Danskammer application deemed complete

By Mark Reynolds
Posted 3/10/21

On February 26 John B. Rhodes, Chairmen of the Board on Electric Generating Siting and the Environment, sent a letter to attorney Brenda D. Colella and VP of Public Affairs Michelle Hook of …

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

Log in

Danskammer application deemed complete

Posted

On February 26 John B. Rhodes, Chairmen of the Board on Electric Generating Siting and the Environment, sent a letter to attorney Brenda D. Colella and VP of Public Affairs Michelle Hook of Danskammer Energy, stating that the company’s application to build a new natural gas-fired electrical generating plant beside the old Danskammer plant in the Town of Newburgh is complete and complies with Public Service Law [PSL]164.

Initially Rhodes noted in a February 10, 2020 letter to Danskammer that the company was not in compliance with the Public Service Law. Danskammer then filed supplements to their application on March 11, April 21 and July 8 of 2020, however, the Siting Board said these additions also failed to remedy, “or otherwise cure,” the extant deficiencies. The Siting Board wanted more information from the company regarding the use of renewables and hydrogen and the company filed a 4th supplement to their application on November 18, 2020.

On January 8, 2021 a Renewed Motion To Strike Application was filed by the Hudson River Sloop Clearwater organization, the Riverkeeper, Scenic Hudson and the Sierra Club, claiming that Danskammer’s Application and the supplements did not comply with the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA).

Rhodes wrote his completion notice in a February 2021 letter stating that while the power company’s application complies with the PSL, “I make no determination on the pending Renewed Motion to Strike Application as to whether Danskammer can satisfy its burden of proof under CLCPA.” He noted that an assigned Administrative Law Judge will rule on the issues raised in the motion.

Michelle Hook said the Siting Board in their February 10, 2020 letter wanted Danskammer, “to elaborate on how we thought we would comply with the CLCPA legislation as we moved out toward 2040...That was our entire hydrogen supplement where we supplied them with all of the details on how we would build out a hydrogen facility.” She pointed out that Danskammer can burn hydrogen at the site if there’s enough wind and solar sites to create the hydrogen using green energy. Storage and transport issues, however, would still have to be worked out with other energy providers.

“Those sectors need to grow and do their part of the industry work [as] we are working on our part,” she said.

Hook said Danskammer provided more details on their plans for renewable natural gas and hydrogen and how the company will comply with the CLCPA in their November 8, 2020 response.

Hook said the Motion To Strike by the Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Scenic Hudson et al, was filed, “because they argued that we didn’t satisfy the requests for information and we responded and said no, we actually feel like we did because we, not only gave you the information you requested on RNG and hydrogen, we also said if for some reason those could not be done, we would just shut down in 2040.” Hook said if the project is approved the company will attest to a shutdown in 2040 in writing, if they cannot meet the state’s zero carbon requirement.

Hook said motions that have been made by various environmental agencies typically go before a Judge, who serves as an independent outside entity in cases involving proposals of this nature.

Hook said Rhodes’ letter starts a one year clock for either an approval or rejection by the Siting Board and is expected on or about February 26, 2022.

“The timeline for us is beneficial because now we know what’s ahead of us,” she said.

Rhodes letter concluded by pointing out that in accordance with PSL Sec. 164, “on or about March 31, 2021 a public hearing will commence (probably virtually), subject to modification by the Secretary of the Siting Board.” Additional public hearings are expected to be held throughout the coming year.

Haley Carlock, Director of Environmental Advocacy and Legal Affairs for Scenic Hudson, said the Public Service Law, “requires sufficient details of the project in order for the Siting Board to conduct a full evaluation.” She said the back and forth on Danskammer’s initial application through a number of supplemental submissions was because the Siting Board, “did not feel they had enough detail to even start to evaluate the application.” Specifically, Carlock said they wanted information on how their proposed project is consistent with the state’s energy policy and meets the stipulations of the CLCPA. On 3 occasions the Siting Board wanted to know how the proposed new plant would meet the required reductions in emissions and how they will meet the state standard that by 2040 that, “all electricity generation in the state must be carbon free. They asked Danskammer point blank and the Siting Board deemed their responses not sufficient.”

But in the February 26, 2021 letter Carlock characterized the Siting Board’s response, saying that Danskammer, “has provided all of the information they are going to provide, clearing the way for a thorough review on the merits of the proposal and whether it can be permitted under the law.”

Carlock explained the two motions that have been filed by her organization and a few partners. She said Danskammer’s last two supplements, “have really made an attempt to explain how on earth a gas-fired power plant can be consistent with the state’s crystal clear policy of moving away from carbon-intensive fossil fuel electricity generation and moving towards renewable resources.”

Carlock said Danskammer took the position that their proposed plant, “will be a newer, more modern and more efficient gas plant [but] it’s just not going to cut it.” She said the company recently began claiming that the way they will comply with the CLCPA and not use natural gas after 2040, is to convert some of their existing, on-site infrastructure so that it can carry hydrogen instead of burning natural gas. Presently Danskammer’s piping system is able to carry from 10% up to 30% of hydrogen and would need extensive upgrades.

Carlock said the Motion that her organization and others jointly filed seeks to strike any information pertaining to the potential future use of hydrogen on the site from the deliberation process of the Siting Board because Danskammer has not definitively stated that they would convert to hydrogen use at the proposed plant. She said all the company has offered are vague promises.

“Our argument is that future hydrogen burning is a fairy tale; there’s no commitment to do it, there’s no plan to do it, there’s no analysis of what infrastructure is needed, where it would go, could it be permitted and would it have environmental and human impacts. We have zero details,” she said. “I think this is a pretty green-washing attempt by Danskammer. They know that a gas plant is very obviously inconsistent with the goals of the CLCPA and this is their attempt to get a foot in the door, so that they can run their plant for maybe 10 years, make some money and then pull up stakes when they will be forced to close. It’s pretty unbelievable but I think that’s really their plan.”

Carlock pointed out that receiving approval and the building of any power plant is a years long process, more so if it is controversial, “as we know this one is. It’s really mind boggling that a half a billion investment and there’s so much riding on this plant getting built for the community, and then it runs for a few years and that’s it. I think the folks in the Town of Newburgh and the Town of Marlborough should take a step back and ask do we really want to be putting our eggs in this basket in terms of getting tax rateables in our community in a plant that’s admitting that it is going to be, at best, a stop-gap, short term measure and cannot run after 2040. I think the community should be looking to other options that can be longer term, more sustainable, more certain for them and less risky.”