Editorial: Power line makes sense for consumers, environment

Wednesday

Aug 13, 2014 at 3:55 PMAug 13, 2014 at 4:11 PM

The 330-mile transmission line to bring lower-cost Canadian hydroelectric power to New York City got a big boost this week when the federal Department of Energy accepted the environmental impact statement. Now the line needs to get similar approval for its economic and political impacts, neither of which have the same formal process but both of which pose crucial tests.

The 330-mile transmission line to bring lower-cost Canadian hydroelectric power to New York City got a big boost this week when the federal Department of Energy accepted the environmental impact statement. Now the line needs to get similar approval for its economic and political impacts, neither of which have the same formal process but both of which pose crucial tests.

The project, the 1,000-megawatt Champlain Hudson Power Express transmission line, was first proposed six years ago. It immediately attracted support because unlike so many other transmission lines to bring needed power from areas that produce it to populated areas that consume it, this one did not ruin the landscape and carve up neighborhoods.

It runs under water, both Lake Champlain and parts of the Hudson River, and uses railroad rights of way to avoid the need to cut across areas that are neither suited for nor welcoming of such construction.

The promoters of the line have always stressed this less-intrusive route as well as the ability to carry "clean, affordable power," describing it as "a creative solution to meet the energy challenges of the future," as the company CEO put it while announcing the federal approval.

The addition of so much power in the region in a few years, with construction perhaps beginning as soon as next year, also plays an important part in a very political power fight.

Gov. Cuomo has been leading the charge to close the aging Indian Point nuclear power plants, most recently in efforts to convince the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that it should not extend the plant licenses beyond their looming expiration date. Questioning the safety of older plants in heavily populated areas is not enough. The state also has to confront the reality that New York, and especially New York City, needs the power that those plants produce. This transmission line is a solution for replacing some power, avoiding lengthy disputes that an overland line would bring and promising to save 2 to 3 percent on the average bill in the city.

Those who oppose this line say that it would cost jobs in the state power industry, a complaint balanced by those who note that the line would create jobs on its own, especially during the time that the line is being constructed.

Opponents complain that should the line be built, New Yorkers would be sending their power dollars to Canada instead of spending it on plants in the state. But those who favor the line like to point out that hydropower is far less polluting than coal or gas-fired plants now in operation or being brought back online.

The shortsighted argument includes keeping Indian Point operating as long as possible and investing in fossil fuel plants in the region. The longer view incorporates the almost unlimited supply of hydropower from Canada, the environmentally friendly route this line takes and, most important of all, the transition from sources that pollute more to those that pollute less.

New York has made enough shortsighted decisions in the past. This offers a chance to look to and invest in the future.