For over a year now, Long Islanders have heard LIPA chairman Richard Kessel warn of a shortage of electrical generating capacity. He paints a bleak picture of unchecked growth in demand that could force blackouts in the event of future heat waves. Using this scenario, LIPA has justified the fast-track installation of five gas turbine peaking plants, including one in Glenwood Landing. LIPA is proposing to spend $100 million for the Glenwood Landing peaking plant alone ($500 million for all five plants).

What will ratepayers get for LIPA's $100 million investment? A simple-cycle plant that is designed to produce 88 megawatts (MW) of power but will be intentionally limited to producing no more than 80MW. In a simple-cycle plant, the heat generated by combustion travels out the stack and is wasted rather than used to produce additional power as in a more efficient combined-cycle process. Ratepayers will get a plant that will sit idle 80 percent of the time. For the 73 days each year that it is allowed to operate, it may very well produce some of the most expensive power generated on Long Island.

LIPA ratepayers need to know that hundreds of megawatts of baseline generating capacity are in the planning process and scheduled to come on line in 2003 and 2004. This increase in capacity limits the duration of the pending "crisis" to 2003 and maybe just to 2002 (if one accepts LIPA's estimate of future demand). When this capacity becomes available, who is to say that the power from these peaking plants will be needed?

LIPA is willing to overlook the inefficiencies of these plants and the premium it must pay to fast-track these projects in the interest of getting them on line in 2002. In their rush to build these plants, LIPA and New York State have run roughshod over the interests of North Shore residents by denying them a local review of the plant's environmental impacts. One of LIPA's tactics included agreeing to limit output to no more than 79.9MW of the plant's maximum capability in order to avoid a more thorough environmental review. Buying an expensive plant that cannot be used to its maximum potential and then limiting its operation to 73 days each year is like buying a Ferrari to use as a station car and then going on vacation for six months.

Another of LIPA's tactics to avoid local environmental review was to assume ownership of the KeySpan property intended for the plant in a condemnation proceeding. The property would then be leased back to KeySpan (as a government agency, LIPA is not required to comply with local zoning regulations). LIPA's action completely disregards the wishes of the many Town of Oyster Bay residents who responded to the town's survey and attended the open meeting on the future of the Glenwood Landing waterfront. Mindful of the tax consequences of their choice, residents indicated a preference for environmental conservation and open space instead of the re-industrialization of the area.

Furthermore, while LIPA likes to raise the issue of the tax benefits that would arise from the siting of this plant, questions remain as to exactly what those benefits would be. LIPA needs to state explicitly how much this plant will generate in taxes, in light of its taking of the property through condemnation. The potential tax revenue must be compared to the tax currently generated by the site. Only when this information is divulged can the actual tax benefit of this plant be determined.

The $100 million that LIPA intends to spend on this plant could have been used to improve the efficiency of the existing Glenwood Landing plant and, at the same time, reduce the levels of pollutants that it currently produces. Better yet, LIPA could have invested this money in proven techniques to supplement its existing conservation efforts and actually reduce the demand for energy. Over five years, LIPA will spend $170 million on its energy conservation programs. In one year, LIPA intends to spend three times that amount for these peaking plants. LIPA is willing to spend $1,200 for each MW of capacity from these peaking plants, yet LIPA has estimated that programs to reduce electrical demand would cost only $500 per MW. Consider what $100 million represents and then think of all the constructive things that could be done with it to reduce electrical demand now, control its growth in the future and encourage the development of new high-efficiency energy sources that will reduce our reliance on fossil fuels. LIPA has taken a shortsighted approach and is willing to build over-priced power plants that are destined to become white elephants.

In the past, when faced with an imminent power crisis, Long Islanders have responded by temporarily cutting back and doing without. Richard Kessel's threat that the lights could go out must be viewed in terms of recent events. I believe that Long Islanders, now more than ever, are willing to go further to reduce energy consumption and lessen our reliance on fossil fuels. By increasing our conservation efforts, we will also eliminate the need to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in these inefficient peaking plants.

Bryan H. Brown