An end to NYRI: Or is it?

By Liam M. and Evan H.

“This seems to be a project that just refuses to die,” said New York State Senator John Bonacic.

NYRI is a group of engineers, legal advisors, environmental scientists, economists, and most importantly, investors. The project that Bonacic was referring to is one developed by NYRI in hopes of bringing electricity to areas in New York where it is in high demand.

What at first glance seemed to be a noble endeavor aimed at serving the outreaches of New York with the power required, has turned into a push and pull fight between the state government of New York and NYRI, which is trying to acquire some muscle from the federal government to set their project in motion.

So why the fierce opposition? The environs of the state deserve to be able to tap into the power supply just as readily as the city. The dilemma is made evident by the more viable effects of the massive power-line that the undertaking would entail.

The power-line would need to be cradled by colossal steel towers, which at some points would extend 120 feet into the air. The pathway cleared for it would stretch for 200 miles through 70 towns, and would be the width of four and a half football fields. This project would be devastating to the small town economies which rely heavily on their scenic, tranquil atmospheres to attract vacationers and second home owners.

The battle appeared to be over when, on April 3, 2009, NYRI withdrew their application for the project from the Public Service Commission. One reason for this action was the fact that on March 31, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) stated that the developers were unable to recover costs from ratepayers. As a result, NYRI declared the project, “an unacceptable risk to their investors.”

This was not the end for NYRI however, as they decided to reapply to FERC. When it comes down to decision time, FERC potentially can put the project into motion despite all the opposition in the world from New York’s state government.

Their weight in the argument comes from a legislative act of 2005, which states that energy companies could preempt state governments if they could prove  to the federal agency that issues of national security are involved.