ment in new gas transmission infrastructure, and require expenditure for emissions permits.

5. How would environmental emissions and other impacts compare with those for continued operation of Indian Point?

Since the air emissions of New York power plants currently involve emission caps already in place, new sources would have to purchase emission rights. Thus, most pollutants would be little changed. The main change expected would be an increase in carbon dioxide (CO2, the most important greenhouse gas) from substituting fossil fuel for nuclear fuel. If the regional plans for reducing or capping CO2 emissions are implemented, local CO2 increases will likely be offset with an emissions credit market. Water quality would be improved by retiring Indian Point, but much the same advantage could be achieved if the plant switched to cooling towers from the current once-through cooling.

6. What would be the impacts on local communities from closing Indian Point and replacing it with these options?

Community impacts would be mixed, depending on the choice of replacements and their locations. There would likely be potentially significant disruption in the tax base and supporting business income to Westchester and surrounding counties. A loss of employment of skilled workers would be associated with the plant’s retirement. The costs of electricity are likely to rise with changes in the electrical system infrastructure in southern New York State. Projections of all of these impacts are difficult to estimate without additional information. While the committee has not studied these factors, some benefits may occur. For example, upstate communities might benefit if replacement power plants are built there. The Indian Point site could also be used for new industrial facilities that could replace the jobs and tax benefits of the nuclear station.

REFERENCES

Hinkle, G., G. Jordan, and M. Sanford. 2005. “An Assessment of Alternatives to Indian Point for Meeting Energy Needs.” Unpublished report for the National Research Council. GE-Energy, Schenectady, N.Y., December 19.

NYISO (New York Independent System Operator). 2005a. Comprehensive Reliability Planning Process (CRPP) Reliability Needs Assessment (RNA). December 21.

—. 2005b. Comprehensive Reliability Planning Process Supporting Document and Appendices for the Draft Reliability Needs Assessment, NYISO, Albany, N.Y., December 21. See http://www.nyiso.org/public/webdocs/newsroom/press_releases/2005/crrp_supporting_rna_doc12202005.pdf. Accessed December 2005.

—. 2005c. Michael Calimano, solicitation letter to S.V. Lunt, R.M. Kessel, E.R. McGrath, and J. McMahon, December 22. See http://www.nyiso.org/public/webdocs/newsroom/press_releases/2005/rna_solution_letter.pdf. Accessed January 2006.

O’Neill, Richard. 2004. Reactive Power: Is It Real? Is It in the Ether? Harvard Electric Policy Group, Austin, Tex. December 2.

Patton, David B. 2001. New York Market Advisor Annual Report on the New York Electric Markets for Calendar Year 2000. April.

Westchester Public Issues Institute. 2002. Closing Indian Point—Implications for NYC Metro Energy Supply. June.



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement