At Tuesday night’s City Council meeting a proposed resolution “concerning Community Environmental Benefits Agreement with PSEG Power Connecticut” will be referred to the Economic and Community Development and Environment Committee. PSEG, a significant taxpayer, is under pressure to transition the coal-burning Bridgeport Harbor Station in the South End to a natural gas generation plant that supporters argue will reduce health concerns. What does this mean for cleaner energy advocates? Environmentalist Jeff Kohut writes the City Council should reject the agreement, asserting “it is akin to the treaties signed by the Native Americans in the 19th and 20th centuries and represents a commitment by Bridgeport to continue to be devalued and exploited by unscrupulous corporations and the region.” From Kohut:
PSEG wants the city to agree to lobby for the retention of PSEG’s Bridgeport-located generation capacity. In this regard, they want the city to enter into a contract guaranteeing it won’t try to impede, in any way, the construction of a new oil/gas generation plant at its Bridgeport Harbor Station site. The contract also requires the city to lobby for the granting of all permits for this new plant, which will be built adjacent to the existing facility. (I assume it will be built adjacent to the coal plant, because PSEG needs to keep producing power as the new plant is built.) In return for the city’s (and other signatories’ assistance and non-interference), PSEG will donate $2 million for studies/ameliorating measures for Bridgeport’s air-pollution related public-health problems, and will donate $5 million for the green-energy capacity in the city (to city agencies and non-profits, in both cases).
The 2021 termination of operation of the coal plant is alluded to in the letter/contract. But clearly stated in the letter/contract is all bets are off, with respect to any agreements with the city/community and environmental groups if PSEG doesn’t get the power-auction options and permits it needs for the new oil/gas plant. To me, this implies the coal plant shutdown date depends on the construction of the new plant.
They do say they won’t seek additional capacity beyond their current power supply obligations if they get the new plant, implying they will, indeed, get rid of the coal plant if they get the new plant. But to me, this is no sure thing, because they know the city will want to be able to tax both plants, so to me, they are creating a situation for Bridgeport where, one way or the other, they will keep burning coal in Bridgeport.
I won’t believe they are getting rid of coal until the plant comes down, and nowhere does it give a date for demolition of the plant; they only give a non-statutory date upon which they have agreed to cease operations (this date is not made part of the “contract,” only referenced in regard to meeting air-quality standards and power-production obligations). But since they are obligated to supply a certain amount of power to the region, they can argue if the new plant isn’t in operation, they can’t cease operations of the coal plant because of the mandate to produce power.
So they have economic and legal leverage to keep their coal plant (and run it too!) even if they get their new plant. And with Bridgeport’s need for tax revenue, I’m sure they are thinking they will be able schmooze a needy Bridgeport (and gullible community and environmental groups) into letting the coal plant keep going after 2021.
We should also remember if there is a new plant, the cost of that plant will be tacked onto our electric bill.
PSEG must not be trusted. Bridgeport and the environmental community need to think about forcing the region to site generation plants elsewhere, or in this regard, create massive, point-of-usage, green, renewable energy capacity in the region. Such “green” generation hardware should be developed and produced in Bridgeport, with Bridgeport serving as the prototype municipality for “green” energy independence (and the creation of an all-electric economy) as it develops the energy products of the future and creates tens of thousands of jobs in the process. (I wrote quite a bit on this theme going back a few years.)
As far as I’m concerned, Bridgeport must not be taken in by the PSEG ploy and must follow Norwalk’s lead in showing waterfront power plants the egress and reclaiming precious waterfront for higher uses. New plant or no new plant, Bridgeport’s environment will be damaged by the new plant (a combination natural gas/dirty-oil plant, probably in addition to the damage inflicted from the old plant, as they operate simultaneously), and our property values will continue to be negatively impacted as well. And let’s not forget the opportunity costs of having precious waterfront occupied by smoke-stack entities while high-value, waterfront development is sited elsewhere.
Yes, I stand by my first assessment of this “contract;” it is akin to the treaties signed by the Native Americans in the 19th and 20th centuries and represents a commitment by Bridgeport to continue to be devalued and exploited by unscrupulous corporations and the region.
I don’t want the City to sign this agreement; I want them to take the long view and show PSEG the door./blockquote>
Great catch, Jeff!
Shame on the city of Bridgeport if they enter into another bad deal with the UI/PSEG. Never mentioned in this contract is the fact by the year 2025 most homes in Bridgeport will be off the grid.
With Hydrogen Generators for each home we will never need electric service from UI/PSEG again!
A Hydrogen Generator is just about the same size as your central Air Conditioning unit sitting in your backyard.
It will power your entire home for the next 20 years, at a cost of less than $100 a year, this is what PSEG doesn’t want you to know.
So why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free!
So why enter into a contract if you don’t need one?
Please wake the fluck up, City Council!
www .tropical.gr/products/fuel-cell-power-generators/5kw-fc-power-generator.html
You fuel cell theory may be a little overstated.
Per: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_fuel_cell
High initial capital costs–As of December 2012, Panasonic and Tokyo Gas Co., Ltd. sold about 21,000 PEM Ene-Farm units in Japan for a price of $22,600 before installation.
Operating costs for home fuel cells can be as low as 6.0¢ per kWh based on $1.20 per therm for natural gas, assuming full electrical and heat load utilization.
Lifetime–Around 60,000 hours. For PEM fuel cell units, which shut down at night, this equates to an estimated lifetime of between ten and fifteen years.
Say it lasts 15 years (the longest lifespan) @ a cost of $22K. That is ~$1,400/year just in the cost of the unit. Then @ $0.06 KwH (the lowest estimate) and 911 KwH/mo for the average US customer you have: $54.60 per month, assuming full electrical and heat load utilization. This will be more if you do not use all the heat, like in the summer.
That would make your electric bill $171.25/mo under the most ideal conditions.
Jimfox’s cost analysis seemed too good to be true.
I am sure you are right, BOE SPY. Most of these hair-brained Green Energy solutions are not cost effective. The companies simply take the Federal Grant monies and then ultimately file bankruptcy, after the Boards of Directors have paid themselves!!! There are parking lots full of electric cars no one wants and which they cannot even give away!!!
I hope everyone knows about a rally with speakers at Two Boots taking place at 5:30 tonight. It is being sponsored by Healthy Connecticut Alliance and will feature several community speakers. The group will march up the Broad Street steps following, and will have speakers addressing the Council at the Public Hearing portion of the evening. Jeff, hope you can make it.
The name of the group sponsoring the rally is Healthy Connecticut Alliance Resident Chapter.
But what are the realistic alternatives? It’s easy to be against something. How do you replace the large amount of energy produced now and with this proposed plant addition?
If you do not like the electric plant as a high-end land taxpayer and you do not like Bass Pro, what high end land taxpayer would you like to see on the waterfront in BPT?
The gas plant project will cost $550 million, and create 350 temporary construction jobs over two years and 20 permanent jobs. The current plant has a property assessment of $122 million. Add the value of the $550 million gas plant and you have more.
But please, keep bashing PSEG. That worked out well for CT and GE.
At some point you have to accept every use is going to have some downsides. PSEG makes pollution, Bass Pro does not hire enough BPT’ers, mansions will attract rich Republicans who look down on us from ivory towers, Walmart is not ‘classy’ enough for BPT, a dump is an eyesore, asphalt plants smell, parks do not generate taxes and apartments demand long-term tax abatements.
BOE SPY: You make a great argument against Bridgeport’s current economic development policy and some current and past specific economic development proposals. In your argument against the proposed PSEG plant, you even include the fact the massive proposed development will only result in 20 permanent jobs. (Now, if that superbly located waterfront spot were to be remediated and reused, for say a resort-like complex of some sort, we could probably see that acreage and such facilities assessed in the billions and providing permanent employment perhaps in the thousands.) But the tone of your argument, if logic didn’t make me believe differently, could lead me to believe you were mocking those opposed to the power plant and you were actually in favor of making Bridgeport the repository for the low-end, negative development that is zoned out of the surrounding Fairfield County suburbs. But logic tells me a Bridgeporter could not be that confused about the worth of their city and home. You are a Bridgeporter, aren’t you?!
But assuming you aren’t so confused you think the power plant is a plus for us, I still need to point out your argument against the plant and other undesirable development is very significantly deficient in that it fails to account for the devaluation of all our waterfront property as well as other property throughout the South End and downtown. I wonder how much more the South End and downtown views would be worth if they included our full, waterfront panorama, without smokestacks and other dirty, unseemly electric power infrastructure. Norwalk did this type of calculation and had their waterfront power plant decommissioned and slated for removal. I would bet the devaluation of our surroundings in the context of other potential development discouraged (if not crowded-out) by the presence of the plant, would account for several times the value of the plant in tax assessments.
Hopefully, the city will realize the opportunity that will be provided to Bridgeport by opposing the PSEG proposal and instead working toward the relocation of the region’s Bridgeport-located electric power production to other towns, while working to meet our own needs through the creation of clean, renewable power production capacity.
If Bridgeport is ever to prosper again, we must take a “Bridgeport first!” attitude and create “Bridgeport first!” economic development policies.
Asphalt plants and smokestacks, indeed! (Let Westport and Darien “steal” these opportunities from us!)
Well, The Manresa plant is still there even after being shut down in 2013. 2-3 years ago. It would seem Norwalk has failed to attract a billion dollar shore side resort. I would not know what effect an operating power plant versus a derelict power plant has had on the value of shore side property but it has had a negative affect on Norwalk’s tax base since NRG deactivated the plant and removed high-value items from the property. In 2015 Senate Bill 1050 calls for the owner of a power plant being decommissioned to submit a plan to the state’s Public Utilities Regulatory Authority (PURA) “to sell, transfer, reenergize or decommission the facility.” It would seem even if the plant goes away, NRG is under no requirement to dispose of the property. Often it is cheaper to keep it than clean it up.
As the functioning power plant is by far NOT BPT’s biggest eyesore, there are lower-hanging fruit in the effort to make BPT better. Since it took 20 years to attract Bass Pro to a shovel-ready site, the prospects of attracting a billion dollar resort to the currently occupied power plant property in the near future seem unlikely. In the meantime BPT would lose $122 million in taxable property now to gain what and when? Those 20 jobs are in addition to the jobs the power plant currently supports on the land the power plant currently occupies. Like if Bass Pro put in a gas station or you built a garage adjacent to your house. More stuff with more value on land that is already being used.
Norwalk is positioning itself for the future. Bridgeport is also being positioned for Norwalk, and Stamford’s and Greenwich’s future. They will prosper at our expense. Only the truly obtuse need a roadmap to see the socioeconomic engineering going on here.
Only the truly obtuse cannot understand why it is a bad idea to quit your job before you have another to replace it. With all the vacant lots, derelict factories and non-tax-producing properties that already litter the city, why work to create another? Ridding yourself of one of your largest revenue sources is not the road to prosperity. The new gas plant will increase that tax revenue. It is also cleaner and more desirable than the current coal plant. If you wanted to turn prime waterfront property into a tax revenue producer you should set your sights on the PT Barnum housing project. That is 22 acres @ 0 (zero) taxes.
No one is prospering at BPT’s expense. Most of those cities are prospering despite BPT’s existence. As they pay most of BPT’s bills. If our power plant supplies their power, they send their money to BPT. As with any business, people outside your town spend their money inside your town. That makes your town rich and that is to BPT’s benefit.
1 Atlantic St. is a utility property. It has an estimated value of $24.2 million for 58.8 acres, which is significantly higher than the $123,832 average for utility properties in the FindTheBest database. Bridgeport is an industrial town and prospered, really prospered, for a long time before the industry left. Chasing off any industry we have left before securing a viable replacement is foolhardy.
Excellent discussion. Congrats to all involved.
BOE SPY: A city planning and preparing for its future is not the same as “quitting your job before you have another.” We can perseverate in our present condition, as our options continue to bypass us for more desirable locales, or we can decide we’re worth something as a community and take proactive steps to secure our future. If we think of ourselves as only being worthy of being a servants quarters and dump for the ‘burbs, that’s all we’ll be.
You are obviously not a Bridgeporter. (You don’t work for OPED, do you?) Why don’t share your name with us?
Because my name is none of your business. My name does not make my argument any more or less valid. How is a billion dollar resort NOT a service (servant) industry? These, perhaps thousand, jobs will not be living-wage jobs. To compare billion dollar resorts: By state, the highest pay levels are found in California, where the average Disneyland Resort employee makes around $14.23 per hour. You are talking about housekeepers, valets, waiters, etc. What billion dollar resort passed BPT by in the last 20 years since Ganim bulldozed Steel Point and Bass Pro moved in? I believe you are still grasping at the straw a casino will come to BPT. That is a pipe dream. State law, fraud and corruption defeated the idea last time and the casino economic climate is flat and faltering. The average casino employee in CA makes $14.67. The average power plant worker in the US makes $33.28.
As far as making BPT ready for the next great thing, BPT has miles of abandoned sites that can be made shovel-ready before we opt to bulldoze the sites that continue to produce revenue. BPT can opt to chase the power plant away at any time. Perhaps it would be wiser to fill up at least some of the already empty sites first.
Can you explain how being the electricity producing capital of Fairfield County or CT makes BPT servants’ quarters and dump for the ‘burbs? The ‘burbs you mention are just servants’ quarters for NYC. At one time they were worker housing for BPT. All industry is providing a service. Providing electricity, water and sewage removal is a service that never falters and is immune to the economic climate. Once BPT has the power, BPT will have the power.
*** WONDER WHERE THE TWO CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS WHO REPRESENT THE SOUTH END STAND ON THIS ISSUE? IT’S VERY SELDOM WE HEAR ANYTHING OF WHAT THE 131ST CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS ARE DOING OR VOTING ON, NOR ANY NEWS ON ISSUES THAT MIGHT AFFECT THE CITIZENS OF THE SOUTH END OR DISTRICT IN GENERAL! *** NO COMPLAINTS SINCE THAT’S WHO THE VOTERS VOTED FOR, NO? *** WHOOP ***
Could this be the reason this facility needs to be closed, coal ash is a hazardous waste? Coal ash, the toxic remains of coal burning in power plants, is full of chemicals that cause cancer, developmental disorders and reproductive problems. It poisons our water and kills fish and wildlife.
Could this be the reason for an unusually high incidence of asthma in the black community? Could this be the reason for the lobster kill-off in the Sound?
Another theory of the lobster kill in LIS. No one is sure the lobsters have actually died. We have not found large quantities of dead lobsters in LIS. The statistics come from the falling lobster harvest. Lobster traps are very ineffective, only ‘trapping’ 10% of the lobsters that enter the trap. One theory is lobsters that escape the trap are able to breed, having young that can also escape the traps.
Probably not. Coal ash contains contaminants like mercury, cadmium and arsenic. Coal is regulated by the EPA. The EPA requires proper disposal of this material.
Researchers think some genetic and environmental factors interact to cause asthma. Pollution irritants in the air can trigger an attack. Soot from diesel vehicles is far more likely than coal fly ash to be that irritant. No cluster has been found near the power plant while increased asthma attacks have been found near the highway throughout Connecticut with no discrimination as to color. Of the people who suffer from asthma, 7.4% white, 9.9% black, 5.9% Hispanic. These numbers are close enough to be called even. There is no unusually high incident of asthma in the black community.
The lobster kill-off in LI Sound has been attributed to many causes. No one is sure what caused this phenomenon. The most likely cause is a warming of the sound and/or insecticides. It is doubtful the one remaining coal-fired power plant caused the lobsters to die across the entire Long Island Sound.