PROBLEMS AND PROSPECTS FOR AN SPS ROLE IN NEW YORK STATE'S ENERGY FUTURE: A MAJOR CASE STUDY OF CONCEPT VIABILITY R. Sviedrys, D. McHugh and G. Homatas Polytechnic Institute of New York - Brooklyn, New York 11201 Whether viewed from a regional, national, or global perspective, the characteristics of NYS are unique in terms of load density and siting problems. The Northeast, and especially NYS, constitute the US region most dependent on imported oil. In 1978, 66.3% of NYS primary energy consumption was oil, compared to 45.4% nationally. Electrical generation was 45.0% oil dependent versus only 16.6% for the nation. With over 90% of all energy imported, NYS has to sustain heavy cash outlfows to other states or nations. Yet despite economic slump and lagging population growth, NYS continues to be at the center of the largest load area in the most electrically developed section of the nation. The State has traditionally been in the forefront for SPS-related or analogous fields, most significantly, Indian Head, the first US commercial nuclear plant. In the light of such precedents, will NYS be in the forefront of SPS developments? If not, why not? Clearly, NYS and its power pool (NYPP) represent an electric consumption market whose requirements and constraints should play a significant role in shaping and evaluating any new, major baseload system such as SPS. Nonetheless, contacts with various relevant NYS authorities responsible for planning, R&D or regulation has indicated a highly inadequate cognizance of the SPS system, evaluation program, and related issues. Without early participation of such policy strata, unnecessary mistakes and conflicts analogous to those now suffered by nuclear programs are not likely to be avoided. As of 1980, justification for all future generation planning and siting - SPS or other — must conform to the load ceilings and other constraints determined under the State's new "comprehensive and integrated" Energy Master Plan (EMP) which establishes a "binding" framework of accepted growth over a 15-year time span, subject to approval by an Energy Board (EB) of 5 top officials. Subsuming all previous procedures, the EMP constitutes a new layer of decision in an already tardy process, and may remove much discretion from the traditional planning community. Hence the EMP's governing philosophy is more subject to capture by anti-growth factions. Discussions with EMP participants indicated that none perceived that any meaningful aspects of the SPS program fell within even the 15-year legal planning horizon, the 10-year project span, the 5-year R&D orientation or the regulatory rate year. Further, R&D officials (NYSERDA) indicated skepticism as to the compatibility of the SPS with their "Alternate Technology" (AT) legislative mandate. The novel microwave issue will require an additional layer of regulatory screening, the responsibility for which has not yet been formulated much less assigned. SPS discussions face an aversive public environment, currently running strongly against even contemporary 1 GW scale plants. Just in the past year, 4 nuclear sites have been cancelled. Coal options and conversions are under severe scrutiny by advocates of decentralized AT options such as low-head hydro, cogeneration, and "renewables." Yet specific AT proposals such as MSW energy recovery are stalled, often due to the "not in my backyard" syndrome. A succession of historically unique, drastic scale downs of long range forecasts of load requirements for NYS, coupled with factors such as the current easy availability of cheap but politically unreliable Quebec hydropower, has enabled NYS authorities to defer hard decisions on centralized generation installments. Projections have been progressively slashed from the pre-1973, 5.8%/yr down to a currently accepted 1.9% (NYS EB). The result has been a reduction by more
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTU5NjU0Mg==