New Haven Independent

Posted by: Just one man | November 10, 2009 3:54 PM

This is awful. The environmentalists are being sold out by a clever Mr. Smuts who is greenwashing this proposal so that the City can get a quick influx of cash. Ask Mr.Smuts how much the City stands to gain by allowing this awful use in its backyard? I can't believe that the EJ community is getting bought off this easy... where are all those Fair Haven advocates now? Where is Ed Grant and Lynne Bonnett? Where are our "green alders" Roland Lamar and Erin Pascale Sturgis? This is a terrible development for the East Shore and its plain to see why the real environmentalists in this City are not signing on to support Mr. Smuts and his "deal"

Posted by: The Count | November 10, 2009 4:26 PM

And, of course, the East Shore Conservation Association was absent from THIS one as well.

Posted by: Annette | November 10, 2009 6:03 PM

Notice that the question, "Why here?" was never answered. Because NH is so deep in debt that they would sell us into slavery for a buck. The bribe earmarked for the East Shore will never make it here. It will probably go for another school building and make Fusco Corporation very happy.

Posted by: iwanttobreath | November 10, 2009 6:15 PM

No additional pollution during the days when the EPA says it is unhealthy to breath the air in New Haven. This must be the result of any deal struck between the city and PSEG. If there is additional pollution some people will have ashma attacks and others will go to the hospital. I would rather breath and so should everyone else

Posted by: Mark Mitchell M.D. | November 10, 2009 9:41 PM

The EJ community is not looking to get one dime from this agreement. Our goal is to reduce air pollution and asthma in New Haven. Since we cannot close down the current old dirty power plant, and DPUC has decided to allow three new small power generators in New Haven, what we are trying to do is to get them to use the cleaner, newer power generators to replace the old dirty power plant so that the total pollution and resulting asthma will be decreased. We believe the proposed agreement will get us there, at least partially.

We also want PSEG to invest an amount, which the city has negotiated to be $500,000, to further improve the environment and clean up the air in New Haven, focused on the East Shore neighborhood where the power plants are located. The agreement is not finalized and the purpose of yesterdays meeting was to get comments from other New Haven residents who might be concerned. If you have other ideas, we certainly want to hear them before it's too late.

As for why New Haven and four other EJ communities were targeted for new power plants, this was done by the state Department of Public Utility Control (DPUC). We are very angry about these actions and want to prevent them from doing it again in the future by passing state legislation amending the EJ Law.

Posted by: John Cox | November 10, 2009 9:50 PM

As one of the people from the community involved in this issue, let me offer a Reader’s Digest version of this issue for consideration. PSEG has been awarded a contract by the CT Department of Public Utility Control to build three new electricity generators in New Haven at the site of the current 30 year old power plant. The new plants will use current fossil fuel technology (not renewable energy) and will be much less polluting than the current plant. The unfortunate reality is that the plant will be built in New Haven, unless there is an act of God or court intersession (more about that later).
Last year, CT enacted an environmental justice law that requires companies building polluting facilities in cities like New Haven to work with the city and the community to attempt to negotiate a Community Benefits Agreement, which will mitigate the impact of the polluting facility. In compliance with that law, PSEG approached the City this summer. Rob Smuts and Giovanni Zinn from the City, negotiating on our behalf, insisted that PSEG create no new net pollution with the installation of the new generators and the target should be a net reduction in pollution from the present situation. After much discussion with the City and community representatives (including the CT Fund for the Environment and the Environmental Justice Network), PSEG has agreed to changes in operating practices and investment in the old generator that will reduce two of the three main pollutants—nitrous oxide and sulfur dioxide—below current levels. Unfortunately, the particulate emissions will increase slightly. In consideration of this increase, PSEG is offering the community $500,000 to be used for East Shore pollution mitigation projects. No specific plan has been chosen, but several good ideas have been put forward that reduce pollution by more than the increment which the new generators will add. The Mayor has promised that the $500,000 will be used for East Shore air quality improvements and the community will have a voice. In addition, PSEG’s pollution reduction actions will be written into a contract with the State and be enforced by the CT Department of Environmental Protection.
Can we go to court to fight this? Yes. What is our probability of success? A knowledgeable environmental attorney has counseled us that our chances of success are small and a legal challenge would involve a large amount of volunteer time and fund raising. This situation is not comparable to the English Station Plant that was defeated in court.
In summary, we are trying to make the best of an unfortunate situation. The proposal that we are evaluating will make East Shore air cleaner. Our takeaway from this should be that we need to channel our collective energy into an initiative with our State elected representatives that will strengthen the environmental justice law and increase focus on renewable energy sources for power generation so that we do not find ourselves in this position again.

Posted by: breathingislife | November 11, 2009 8:00 AM

In an area such as ours where the air quality is already compromised NO COMPANY should be permitted to further compromise thE AIR quality and with it our health. IF this is a battle we could lose then there is something very seriously wrong with our legislative and DEP air permitting process.

Posted by: Anything for A Vote | November 11, 2009 9:01 AM

How exactly does the city make the air cleaner once this plant opens? Do they have a giant vacuum cleaner that sucks up all the pollutants?

Posted by: Bruce | November 11, 2009 9:08 AM

"Generally, the smaller plants should emit less particulate matter than Harbor Station, while generating the same megawattage, according to the panel at the forum."

This is slightly misleading. The gas plants will produce less pollution per megawatt, but there will be an increase in the total megawatts generated at peak times.

JUST ONE MAN: This is no time for hysteria. The deal sounds pretty reasonable to me. Off-setting just a few megawatts of the large plant with the much, much cleaner small plants will definitely yield a reduction in most emissions. We can't just break out the pitchforks and torches every time a plan like this comes up. We do need peaking plants for a stable grid. It's unfortunate this is in New Haven, but this is where the grid needs power and there is available space on the site.

One level of emissions that will likely go up during peak hours (the hottest dog days of summer) is the "acute" NOx emissions. Annual NOx emissions should go down, but the momentary emissions from that facility during peak times will increase, meaning people with respiratory problems in that area will suffer more on hot hazy summer days. I'm not sure if they can address this but in general, if they can guarantee an output reduction from the big plant then the deal is beneficial. We really need a solid guarantee, though.

Posted by: Bruce | November 11, 2009 9:17 AM

Sorry, I got a little confused. Acute PM (particulates) would increase, not NOx. Same effect, though.

Posted by: Josiah Brown | November 11, 2009 9:47 AM

John Wargo, Professor of Environmental Risk Analysis and Policy at Yale, led a 2008 seminar on "Urban Environmental Quality and Human Health: Conceiving a Sustainable Future" for public school teachers through the Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute partnership and its national initiative to strengthen teaching in public schools. Below is a link to the volume of curriculum units teachers wrote as Fellows:
http://www.teachers.yale.edu/curriculum/index.php?url=http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/nationalcurriculum/units/2008/7/

John Wargo, who is author of the new book "Green Intelligence," also led a 2009 seminar on "Energy, Climate, Environment":
http://www.teachers.yale.edu/curriculum/index.php?url=http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/nationalcurriculum/units/2009/7/

Gary Brudvig, who is Eugene Higgins Professor of Chemistry and Professor of Molecular Biophysics and Biochemistry, led a national seminar on "Renewable Energy" in 2007:
http://www.teachers.yale.edu/curriculum/index.php?url=http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/nationalcurriculum/units/2007/5/

In response to New Haven Public School teachers' requests, Gary Brudvig is offering to lead a similar local seminar in 2010. He has proposed both "Renewable Energy" and "Green Chemistry" as options -- among those the teacher representatives are currently reviewing.

All teacher-developed Institute curricular resources are available for non-commercial, educational purposes.

Posted by: breathingislife | November 11, 2009 9:55 AM

The million dollar question is: What are the estimated additional pollution during unhealthy air days and what will be the health impacts? Then have this discussion

Posted by: Scot | November 11, 2009 11:08 AM

The $500,000 payoff seems insignifcant to me. The money will be spent on one thing or another (hopefully it will be spent well) but once its spent its spent. The air pollution will be perpetuated for many years to come by increasing energy production at this site. Can't they strike a deal where rather than a one-time pay off, the city gets x number of dollars every year from the power company? It could be negotiated so that if the power plant improves its efficiency over the years with technology improvements, it pays less to the city and if tests show that it pollutes more than expected, it will pay more.

Posted by: abg | November 11, 2009 3:11 PM

It's important to remember that we, as in New Haven residents, are not in the driver's seat here, and Destefano isn't either. PSEG does not need the City's or the residents' "permission" to get a permit from DEP. PSEG does not need the endorsement of New Haven Independent commenters who nonsensically complain about "environmentalists" selling us out and about an ongoing negotiation process which they have made no effort to positively influence. To the extent that the company is making any concessions whatsoever, it is because of the work that Elm City Clean Air has done in mobilizing the community and thereby creating a potential inconvenience for the company. There a couple of lessons of this fight: one is that the EJ law needs to be strengthened. Another is that the more organized the community is, the better position we are in to negotiate for community benefits with the polluter. I hope everyone takes these lessons to heart while also keeping in mind that by taking steps to curb rising electricity demand and support renewable energy we can begin to address the root of the problem here.