Wouldn’t it be ironic – in a tragic, fatalistic way – if the Ukraine crisis dashes the possibility of offshore wind for Long Island and gives Cuomo his excuse to okay fracking, because of new political pressure to build the Port Ambrose LNG port and boost US natural gas production and exports to defuse Russia’s power over Ukraine and Europe?
The resurgence of the Cold War couldn’t have come at a worse time, when New York State is about to adopt a long-term energy plan which environmentalists fear is already too meek when it comes to renewables development and, in fact, is really a back-door way of promoting investments to support natural gas extraction and delivery (and position Cuomo for national office).
Environmentalists see the potential for becoming fossil-fuel-free by 2030 – let alone 80 percent by 2050 as the plan modestly suggests – evaporating.
Speaking at a public hearing – the fifth of six hearings being held around the state prior to final adoption of the plan – at SUNY Farmingdale on Monday, March 3, virtually every speaker blasted natural gas as a fossil fuel which may burn cleaner than coal, but that is even more dangerous to air, water, and climate-change causing emissions. ”It is not a bridge fuel,” they insist.
But just as New York State’s environmental activists were holding on to their hope of banning fracking, blocking the Port Ambrose LNG facility, and pressing for aggressive development of renewable energy, Congressional Republicans were seizing opportunity posed by the Crimean crisis.
Republicans have long been the party of the “Drill here, drill now, fossil fuels forever,” embracing and protecting every possible form of dirty energy, which also protects the corporatists and oligarchs who fund SuperPacs and lobbyists. They refuse to end giving Big Oil & Gas billions in tax “incentives” (as if they needed incentives) – the most profitable industry in history – and yet, interestingly, deny offering the same development stimulus to solar, wind, geothermal.
What is the difference, you might ask? Because in addition to making the country energy independent, renewables also make every energy consumer (that is everyone) relatively independent of Big Corporations.
At minimum, a shift to renewables decentralizes energy production, breaks up virtual monopolies. To some extent, every home and every business could become its own little factory of energy production, or at very least, less of a consumer, with more disposable income.
Governments would have more money freed up as well, and would have to shell out less tax money on public health, environmental remediation, and disaster rebuilding.
And we have seen how the need to protect the supply of oil has impacted foreign policy and defense spending (case in point, Iraq, see Rachel Maddow’s documentary, “Why We Did It”, http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/watch/why-we-did-it-part-1-us-thirsty-for-energy-184918083750).
How things have changed! In 2012, America finally produced more oil and gas than we imported. In fact, in 2013, America became the largest producer of oil and gas in the world, bigger than Saudi Arabia and Russia, and the largest producer of natural gas in the world (as that lady on TV keeps reminding us).
Now, because Europe depends on Russia for 30% of its natural gas, the Europeans are unwilling to exert any real leverage to force Russia back from Crimea. Republicans now see the potential for the US to become the supplier to the world.
Rather than pursue a fossil-fuel-free world, Republicans see our oil and gas as the new coin of the realm to reassert America’s world domination (democracy alone doesn’t seem to be working). The U.S. would become the new PetroState – a thoroughly misguided fantasy since most of the rest of the world, including the Oil-Producing Middle East, are moving to sustainable energy.
So far, the US does not export its natural gas, but there are scores of companies that are chomping at the bit, and have applications pending at the Energy Department to construct Liquid Natural Gas ports – like Port Ambrose off Long Island’s south shore.
Speaker of the House John Boehner is pushing to speed up the timeline for the DoE to issue those permits, while Congressman Paul Ryan is using the Ukraine crisis as the latest excuse to press Obama to give his blessing to the Keystone XL pipeline, which environmentalists like Bill McGibbon of 350.org have warned would be a death sentence for a habitable planet.
“I think we should move forward on natural gas exports very quickly,” Ryan said when asked what Congress can do to alleviate the Crimea crisis. “I think we should approve an LNG [liquefied natural gas] terminal on the East Coast to go to Europe. I think we should approve the Keystone pipeline. I think we should show the U.S. is moving forward on becoming energy independent and supplying energy to Europe–”
The fact that none of these changes could be in place in time to impact the Crimea crisis, think about what this would mean for average Americans: natural gas which is pitched as being relatively cheap now in the U.S. (and the rationale for not developing renewables), would inevitably rise in price.
The U.S. would become like any third world nation that is exploited for its resources, the impacts on local environment and communities be damned. Our food prices would rise, as well, as more and more land is despoiled by extractions, not to mention the droughts and floods that accompany climate change, and water supplies, already strained through much of the country, would be destroyed because fracking consumes millions and millions of gallons of water and produces millions and millions of gallons of toxic liquid.
Ironically, the US has actually been assisting Europe in developing its renewable energy. In Germany, solar panels can be seen on centuries-old farm houses; and Europe’s cultivation of wind has been at a remarkable pace, and now generates 14 percent of the European Union’s electricity demand.
The Ukraine crisis was not top of mind, though, at the public hearing at SUNY Farmingdale. Who would have thought that Long Island, let alone New York State, could become in an international crisis (Perhaps Cuomo, though, who aspires to national office might relish this opportunity). No, what they were focusing on was the fate of our communities and Mother Earth.
Out of about 30 speakers who turned out on a workday at SUNY Farmingdale, Monday, March 3, to speak at a public hearing on the proposed New York State Draft Energy Plan, 28 were emphatic about the failure of the plan to aggressively focus on clean, renewable energy including spurring offshore wind, solar and geothermal, and expressed horror at the latitude given to natural gas development. Only one speaker, a paid lobbyist of the industry, insisted that natural gas was the way to assure economic prosperity and that windpower was too expensive an alternative.
The vast majority weren’t just proposing a “tweaking” of the proposed plan, but rather a radical change in direction – one that rejects altogether the notion that natural gas is a “clean fuel” that would achieve the overall objectives for the energy plan.
They say that the massive investment that is going toward creating an infrastructure to support natural gas – hydrofracking wells, the pipelines and roads, the processing centers and distribution ports – which would be encouraged under the proposed plan unless banned outright, should be directed instead straight into truly clean renewable energy.
They oppose the construction of the Port Ambrose Liquid Natural Gas facility that is proposed for the water south of Long Island’s South Shore – the best place in the country for offshore wind farm, that could supply a substantial amount of Long Island’s power needs.
They cited studies which say that Long Island could actually generate 100 percent of its energy needs from renewables by 2030 – from offshore wind, solar, geothermal, combined with conservation including building codes – if it undertook the same kind of aggressive policy as would be applied to natural gas production. That 100%!
And in so doing, Long Island could become a national, even international leader, with a new industrial base that would harken back to the glory days when Long Island was the hub for aerospace and defense.
Cuomo’s proposed Energy plan does not do any of that.
Adrienne Esposito of Citizens Campaign for the Environment took the proposed plan to task for failing to include numerical goals for renewables, for wind, offshore wind, solar, geothermal, battery storage.
“What we’d like to see this plan have is specific strong targets and dollar values to the goals – it doesn’t do that. The draft plan doesn’t provide the clear blueprint we are looking for with aggressive, achievable goals for renewables.
“We know, regardless of previous testimony you have heard, renewable can, should and needs to play a significant role in New York energy plan.
“For instance, New York State Department of Energy – not known for whimsical commentary – has stated that New York State can supply 50 percent of its electricity needs from wind power. And yet, not one offshore wind farm exists in New York State. The viable proposals put forward in the Great Lakes and Atlantic have died a slow, painful death one by one. Why is that?
“Is it new technology? No. You don’t need me to tell you that it began 23 years ago in Denmark, how Europe has become the number one leader in offshore wind farm development: UK, 3681 megawatts, America zero. Denmark 1271 mw; Belgium 571 mw. Germany, 520 mw. Netherlands 240 mw of offshore wind energy. Collectively, Europe has 6562 mw of offshore wind energy generated. America zero.
“What has Europe figured out that we haven’t?” she asked.
“This is not new technology, it works, we don’t need pilot programs, we need to get aggressive, need to do it, we need you to assign real value to the plan.
“For Long Island, anything that causes the transition from oil to natural gas – substituting one fossil for another – is not good energy, nor public health policy.
“The transition to natural gas is a backdoor embrace of hydrofracking. That won’t work for New York State – natural gas is not an energy bridge to future, but rather a highway to polluted air, contaminated water, and one that we reject,” Esposito said.
A man who described himself as a former head of the local Republican committee, said, “Bring us a plan that bans fracking or imported gas from fracking.
“Bring us a plan that puts solar panels on every rooftop in New York and leads the nation to zero-carbon economy and most importantly, bring us a plan that takes 10 years to do. In the 1970s, Walter Cronkite was telling us we had energy crisis; we’re in the 2014s, we can’t wait until 2050.
“I urge you to think of climate change as an iceberg and you as the captains of the Titanic. Big Energy is telling ‘Don’t worry, your ship is unsinkable, keep going full speed ahead.’ The world scientific community is telling you, ‘You have an iceberg in front of you, slow down and change course.’
“I urge you to change course. That metaphorical iceberg- are more Superstorm Sandys, Katrinas, deadly tornadoes, wildfires, and more colder weather than Alaska, acidification of ocean and sea-level rise, what Kerry said is the greatest challenge to our generation – greater than terrorism, disease or Weapons of Mass Destruction. I urge you to change course and create a Zero Carbon Plan for New York State for your children and children’s children,” he said to resounding applause.
Jessica Roth, a young woman who traveled to Farmingdale from Brooklyn (and chided the panel for holding its hearings during the work day), called the proposal “a failed opportunity for Cuomo and New York State to be leader. This plan is based on the false premise that natural gas is a clean energy solution. It is not, it is dangerous and destructive… Need to be forward thinking, not mired in past.”
She also raised questions about what is meant by promoting private investments.
“Stop subsidizing the fossil fuel industry – that’s not a fair playing field for renewables….The proposed Green Bank has too many open questions. If it promotes investment in fossil fuel based on idea that natural gas is clean energy, you are promoting investment in something destructive.”
“The plan offers no description of what the public-private partnership means. I am cynical, I expect that to be fossil fuel [projects that will get funding] – it came straight out of publicity from fossil fuel industry. The plan needs transparency and energy choices. We need to know where money comes from.
“We need true energy choices – if we are choosing between tar sands, nuclear and natural gas that’s not a choice, that’s a crisis. Choices impact us day to day – not about just turning on the TV, but the environment in which we live.”
Out of all the speakers, only one, Rich Thomas, Director of New York Affordable Reliable Electricity Alliance (New York AREA) – a paid lobbyist for the energy industry – made the argument that wind energy is too costly while natural gas meets the plan’s goal of “affordability.” He bemoaned shutting down the Shoreham nuclear plant as a big mistake, supports reauthorization for Indian Point and NY’s three other nuclear plants, and of course, advocated for approval of the Port Ambrose LNG.
(Worth noting here that Thomas works for Arthur “Jerry” Kremer, chairman of NY AREA), who is the founder and Chairman of Empire Government Strategies, a major lobbying firm.)
“We should be a net seller out of state –we should have abundant infrastructure with good paying middle class jobs, while keeping dollars in-state and in some places revitalize,” Thomas said. “We should never be at mercy of out of state providers who could have economic stranglehold – subzero temp and snowstorms pushed some energy systems to limit” and incidentally, resulted in multiple surcharges on gas since January.
“Port Ambrose increases supply, reducing prices for customers. It provides an important economic benefit – 600 construction jobs, investment of $90 million in goods and services, and will not export – but will provide for gas used in the region which desperately need it,” he insisted. “This is not the time to slice and dice the plan to accommodate some groups …Our state needs more power, not less.”
He then insisted that natural gas offers more affordability than wind.
But that discounts actual facts about how the cost of wind power (like anything else) goes down as the technology becomes more widespread.
“Going forward, the state’s energy plan should take into consideration opportunities specific to Long Island – wind aligns with all those things,” said Clint Plummer, vice president of development at Deepwater Wind, which is building the nation’s first off-shore wind farm, off Block Island. “It delivers energy cost effectively when and where it is needed, producing peak output during the middle of day and the middle of winter when Long Island’s gas system is most constrained. Wind has the unique ability to create large local industry, put hundreds on Long Island to work. We’ve seen it around world, 50,000 jobs globally, with potential to reach 200,000 by the end of the decade.
“That’s something that could be done here on Long Island – U.S. Department of Energy estimates that by 2030, there could be 70,000 jobs just on the US east coast alone – even capturing a portion would be a boon for Long Island economy.
“Offshore also is uniquely cost competitive in delivering energy to constrained, coastal population – where it is difficult to deliver new forms of energy.”
It’s not just offshore wind. Speakers at the hearing also highlighted another form of renewable that is not widely touted, but has massive potential for almost every residential, commercial and government building on Long Island: geothermal.
This isn’t energy captured from volcanoes – it is a system that replaces the building’s heating and air-conditioning systems by tapping into the constant temperature underground and when combined with photovoltaics, virtually eliminates fossil fuel-generated energy altogether.
A whole industry is developing here on Long Island to install and retrofit these systems, which could eliminate the equivalent of 240 MW of energy use (the equivalent of one power plant), over a 10-year period; 100,000 installations could reduce 1.1 million metric tons of carbon emissions during their average 20-year lifespan, Elive Roberti of Huntington, told the panel.
(Here I am thinking of the lost opportunity at the Great Neck Library, to incorporate such initiatives into the renovation plan.)
This is the sort of “private sector” incentives the Cuomo energy plan should promote, but doesn’t.
There is still time to make your opinions heard, as well. Written comments are being accepted through April 30 at the website, energyplan.ny.gov, where you can also read the 2014 Draft New York State Energy Plan.
