Rep Shea: Bill Targeting Power Plants Bad News For Fairfield County
Rep Shea: Bill Targeting Power Plants
Bad News For Fairfield County
A bill targeting six aging power plants that received final legislative approval in the state Senate and is expected to be signed into law by Gov Rowland is almost certain to mean power shortages and higher electricity costs in Fairfield County, according to state Rep Pat Shea, R-Monroe and Newtown.
âThe people who own these plants have said it is almost certain that the very expensive upgrades they would have to make to the facilities to enable them to conform to the new emissions standards this bill would impose would mean one or more of them would be shut down,â said Rep Shea, who opposed the measure last week in a vote on the floor of the state House of Representatives.
âOne of the plants is located in Bridgeport and another is in Norwalk â and we cannot afford to lose either of them. That is because the transmission lines that bring additional electricity into Fairfield County are inadequate to bring in the quantities we will need if any of the existing facilities are forced to close,â Rep Shea said, adding that the six aging plants account for almost 45 percent of the stateâs generating capacity.
âThese plants are responsible for only three percent of the emissions that degrade air quality in Connecticut. Most of the harmful pollutants in our air come in from New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Ohio. The prevailing southwesterly winds that blow into Connecticut bring with them emissions from power plants and factories in Ohio and Pennsylvania. The state Department of Environmental Protection has said fumes from one Ohio power plant contain as much nitrogen oxide as is discharged from all the plants in Connecticut combined. Exhaust fumes from diesel trucks and buses are another major factor in our air pollution problem,â Rep Shea said.
âIf this measure becomes law â and that is now a virtual certainty â it is likely to have just the unfortunate consequences that its proponents have been denouncing as âfear-mongeringâ for almost three years,â Rep Shea said. âISO New England, the independent, not-for-profit corporation established to ensure reliable and secure operation of the New England regionâs electric grid, also opposed the bill.â
Rep Shea noted that in a recent letter, ISO spelled out the threat posed to Fairfield County. The letter stated that Fairfield County has âmore demand [for electricity] than native supply,â adding, âThe loss of supply resources in [the Fairfield County] area of the system without replacement in kind, along with lack of significant transmission improvements, could seriously hamper our efforts to reliably operate the system.â
âThe Department of Environmental Protection, after being directed to do so by the governor, promulgated new emissions regulations that are the toughest in the country. They would have accomplished the same goals that this bill seeks to achieve; it just would have taken a little longer,â Rep Shea said.
âMy fear is that at some point after this bill takes effect, at least one of the Fairfield County plants will be forced to shut down,â Rep Shea said. âIf that occurs we will have real problems importing electricity in the quantities our high tech economy needs to function. Inadequate supplies of electricity could also stall our commuter rail lines during rush hours. Importing electricity from out-of-state sources will be expensive, as California has discovered, and will mean higher electricity rates for all of us.â
âAlthough cleaner burning, more efficient natural gas power plants are under construction, including one in Milford, it will be at least three years before they all are on line. In the meantime, we will need the power they produce, not just for the next three years, but also for the foreseeable future,â Rep Shea said. âI do not believe that a three percent reduction in emissions is worth putting our economic future and our way of life at risk, especially when the DEPâs air quality standards would have done the job just as well; and that is why I could not in good conscience support this bill.â