspective to that: 1 That, you know, I think it would be very 2 difficult to get qualified, capable, a higher level 3 of employees that I think Indian Point tries to get, 4 and Entergy tries to get now, in some something that 5 they know is, is eventually going to be terminated, 6 whether it takes, you know, you said up to 10 years, 7 you know, 5 years, or whatever. 8 The percent, I just -- I just want to comment 9 on a couple of things that you said. 10 PHILLIP MUSEGAAS, ESQ.: Sure, sure. 11 SENATOR MAZIARZ: And you can, by the way, 12 comment right back. 13 The percentage of power, you know, whether 14 it's, uh -- you know, whether it's 20 or 25, I have 15 heard those estimates kicked around a lot too. 16 And you wonder, you know, how can it be? 17 I think, you know, from our analysis, a lot 18 of it has to depend, obviously, on the time of the 19 year, you know, and power usage -- 20 PHILLIP MUSEGAAS, ESQ.: Absolutely. 21 SENATOR MAZIARZ: -- particularly in the 22 city. 23 But bottom line is, it's still 2,000 -- or 24 maybe a little more -- 2,000 megawatts of capability 25 of producing that much power. 1 You know, I'm certain that, you know, in the 2 middle of the week during August, they probably 3 produce all of that, and then some. 4 I'm most familiar with the, you know, 5 Power Authority and the Niagara Power Project, which 6 happens to be in my backyard. 7 You know, and I know, you know, the way that 8 they operate it is, when the demand is there, 9 they're going to run to the maximum capacity to get 10 it. 11 So, it is still -- still is very unclear, and 12 you heard testimony after testimony from some pretty 13 capable individuals. 14 Gavin Donohue, the Independent Power 15 Producers, I mean, his statement couldn't have been 16 any stronger, you know, that -- that this would 17 cause this -- this is my term, not his term, but, a 18 catastrophic reaction in the system when you're 19 taking all of that power off the grid. 20 But I respect, you know -- 21 PHILLIP MUSEGAAS, ESQ.: Certainly. 22 SENATOR MAZIARZ: -- you know, technically, 23 it could be done. 24 And as far as, I just want to comment on the 25 denial of the water-quality permit. 1 I think, at least from our perspective on 2 this Committee, we did understand that that permit 3 had been denied; that it is in the appeals process. 4 And he probably wasn't as clear about that as 5 he should have been, but, we understood that. 6 PHILLIP MUSEGAAS, ESQ.: Okay, wonderful. 7 SENATOR MAZIARZ: With that, I'll turn it 8 over to Senator Ritchie for any questions or 9 comments. 10 SENATOR RITCHIE: Just a comment, I guess, to 11 start. 12 I understand what you're saying, that the 13 facility in my district has already been -- gone 14 through the relicensing procedure. 15 I guess, for me, the question is, because 16 Indian Point has -- is in the process of being 17 relicensed, or attempting to be relicensed, and they 18 have not, at any point, said that they were going to 19 retire the facility, and now this contingency 20 process is underway, it gives me pause that, next 21 year, that facility would have to refuel. 22 And at that time, even though this is about 23 relicensing, would the PSC be able to step in and 24 say: Now it's time for you to refuel. You know, we 25 really don't want you to undertake that process, and 1 we're going to put a contingency plan in place? 2 So, I guess -- I guess there's a gray area, 3 as far as I'm concerned, about how all of this took 4 place. 5 And the fact that, why, if we have a facility 6 that hasn't said they're going to look at retiring 7 the plant, why, all of a sudden, in the middle of 8 relicensing, considering they can operate until the 9 decision's made, why this is already underway? 10 And I guess I don't really understand how 11 they're going to put something in place, until they 12 have the final decision whether it can operate or it 13 can't. 14 So, I think there's too many balls in the air 15 for me to be comfortable with. 16 So, that's why I keep asking the question: 17 Why -- you know, what kind of precedence are 18 we setting here? 19 Because this kind of came out of the blue. 20 So... 21 PHILLIP MUSEGAAS, ESQ.: I understand. 22 I think, just a quick response: 23 I mean, I think I would support what 24 Mr. Quinones said at the outset, and -- I mean, in 25 terms of a decision, whether to continue with a 1 refueling outage or not, that's certainly an 2 economic decision that Entergy has to make. 3 But I think Indian Point is unique in many 4 ways, because of the size of the plant, because of 5 the legal and kind of regulatory context that we 6 find ourselves in, where the plant is going through 7 a long relicensing process with the NRC, with a lot 8 of opposition from the Attorney General, and from 9 less opposition, but, some from us as well. 10 And then these state environmental permits, 11 which, you know, we have a -- we have an adversarial 12 context, where Entergy doesn't believe, either they 13 are subject to the permits, or that -- that the 14 additional environmental upgrades that the State is 15 saying need to be done, Entergy disagrees with that. 16 And so we're, I think, in some ways, it's 17 this adversarial context is causing more delay and 18 more time to go by, and contributing to this sense 19 of not knowing when, how this is all going to wrap 20 itself up. 21 I would -- you know, I would just make a 22 comment about the Coastal Zone Management Act 23 review: By that -- under that law, the Department 24 of State actually has to make a determination on 25 that application, I believe, within six month of 1 starting its review. 2 And it's begun it -- well, it was out for 3 public comment at the end of August. 4 So, theoretically, you may have a final 5 state-agency decision on -- you know, on that 6 review, which -- actually, which also is a 7 precondition for relicensing, in the spring. 8 And so, hopefully, you know, whichever way 9 the State decides on that, that may provide some 10 additional clarity in the spring of 2014, or the 11 summer of 2014, as to where this is all headed. 12 But I -- you know, I share your concern that 13 it's not a clear process, but I think, out of an 14 abundance of caution, given this legal dispute 15 that's ongoing in these different proceedings, that 16 it makes sense for the State to plan as much as 17 possible. 18 Because if we don't, and we get to 2016 or 19 2017, and all the appeals start to run out and we -- 20 Entergy decides to close for, you know, whatever the 21 decision is, then we won't have put those plans in 22 place, and we'll be in a much more difficult 23 position. 24 So that would -- that's how I would respond 25 to that. 1 SENATOR RITCHIE: Well, I certainly 2 understand how sensitive this issue is, and that 3 there are different perspectives on what should go 4 on. 5 But, it is kind of difficult, sitting in my 6 seat, that we have something that we're planning to 7 put in place, when we don't even know whether the 8 license will not be granted. 9 And in the meantime, I understand how 10 important it is to have the plan in place, because, 11 you know, this is going be quite -- quite lengthy. 12 But if something happens and the relicense is 13 granted, you know, and I have to think, how many 14 manhours, and how much of the taxpayers' money, has 15 gone into play in this process of going through 16 something that we don't even know is going to 17 happen. 18 So, you know, it's something that's not cut 19 and dry. 20 And I certainly appreciate you coming, and 21 giving your comments, so, you know, I can see 22 somewhat of a different perspective. 23 So I just have one question: 24 Can you just tell me what you do believe the 25 proper mix of fuel sources in New York State should 1 be? 2 PHILLIP MUSEGAAS, ESQ.: Well, I believe 3 it's -- 4 Under this contingency plan, or to replace 5 Indian Point? 6 SENATOR RITCHIE: No, I guess, in general. 7 I guess -- do you -- do you support any 8 nuclear power, or are you opposed to that, you know, 9 as a blanket statement? 10 PHILLIP MUSEGAAS, ESQ.: No, we -- I'll be 11 very specific, and I appreciate you asking that. 12 Riverkeeper is specifically focused on 13 Indian Point, both, for the environmental impacts, 14 and the safety risks that it poses -- that we 15 believe it poses, and that I think the 16 State Attorney General believes it poses to the 17 area. 18 And, so, our efforts to close the nuclear 19 plant are entirely focused on Indian Point. 20 We do get involved, and we are actively 21 involved, in some national nuclear issues that have 22 a direct relation to Indian Point. 23 The nuclear-waste storage is one of them. 24 We were a party in a case in the D.C. Circuit 25 Court of Appeals, where we won a ruling from the 1 Circuit Court against the NRC regarding waste 2 storage. 3 But the reason we're involved in that, is 4 because that's how the NRC regulates nuclear waste, 5 focus -- you know, goes back directly to how it's 6 managed at Indian Point. 7 But, in terms of upstate nuclear plants, we 8 have not taken a position on those. 9 And, you know, our area of jurisdiction, if 10 you'll call it that, is the Hudson Valley and upper 11 New York Harbor and the Hudson River. 12 And, so, I -- we don't have the resources or 13 the time to -- you know, to take a position or weigh 14 in on upstate nuclear plants. 15 There are other groups in the state that do. 16 You know, we gave general concerns about -- 17 primarily about nuclear-wastes storage nationally. 18 And -- but, you know, our focus is 19 Indian Point, and has always been, and it will 20 continue to be. 21 Thank you. 22 SENATOR MAZIARZ: So you're not opposed to 23 nuclear energy, just in general? 24 PHILLIP MUSEGAAS, ESQ.: Riverkeeper is not 25 opposed to nuclear energy. 1 We're certainly not supportive of it. 2 I mean, I think we are -- we have serious 3 concerns, and other water-keeper -- we're part of a 4 large alliance of keeper organizations around the 5 country. 6 Other keepers in the south, and out west, 7 work on nuclear issues as well. 8 I think we have a major concern with the 9 nuclear-waste problem that we have, and it's a 10 national problem. 11 It's particularly acute at Indian Point 12 because we have a large amount of nuclear waste 13 stored on the banks of the Hudson River. 14 We've had a history at Indian Point of the 15 spent-fuel pools leaking into the groundwater, 16 contaminating the groundwater, and leaking into the 17 Hudson River. 18 And so, for us, as a river organization, 19 we're very concerned that, if this stuff isn't going 20 anywhere, it's going be stored there for 100 years, 21 and it hasn't been managed properly already, what 22 are the future impacts going to be? 23 So that -- that's an issue we care deeply 24 about. 25 And we are involved, on a national level, on 1 that issue, to make sure that -- or, to do our best 2 to make sure that the NRC finds better ways of 3 requiring these plants to store it. 4 And moving it to dry-cask storage is one way. 5 And that was discussed a little bit earlier 6 today, but, Entergy's current plan is only to move 7 as much spent fuel out of the pools as they need to 8 to continue operating the plant. 9 We believe they should move much more fuel 10 out of the pools to reduce the accident risk and to 11 store it more safely. 12 So, I hope that -- I believe that answers 13 your question. 14 SENATOR MAZIARZ: Thank you. 15 Thank you very much, Mr. Musegaas. 16 PHILLIP MUSEGAAS, ESQ.: Thank you. 17 SENATOR MAZIARZ: We appreciate it. 18 [Applause.] 19 SENATOR MAZIARZ: Our next witness is 20 Susan Shapiro, with Radiation and Public Health 21 Project. 22 Susan. 23 Hi. 24 Thank you for being here today, Susan. 25 SUSAN SHAPIRO, ESQ.: Thank you for giving me 1 this opportunity to present to you. 2 I'm also not only representing 3 Radiation Public Health Project, but, also, the 4 Sierra Club Atlantic Chapter; and the New York 5 Environmental Law and Justice Project; and the 6 Indian Point Safe Energy Coalition. 7 And this binder will have a lot of the backup 8 reports that I will briefly discuss. 9 I'm not going to into them in depth, but, 10 there's a lot of -- because there's a -- there was 11 lot of information given you today by different 12 parties. 13 SENATOR MAZIARZ: Yes. 14 SUSAN SHAPIRO, ESQ.: And there's many 15 studies that I think would be very helpful for you 16 to look at, to understand this issue, and -- 17 SENATOR MAZIARZ: You're going to submit 18 that? You're going to leave it? 19 SUSAN SHAPIRO, ESQ.: Yes, I'm going to 20 submit that to you. 21 SENATOR MAZIARZ: Okay. 22 Thank you. 23 SUSAN SHAPIRO, ESQ.: First of all, I want to 24 say this room is freezing, and maybe we can conserve 25 some energy -- maybe this is where we can start 1 conserving some energy. 2 SENATOR MAZIARZ: I couldn't agree with you 3 more. I wish I knew how to turn it off. 4 Open a window. 5 SUSAN SHAPIRO, ESQ.: I know, but, here, 6 that's an example of a waste of energy, because, 7 here, it's a nice beautiful day and we're freezing 8 in this room. 9 So, maybe New York State should start 10 thinking about, you know, even its own buildings, 11 conserving energy in some buildings, and that may be 12 helping the whole power problem we have in 13 New York State, if we do actually have a problem. 14 So, let me just start by saying, it is not 15 if, but when, Indian Point will close. 16 It could be by accident. 17 It could be by age. 18 It could be natural disaster. It's located 19 on two intersecting fault lines. 20 It could be by terrorist attack. It's 21 probably the most attractive terrorist target in the 22 country. 23 It could be by financial unsustainability. 24 And, it also could be by failure of Entergy 25 to meet state and federal legal requirements. 1 They have refused to revise their operations 2 to meet those requirements. 3 But, Indian Point will close. 4 Morgan Stanley recently published a study 5 which projects Indian Point will close, due to 6 economics, no later than 2018. 7 So this contingency plan is a necessity. 8 We can't wait any longer to figure this out. 9 We as a state need to think this through in a 10 thoughtful, planned way: How are we going to 11 replace the power of Indian Point? 12 You know, the first question we really do 13 have to get to, as Philip and others have said, 14 there's a big discrepancy of how much energy do they 15 actually provide for our region? 16 You, in your invitation, to -- say 17 25 percent. 18 That's what Entergy advertises in the Yankees 19 games, and on the airwaves, of -- they say 20 25 percent of New York City's energy. 21 That's impossible, because only 18 percent is 22 allowed to be imported from out of the city. 23 So, that fact -- the fact that they advertise 24 it is legally impossible, to begin with. 25 And today we just heard from Con Ed, that 1 only 10 percent of New York State's -- all of the 2 state's energy is provided by nuclear. 3 And you have your plants upstate, so 4 Indian Point could not be providing 25 percent of 5 our energy. 6 So we need to -- as Philip said, they have 7 not been forthcoming or transparent about how 8 much -- where they're selling their selling their 9 energy to. 10 If they're not selling it to us in 11 New York State, where they are selling it? 12 They could be selling it, clearly, to the 13 open market for the highest price. 14 Our region has the most expensive energy in 15 the country, and, Indian Point is not helping reduce 16 that price. 17 It's only probably increasing it, but we 18 don't know, because they've hidden that information. 19 So I would asked you, respectfully, to 20 request that, and require them to be transparent, as 21 they're supposed to be by law, and give you, the 22 State Senate and Assembly, that data. 23 They have refused to do that. 24 As of last Saturday, September 28th, 25 Indian Point actually stopped providing any energy 1 to the New York Power Authority. 2 So the subway system, the airports, none of 3 it, no longer runs on Entergy's energy: 4 Indian Point's energy. 5 So, once again, we need to know, really, what 6 are they providing? 7 And right now, we have an amazing opportunity 8 here in New York State to create really good-paying, 9 sustainable jobs, and rebuild our economy, by 10 creating renewable-energy infrastructure for the 11 existing -- with existing twenty-first-century 12 energy technology, and become a model, not only for 13 the state and the region, but for the whole country, 14 and the world. 15 New York can once again have a real economic 16 motor, by enacting this contingency plan. By 17 figuring out how we're going to make other safe, 18 clean forms of energy, and not rely on this plant 19 that's, literally, falling apart. 20 It's -- you know, it's made of 40-year-old 21 concrete and rebar that has been bombarded by 22 fission. 23 It's corroded. It's cracking. 24 They don't even know what kinds of piping 25 they have in that plant. It's a mixture of all 1 different types of piping. 2 They -- they really -- it's, literally, 3 falling apart. 4 I mean, the Tappan Zee Bridge was falling 5 apart. It took years, finally -- you know, they're 6 finally doing something about it. 7 But these are structures. 8 These are, you know, industrial structures. 9 They have a life cycle. 10 It's outlived its life cycle. 11 It was only supposed to last for 30 years, 12 but because of finances, they said, No, make it 13 40 years. 14 But, now, we're going into a future period, 15 where we don't know, nobody knows, nobody can 16 guarantee, that plant's not going to crack and fall 17 apart even worse than it already has in the near 18 future. 19 So, to protect New York State, and to protect 20 the people here, we really need to figure out how we 21 have to secure that plant in a safe way and close it 22 down, and plan for the future, so that we can really 23 be safe, you know, for our kids and our grandkids, 24 and the future of our area. 25 A recent Stamford University study found that 1 it's feasible and affordable to convert 2 New York State energy infrastructure to wind, water, 3 sunlight, without nuclear. 4 There's really no reason that we are going to 5 rely -- continue to rely in this downstate densely 6 populated area on this dangerous kind of energy. 7 In fact, just using the roof tops of 8 New York City, of the municipalities buildings and 9 the schools, we could easily, with solar and wind, 10 we could add a significant amount of distributed 11 electrical generation, just right here in 12 New York City alone. 13 So, instead of throwing good money after bad 14 by continuing to subsidize this unsustainable 15 industry that keeps, every year, asking for billions 16 and billions in handouts, it's time that 17 New York State make some plans; not contingency 18 plans, but real plans, to start replacing what 19 Indian Point produces. 20 It may generate 2,000 -- it may be able to 21 generate 2,000 kilowatts, but -- megawatts, I mean, 22 but, it doesn't -- once it goes on to the 23 transmission lines, the 1450 is what we're talking 24 about. 25 And then today we heard, there's already 1 plans for about 500 of that that's already taken 2 care of in these proposed up and coming plans. 3 So we're talking about replacing 4 1,000 megawatts of energy. 5 This is something that we can make happen, 6 with some planning, and some forethought. 7 When -- and I want to talk about jobs for a 8 second, because I know it's a big concern for all of 9 us. You know, it's a very big concern for 10 everybody. 11 But you have to remember, that when Entergy 12 took ownership of Indian Point, there were 13 3,000 good-paying union jobs at that plant. 14 Today, there's about 1,000. 15 They are the one who have cut the jobs. 16 We lost 2,000 good-paying jobs because of 17 Entergy. 18 So, you know, there's a period where, yes, 19 there's retraining. We might have to retrain some 20 people. And decommissioning, for many years, will 21 keep the people -- many of the people that are there 22 still working. 23 But, there's no reason that we can't invest 24 in retraining our very talented and very capable 25 New York State workforce. 1 We have -- I live in the Hudson Valley, right 2 near the plant, and we have empty factories. We 3 have highly-skilled workers that are unemployed. 4 It's time to start bringing the jobs for 5 manufacturing of solar, geothermal, tidal, all those 6 components right here, instead of shipping them -- 7 bringing -- letting China make those jobs. 8 We need to have a workforce, you know, here, 9 making them. We're in the right area. 10 We have the whole New York State down area -- 11 downstate area as the place to use it. 12 So why don't we make it where we're going to 13 use it, and give our people really good, sustainable 14 jobs that will last forever into the future, because 15 it will be safe, and we can continue this kind of 16 energy, and growing this kind of energy. 17 In fact, New York State, as you well know, is 18 a great agricultural state. 19 Biofuels: 20 Why -- there's very little talk even about 21 biofuels in New York State, but we -- you know, 22 we're farmland, grasslands. 23 Let's start using switchgrass and hemps, and 24 start using that to create our biofuels, and we will 25 have a much safer form of energy. 1 In fact, there was a recent study, done by 2 the University of Massachusetts, that found, that 3 for every million dollar invested, only four nuclear 4 jobs are created; 5 Whereas, for the same million dollars, you 6 can create 17 jobs in retrofitting and biomass, 7 14 jobs in transmission, 13 jobs in solar, wind, and 8 smart grids. 9 Retraining energy nuclear workers would be 10 like -- today, would be like saying, Well, you know, 11 chimney sweeps; we have to keep those chimney-sweep 12 jobs, because those are really good jobs at the time 13 we use coal in everyone's fireplace to make energy. 14 But we don't have chimney sweeps anymore. 15 There are other good jobs that they can be created. 16 Holding on to an old format isn't going to 17 make a sustainable job. 18 It will make a job that can only live a 19 certain lifetime. 20 Oh, I'm sorry. 21 So, as Philip said, the Synapse energy 22 consultants did a study that detailed a road map of 23 how to get there, by replacing Entergy -- 24 Indian Point with clean energy sources. 25 And, let's talk about what the risks and the 1 costs of continuing to allow Indian Point to 2 operate. That's really a big concern that we have, 3 that should be considered in this contingency plan 4 as an alternative. 5 If you keep it operating, what's it really 6 costing New York State taxpayers? 7 Not just us in the downstate region, but all 8 New York taxpayers. 9 First of all, it's a historic thing that 10 Indian Point is now the first plant in the country, 11 and I believe the world, to operate with an expired 12 license. 13 You and I can't drive with an expired 14 license. Right? 15 We'd get fined, or we'd get pulled over. 16 We might even go to jail. 17 Indian Point is only 25 miles from midtown 18 Manhattan. 19 It's on, as I said, two active fault lines. 20 It has defective fire installation that only 21 protects for 24 minutes, instead of required 3 hours 22 by New York State law, and federal law, but it's 23 allowed to operate with an expired license. 24 Now, I've heard people talk today about, they 25 have these commitments; that they've met the 1 commitments. 2 Well, I have it in here, and I've read these 3 commitments that they're supposed to meet. 4 First of all, it's about that thick, how many 5 commitments they're supposed to meet. 6 And about 50 percent of them, they don't 7 meet, today. We're sitting here today with them not 8 having met those commitment. 9 In fact, it even says, "The NRC inspectors 10 aren't sure that the systems Entergy is using, with 11 regard to thermal-aging embrittlement, will meet the 12 requirements of federal law." 13 Yet, the NRC is allowing them -- the NRC and 14 New York State is allowing them to continue to 15 operate that plant with an expired license. 16 That's really endangering 20 million people, 17 and our entire economy. 18 It's not -- New York State's economy, and the 19 entire country's economy. 20 If something happens at Indian Point, the 21 bankruptcy of our state, and the country, will 22 happen shortly after that. 23 You know, if Indian Point closes -- or, 24 Indian Point has refused to meet the state and 25 federal requirements. 1 That's their choice not to follow the law. 2 I'm sure you wouldn't support somebody else 3 breaking the law. 4 But, why does this industry get -- why does 5 Entergy get a pass on following the law? 6 They have refused, in fact, like, to spend 7 about $500,000, which is about a quarter of their 8 day's profit, to retrofit this fire-insulation 9 problem. 10 Instead, they've litigated for millions of 11 dollars. 12 They're still litigating about it. 13 Why don't they just fix it? 14 What -- it -- it doesn't make any sense to 15 anyone. 16 Fix the problem. 17 Every other plant in the country fix their 18 problem. 19 Entergy claims, We should be exempted from 20 fixing our problem; when, between us and a meltdown, 21 it's 24 minute. 22 New York City and a meltdown is a 24-minute 23 fire. 24 It should be a 3-hour fire rating. 25 It's their choice not to meet these 1 standards. 2 They claim that the -- we -- the closed-cycle 3 cooling system that's being required will require 4 these Yankee Stadium-sized cooling towers. 5 That's not what the requirement is. 6 There's a whole different system, a much less 7 expensive system, they could use, but they don't 8 want to. 9 They don't want to spend the money to keep 10 operating properly. 11 They're an industry, they're a business. It 12 costs money to operate a business to make the profit 13 they're making. 14 We should be not ashamed to require them to 15 live up to their obligations under the law. 16 So, let's talk about the continued cost of 17 operations. 18 Every single day that plant continues to 19 operate it makes more waste. 20 And as Philip said, that is the biggest 21 problem of the nuclear industry -- it's one of 22 biggest problems of the nuclear industry, is the 23 waste. 24 When they took ownership of the plant, there 25 were 18,000 tons of nuclear waste at that plant. 1 Today there's 27,000 tons of it. 2 It's not going anywhere. 3 The fact that the gentleman from Entergy 4 said, Oh, well, it's going to be in dry-cask storage 5 so the Department of Energy can come and ship it 6 away. 7 There is no place to ship it to. 8 Period. 9 In fact, tomorrow, there's going to be -- 10 nationally starting, the NRC is starting, their 11 waste store -- Waste Confidence hearings, because 12 the bottom line is, Yucca Mountain was not a 13 political decision, that it was closed, though most 14 people would like to think, that, Oh, the politics 15 of Nevada made it close down. 16 Yucca Mountain closed because of science. 17 The heat from this nuclear waste, put all in 18 one place, cannot be contained. 19 We, scientifically, don't know how to deal 20 with it. 21 We don't know how to store it. 22 100 years, maybe the dry casks that they've 23 designed now will last. 24 "Maybe." 25 They don't know. We don't know. 1 We can't keep making, for the future, this 2 waste that we don't know how to deal with. 3 Unlike coal and fossil fuels, which, yes, do 4 create, you know, a carbon footprint, and all of 5 that, but it's hot once. 6 It goes through, it's cold. 7 It's ash, it's cold. 8 Nuclear is hot for thousands of years. It 9 keeps heating the environment. 10 No one has calculated how much that heats the 11 environment, but we know it's super-heating the 12 Hudson River. 13 We know that every single day it super-heats 14 the Hudson River. 15 That's why there's this need for closed-cycle 16 cooling, which they have refused to do. 17 But, let's also talk about what's -- who's 18 insuring this plant? 19 Who -- where's the insurance on this plant? 20 Who is it, really, actually insuring it? 21 Okay, we did a property-value study, which 22 you'll see in here, based on assessed actual values, 23 and actual -- assessed values and actualization 24 rates. 25 And the problem -- this is in 2011, the study 1 was done. 2 At that time, the property values in the 3 50-mile radius of Indian Point is $8.5 trillion. 4 The insurance coverage, under the 5 Price-Anderson Act, is only $12 billion. 6 That means it's only insured for .01 percent. 7 Because the nuclear -- the -- I'm sorry, the 8 insurance industry said, Nuclear is too expensive to 9 insure. We're not going to touch it. 10 It's not like flood insurance you can add a 11 rider on. 12 You look in your homeowner's policy, look in 13 any building policy, it's excluded. There's an 14 exclusion. 15 So who's the insurer? 16 The taxpayer: the New York State taxpayer, 17 the American taxpayer. 18 If something happens at Indian Point, your 19 region, as well as our region, is gonna have to pay 20 for that. 21 It's gonna -- that's what bankrupt the 22 Soviet Union, was Chernobyl. 23 Because who's going to pay for it? It's the 24 taxpayer here. 25 That was a different system, so I don't want 1 to get into that. 2 But, at this point in time, it's no longer 3 economically feasible to keep operating a plant 4 that's broken, that's cracked, that's leaking into 5 the Hudson River. 6 The spent-fuel pools, it's acknowledged they 7 have cracks in them, but they don't even know where 8 they are. They haven't found them. 9 But, it's still leaking, but they're not 10 doing anything about it. 11 So we know that there's problems with the 12 plant. 13 The fact that they're saying there has been 14 no leaks? 15 There's records that there's been leaks. 16 There's maps, there's been leaks. 17 You know, you guys can see it. 18 They can say what they want, but there's 19 evidence. 20 The spent-fuel pools are really one of the 21 larger problems, is because they're so densely 22 packed, as Philip said. 23 They're four times more densely packed than 24 they were designed to be, because they don't know 25 what to do with the fuel. You know, the waste, they 1 don't know where to go, so they keep just putting it 2 into these fuel pools. 3 Now they're starting to take some of it out, 4 but, like he said, they're not going to reduce the 5 density. 6 And that is just an enormous risk to our 7 entire region. 8 Let's see. 9 And, then, we all -- all of us New Yorkers 10 should be really concerned about who's going to be 11 left holding the bag to pay for the spent fuel once 12 Entergy no longer is around. 13 Entergy is a corporation. They can dissolve, 14 they can disappear. 15 They may not be here later. 16 Listen, after "Katrina," there was Entergy 17 and "Katrina." They left New Orleans with a big 18 bill. 19 They tried to hide behind the corporate veil. 20 And they did, they succeeded. 21 They'll do that here too. 22 Once they walk away, they've made their 23 profit, there's no guarantee, that who's going to be 24 paying for the waste and the cleanup? 25 Their decommissioning fund, the GAO found 1 that their decommissioning fund is short. 2 They were allowed them to -- the NRC allowed 3 them to actually use it on the stock market in 2008. 4 They lost a lot of money on it. 5 They are trying to recoup that, but they're 6 not there yet. 7 And prior to that, they weren't even keeping 8 up with the cost-of-living increases. There were 9 only doing 1 percent per year, rather than 3 percent 10 like everyone else. 11 So their fund, their decommissioning fund, 12 isn't even adequate. 13 So at the end of the day, who's gonna be 14 paying for this? 15 New York State taxpayers. 16 You know, yet, we need to have a plan to 17 close Indian Point down in a way that we make sure 18 have reliable energy for our region, because we 19 don't want to be stuck with paying for the cost and 20 also not having proper energy. 21 So this is the time to do it. 22 I mean, we have an example of, during the 23 "Sandy" hurricane, storm -- "superstorm," I guess 24 we're calling it, and everywhere in our region had 25 flashlights and candles, because we all knew that 1 the power was going to go out. We all knew the 2 power was going to down, because the trees were 3 falling and the wind was so strong. 4 Entergy continued to operate that plant, even 5 though Mayor Bloomberg had shut down the 6 transportation system in New York City. 7 All of the transportation systems in that 8 region, in the Westchester and the counties, was 9 shut down hours before "Sandy" actually hit. 10 Once those -- once that was shut down, there 11 was no evacuation plan. 12 Transportation -- public transportation is an 13 essential part of any evacuation plan, but they 14 allowed that plant to continue to operate, until 15 there was an emergency scram in the middle of the 16 night, at 10:20 at night, in the middle of the 17 storm. 18 If -- it's the most dangerous way to shut 19 down a plant, is in an emergency scram, instead of 20 in an orderly fashion. 21 And if -- if something had gone wrong, nobody 22 could have gotten anywhere. 23 All the trees were down. 24 People in this area didn't even use that 25 power. 1 That's why we have to find out, where are 2 they selling? 3 Because, we weren't using that power. 4 We didn't have power for two weeks. 5 Most of the area didn't have power for 6 two weeks. 7 Where were they selling that power? 8 Why were they putting us at risk, instead of 9 doing something orderly and planned? 10 And that's what we're asking for, with this 11 contingency plan, is let's have an orderly planned 12 method, so that we protect our region, and make sure 13 that we have the proper jobs. 14 Just a couple of more minor things -- not 15 minor, but it's a couple more things. 16 In terms of emergency preparedness, it turns 17 out that Entergy doesn't actually cover all the 18 costs for our region to prepare for an emergency 19 because of them. 20 They only cover a very small portion of it. 21 It's mostly covered by the taxpayers, the 22 ratepayers, right here. 23 And it should be, they're here, they're 24 making profit off of us. They should be responsible 25 for their own protection. 1 Our emergency-service guys are not fully 2 funded through Entergy to protect against them. 3 And I wonder, in your region, actually, 4 because I know in our region it doesn't happen, but, 5 is potassium iodide handed out to everyone in the 6 10-mile radius? 7 Because in our region, it's, by law, it 8 should be. 9 It's federal law, it should be. 10 And they don't do it, because Entergy refuses 11 to let our emergency-service guys to hand it out. 12 They want to send it out to all of the 13 residents in the region, and Entergy said no. 14 So right now, if there is an accident, we 15 aren't actually even protected to that real level, 16 just for thyroid cancer. 17 That's all that would cover, but it would be 18 something. 19 But they won't let it happen because they 20 think it's bad PR. 21 So, they're not following that minor federal 22 law. Even that. 23 And maybe New York State, you and the Senate, 24 can make that happen. 25 It's a very minor thing to do. 1 And, now, talking about health, and the 2 concerns that you have about air quality, which we 3 all share. 4 We all share concerns about our health and 5 our children's health, and asthma and air quality 6 and sickness. 7 Well, turns out that, every day, Indian Point 8 releases a minimum of 60 pounds of radioactive waste 9 into our air and into our water, as steam, or in -- 10 directly into the water. 11 Even if it goes into the water, it 12 evaporates, it ends up in air. 13 We're breathing that in. That's going into 14 our thyroids. 15 The thyroid-cancer rates in our region are so 16 much higher that the rest of the nation, based on 17 the Cancer Registry studies. 18 The reports are in here, the studies are in 19 here. 20 So, you know, we know that we're getting sick 21 from Indian Point. 22 We know that people have thyroid cancer, 23 infants are being born with hypothyroidism, in our 24 region. 25 This is directly related to Indian Point. 1 Thyroid cancer is the marker from exposure to 2 radiation. 3 You don't get it from anything else. It's 4 not hereditary. 5 If you go onto the Thyroid Cancer Register -- 6 Society, they'll explain that as well. 7 So, you know, the problem we actually have, 8 and this is something you guys can do, the 9 State Senate and the State Assembly really should be 10 requesting, and I respectfully ask you, to enact 11 this, or enact legislation towards this, is that 12 Entergy, actually, is the only ones who are 13 monitoring themselves. 14 There's no independent self-monitoring of the 15 radiation releases. 16 So, by regulation, they're allowed to release 17 60 pounds, but, based on what we've seen from 18 studies that were prior, it looks like, maybe, 19 they're releasing around 90 pounds a day. 20 It could be more. 21 We don't know. 22 The monitoring is very sporadic. It's only 23 three or four times a year. We -- and it's done by 24 Entergy themselves. 25 It's clearly the fox watching the hen house. 1 So we're asking to have funding -- Entergy 2 pay funding for independent monitoring by the 3 New York State Department of Health, that we have 4 continuous monitoring of the radiation that's coming 5 out of the plant. 6 Because we can't talk about the impacts on 7 health and the air unless we actually know what's 8 actually coming out of that plant. 9 And the other part of it, is that 10 New York State Department of Health should be 11 required to do captured-species studies around that 12 plant, because, taking a one-day test, a -- mon- -- 13 you know, "Oh, here, what I see today," doesn't 14 really mean anything, because radiation impacts are 15 cumulative. 16 It doesn't -- they're bio -- they 17 bio-accumulate. 18 So we need the fish, the frogs, the birds, 19 all of the oysters...all the creatures around that 20 live there, and we need to capture them for at least 21 a year to see, actually, what is being released into 22 our environment. 23 We don't know that. 24 You should do that at your plant, too, so you 25 can protect your people -- at your plants, I should 1 say. 2 You know, there's, really -- the lack of 3 knowledge is -- of what's going on at that plant, is 4 one of the reason that it's no longer safe, and we 5 do need a contingency plan -- or, actually, I don't 6 even think it should be contingency plan. 7 It should be an enacted plan. 8 We need to be in the position, where, 9 Indian Point could go down at any minute for a 10 variety of reasons, and if we don't have a backup 11 plan for our energy, that will be a problem. 12 So there is -- it's not wasted money to plan 13 ahead. 14 It's good money spent, to know how we're 15 going to go into a healthy future with our energy in 16 New York State. 17 And I really hope that, you know, there isn't 18 undue influence due to large contributions that are 19 made by Entergy to our political people, you know, 20 that really influence you, this Committee, or any 21 other committee, because that should not be allowed 22 to affect the health of New York State, both 23 energy-wise, jobs-wise, and health-wise. 24 So I really thank you for, you know, this 25 opportunity. 1 SENATOR MAZIARZ: Thank you very much, Susan. 2 [Applause.] 3 SUSAN SHAPIRO, ESQ.: We appreciate it. 4 We, and, obviously, several people in 5 audience appreciate your comments. 6 Senator Ritchie. 7 SENATOR RITCHIE: I guess, could you just 8 tell me, I'm assuming from your presentation, then 9 you personally are opposed to nuclear facilities 10 across the country? 11 SUSAN SHAPIRO, ESQ.: You know what? I will 12 say something. 13 I wouldn't be opposed to nuclear if we knew 14 what to do with the waste, but there is no -- there 15 is no solution to deal with the waste. 16 There's no way to reverse-engineer it. 17 There's no place to store it. 18 The cost of storage we haven't even talked 19 about. 20 You know, the cost of keeping this waste, on 21 New York State, is enormous. 22 It's an enormous expense in perpetuity. 23 So if -- I can't -- I'm not against any form 24 of energy if you know how to make it safe, and you 25 can deal with the waste. 1 But we can't. 2 SENATOR RITCHIE: And I don't know the 3 history of your organization, so, can you tell me, 4 was your organization in place when NYPA owned the 5 facility? 6 Or, how did your organization come about? 7 SUSAN SHAPIRO, ESQ.: The organization -- the 8 Radiation Public Health Project is the organization 9 that, President Kennedy used their studies to stop 10 the aboveground nuclear testing, because we're an 11 epidemiological organization that takes data and 12 analyzes the data. 13 And that original data was -- was 14 strontium-90 and baby teeth. 15 And they found that the high -- the 16 super-high levels of strontium-90 in baby teeth was 17 caused by aboveground testing. 18 So President Kennedy stopped the aboveground 19 testing because of the work that this organization 20 did. 21 So, it's a very old organization. 22 SENATOR RITCHIE: But were you -- you -- 23 because I'm just trying to get the history here of 24 the fact that, NYPA actually owned the facility 25 before Entergy purchased it. 1 Were you actively involved at that time -- 2 SUSAN SHAPIRO, ESQ.: Yeah, we were doing -- 3 SENATOR RITCHIE: -- trying to shut the plant 4 down then? 5 SUSAN SHAPIRO, ESQ.: -- I wouldn't say we 6 were trying -- I represent a few different 7 organizations, so Radiation Public Health is not 8 about shutting plants down. 9 They do studies. They do epidemiological 10 studies. 11 They're not about shutting plants down. 12 They do health studies. 13 So that's -- that organization -- 14 Indian Point Safe Energy Coalition is made up of 15 70 environmental groups. 16 And one, for example, WestCan was very 17 involved in those hearings, and -- at that time, and 18 their biggest concern was the lack of 19 decommissioning funds at that time. 20 And they were told, Oh, you can't raise it 21 then. It's the wrong time to raise it. 22 Well, now is the right time to raise it. 23 We need to talk about the decommissioning 24 funds, and are they adequate? 25 And will New York State taxpayers be the ones 1 holding the bag on the decommissioning? 2 Because Entergy bought the plant to take the 3 decommissioning funds out. 4 It was an asset that they were looking at, 5 and they did use that money. 6 So, we need to -- New York State, you guys 7 really have to look and see, where are we on this 8 decommissioning? 9 Because at the end of the day, it's going be 10 all of us -- all of us in New York State -- who's 11 going to have to pay for that. 12 And that's a big expense. 13 And I don't think that your taxpayers are -- 14 end even in your region are going to be happy about 15 that they're going to have to pay for 16 decommissioning for Indian Point, because Entergy 17 didn't, because they left the state. 18 They're an out-of-state corporation. 19 It's a single corporation that you're trying 20 to protect, if you are trying to protect it. 21 I hope that's not the intent of these 22 hearings. 23 I believe these hearings, the intent should 24 really be about replacement energy, is it needed? 25 It is, there's no question. 1 Even if Indian Point, even if you say, you 2 know, "Okay, they're going to get their 3 relicensing," in 20 years it's going to be needed. 4 You need to start planning it today. 5 Every -- you know, there's no reason not to 6 plan ahead, and do it right. 7 The longer you plan, the better you'll do. 8 The better -- the less it will cost. 9 The better we'll have a plan. 10 And that's really what this should be about, 11 is let's plan ahead. 12 There's no reason to not plan. 13 You know, it's like putting blinders on and 14 saying, Oh, I don't want to think about that. 15 But, it is the future, we have to think about 16 it. 17 And there's so many possibilities of why 18 Entergy Indian Point will close, sooner than later 19 that, we have to look it a realistically, you know. 20 And the other organizations, I have to say, 21 that I represent, the Sierra Club Atlantic Chapter 22 has been involved for a very long time on this 23 particular issue. 24 They are not an anti-nuclear group. 25 They're an environmental group that cares 1 about the protection of the environment. 2 SENATOR MAZIARZ: Thank you. 3 SUSAN SHAPIRO, ESQ.: Thank you. 4 SENATOR MAZIARZ: Thank you very much. 5 Thank you. 6 Thank you. 7 That's the termination of our hearing. 8 Thank you. 9 (Whereupon, at approximately 2:01 p.m., 10 the public hearing held before the New York State 11 Senate Standing Committee on Energy and 12 Telecommunications concluded, and adjourned.) 13 ---oOo--- 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Public Hearing: To Examine and Analyze the Plans, Contentions, and Arguments Put Forward in Relation to the Indian Point Contingency Proceeding Being Conducted by the New York State Public Service Commission

Transcript