]]]]]]]]]]]]    SHOREHAM FACES A FINANCIAL MELTDOWN      [[[[[[[[[[[[[ 
                   By Norman F. Lent (R-NY)
                  (New York Times, 6/8/1988)
                                                             (6/19/88)                                                       
     
[Lent represents a Long Island district and is ranking minority      
member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.]

     The shortsighted decision to abandon the Shoreham nuclear power 
plant on Long Island before it produced even a single watt of commer-
cial power means that business and consumers will be stuck paying for 
much of the $5.3 billion facility for years to come.
     By crafting the deal, Gov. Cuomo fell victim to the hysteria 
created by antinuclear forces. Instead of reducing Long Island's de-
pendence on foreign oil, the region now faces the prospect of a finan-
cial meltdown, with businesses and residents leaving the area because 
they cannot afford the increased costs.
     As part of the deal to close Shoreham, NY State has guaranteed 
that the customers of Long Island Lighting Co. will be burdened with a 
63% rate increase over a 10-year period in order to keep the company 
solvent. That means consumers will pay some $3.9 billion of Shoreham's 
costs, plus the estimated $444 million needed to decommission the 
plant, without one additional kilowatt of energy [sic] to show for it.
     This deal has national ramifications. New York will support Lil-
co's request for a multibillion dollar Federal tax write-off designed 
to insure that the utility will not be contributing to Federal tax 
coffers for the next decade. In essence, taxpayers from Maine to Ha-
waii will pay for Gov. Cuomo's deal for years to come. That's unfair 
to the rest of the nation and sets a bad precedent.
     Anti-Shoreham activists, having declared victory, say they are 
willing to live with this financial burden. But dismantling Shoreham 
is only the first step on a long and tortuous road. When it's time to 
fill the void of electricity created by the absence of Shoreham, costs 
will rise even higher.
     New York has carelessly discarded the nuclear option for Long 
Island without a coherent plan on how to provide alternative energy 
sources. State officials act as if they were unaware that the cost of 
these alternatives will be added to the billions already invested for 
a plant that would have generated 800 megawatts of clean, reliable 
energy [sic].
     Throw in the 5% minimum rate increase Long Island consumers will 
be saddled with every year for the next decade, and one can readily 
foresee the cumulative fiscal burden they will suffer.
     The alternatives under consideration have shortcomings. For ex-
ample, Canadian hydropower, probably the most heralded energy alterna-
tive, will not be available until 1995 -- and that's only if the 
building of the transmission lines across Long Island Sound is com-
pletely on schedule.
     Moreover, what will happen if this foreign supply falls short 
because of greater demand in Canada than is projected? That's no idle 
worry. In fact, it's already happened. Canada recently failed to pro-
vide power contracted for by several New England utilities because of 
unexpectedly high domestic consumption. That incident would suggest 
that New York State could face a similar problem.
     Another proposal would allow LILCO to burn less expensive, high-
sulfur oil at existing plants. But this plan is particularly ironic in 
light of Gov. Cuomo's well publicized stance agiainst acid rain.
     Sulfur emissions from smokestacks are considered a major contri-
butor to acid rain. Burning high-sulfur oil also produces nitrogen 
oxide, a chief cause of ozone pollution that can, with repeated ex-
posure, harm public health, including causing respiratory ailments.
     Burning more high-sulfur fuel could create political pressure to 
control other sources of air pollution, including those generated by 
small businesses and schools, in order to meet Federal air quality 
standards established by the Clean Air Act.
     Suffolk County betrayed the lesson it learned in the 1970s, when 
oil prices were high and gasoline lines were long. At that time, Suf-
folk County encouraged Lilco to build Shoreham, but political winds 
have shifted and the unpleasant memories have faded.
     Now with Long Island approaching 95% dependence on imported oil 
for its power, residents have nowhere to turn. In the end, a vocal 
minority gained control over the debate, tricked rate payers into 
believing they could make the utility absorb the whole cost of Shore-
ham, and forced state and local governments to cast aside a clean and 
reliable energy alternative.
     The result is that by dismantling Shoreham, Governor Cuomo is 
attempting to deny economic realities. The sensible thing to do is to 
move forward with our investment in Shoreham and allow the plant to 
operate. Instead, we are committing a cowardly act of political myopia 
that will ultimately damage -- and very possibly destroy -- Long 
Island's economic prosperity.


                                   *  *  *

[See also reader's letter, "No tax write-off for Shoreham!".]

                                   *  *  *

Return to the ground floor of this tower
Return to the Main Courtyard
Return to Fort Freedom's home page