|
RCBJ-Audible (Listen For Free)
 |
Note: Welcome To RCBJ’s “Your Voices” Column. This feature will run periodically. If you have something to say, in a well-reasoned essay of 500 to 700 words, email the editor at ttraster@rcbizjournal.com
There Is No Single Power Source That Will Replace Indian Point, Which Was Producing ~2,000 Megawatts (MW)
By Christine Toth
At a recent local political event, when I raised early concerns about a floating solar proposal, one candidate responded bluntly: “We need something.”
It was an eye-opening moment. Indian Point had already been closed for years, but the discussion still conveyed a sense of urgency — even desperation — to fill the gap with visible replacement projects, whether or not environmental tradeoffs had been thoroughly considered. That exchange has stayed with me. It captured something more significant than one meeting or one proposal: the sense that after Indian Point, Rockland entered a new era of energy without a clear public framework for what should —and should not — be sacrificed for the sake of replacement.
The closure of Indian Point Energy Center removed one of our region’s largest sources of electricity as part of New York’s move toward renewable energy. Indian Point was already built and producing large amounts of electricity from a compact, local site and generating low-carbon power relatively cheaply.
Its closure stemmed from a negotiated agreement with New York State during a broader political and policy shift toward renewable energy. However, the closure of the plant should have triggered not only an energy transition, but a detailed ecological strategy and plan. So, the question now is what happens next?
There is no single power source that will replace Indian Point, which was producing ~2,000 megawatts (MW). The new Champlain Hudson Power Express (CHPE) provides a substantial portion of the electricity once supplied by Indian Point. The state’s strategy also included offshore wind off Long Island, substations and battery storage.
Locally, the CHPE Project underground infrastructure work became visible along stretches of 9W, not just on the roadside landscape, but on traffic and the small businesses that depend on a regular flow of customers. New York State publicized the project as part of New York’s clean-energy transition.
Electricity generated in Quebec travels via underwater cables to converter stations. While the power arrives in cities as “clean hydroelectricity,” it still has ecological footprint upstream. CHPE carries electricity that originates from the broader hydroelectric network developed by James Bay Project in the 1970s. That project involved massive dams and reservoirs that transformed boreal ecosystems important both as carbon sinks and as migratory bird habitat for species such as the understory-dependent Canada Warbler.
Since CHPE’s energy production did not fully replace Indian Point, the plant’s closure also intensified the local pressure for additional replacement clean-energy infrastructure. For example, the Marian Shrine proposal in Haverstraw would involve clearing approximately 13 acres of trees for a ground-mounted solar installation. However, insufficient attention was given to how replacement infrastructure could expand while minimizing ecological fragmentation and habitat loss. We have not even begun to address the fact that many of our remaining woods are already falling from the ground up from loss of forest understory. Another idea involved floating solar arrays on Lake DeForest, which could provide renewable energy, but also requires careful design to minimize ecological trade-offs. Installation on reservoirs would be complex and understanding the impact on water quality, aquatic life, and migrating birds requires more study.
Amid the global biodiversity and climate emergencies, leaders and planners could consider using existing asphalt before pursuing projects that impact the natural world. A good example of parking lot solar is on Rifle Camp Road in Woodland Park, New Jersey. The installation demonstrates that the concept is feasible even in suburban northern New Jersey settings with trees, snow, and mixed commercial development. A larger example of a renewable-energy approach that minimized ecological conflicts emerged in Howard County, near Baltimore. A Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) model bundled multiple solar and renewable projects together under a coordinated planning framework.
Rockland County could explore emulating aspects of this type of planning model and increase installations of solar panels on parking lots and roofs along major roads.
As the candidate said, “We need something.” The reality is we need energy solutions that do not solve one ecological crisis by worsening another. We need to build systems that not only reduce emissions and pollution but also conserve ecosystems. Locally and globally, the transition toward truly sustainable energy remains incomplete and often ecologically complicated. Time will tell if we can reverse course and make progress.
Christine Toth is the Conservation Chair for the Rockland Audubon Society
