Attend the public hearing in Brookhaven to deliver the message that the proposed Caithness II gas powered electric generating plant in Brookhaven Town needs to consider all environmental impacts of this plant, including the adverse impact of its exhaust on Long Island air pollution and global climate change. We need to stress that this environmental study needs to address the impact another fossil fuel plant will have on global climate change, and must consider a full range of alternatives such as investing more in energy efficiency and renewable energy from solar and offshore wind.
Hearing Details:
WHERE: Brookhaven Town Hall, 1 Independence Hill Farmingville, NY 11738
WHEN: Thursday, November 14, 6:00pm
Additional Info: Please email pgollon@aol.com if you are thinking of coming, so he can alert you of any change in the scheduled date or time.
Talking Points for Hearing:
- Increasing emission of carbon dioxide (CO2) from power plants, industrial facilities, buildings and transportation is resulting in a changing climate, rising oceans, and more destructive storms. None of this is good for Long Island.
- It's time we led the transition to the renewable energy sources that will limit such change - such as offshore wind and solar. The first step is for the Town of Brookhaven to see the proposed Caithness II plant for what it is: a fossil technology that should be abandoned instead of being replicated.
- The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for this project must consider reasonable alternatives to building the plant, including reducing power demand through more aggressive efficiency programs, and obtaining additional generating capacity from renewable sources such as more distributed solar roofs and offshore wind from facilities such as the proposed Deepwater Wind Energy Center off Montauk.
- The DEIS must also consider the adverse impact of an additional fossil fuel plant on the poor air quality in Suffolk County, which was rated as having the worst smog pollution in New York State for the 14th consecutive year, according to the American Lung Association.
- This comparison must use current demand figures and valid independent demand and cost projections rather than the four-year old ones used in the LIPA's 2010-2020 Energy Plan. It should also take into account the contractual expectation that as a result of the transfer next year of most of LIPA's responsibilities to PSEG, the latter would make investments that "are expected to results in a meaningful reduction in energy usage."
- The DEIS must provide a comparison of the annual and lifetime CO2 emissions from this project and from existing renewable energy technologies such as solar and wind power. In evaluating the effect of the plant on climate change, the DEIS needs to consider not just CO2 emissions, but also the impacts from the potential use of natural gas, since it (methane) is much more potent than CO2 in terms of greenhouse gas emissions.
- The issue of rising and volatile fossil fuel prices needs to be addressed. It is not feasible to be focusing on using just one energy source. With the ever-changing fuel prices, it is wiser and more economical to be focusing on the long term savings of using offshore wind and solar. The DEIS needs to address this.
- Until the DEIS has convincingly demonstrated an unavoidable need for additional, on-Island fossil fuel generation that cannot be replaced by stronger efficiency programs and/or an increase in renewably supplied electrical energy, this project should be opposed.