Hudson Valley Pushing Back Against a New Power Plant
On March 31, Aria Valdez was one of the many Hudson Valley residents preparing to log on to the Danskammer Article 10 Public Hearings when she realized there was an issue. She had assumed that the hearings would take place over Zoom, but that was not the case. Ten minutes prior to the meeting, she was searching through emails to figure out which program she needed and how to download it.
“They did that on purpose,” said an exasperated Valdez.The issue on the table was one that has been ongoing for many years - whether or not Danskammer Energy would be able to create a new power plant in the town of Newburgh, in Orange County.
Under normal circumstances, the hearings would be taking place in a courtroom amongst a large audience. Instead the two hearings took place virtually via Webex due to the ongoing pandemic. There were two hearings that day; the first one took place at 1 p.m. and the second one took place at 5 p.m. Due to the large number of participants, oral comments were limited to three minutes. More than 300 people registered to take part in the hearings and in total, they lasted over nine hours.
Valdez, who has lived in the city of Newburgh for 30 years, was one of the many who spoke up against the plant. As someone with asthma, Valdez feels very strongly against the creation of a new generation facility.
“When my asthma is induced by pollution, it feels like my lungs are on fire. I can only imagine the pain experienced once the fumes from this plant are released into our air,” said Valdez in her testimony. “These fumes cause cancer, birth defects, infertility, and pulmonary diseases. This is the last thing we need during a global health crisis.”
For the Stop Danskammer Coalition, this day has been a long time coming. In the weeks leading up to the hearing, the organization had been holding training sessions to teach people how to register for the hearings and how to give a virtual testimony in the limited time each person is allotted to speak.
The Stop Danskammer Coalition is made up of a number of different organizations.
The coalition is made up of a number of organizations and community groups, including Scenic Hudson, Newburgh Clean Water Project, New Paltz Climate Action Coalition and NYPIRG. Their message is plain and simple: there is absolutely no need to burden the people of Newburgh and the surrounding areas with the environmental effects of a new power plant.
Danskammer has occupied space in the town of Newburgh for 64 years, with a “peaker” facility, a plant that only runs when necessary. The new facility that is being proposed would be a “baseload,” running 70 - 75% of the time.While Danskammer filed its application to the New York State Board on Electric Generation Siting and the Environment back in December 2019, the application was determined to be insufficient because it did not show substantial information on how the plant would comply with New York’s Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA). The act was passed in 2019 and aspires to reduce New York’s greenhouse gas emissions 40% by 2030 and no less than 85% below 1990 levels by 2050.
On March 1 the application was deemed complete by the Siting Board. The board is a governmental agency within the New York State Department of Public Service. Now that the application has been accepted, the Article 10 process can commence. Article 10 was a law that was enacted in 2011 that allows the Siting board to streamline the process of creating new electric generating facilities in the state, rather than having a developer apply for numerous state and local permits. The process can take 12-18 months. The hearing trials play a crucial role in the decision making process due to the fact that it serves as a forum where the public can voice their thoughts, concerns or support for the proposed power facility.
Advocates against the plant have expressed the need to protect the already vulnerable city of Newburgh. The proposed plant would not be the first time that Newburgh has made headlines regarding environmental issues. For years, the city of Newburgh has dealt with a contaminated water supply. Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid, or PFOS, were found in bodies of water located near Newburgh. The PFOS rendered fish that were captured unsafe to eat, and were found in Washington Lake, which was the drinking supply for 30,000 people. The contamination was traced back to Stewart Air National Guard Base, which has used PFOS-laden fire foam to fight fires since the 1980s. The residents of Newburgh have been drinking this contaminated water for decades.
PFOS are a type of PFAS, which is short for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances. Studies have linked these chemicals to kidney disease. PFOS have been specifically found to be linked to high cholesterol and disrupting the immune system. In fact, they have been found to suppress the response to vaccines.
The environmental injustices that Newburgh has faced are not unique to the town. An unfortunately apt analogue is the public health crisis in Flint, Michigan. In 2014, Flint’s water supply was switched from Detroit Water and Sewage Department to the Flint River. Officials recklessly failed to ensure that corrosion inhibitors were added to the drinking supply, and in turn lead from aging pipes contaminated the drinking supply of around 100,000 residents. The lead contamination was considered a possible source of an outbreak of Legionnaires Disease, which killed 12 people and affected another 87 in Genesee County, in which Flint is a major population center. Michigan Governor Rick Snyder and eight other officials were convicted with 34 felony counts and seven misdemeanors. Two of the officials were charged with involuntary manslaughter.
In Newburgh’s case, the contamination led to a lawsuit filed by the city against the United States Air Force, New York State, Airport operators and manufacturers. The case is currently in litigation.
One may describe what is happening in these two instances, as well as in other places across the country, as an example of environmental racism. Environmental racism was first developed as a concept in the 1970s and 1980s to describe environmental injustices that occur in a racialized context.
What is Environmental Racism?
SUNY New Paltz professor Brian Obach, who teaches sociology and specializes in environmentalism, describes environmental racism as “the disproportionate harmful effects of ecological degradation on people of color and low income people, which is a product of institutional racism and structured economic inequality.”
SUNY New Paltz Professor Brian Obach.
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, as of July 1, 2019, Flint’s population is 54.1% Black or African American, and 38.8% of the population live in poverty. Similarly, the city of Newburgh’s population is 24.5% Black or African American, 50.3% Hispanic or Latino, and 25.4% of the population live in poverty.
In 2018, the Environmental Protection Agency released a study that found that people of color are more likely to live near polluters and breathe in polluted air. In addition, people living in poverty were more likely to be exposed to fine particulate matter, more than people who were not living in poverty.
Particulate matter is a group of microscopic liquids and solids in the air that serve as air pollutants. Anthropogenic particulates can be natural and manmade, and include fumes emitted from automobiles, smog, and more. The EPA found that these particulates can serve as a contributing factor to lung conditions, heart attacks and possibly premature deaths.
According to Danskammer’s own filing with the state, a number of particulate matter including nitrogen oxides (NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOC) will increase with the creation of the new power plant. Nitrogen oxides are a group of gases that are all harmful to the environment and human health, but Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) is the one that causes the most concern. NO2 is released into the air when fuel is burned and is emitted by cars, trucks and power plants. VOCs are emitted by a number of different products including paints, aerosol sprays, stored fuels and pesticides. The health effects one may encounter after being exposed to VOCs can vary depending on the level and length of exposure. The effects can range from eye, nose and throat irritation, to damage of the central nervous system.
Source: Danskammer Energy, LLC.
“You know, nearby industrial facilities of this nature inevitably, those kinds of toxic substances are going to be emitted. Polluters will claim that the levels are below a certain threshold, so they’re not going to harm anybody. If you ask the owner of the plant if they want to live next door to it, I can assure you that the answer would be no,” said Obach.
In their most recent application, Danskammer added a supplement on green hydrogen to align more closely with the regulations of the CLCPA. In the supplement, Danskammer outlines a plan to study the potential use of green hydrogen as a long-term energy source. Green hydrogen is hydrogen that is produced solely from renewable power, rather than fossil fuels.
Although there has been a lot of emphasis on protecting the people of Newburgh from the effects of the plant, activists against Danskammer made sure to point out that Newburgh would not be the only place affected.
Air Rhodes, who also spoke up at the hearings, is a part of the Beacon City Council. Rhodes has a postgraduate degree in environmental ethics from the University of Melbourne, and wants everyone to know that the ramifications of the plant would not just be felt in Newburgh.
“It’s obviously a big concern to us in the Hudson Valley because you know, I live three miles from the current plant. Even if I lived 30 miles from the plant it would still be just as important, or 300 miles or honestly even the other side of the world. The stuff that they’re emitting from the plant is bad for our air and the expansion would be significantly worse.”
Despite the overwhelming majority of speakers at the hearings being against Danskammer, a notable proponent of the project was Ulster County legislator Thomas Corcoran, Jr. who represents the town of Marlborough. The town sits just north of the Danskammer site and already has an agreement in place with the company. In lieu of paying taxes, Danskammer pays the Marlboro school district $1.2 million. If the proposed expansion goes through, the energy company will pay the district an initial $1.5 million, which will increase by 2.5% each year for 20 years.
Another point that is brought up by proponents of the plant is that it will bring jobs to the area. On their website, Danskamer writes that the repowering project will bring over 450 jobs to local construction workers. Local advocates feel that the increase in jobs does not outweigh the negative impacts that the new plant will have.
“I just think that the health of ourselves, our families, our kids and the communities we live in are first and foremost,” said Rhodes.
Instead of a new power generating facility, advocates from the Stop the Plant coalition believe that a battery storage grid is a more environmentally friendly alternative.
In a Stop the Plant webinar, Scenic Hudson Environmental Advocacy Director Harley Carlcok interviews James Guidera of Ghents Associates. Guidera, who has 30 years of experience with working in banks on financing energy projects, believes that at this point, it would be more financially beneficial for the site to become a battery storage facility.
“Battery storage as a utility scale resource is fairly new, but its deployment has been accelerating in recent years,” said Guidera.
At the end of the day, opponents of the plant want everyone to know that the approval of this plant would contradict any progress that the state has made to combat climate change.
“If the state were to approve this power plant after having passed the CLCPA, it would be the most transparently egregious thing they could possibly do,” said Rhodes.