Archive: Opinions

I think a lot of people were shocked when Tompkins County Legislator Carol Chock blamed the Lansing schools for depending on a fossil fuel powered plant Monday, saying all the other schools in the county manage to suppot school systems without a power plant to generate tax revenue.  When Town Supervisor Elizabeth Thomas said the same, comparing Trumansburg school revenue to Lansing's my first thought was did a fellow township just throw Lansing under the bus only two weeks after Lansing pledged to guarantee $6,000 so that a fellow township (Caroline) can have broadband service?

Chock and Thomas don't represent Lansing.  What they said may have angered a lot of people in the room, but they spoke up for what they believed in, using the school argument (which Lansing's School Business Administrator Mary June King refuted by pointing out that Lansing already pays for more of its school budget because the other districts receive a much higher percentage of school aid from the state) as one block in the tower of their rationale for closing the plant.  What I found harder to swallow was NYS Assemblywoman Barbara Lifton's strong plea to stop using fossil fuels immediately followed by what sounded like a weak afterthought to keep the plant open by converting it to technology that we are told can not yet supply the electricity capacity needed.

They were testifying at a Public Service Commission (PSC) public hearing on whether to repower the Cayuga Power Plant, Lansing's biggest taxpayer, or close it and upgrade the power delivery grid instead.  The PSC asked for two plans: one to repower the Lansing plant with gas, and the other to close the plant in favor of upgrading the power delivery system (increasing the capacity of wires to reliably deliver electricity to the Auburn area).

The plant owners naturally want to keep it open, saying that the least costly of their options would actually give money back to ratepayers, while NYSEG prefers to upgrade the delivery grid, acknowledging the low-cost plant repowering option could be beneficial but claiming that their plan carries the least risk.  Keeping the plant open would benefit Lansing immeasurably, as well as reliably providing power to Auburn.  Upgrading the delivery system would benefit Auburn and devastate Lansing.

There is no doubt that closing the Cayuga Power Plant will be devastating for Lansing.  The plant currently represents 11.7% of the school tax base.  A town that has generally worked very well to come together -- rich and poor -- to do a lot with a little has been split recently because of the controversy about the sewer.  Those against sewer don't want another tax or fee on top of the already onerous taxes we seem to uniquely enjoy in New York State.  The reduction in the value of the power plant over the past two school tax bills has already impacted our taxes and the school system alike.  County farmers have recently seen a reevaluation of farm land that threatens many farmers' ability to continue farming.  The projected $600 per year (which King says is a very conservative estimate) that would be added to the annual tax bill could be the death knell for some local farms.

I get that Lifton represents a larger community that wants progressive, renewable power.  I get that we are all citizens of the world.  But doesn't Lifton represent Lansing?  Shouldn't she be advocating realistic solutions that both serve her desire for cleaner energy and also fight to help her constituents thrive?  Doesn't she know that if Lansing goes down it will impact the rest of Tompkins County?

County Legislature Chair Martha Robertson also argued for an alternative plan that isn't on the PSC's table, but in doing so she made a strong argument to keep the plant open to save a valuable community within her county.  In sharp contrast to Lifton's testimony, she argued strongly to keep the plant open, then offered a solution she advocated as practical that would bring the conversion online sooner in a way that is not threatened as much by rising and falling gas or coal prices.  Win-win.

It may be piling on to say so, but when the Lansing board asked NYS Senator Mike Nozzolio and Lifton to get legislative permission to hold a legal vote on sewer before the Assembly shut down last month for the rest of 2013, something that both supporters and opponents of sewer in Lansing wanted, Nozzolio came through, getting it passed through the Senate in record time.  The request was made only a week before Albany was poised to go home for the year, sure, but the Senate managed to pass it in only a few days.  There was no action in the Assembly.

Our other representatives spoke eloquently and passionately Monday in favor of repowering the plant.  Nozzolio took the lead, arguing that shutting down the plant would jeopardize reliable delivery of power to the region and that it would devastate our township.  Our own County Legislator Pat Pryor argued that a gas-powered plant would not increase fracking.  Town Supervisor Kathy Miller, Councilman Ed LaVigne and Councilwoman Ruth Hopkins stood up for Lansing, and School Superintendent Chris Pettograsso and King painted a picture of what will happen to our schools if plant revenue disappears after the millions of dollars in budget cuts and lost jobs the school system has already suffered.

We know that New York is not a friendly state in terms of property tax.  We know the state has been hemorrhaging population as people leave for states with lower taxes and more opportunities.  Closing the Cayuga Power Plant will trigger a microcosm of this syndrome here in Lansing.

Until now people have moved to Lansing largely because they want their children to attend our schools.  It has been one of the fastest growing communities in the county, in part because of geography that positions it as a bedroom community for Ithaca and its proximity to Cornell.  If the schools go down people won't come here.  If taxes go up, not only will people not come here but many, especially those on fixed incomes, will have to leave, which will be made difficult by a drop in property values due to the high tax rate.

It may be an exaggeration to say closing the plant would be Lansing's apocalypse, but it will be very, very bad for the town.  LaVigne's argument makes the most sense: repower the plant with gas as a first step toward making it into a showcase renewable power plant when the technology catches up.  This plant has a record of being one of the cleanest coal-powered plants in the eastern United States.  It will be cleaner with gas, and while a proposed solar farm would only provide two thirds of a percent of the total capacity of a converted plant, it's a start.  The same with Robertson's plan -- saves Lansing, provides reliable electricity, buys time for new technologies to mature.  Not perfect, but better.

If this plan is implemented it will be up to the Lansing community and its representatives to follow up and see to it that the plant does implement renewable technologies as they become practical on the scale needed to satisfy demand for electricity.  When I interviewed the plant's CEO a few weeks ago I got the strong impression that will not be a hard-sell.  He seems eager to implement the cleanest practical solutions available.  He talked about upgrading the proposed solar farm with more efficient solar panels as they come available, while at the same time noting that there simply isn't enough acreage on the property to provide anywhere close to the amount of megawatts needed using existing technology.

None of our representatives said that we shouldn't reach the goal of 100% renewable energy.  They simply said that taking a realistic, stepped approach that also saves our community (and reliably powers Auburn) is a good, reasonable approach.  Our school officials reported an impressive list of environmentally friendly and energy saving initiatives they have already implemented, and said they continue to explore more.  Our town officials told of the solar array at the Highway Department and how they wanted another at the Town Hall but found the roof would not support it.  These are not people who oppose renewable energy.

When we talk about the consequences of closing the power plant we're talking about real people, not some idealistic hypothetical population for the sake of argument.  We are talking about stripping away livelihoods and taking hard-earned dollars in higher taxes that will not be enough to prevent decimating Lansing school programs.  The repowering option is a way for everybody to win.  It saves Lansing, it provides a way to deliver electricity reliably, it makes the plant incrementally cleaner, and steps toward a time when it can realistically be powered by renewables, something the CEO of the plant has a long-time interest in doing.

This is the kind of solution the people who represent Lansing should be working toward.  All of our representatives.

v9i28