Debating Propel Energy's power path

I agree that grid experts should focus on “building a reliable, affordable power system” [“Skip Propel and fix our real power gap,” Letters, Aug. 12]. The only way to do this in time is with solar, wind, and energy storage systems. Battery energy storage systems are the most affordable and available form of energy storage. They capture and store electricity when renewables overproduce at their peak production time, then release it when the grid needs it. They work in tandem.

Why not an “all of the above” approach?

New or repowered gas plants cannot be built within the time frame we need with a five- to seven-year wait for gas turbines.

Both solar and battery systems can be built within two years, quicker and cheaper than gas plants. Wind takes three years. Plus, there is no air pollution, no fuel costs, and no competition with other areas for imported electricity. According to the Long Island Power Authority’s latest Integrated Resource Plan, it imports 34% of its power from upstate, New Jersey, and New England via five undersea cables. The cost of power from just one of those cables could rise 50% in the future.

Locally generated renewable energy is the way to energy security and energy independence. That’s a win-win-win!

— Billii Roberti, Huntington Station

The writer is a renewable energy consultant.

Reporting on LIPA’s Federal Energy Regulatory Commission filing regarding the Neptune Regional Transmission Systems cable may have given readers the impression the filing undermines the case for Propel’s transmission project [“LIPA filing raises questions about Propel cable,” News, Aug. 7]. It does not. In fact, the two projects address different challenges, and both are needed for Long Island’s power system to thrive.

Propel makes it easier to send electricity throughout the grid. It will reduce congestion and improve reliability. And it will allow Long Island to benefit from more in-state generation, lowering energy bills for customers while supporting New York’s transition to cleaner sources of power.

However, upstream bottlenecks will persist on peak days, preventing power from getting to Long Island, so capacity value provided by the Neptune cable will continue to be needed. LIPA’s filing says that.

Transmission planning is about building a system in which different investments solve different problems. Neptune and Propel are complementary, not competing, solutions for grid reliability and affordability. Long Island will be better served by having both.

— Gary Stephenson, Uniondale

The writer is LIPA senior vice president of power supply.

The benefits of Propel’s project are still clear for Long Island, despite recent press coverage to the contrary.

As LIPA acknowledged in a complaint, Propel “will enhance reserve sharing across downstate New York.” This generational infrastructure investment will allow power to be shifted more quickly, easily, and cheaply between Long Island, New York City, and Westchester. Propel will improve reliability, relieve stress on our grid, and prevent blackouts.

The New York Independent System Operator has identified Propel as a “key planned enhancement to the state’s transmission network.” And in March, it stated that “without investment in the Propel project, Long Island transmission security margins (how much stress the system can absorb before it can no longer reliably serve load) are expected to erode completely by 2031.”

It is important that regulators heed this warning and expeditiously approve Propel. I want our region to remain a place where future generations can thrive. That requires modern infrastructure, not delays that risk our future.

— Harrison Bench, Sayville

The writer is deputy executive director of Students for Climate Action.

It is no coincidence that politicians who are supporting or are noncommittal about Propel, such as Gov. Kathy Hochul and Assemb. Charles Lavine, have close ties to firms lobbying for the project [“Connected firms pushing Propel energy project,” News, Aug. 18].

Meanwhile, Rep. Tom Suozzi does not have ties to any special interest group and is advocating for school districts, villages, and the many residents who have environmental and financial questions, concerns, and objections about proceeding with the project.

Politicians who don’t stand against proceeding with Propel are demonstrating allegiance to lobbyists and donors.

— Laurel Park, Huntington Bay

As a Shoreham resident, I emphasize that the notorious Shoreham nuclear power plant never came online because public memory of Three Mile Island’s near meltdown was fresh [“Nuclear support grows,” News, Aug. 16]. Can anyone guarantee we won’t see another Chernobyl, or repeats of any lesser nuclear accidents?

The severe droughts caused by climate change are posing new hazards to nuclear power plants, drying up the rivers they rely on for water. This summer, reactors in Hungary, Romania, France, and Switzerland are having their output limited or are shut down because water levels in the rivers they depend on are too low or the temperature is too warm.

Given the inherent dangers, limitations, and expense of building nuclear power plants, it’s unbelievable to me that Kathy Hochul has committed New York to them — with costs that taxpayers and ratepayers will bear. LIPA inherited the legacy debt of the Shoreham plant, and Suffolk County residents still pay for it. New York needs a secure, safe, and affordable energy future driven by renewables — without nuclear.

— Debra Handel, Shoreham