Looking for ideas
I'd like to hear from you if you have suggestions on how low-cost Niagara hydropower can be put to better use to promote economic development in the region.
I'm following up the "Power Failure" investigation with a story examining ways that Niagara power can be used to help revitalize the local economy. I've solicited suggestions from a number of experts and now want to cast a wider net.
Readers can sumit their ideas by posting a comment on this blog or by sending an e-mail to jheaney@buffnews.com
I'd like to hear from readers by Wednesday.
The story in my series that speaks most directly to the issue can be read by clicking here.
The Relicensing of the New York Power Authority’s Niagara Power Project:
Lessons Learned Jay Ryan, Rick Chase, and Keith Silliman
Abstract: During the last Waterpower conference, we presented a paper examining the New York Power Authority’s use of alternative licensing procedures (ALP) for the relicensing of the Niagara Power Project. At 2,400 MW, the Niagara Power Project is the largest FERC-licensed project in the United States. As explained in our previous presentation, the ALP was structured around an Applicant Prepared Environmental Assessment (APEA), collaborative public scoping, and independent facilitation.
As a follow-up to that discussion, this paper examines some of the “lessons learned” that may be of interest to other licensees as they consider their own relicensing strategies. While the Commission’s new Integrated Licensing Process (ILP) will become the default relicensing process in the near future, the insights gleaned from the Niagara relicensing have general applicability and may be useful as other licensees embark on their relicensings.
I. BACKGROUND A. New York Power Authority In 1931, the New York State Legislature created the Power Authority of the State of New York (“Power Authority” or “NYPA”) to provide low-cost power to the people of New York State. Through power that it produces or obtains under contract, NYPA currently provides about one-quarter of New York State’s power requirements, operating twenty-one generating facilities and more than 1,400 miles of transmission lines. NYPA sells power to government agencies, community-owned electric systems and rural electric cooperatives, job-producing companies, private utilities (for resale—without profit—to their retail customers), and to neighboring states, under federal requirements. NYPA’s low-cost power helps support nearly 450,000 jobs statewide; its business customers range from Fortune 100 companies competing in international markets to small manufacturing or service firms that are vital to local economies. B. The Niagara Project License In 1957, Congress passed the Niagara Redevelopment Act which, among other things, directed the Federal Power Commission (“FPC”) to issue a license to the Power Authority “for the construction and operation of a power project with the capacity to utilize all of the United States share of the Niagara River permitted to be used by international agreement.” On January 30, 1958, the FPC issued a license to the Power Authority, effective September 1, 1957, for a term of fifty (50 years). By law, the Power
Authority must file its application for a new license on or before August 31, 2005. At 2,400 MW, the Niagara Project is the largest FERC-licensed Project in the country. C. The ALP Process and Settlement Negotiations The relicensing of the Power Authority’s Niagara Project generated considerable interest from a variety of Stakeholders, including local communities, industrial, municipal, and out-of-state customers, labor unions, environmental groups, Indian Nations, federal and state regulatory agencies, educational institutions, and local health and safety concerns (collectively, “Stakeholders”). To address the high degree of public awareness about the relicensing, NYPA sought – and received – approval from FERC to utilize an ALP that would foster stakeholder participation.
A comprehensive description of the ALP process is set forth in our previous paper entitled “The Relicensing of the New York Power Authority’s Niagara Power Project: A Case Study of the Design, Development, and Implementation of an Alternative Licensing Process” (on file with the authors). Additional information about the Niagara relicensing is available at http://niagara.nypa.gov.
Beginning in December 2002, the Power Authority hosted several public scoping sessions that were administered by an independent facilitator. During these sessions, which were often attended by more than 150 stakeholders, issues sheets were developed as a mechanism to define the scope of relicensing studies. In September of 2004, when the majority of licensing studies had been completed, the Power Authority began a series of meetings with stakeholders to negotiate a comprehensive settlement. By January 2005, the Power Authority was able to reach conceptual settlement with most – but not all – major stakeholders. The Authority expects to submit a comprehensive relicensing settlement agreement with FERC concurrent with the filing of its license application.
II. LESSONS LEARNED There are a number of factors that contributed to the Niagara Power Project’s relatively successful relicensing process. The following list identifies some of the more important lessons learned from our experience and we share these insights for other licensees who are engaged, or about to engage, in relicensing.
A. Assemble the Right Team Passing the “Beer Test”. Assembling the right mix of personnel is one of the most important steps a licensee can undertake at the outset of the relicensing process. In the case of the Niagara Project, the Power Authority was fortunate enough to have outstanding in-house environmental and legal departments that would assist the relicensing effort. However, given the intense public interest in the Niagara relicensing, the likely scope of issues and attendant studies, and the resources that would be needed in managing the ALP, NYPA made a determination early to supplement its internal resources with outside personnel having specialized experience in FERC relicensing matters.
As a result, the Power Authority interviewed a number of competent outside consultants. However, given the amount of time that licensees spend with their consultants – on the road, on the phone, locked in conference rooms for three or four days – NYPA made a decision to hire only competent consultants with the right personality mix. In the case of the Niagara Project, NYPA assembled an outside team that consisted of Tom Sullivan, Lana Khitrik, and Dave Frazier (Gomez & Sullivan), Mike Murphy and Brent McCarthy (EPRO Consulting), Mary Bitka (URS Corporation), and Jay Ryan (Van Ness Feldman). This core group, which was led by Rick Chase (Executive Director of Relicensing) and Keith Silliman (Director of Niagara Relicensing), worked together seamlessly and functioned as an integrated whole. This result was, in large measure, due to the fact that the team was able to establish friendships that transcended relicensing. Consequently, if you can’t see yourself having a beer or dinner with a particular contractor on a repeated basis: don’t hire them. The importance of hiring personnel that you respect -- and like -- cannot be underestimated because the relationship between a licensee and its consultants permeates all aspects of relicensing.
The Right Mix and Use of Skill Sets. When pulling its team together, NYPA ensured that it had the right mix of resources to staff the relicensing. In addition to its inhouse resources, NYPA hired an experienced team that could: (1) conduct and oversee environmental studies; (2) plan and conduct large-scale meetings; (3) prepare relicensing documents (including the APEA, the license application, and the comprehensive settlement agreement); (4) manage outside contractors working on studies; (5) lead scoping and settlement discussions; (6) facilitate relations with FERC Staff; and (7) develop and implement settlement strategies. During all facets of relicensing, NYPA continuously engaged the different skill sets of its team members. As a result, legal and policy personnel reviewed all technical documents, including study scopes, relicensing studies, the draft APEA, and application exhibits. Conversely, team members with a technical background reviewed legal and policy documents, such as the comprehensive settlement agreement, FERC filings, and proposed settlement positions. While there was some redundancy built into the process, ultimately this type of review saved the Power Authority time, money, effort, and headaches. With each relicensing team member bringing his or her unique perspective to an issue, the Power Authority ensured that each aspect of relicensing was fully vetted, well-considered, and reviewed from a technical, legal, and policy perspective before it was put before senior management or the public. As a consequence, there were few – if any – surprises during the relicensing process.
B. Develop a Schedule / Start Early. Develop a Schedule. Prior to any public relicensing activities, have your team develop a detailed schedule of relicensing activities; this is equally applicable to the ILP which provides broad timelines for major relicensing activities. To make the schedule work, start from the date the application is due and work backwards. First identify major milestones and then go back and fill in tasks that you will need to complete in order to meet each milestone. While the schedule need not be inflexible, and will change throughout the relicensing process, it is important to retain a schedule of timelines so that your team (and you), and those stakeholders involved in the relicensing process, have notice of what to expect and what is expected from them.
Start Your Internal Process Early. Before the public relicensing process begins, use your time wisely. Establish your team early and work with them to identify available information and obvious data gaps, and conduct any necessary studies that you believe would help inform your relicensing strategy. This includes the development of legal memoranda addressing potential FERC issues. Once the relicensing begins, factors beyond the licensee’s control can lead to “managed chaos” where the licensee rushes from one fire drill to another while, at the same time, trying to prepare its license application and negotiate a settlement. The process will go much easier if your ducks are in a row from the start; predict, and then answer, as many issues as you can prior to the kick-off of the public process. Use the Calendar to Help Drive the Process. While NYPA began its internal planning process fairly early, the public relicensing process was fairly compressed. Formal scoping essentially began in January 2003 and the license application is due on or before August 31, 2005. Given that we only had a little more than a year-and-a-half to address scoping, conduct studies, negotiate settlement, prepare and circulate a draft APEA and a draft license application, and file our final licensing documents by a statutory deadline that could not be waived, deadlines became a useful tool to move the ALP process to completion. Recognizing that time was constrained, Stakeholders and NYPA took on a shared responsibility to act efficiently and effectively with all aspects of the ALP; this was due, in large part, to an understanding that achieving a timely comprehensive settlement – which became a common goal – required cooperation from all of the parties. As a result, fast approaching milestones in the ALP helped bring about closure to each aspect of the ALP and minimized the inclination (often present in relicensing) to engage in disagreements over minor issues.
C. Pick A Strategy and Stick With It After you have a knowledge foundation from which to work, develop a strategy and let it guide you throughout the relicensing process. In NYPA’s case, given its position as a public body owned by the State, and the very visible presence of the Niagara Project in the Western New York Region, it was determined that NYPA would work to achieve a comprehensive settlement that would address both relicensing (i.e. FERCjurisdictional issues) and non-relicensing issues. Having established this position, NYPA made a concerted effort to go beyond FERC-required licensing requirements and accommodated a number of Stakeholder requests for studies that exceeded its licensing obligations.
To that end, NYPA did not argue over information needs during scoping; as a result, NYPA developed credibility with the Stakeholders during the scoping process. Additionally, because NYPA usually said “yes” to obtaining information that the Stakeholders thought they needed, when NYPA had to say “no,” the Stakeholders accepted the response without much push-back. Thus, while NYPA exceeded its regulatory obligations with regard to scopes and types of studies that were conducted, the approach avoided a second round of studies and eliminated the need for dispute resolution to address study modeling, methods, and results.
This is not to suggest that this settlement strategy is best for every project; it will depend on each project’s relative strength and weakness with regard to its impacts and the means by which those impacts might be addressed. It is important, however, to set a tone early on and to maintain a consistent message throughout the process until such time as circumstances (i.e., the breakdown of settlement negotiations) require a change in strategy. By exhibiting a willingness to meet stakeholder needs, and reinforcing its interest in a comprehensive settlement, NYPA was able to build up the necessary trust with Stakeholders throughout the process; this, in turn, created conditions in which settlement could be achieved.
D. Tell ‘em What You Want. Often. The relicensing process is a forum for all sorts of interested participants to come out and tell the Licensee how the project has wronged them and what the Licensee needs to do to make things right. It is just as important for stakeholders to hear what you need out of the process; therefore, it’s necessary to develop a simple, clear, and consistent message and repeat it often. For the Niagara Project, NYPA made clear that it wanted three things out of the relicensing process: (1) a fifty (50) year license; (2) no expansion of the existing project boundary; and (3) no changes to existing Project operations. Making clear the Licensee’s needs throughout the process made it easier to successfully negotiate a settlement that NYPA could endorse.
E. Continuous Information Flow Stakeholder Outreach. Licensees and federal resource agencies are generally familiar with the relicensing process. Depending on your particular location, state agencies also can have a solid understanding of Federal Power Act requirements and FERC’s relicensing regulations. However, the rest of relicensing participants – community groups, local environmental organizations, and local elected officials – are likely to be unfamiliar with FERC’s processes and a licensee’s statutory obligations. Moreover, participants in the process are likely to be highly suspect (at least initially) of your actions and any underlying motivations. To help compensate for this information void, it is essential that a relicensing team devote a significant amount of time to informal outreach with Stakeholders. In the Niagara process, we continually met with Stakeholders in small groups outside of the ALP: sometimes in a conference room, but more often for coffee, lunch, or dinner. This served two purposes. First, it allowed us to constantly update Stakeholders as to where we were in the process, what they could expect in the future, and what actions they should be undertaking in order to engage in information-based settlement. Second, and just as important, the outreach sessions allowed us to build up (and continually reinforce) rapport with the Stakeholders. Over time, the dynamic changed from “us vs. them” to a
6 perception that all of the relicensing participants – including NYPA – were working together to achieve a common goal. FERC Can Be Your Friend. During the ALP process, we continuously met with FERC Staff in Washington, D.C. to provide them with updates on the ALP process and to share with them our thoughts on how best to comply with our regulatory obligations while achieving a negotiated comprehensive settlement. Throughout the relicensing, FERC Staff provided us with valuable feedback that enabled us to ultimately produce a relicensing application and an APEA that was consistent with FERC’s needs. These consultations ensured that there were no stumbling blocks for FERC in the relicensing documents and related settlement, and kept FERC fully informed about the status of settlement negotiations with various Stakeholders. Similar consultations occurred with the Department of the Interior and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation.
Keep Management Informed. Too often, relicensing teams will negotiate settlements or develop a licensing strategy without first obtaining “buy-in” from senior management. Unfortunately, this can produce a situation where the relicensing team must backtrack from public statements or commitments in order to accommodate the goals and objectives of management. As important as it is to reach out to Stakeholders and regulatory agencies, it is equally important to make company executives aware of, and have them endorse, your relicensing strategy. Without management backing at the commencement of the relicensing process, the relicensing team may be impotent to drive the relicensing process and reach closure on major issues.
G. Continually Assess Your Vulnerabilities. At the early stages of the relicensing, before the public process, NYPA began an assessment of its potential vulnerabilities based on available information. This assessment included both a legal (i.e., what does FERC precedent say about a particular issue) and a political/public affairs component (i.e., what are the potential ramifications for the Power Authority’s image as a corporate citizen in the community). This analysis, the “Best Alternative to a Negotiated Settlement” or “BATNA”, was continuously reevaluated as new information became available. The information gleaned from these assessments allowed NYPA to judge what its regulatory risks were in the absence of a settlement. Having this information available allowed NYPA to intelligently formulate its settlement positions.
H. Settlement Strategy As settlement negotiations commenced, the Power Authority identified those “Settlement Partners” with whom it needed to reach settlement to address either regulatory or political issues associated with the relicensing. This process resulted in a grouping of Stakeholders and issues to make the settlement process manageable. These Settlement Partner groups/issues included: (1) federal and state agencies and environmental groups involved in ecological issues; (2) federal and state agencies and
7 citizens’ groups interested in recreational issues; (3) surrounding towns and other political subdivisions interested in a “Host Communities” package; (4) the Tuscarora Indian Nation; and (5) a local water board looking to address project-related groundwater infiltration. NYPA first focused on reaching settlement with federal and state agencies and environmental organizations to meet its regulatory obligations; however, in a generally parallel track, the Power Authority also began to meet with local Stakeholder groups (communities and NGOs) to address non-FERC related issues. Of note, NYPA made a determination early on (for a number of reasons including timing and credibility considerations) to make credible offers up-front; that is, NYPA did not low-ball its settlement offers. By informing Stakeholders upfront that NYPA did not intend to do a lot of dickering, and that its initial offer would be substantial, justifiable, and defendable, settlement negotiations were amicable, productive, and relatively short. Granted, this strategy may not be appropriate in all cases depending on relicensing dynamics but, in this instance, settlement negotiations were successful.
III OVERVIEW OF THE NIAGARA SETTLEMENT The Settlement consisted of a number of packages that were grouped by Stakeholder interests and subject matter. Highlights from the Settlement include the following: A. Greenway Funds Settlement Package On September 21, 2004, New York State Governor Pataki signed into law legislation creating a Niagara River Greenway Commission (“Greenway Commission”). The Greenway Commission has responsibility for developing and implementing a plan to create a Niagara River greenway that will “enhance waterfront access, complement economic revitalization of the communities along the river, and ensure the long-term maintenance of the greenway.” As apart of its relicensing settlement, the Power Authority agreed to provide funding to the New York State Office of State Parks, DEC, Indian Nations, and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, and local communities to implement the Lake Erie to Lake Ontario Greenway. B. Ecological Funds Settlement Package Pursuant to Section 401 of the federal Clean Water Act (“CWA”), the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (“DEC”) will condition the Niagara Project’s new license through the issuance of a certificate confirming that the license complies with applicable CWA requirements. In addition, the Federal Power Act confers authority on federal and state wildlife agencies to recommend conditions to be included in the FERC license. In view of these provisions, the Authority engaged in discussions with DEC, the Fish and Wildlife Service of the U.S. Department of the Interior and certain other interested organizations regarding appropriate protection and enhancement measures in and around the Niagara River. The resulting Settlement Package includes
8 construction, operation and maintenance of 10 “Habitat Improvement Projects,” a Fish and Wildlife Habitat Enhancement and Restoration Fund, a Land Acquisition Fund, and certain public access improvements. C. Recreation Package The original design of the Niagara Project involved the creation of Reservoir State Park within the Niagara Project Boundary established by FERC pursuant to the original license (“Current Boundary”). Studies conducted as a part of the relicensing of the Niagara Project confirmed that Reservoir State Park and a number of other recreational facilities located on Authority lands within or in the vicinity of the Niagara Project Boundary are in need of repair, maintenance, and/or rehabilitation. To address this concern, a Settlement Package was developed around a series of improvements to be undertaken at Reservoir State Park, the Niagara Project Intakes, the Niagara Discovery Center, and Artpark. The improvements to be made at these facilities, to the extent that they fall within the Niagara Project Boundary as defined by the new license, will be made part of the Recreation Plan that FERC will require as a condition of the new license. D. Groundwater Infiltration Abatement Studies conducted as part of the relicensing of the Niagara Project confirmed that, in the vicinity of the intersection of the Niagara Project Conduits (“Conduits”) and the Falls Street Tunnel (“Tunnel”), which has been incorporated into the wastewater treatment system operated by the Niagara Falls Water Board, the hydraulic influence of the Conduits causes an increase in the infiltration of groundwater into the Tunnel. Given the demonstrated impact of the Project on the Tunnel, a Settlement Package was developed to provide funding to the Niagara Falls Water Board for capital improvements that would reduce groundwater infiltration. E. Tuscarora Nation To address a number of concerns advanced by the Tuscarora Nation (“Nation”), including cultural, environmental and historical concerns, a Settlement Package was developed involving establishment of a community fund, the conveyance of certain surplus land and the provision of up to one megawatt of low-cost power to serve the Nation’s needs. F. Host Communities The existing Project Boundary encompasses lands within seven taxing jurisdictions: Niagara County, the Towns of Lewiston and Niagara, the City of Niagara Falls and three school districts. While some of these lands were acquired by the Authority from entities that were already tax-exempt (e.g., Niagara University and the Tuscarora Nation), most of the land so acquired became tax-exempt at the time the Niagara Project was created. To address this concern and a number of other concerns advanced by these municipal entities, including socioeconomic concerns, a Settlement
Package was developed that involves establishing a community fund, conveying certain surplus land, and providing low-cost power.
IV. CONCLUSION The Niagara Project relicensing team was able to achieve a comprehensive settlement with most of the major Stakeholders involved in the relicensing of the Niagara Power Project. This result was due to a confluence of factors that may not be applicable to all licensees. However, the relicensing team believes that steps outlined above in Section II (“Lessons Learned”) were instrumental to NYPA’s success and we share them in the hope that other licensees may find them instructive.
If you would like additional information about the relicensing process for the Niagara Power Project, please contact Jay Ryan at jtr@vnf.com, Keith Silliman at keith.silliman@nypa.gov, and Rick Chase at Chase.F@nypa.gov.
Jay Ryan, a Partner at Van Ness Feldman, a Washington, D.C.-based law firm specializing in energy, natural resource, and environmental issues, is a member of the firm’s Hydroelectric Practice and Chair of the Infrastructure Security Practice. Rick Chase, Executive Director of Relicensing, has been with the New York Power Authority for over 28 years. Keith Silliman is the New York Power Authority’s Relicensing Director for the Niagara Power Project and has over 18 years experience in hydropower licensing.
Posted by: watching | August 18, 2007 at 06:38 AM
Why do we have to get the short end of the stick? Niagara Falls is literally in our backyard. Low cost power for both residential usage and industrial usage would certainly foster the local economy. I can't for the life of me understand why this would happen.
I wonder how much money was paid out in bribes for this not to take place. This is the only logical explanation. Someone was bribed to vote a certain way for certain outcomes in the electrical power situation.
Now, if that seems harsh, what other explanation is there? Are we so naive as to believe that our politicians are stupid, ignorant and can't fight for the Western New York Region?
We still don't have emergency generator back up for our water supply. Why is that? The Erie County water authority doesn't want to spend the money. So, who gets to keep and use that surplus? Someone had to have profited and profited handsomely for our region to lose out on low cost electrical power. There is no other logical eplanation other than that. Governmen and politics work behind the scenes. And behind the scenes someone or several someones had to have profited handsomely for allowing this screw up to take place.
Look at Joel Giambra and the $500,000 furniture contract he gave to his pal. The contractor has been ordered to pay back half, but at minuscule amounts of money, on a very slow timetable.
Politics? Kickbacks? Corruption? Wake up and smell the coffee.
This was not a mistake in our region, but a deliberat sin of omission. It was to someone's advantage to sign off our heritage of cheap electrical power.
Look at the sale at the Art Gallery. The same applies.
Louis Grachos is going to make plenty in kick backs when he purchases the overpriced modernistic junk. The Art Gallery sold Artemis and the Stag? Why? Greed. Some greedy group of people will make a fortune on kickbacks, graft and corruption. This is what happened with the power. Some politician or group of politicians made a fortune to look the other way.
Suppose a lobbyist put $200,000 in a Swiss bank account for a key politician. The key politician or politicians now choose to look the other way.
Sure, they will get heat from the press, but by that time it is a done deal. If you were crooked, wouldn't you take heat for $200,000?
Look at Joel Giambra. He has practically bankrupted Erie County single handedly. He didn't just help himself to a few bucks, like the politicians of old. He had to make an absolute fortune on the deal. Sure, it cost him his political career. But how much is left in his political war chest that he gets to keep long after he is out of office?
The politicians involved deliberately looked the other way. They looked the other way because it was PROFITABLE to do so. Call it whatever you want. Either they were total and complete morons or they were paid to take a dive and look the other way.
Posted by: Louis | August 08, 2007 at 03:48 AM
Assuming-away all of the contracts already made, and the government's greed...
From a purely techno-economics perspective, there are a few industries that are not only power-hungry, but increasingly so:
Steel and/or metal fabrication we all know about. China might have cheap labor, but power is anything but cheap over there.
Chemicals have always been around Niagara (Hooker ring a bell?), and for good reason. The local salt mines offer an incredible supply of chlorine, an element used in making an almost infinite number of industrial chemicals... but you need electricity. Oh, right, that waterfall offers an insane amount of power. Cheap chlorine and electricity side by side, but only a relatively small DuPont plant left to take advantage of it... That makes sense, since the power SHOULD be cheap, but isn't. The government makes it artificially high...
Getting 21st century: Computer Data Centers are an industry that could make a huge difference in the Niagara region. Every time you read about "data mining," you're reading about "High Performance Computing." It's all the rage, and growing like crazy. There is, however, a fly in the ointment: power.
The computers being used to mine data for science, espionage, marketing, and everything else, use enormous amounts of power. Worse, they generate *enormous* amounts of heat, which requires still MORE power to cool them.
A single "rack" of these systems, taking up less than 7 square feet on a computer room floor, is using as much power as one of those new "McMansions" out in Amherst - but only if the McMansion has pretty much every light and appliance on at the same time.
Companies are looking to build these data centers in areas where power and taxes are cheap, fiber-connectivity is plentiful, and computer labor is available.
WNY might not be Silicon Valley, but there are enough computer skills in the region to meet the demand. WNY also is well connected to the rest of the USA, particularly given that it's a primary crossing into Canada. All of the major carriers have significant Points of Presence here.
Given the current cost of power and taxes, however, it will never happen.
WNY was built up for the simple reason that God graced it with incredible resources. It is located at the a natural transportation hub. It is graced with one of the few truly industrial-sized low cost energy sources in the world. It is a place of great natural beauty.
There is no place else on earth graced with more natural opportunity for economic might than Niagara. The 100 square miles closest to Niagara falls should still be where the best steel is made, where chlorinated and other such chemicals are made, and now where the modern data centers that fuel the American Information Industry live.
If you removed the insane government actions, there's nowhere else in the whole Northeastern USA that could provide electricity to these power-hungry industries for even a fraction of the cost. Niagara's advantage could have been maximized and milked to provide thousands of excellent jobs.
The people of WNY fell for the oldest ruse of them all: entitlement mentality. They childishly believed the politicians when the politicians told them "you're owed, and I'll get you what's you deserve..." They handed the politicians the power to take the electricity that should be fueling a perpetually booming local economy... and sell it to line their own pockets.
Niagara can't be denied. That inexhaustible cheap power *is* making people rich.
Just not the people who live near it.
Posted by: RobM1981 | August 03, 2007 at 08:19 AM
One thing that has constantly disturbed me about the use of low-cost Niagara hydropower, is that it's always trying to be used as an incentive to get businesses into the area. If you take a look at this dangling carrot, I think you'll agree that it's not working to lure businesses. A business looking to relocate not only looks at costs, but also the pool of people in the area that it has to choose from for it's employees. We have lost much of our worker pool because people just can't afford to live here anymore. Therefore, I think electric power rates should be slashed across the board for everyone who resides here as well as for businesses.
Posted by: Lee S. | June 13, 2007 at 02:56 PM
Couple of questions for Mr. Heaney:
1.) In the other 49 states (particularly in more economically successful states such as Florida, N Carolina, Tennessee, Texas) are there special low electricity prices for awarded to particular companies, or do all companies served by a given electric utility pay the same rates? In other words, how unusual is NY in that some companies are designated to be charged lower rates than others?
2.) What would need to change in order to completely phase out over a period of say 10 years all reduced pricing for particular companies?
Vote of federal Congress?
Vote of state legislatute?
Vote of Power Authority?
All three of those?
Posted by: Wondering | June 01, 2007 at 07:03 PM
Hmmmm....Ideas from the public can be intresting and the suggestions from the public can be helpful BUT it is the EXPERTS/PROFFESIONALS in the POWER industry that need to be part of this. Not those of us that are not completely informed or yet another politican to add fuel to the fire or to make yet more grand promises that cannot be kept. I truely believe that the Power Authority story with the Buffalo News has been taken as far as it should go at this time. I deeply believe that Mr. Hearney would do more harm than good dragging this out into to may directions and with to many people then jumping on the band wagon to make a name for themselves. There is a point where the REAL EXPERTS have to take over.
Posted by: Samantha | May 31, 2007 at 01:30 PM