In the Matter of Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., et al., Respondents,v.New York State Department of State et al., Appellants.BriefN.Y.October 19, 2016APL-2015-00152 Albany Co. Index No. 1535-13 Court of Appeals State of New York IN THE MATTER OF ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC., ENTERGY NUCLEAR POINT 2, LLC, AND ENTERGY NUCLEAR POINT 3, LLC, Petitioners-Respondents, -AGAINST- THE NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF STATE AND CESAR A. PERALES, SECRETARY OF THE NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Respondents-Appellants. APPENDIX Renee B. Bea (N.Y. Bar No. 4411054) Adam S. Cashman (Pro Hac Vice to be Filed) Stephanie L. Cobau (Pro Hac Vice to be Filed) SINGER / BEA LLP 601 Montgomery Street, Suite 1950 San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: (415) 500-6080 Facsimile: (415) 500-6080 rbea@singerbea.com Attorneys for the African American Environmentalist Association and National Black Chamber of Commerce Date Completed: June 8, 2016 Climate Change Sea Level Rise Extreme Weather Ecosystems & Wildlife Air Quality Ozone Depletion Human Health Agriculture Water Environment and Security Energy Domestic Action International Action How You Can Help Search Wiki Resources Publications Topics Programs About Us Home TOPICS / CORE ISSUES DOMESTIC ACTION WHILE ADMINISTRATION AND CONGRESS BALK ON KYOTO, MANY U.S. STATES MOVE FORWARD ON GREENHOUSE EMISSION EFFORTS By Sarah Ferriter, 2003 For the past few years Washington has seemed out of step with most of the rest of the world on climate change; now it appears to be lagging behind many of the U.S. states. Shortly before the December 1997 Kyoto conference the U.S. Senate unanimously passed the Byrd-Hagel resolution raising objections to the still be to negotiated Kyoto Protocol because developing countries such as India and China were assured a bye in the first round of likely binding emission limits. Soon after the inception of the Bush administration the executive branch indicated and has maintained strong opposition to the Kyoto Protocol. The Kyoto Protocol is still woefully short of the two thirds U.S. Senate support needed to ratify a treaty but interest is building in the Congress for some kind of mandatory U.S. greenhouse emission limits. The most significant of these is the proposed McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship Act of 2003 (S. 139), due to be voted on when Congress resumes this fall. Recently the two Senate co-sponsors announced with respect to the bill: Environmental protection and economic growth are not mutually exclusive. In fact, in the long run, they are mutually reinforcing. Understanding this requires that we transcend the zero-sum thinking about climate change and make the right cost comparison. The question is not whether the costs of doing business will rise if emissions caps are imposed. The real question is how much it will cost business -- and American taxpayers -- in the near future if we fail to tackle this growing threat now. (Joe Lieberman, John McCain, 8/1/03, [1], [2], [3]). The proposed legislation would institute an emissions cap-and-trade program for major power plants beginning in 2010. If enacted it would establish a price for carbon in utility transactions and move the U.S. toward emissions controls, although still short of full U.S. participation in the Kyoto Protocol. Kyoto may come into force as early as late January 2004, although without participation of the U.S. and Australia. Most of Europe did not ratify Kyoto until 2002, and as of August 2003 ratification by just one more European country - the Russian Federation- is needed for the Protocol to go into force. Even though the U.S. probably will not be a part of this international treaty any time soon, many states have put forth plans for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that resemble Kyoto both in terms of the time frame and scope of reductions. Significant investments in renewable energy, tax credits for energy efficient technologies, top-down CO2 controls and the establishment of carbon trading schemes are some of the trademarks or recent state activities that mirror the nascent Kyoto Protocol. For those who accept the threat of climate change as a reality, it is imperative that the U.S., the source of 25% of all anthropogenic GHG emissions on Earth, shows leadership by taking immediate steps to reduce emissions contributing to global warming and climate change. Since 2001 many states have stepped into the vacuum left by executive branch and Congressional inaction in Washington. Most notably 10 northeastern states have recently taken strong actions to reduce emissions in their states and hold the federal government accountable for its failure to act sensibly to curb CO2 emissions from vehicles and power plants. Two states in particular, New York and Maine, are playing key leadership roles in addressing the climate issue. A – 1 New York In April 2003 New York Governor George Pataki announced his interest in working together with 10 other states from Maine to Maryland "to develop a strategy that will help the region lead the nation in the effort to fight global climate change." Pataki's proposal entails developing a regional cap-and-trade program for carbon dioxide, which would be similar to existing national cap-and-trade programs for nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide. With enough interest the regional CO2 cap-and-trade program will become operative in 2 years. After considering Pataki's proposal for 3 months, 9 out of the 10 governors contacted voiced affirmative interest in the plan. Gov. Robert Ehrlich of Maryland was the only governor to refrain from the regional initiative. Out of the 10 collaborating governors, 6 of them are Republicans: George E. Pataki (NY); Mitt Romney (MA); John Rowland (CT); Donald L. Carcieri (RI); Craig Benson (NH); and James Douglas (VT), as well as 4 Democratic governors: John Baldacci (ME); Edward G. Rendell (PA); James E. McGreevey (NJ); and Ruth Ann Minner (DE). The bold move is meant to have an impact on policy at the state level, but it is hard to imagine that the apparent commitment and cooperation between this fair mix of Republican and Democratic governors stretching a over a large, contiguous part of the U.S. will not have some impact in Congress New York's commitment to reducing it's GHG emissions is already evidenced by the $90+ million currently being invested in clean energy projects incorporating clean coal technology, natural gas, fuel cells and renewable energy. In March 2003 the New York State Public Service Commission set the ambitious goal of making at least 25% of the electricity purchased in New York by 2013 generated from renewable energy sources. (New York State Public Service Commission) Maine Maine has long been a leader on the environment, especially when it comes to issues relating to air. The dialogue over climate change has been a subject for policy in Maine since at least 2000 when the Maine State Planning Office and the University of Maine at Orono produced the "State of Maine Climate Change Action Plan" outlining potential policy options for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Exploring these options revealed that the state could save enough money through energy conservation improvements to purchase power from renewable sources thereby slashing GHG emissions with imperceptible net cost. The balance of energy conservation and renewable outlays will allow for half of all purchased power in Maine to be generated from renewable sources. Another practical option for Maine is stimulating the market for fuel-efficient, low-emission vehicles with tax incentives. In 2001 Maine Gov. Angus King signed an agreement between eastern Canadian premiers and other northeastern states to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2010; to 10% below 1990 levels by 2020; and in the long-term make 75-85% reductions below 2001 emission levels. In early June of this year Maine, Connecticut and Massachusetts filed suit against the EPA for its failure to regulate CO2 emissions. The attorneys general from the three states claim that CO2 poses a real enough threat to the environment and public health that it stipulates being controlled under the Clean Air Act (CAA), and the EPA is negligent for failing to enforce the law properly. If the states' suit is successful it will result in a reinterpretation of the CAA that requires the federal government to set mandatory controls on CO2 emissions. Current federal policy on curbing CO2 emissions is based solely on voluntary reductions from industry, despite President Bush's 2000 campaign pledge to control CO2 emissions from power plants. Also this summer, Maine became the first U.S. state to pass a law that will reduce GHG emissions in order to help avert catastrophic climate change. The law is called "An Act To Provide Leadership in Addressing the Threat of Climate Change" and calls for Maine to create a "climate change action plan" by July 2004 to reduce in-state carbon dioxide emissions to 1990 levels by 2010, to 10% below 1990 levels by 2020, and eventually by as much as 80 percent. Maine's 2001 agreement with eastern Canadian premiers and the work on previous climate action plans means that Maine is already well on the road to realizing these reductions. What's to come New York and Maine are not alone in their efforts to cut CO2 emissions, but these two states have stimulated a dialogue that reverberates across state and even national boundaries. From Alaska to Texas and downeast to Maine, many Americans are realizing that the costs of climate change may significantly exceed any costs that will be incurred by taking steps to reduce emissions now. In fact, if acted upon now, the climate question provides an opportunity to capitalize on the carbon market by conserving energy, expanding renewable energy, and capping and trading CO2. Parties to the Kyoto Protocol may not reap any direct A – 2 financial benefits from steps being taken in states such as New York and Maine to reduce GHG emissions, but at least they can be assured that their commitment doesn't come in vain as the shift toward responsible climate stewardship is coming from the ground up in the U.S. Because the U.S. is contributing so disproportionately to global warming, the solution ultimately depends upon leadership in the U.S. While Maine and New York are certainly not the only states exemplifying such leadership, they are energizing the issue and mobilizing others to do the same. Links Links to 11 Northeastern States from Maine to Maryland Connecticut , Governor John G. Rowland Delaware , Governor Ruth Ann Minner Maine , Governor John E. Baldacci Maine State Planning Office Maine Department of Environmental Protection Office of the Maine Attorney General, Steven Rowe LD 845 (HP 622) An Act to Provide Leadership in Addressing the Threat of Climate Change, Maine State Legislature signed into law 5/13/03 Maryland , Governor Robert L Ehrlich, Jr. Massachusetts , Governor Mitt Romney New Hampshire , Governor Craig Benson New Jersey , Governor James E. McGreevey New York , Governor George E. Pataki Office of New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer The New York Greenhouse Gas Task Force New York State Department of Environmental Conservation New York State Public Service Commission New York State Energy Research and Development Authority Pennsylvania , Governor Edward G. Rendell Rhode Island , Governor Donald L. Carcieri Vermont , Governor James Douglas See Resources & Links for state and local actions Join the Climate Institute e-news mailing list: Subscribe © 2007 - 2010 Climate Institute All Rights Reserved 1400 16th St. NW, Suite 430, Washington, DC 20036 Phone: +1-202-552-0163 info@climate.org A – 3 Retail Renewable Portfolio Standard Case 03E0188 About the Initiative Public Service Commission Documents Related Documents & Resources Working Group Documents About the Initiative The 2002 State Energy Plan required that the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) examine and report on the feasibility of establishing a Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS). NYSERDA's preliminary report found that an RPS can be implemented in a manner that is consistent with the wholesale and retail marketplace in New York and that an RPS has the potential to improve energy security and help diversify the state's electricity generation mix. The report also stated the expectation that an RPS would spur increased economic development opportunities in the renewables industry, including the attraction of renewable technology manufacturers and installers. Accordingly, on February 19, 2003, the Public Service Commission (Commission) instituted a proceeding to develop and implement a RPS for electric energy retailed in New York State to address increasing concerns with the climate effects of, and overdependence on, fossilfired generation. On September 24, 2004, after a year and a half of public hearings and participation by over 150 parties, the Commission issued its "Order Approving Renewable Portfolio Standard Policy." That Order identified the Commission's renewable energy policy and provided definitions and targets for carrying out the policy. The policy calls for an increase in renewable energy used in the State from the then current level of about 19% to 25% by the year 2013. Two approaches were identified to achieve that goal: a central procurement approach that would provide for increases to about 24% and a voluntary green market approach that would provide at least the other 1%. The central procurement approach provides for the regulated investorowned utilities to collect a surcharge on most delivery customer bills and transfer those funds to the NYSERDA who administers the RPS program for the Commission. NYSERDA enters into 03E0188: Renewable Portfolio Standard Home Page A – 4 contracts to provide incentives, based on actual production, to renewable energy producers who either sell and deliver their energy into the New York wholesale market or will provide funding for customers to install such facilities "behind the meter". In return for these incentives, the energy producers agree not to sell the environmental attributes of their renewable energy to any other entity during the terms of their agreements. Unlike most other jurisdictions, there is no requirement on utilities to purchase renewable energy as part of their energy portfolios, but the affect of the incentives will be that more renewable energy will be sold by producers into the New York Independent System Operator (NYISO) sponsored wholesale market and there will be further encouragement for the installation of renewable resources by customers on their sides of the meters. These actions will, in turn, affect the percentage of renewable energy used in the State. As part of the September 24, 2004 Order, the Commission directed that an Implementation Plan be developed and approved to guide the program through 2013. Shortly after the Order was issued and prior to development of the Implementation Plan, however, Congress authorized an extension until December 31, 2005 of the Production Tax Credit (PTC) allowable for certain renewable facilities. To take advantage of the credit, the Commission quickly authorized, on December 16, 2004, a "Fast Track" procurement under the RPS to facilitate development of renewable resources that might be able to meet the December 31, 2005 deadline. As a result of that solicitation, 22 proposals were submitted by the January 18, 2005 deadline, and awards were given to seven projects. Those seven projects were to begin in 2006 to produce 821,000 MWH per year of renewable energy, which filled the majority of the Commission's first year goal for meeting the 25% target by 2013. A subsequent solicitation took place in 2006 and others will occur from timetotime until the full goal is met. Subsequent to the completion of the "Fast Track" solicitation, the Implementation Plan was developed and approved by the Commission by Order issued April 14, 2005 (see Appendix A of the Order) The Implementation Plan identifies the procedures for determining eligibility, establishing future procurements, and monitoring the program. It also identifies other actions that were needed for the program to go forward. Interested party workshops were then held during the summer of 2005 to address several outstanding issues, and notices under the State Administrative Procedures Act (SAPA) were issued. Comments from interested parties were received and considered by the Commission as part of its review of plans for the next RPS solicitation. By Order issued October 31, 2005 the Commission modified its prior orders with respect to issues associated with "maintenance resources", i.e., existing facilities included in the baseline that are in danger of ceasing operations because of financial difficulties. The Commission clarified that projected costs for the facility should be based on a "to go" form of analysis that considers going forward operating costs and new capital expenditures and does not consider sunk costs. The Commission also clarified that its Order in each proceeding would specify the specific relief to be given based on casespecific circumstances. Existing projects found eligible would no longer automatically be allowed to participate in future solicitations. Maintenance resource requests submitted prior to the date of this Order are exempt from these modifications. A – 5 By Order issued November 2, 2005, the Commission acted on a petition filed by The Farm Bureau of New York. The Commission agreed to allow anaerobic digestion generator systems to be added to the list of eligible CustomerSited Tier (CST) technologies. This action will provide opportunities for small farms to participate in the program, receive economic benefits, and handle their farm wastes in more environmentally effective ways. Subsequently, the Commission clarified that similar anaerobic digestion systems employed at nonfarm locations will also be eligible. By Order issued January 26, 2006, the Commission authorized NYSERDA to conduct additional solicitations of Main Tier resources in 2006 and 2007. The Commission also directed several changes to the RPS Program and made several findings that would lead to additional modifications after subsequent reports were prepared by Staff. Three notices requesting comments on the proposed modifications were published in the New York State Register pursuant to the SAPA. Comments in response to the notices were to be sent to the Secretary of the Commission in accordance with the instructions in the notices. The SAPA notices (03E0188SA14, 03E0188SA15, and 94E0952SA38) and the Express Terms associated with them are linked below. By Order issued June 28, 2006, the Commission acted on the proposals identified in the three notices. In particular, in the first Order, it authorized a plan for solicitation of CustomerSited Tier resources and made several modifications to the program. In a second order, it recognized environmental attributes and authorized, in Main Tier solicitations, participation of projects with physical bilateral contracts. In the third Order, it modified the delivery requirement for imports from intermittent generators (i.e., required hourly matching of generation and delivery to New York in lieu of the previouslyallowed monthly matching requirement). By Order issued January 26, 2006, the Commission directed use of a declining clock auction format for the next Main Tier solicitation, but it indicated that Staff should report back if it ultimately appeared that the market was not yet ripe for use of such an approach or if the mechanics of the model could not be developed in time for the solicitation. On July 21, 2006, Staff notified the Commission that the model was not ready for use. Thereafter, SAPA notice 03E0188AS16 was issued to allow parties to comment on the mechanism that should now be used for the solicitation. On September 1, 2006, the Commission extended the deadline for comments and also invited comments concerning the criteria that should be used for evaluations of bids that would be submitted. These issues were subsequently decided by the Commission at its October session and put forth in an Order issued October 19, 2006. NYSERDA thereafter prepared a request for proposals (RFP No. 1037) for procurement of environmental attributes created by eligible Main Tier generation resources. The RFP was issued on November 14, 2006. On February 12, 2007, NYSERDA released its Operating Plan for the CST portion of the RFP program. This plan provides an overview of the various mechanisms that NYSERDA A – 6 will use to support development of renewable resources by customers behind their meters. On August 9, 2007, the Staff reported on the status of the RPS program following two solicitations for renewable generation, which resulted in contracts for approximately 3 million megawatt hours (MWh) of renewable energy from 26 projects, totaling more than 800 MW. This report also addressed RPS program costs. By Order issued October 28, 2008, the Commission changed the RPS program by reallocating and increasing funding for specific programs of the CustomerSited Tier in response to changing market needs for specific eligible renewable energy technologies. The increased funding came from a cash flow balance of approximately $47 million which was available within the existing RPS program. Funding was allocated as $20.6 million for the solar photovoltaic category, $7.6 million for the anaerobic digester biogas systems category, $15.1 million for discretionary use, and $4.7 million for evaluation, measurement, and verification. On January 14, 2009, Staff issued its Status Report on expenditures and renewable resource acquisitions for the period ending December 31, 2008 under the CustomerSited Tier. Staff reported that there appeared to be sufficient funds to continue support for all four technologies through at least April 2009. On March 31, 2009, NYSERDA submitted its New York Renewable Portfolio Standard Program Evaluation Report (2009 Review), as mandated by the Commission’s April 14, 2005 Order in Case 03E0188. The NYSERDA Evaluation Report included a Summit Blue Market Conditions Assessment Report and a KEMA New York Main Tier RPS Impact & Process Evaluation Report. By Order Issued June 22, 2009, The Commission adopted changes to the RPS by reallocating and increasing funding for the solar photovoltaic program of the Customer Sited Tier by $15 million in response to continued increasing market demand and made a corresponding $600,000 reallocation for increased evaluation. The increased funding comes from approximately $110 million of unencumbered funds in the RPS program, primarily from projects that were chosen in previous renewable energy procurement solicitations, but never materialized. Staff issued its Mid Course Report on the RPS on September 2009. This report provided a review of the current status of the program, including a review of the NYSERDA Evaluation Report, and presented the Staff’s proposals for the RPS program going forward. On January 8, 2010, The Commission issued its Order establishing new RPS goal and resolving Main Tier Issues. The order establishes a new RPS goal and MWh target and resolves several issues related to the RPS program, with a primary focus on the Main Tier. It adopts a goal of 30% renewable energy by the year 2015. It also authorizes an additional Main Tier solicitation of $200 million, consistent with the results of a recent A – 7 solicitation and the MWh trajectory needed to meet the revised goal. The Commission also requested that Staff consult with interested parties to develop plans to address the use of Contracts for Differences and a perceived disparity between the provision of RPS funds and RPS project locations. On January 14, 2010, Staff held a technical conference on using Contracts for Differences in bidding for the Main Tier solicitations. On January 15, 2010, Staff held an additional technical conference concerning Geographic Balancing within the RPS program. Staff provided straw proposals for discussion. On April 2, 2010, the Commission issued two Orders, one resolving certain Main Tier issues from its January 8, 2010 Order and the other addressing CST issues, including a new Geographic Balancing program within the CST, as well as setting the budgets and collections for the RPS program through 2024. On June 30, 2010, NYSERDA issued its Operating Plan for the CST going forward as required by the Commission in its April 2, 2010 CST Order. On December 3, 2010, a Commission Order authorized an additional Main Tier solicitation and provided guidance in issuing future Main Tier solicitations. NYSERDA was authorized to conduct future Main Tier solicitations, without Commission approval, for RPS Main Tier resources, after consultation with Staff and approval by the OEEE Director prior to each solicitation. Contract awards shall be for a tenyear term. The contracts with fuelbased renewable energy generators will have an escape clause actionable every two and one half years so that the generator may drop out of the program if it is unable to secure a continuous fuel supply at a price that supports its contract with NYSERDA. The selection of winning bids will continue to be based on a weighted combined score with price comprising 70% and economic benefits at 30%. As before, only renewable generation facilities that commence commercial operation on or after January 1, 2003 will be eligible to bid. On November 22, 2010, the Commission approved the use of biomass material sorted at Material Reclamation Facilities (MRFs) for use as a biomass fuel for RPS eligible generation in response to a petition. On November 24, 2010, a Commission Order addressed a petition to allow "behind the meter" contracts and wholesale delivery to utility/municipal utility/public authority entities to bid in Main Tier procurements. On August 19, 2011, in its Order, the Commission responded to a petition by declining to add regenerative drive generation to the RPS list of eligible technologies. On September 19, 2011, the Commission issued an Order addressing a petition from NYSERDA on several topics, including the reallocation of unencumbered funds from the previous calendar year. On April 20, 2012, the Commission authorized the reallocation of unused RPS funds from A – 8 2011 into the 2012 program budgets, and also resolved additional issues raised by NYSERDA's petition. On April 24, 2012, the Commission expanded the solar photovoltaic and Geographic Balance programs within the CST to reflect the goals of the new NY Sun initiative. On August 16, 2012, the Commission denied the petition of Niagara Generation, LLC for contract modification, and eligibility of wood products containing up to ten percent glued wood for direct incineration, within the RPS Program. By Order issued January 23, 2013, the Commission authorized NYSERDA to increase its maximum incentive available under the Anaerobic Digester GastoElectricity program in the CST of the RPS from $1 million up to $2 million per installation. By Order issued February 14, 2013, the Commission authorized NYSERDA to increase its maximum incentive available under the OnSite Wind program in the CST of the RPS from $400,000 up to $1 million per installation. By Order issued May 22, 2013, the Commission authorized NYSERDA to reallocate $29,032,535 in unencumbered RPS CST 2012 Program funds to 2013 budgets for the Solar Photovoltaic, Anaerobic Digester Gas to Electricity, Fuel Cell, and OnSite Wind programs. By Order issued May 22, 2013, the Commission authorized NYSERDA to limit Main Tier bids and Main Tier contracts to bidders proposing to meet their RPS obligations with renewable resource energy generated inside the State, or through an offshore generating facility directly interconnected to New York’s electrical grid. By Order issued June 13, 2013, the Commission authorized the NYSERDA to reallocate $32 million in RPS CST solar photovoltaic competitive program funds, to better meet current market conditions. By Order issued July 22, 2013, the Commission authorized NYSERDA to modify the RPS CST solar photovoltaic programs to help meet the goals of the NYSun initiative. An additional tier of standard offer incentives was adopted for larger commercial solar photovoltaic systems, and the eligible size for residential installations was increased. On October 15, 2013, The New York State Department of Public Service staff held a technical conference at Three Empire State Plaza, in Albany, New York, on the RPS, the Energy Efficiency Portfolio Standard (EEPS), the New York Green Bank (NYGB), and in the matter of the System Benefits Charge III. By Order issued December 19, 2013, the Commission authorized the NYSERDA to: Reallocate unencumbered Main Tier funds to the solar photovoltaic programs under the CST of the RPS program and make program revisions in response to changing A – 9 markets; Redesign and transition the solar PV programs to a megawatt block structure (MW Block); and Work with the Long Island Power Authority (LIPA and the New York Power Authority (NYPA) to identify the potential merits of a Statewide approach to the solar programs. By Order issued December 23, 2013, the Commission reaffirmed the May 22, 2013 Order (Modifying RPS Program Eligibility Requirements), in which, the Commission authorized NYSERDA to limit RPS Main Tier bids and Main Tier contracts to bidders proposing to meet their RPS obligations with renewable resource energy generated within the State, or through offshore generating facilities directly interconnected to New York’s electrical grid. On June 21, 2013, HQ Energy Services (U.S.) Inc., requested rehearing of the May 22, 2013 Order. The Commission granted HQ’s Petition for rehearing, in part, and otherwise denied HQ’s Petition for rehearing and affirmed the determination of the May 22, 2013 Order. By Order issued April 24, 2014, the Commission authorized NYSERDA to allocate up to $960,556,000 for the continuation of the solar PV programs, currently under the CST of the RPS program, during the term 2016 through 2023. Also, the Commission approved the design criteria advanced by NYSERDA for the Megawatt Block approach to administering the solar PV programs, and authorized NYSERDA to develop and submit an Operating Plan to the Department, prior to program implementation. Further, NYSERDA is authorized to use 1.5% of the funds ($13 million) for projects to help advance participation by low to moderate income customers in these programs. Finally, NYSERDA is required to provide net metering study to the Department. On April 24, 2014, the Environmental Assessment Form was filed, for Modifications to the RPS Program to fund and implement the solar PV Megawatt Block programs. The report is dated April 9, 2014. By Order issued May 8, 2014, the Commission instituted a proceeding to consider the development of a comprehensive New York State Clean Energy Fund. Also, the Commission authorized NYSERDA to develop and submit a comprehensive Clean Energy Fund proposal for Commission consideration and directed NYSERDA to file a stakeholder outreach plan and schedule for the development of the comprehensive Clean Energy. By Order issued July 2, 2014, the Commission authorized NYSERDA to increase the maximum length of RPS Main Tier contracts to a term not to exceed 20 years, and directed NYSERDA to issue one solicitation as soon as practicable in 2014 and no less than one solicitation in 2015. By Order issued July 2, 2014, the Commission authorized NYSERDA to reallocate unencumbered RPS CST 2013 program funds to 2014 budgets, and to create CST General Funding Pool. For program year 2015, NYSERDA is authorized to allocate unencumbered 2014 CST budget funds to the CST General Funding Pool, with A – 10 NYSERDA to file a compliance report in lieu of a petition. By Order issued August 20, 2014, the Commission authorized NYSERDA to enter into a threeyear maintenance resource contract with Battenkill Hydro Associates, at an incentive rate of $2.80 per MWh delivered for renewable energy attributes for generating electricity at its hydroelectric facilities located in Greenwich, New York. By Order issued August 20, 2014, the Commission granted clarification requested by PosiGen regarding the April 24, 2014 Order, pertaining to the Megawatt Block approach to administering the solar PV programs, for use in achieving greater participation by low to moderate income customers. This Operating Plan Addendum (2014 – 2023) provides description, budget and performance expectations for the Megawatt Block Program, which is part of the incentive component of NYSun and represents a transition of the Solar Photovoltaic (PV) Program currently administered by NYSERDA under the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) Customer Sited Tier (CST). Also, included in this Operating Plan is information on addressing the needs of lowtomoderate income customers and the consumer education initiative authorized in the April 2014 Order. September 23, 2014 Pursuant to the Clean Energy Fund Order issued on May 8, 2014 by the Commission, NYSERDA filed the Clean Energy Fund Proposal on September 23, 2014. October 24, 2014 The Commission has completed and accepted a Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement in connection with proposed actions by the Commission regarding Reforming the Energy Vision and establishing a Clean Energy Fund. By Order issued November 19, 2014, the Commission authorized NYSERDA to enter into a threeyear Maintenance Tier contract with ReEnergy Lyonsdale. The contract shall commence on January 1, 2015 and expire December 31, 2017. By Order issued January 13, 2015, the Commission denied the Petition proposed by Global Structured Finance Advisors and GP Renewables and Trading LLC, because the Optin mechanism is inequitable to customers of investorowned utilities. By Order issued May 20, 2015, the Commission denied the request by Sterling Energy Group, and Niagara Generation for restructuring an RPS Main Tier contract. By Order issued July 22, 2015, the Commission approved for funding of ReEnergy Chateaugay as Maintenance Resource contract. By Order issued December 11, 2015, the Commission extended the Clean Energy Programs. RPS PROGRAM EXPIRED ON December 31, 2015. The Commission is seeking A – 11 comments for the Clean Energy Standard White Paper and the Clean Energy Standard Cost Study, under Case No. 15E0302. By Order issued January 21, 2016, the Commission authorized the Clean Energy Fund framework. January 24, 2016, the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement was filed, for expanding the scope of its ongoing review of the options for large scale renewable energy development to include consideration of Clean Energy Standard. January 25, 2016, Clean Energy Standard White Paper. The Commission is seeking Comments. Comments should be filed in DMM Case No. 15E0302. March 31, 2016, the Final Report of the NYSun Annual Performance Report through December 31, 2015. March 31, 2016, the Final Report of the New York State Renewable Portfolio Standard Annual Performance Report through December 31, 2015. April 8, 2016, Clean Energy Standard White Paper – Cost Study. The Commission is seeking Comments. Comments should be filed in DMM Case No. 15E0302. A – 12 Governor Cuomo Launches $5 Billion Clean Energy Fund to Grow New York’s Clean Energy Economy Share Clean Energy Fund will advance solar, wind, energy efficiency and other clean tech industries to spur economic development and reduce harmful emissions Today's unprecedented action will result in lower energy costs for consumers and business beginning this year Work also begins to establish the Clean Energy Standard to meet the Governor's aggressive 50 percent renewables by 2030 mandate Governor Andrew M. Cuomo today announced the New York State Public Service Commission's approval of a 10 year, $5 billion Clean Energy Fund to accelerate the growth of New York's clean energy economy, address climate change, strengthen resiliency in the face of extreme weather and lower energy bills for New Yorkers starting this year. Additionally, the fund will attract and leverage thirdparty capital to support the Governor's aggressive Clean Energy Standard, one of the nation's most ambitious goals to meet 50 percent of our electricity needs with renewable resources by 2030. "New York is a national leader in combating climate change and growing the clean energy economy – and today we are taking the next big step forward," Governor Cuomo said. "This unparalleled $5 billion investment will leverage more than $29 billion in private sector funding and open the door to new clean energy opportunities for years to come. We are raising the bar when it comes to increasing the use of renewable energy and reducing harmful carbon emissions, and I am proud that the Empire State is continuing to set the example for the future." The $5 billion Clean Energy Fund, to be administered by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, builds on the progress the state is already making in developing a robust clean tech sector. The fund is projected to result in more than $39 billion in customer bill savings over the next 10 years through innovative projects and privatepublic partnerships focused on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, making energy more affordable through energy efficiency and renewable energy, and mobilizing privatesector capital. In addition to the $39 billion in overall customer savings, as a result of this Public Service Commission action, consumers and businesses are expected to see lower costs of $1.5 billion over the next 10 years, including an immediate reduction of $91 million from 2016 electric and gas costs compared to 2015. Consumers and businesses can expect to see lower utility costs this year. The fund will operate four major portfolios: Market Development ($2.7 billion): NYSERDA will undertake a variety of activities to stimulate consumer A – 13 demand for clean energy alternatives, energy efficiency while helping to build clean energy supply chains to meet that growing customer demand. At least $234.5 million must be invested in initiatives that benefit lowtomoderate income New Yorkers during the first three years of the fund; NYSun ($961 million): The fund finalizes the funding and confirms the longterm commitment for NYSun and for the growing solar electric market and industry in New York State, by supporting rapid and continued cost reduction. This will continue to make solar energy more affordable and accessible for residential and commercial solar customers, and will drive the growth of the solar industry in New York, which currently employs more than 7,000 people across 538 solar companies in the state; NY Green Bank ($782 million): To leverage private sector investment, expand the availability of capital and increase confidence in lending for clean energy projects, the fund will complete the capitalization of the innovative NY Green Bank. The fund will increase NY Green Bank's total investment to $1 billion and will leverage an estimated $8 billion in private investment; Innovation and Research ($717 million): As New York State moves to a cleaner, more efficient, and more widely distributed energy system, the Clean Energy Fund will help spur innovations through research and technology development that will drive cleantech business growth and job creation while providing more energy choices to residential and business customers. New York State Chairman of Energy and Finance Richard Kauffman said, "The Clean Energy Fund will achieve greater customer savings and stimulate more demand for and private investment in renewable energy and energy efficiency projects, furthering the Governor's Reforming the Energy Vision strategy. By acting today and not tomorrow, we ensure our grid will be modernized and strengthened as we also lower New Yorker's electricity rates by implementing the most costeffective solutions to meet our challenges." At last week's State of the State address, Governor Cuomo officially proposed the creation of a Clean Energy Standard and directed the Public Service Commission to establish enforceable mandates for renewable power by June. The Commission today approved a public process to adopt a Clean Energy Standard that will also include a separate support mechanism for upstate nuclear power plants. Since nuclear facilities do not produce greenhouse gas emissions, they will help the State transition to a future under the Clean Energy Standard without losing ground on emission reductions statewide. The Commission also took other groundbreaking steps today to advance Governor Cuomo's Reforming the Energy Vision Strategy, or REV, by directing major electric and gas utilities to develop new, cuttingedge energy efficiency programs, on both a regional and statewide basis. It also established a benefitcost analysis framework for evaluating new energy proposals, such as smaller, cleaner power plants, to determine whether they meet the energy and cost saving goals of REV. The Clean Energy Fund supports the environmental goals of both REV and the Clean Energy Standard by reducing an estimated 133 million tons of carbon emissions (the equivalent of removing 1.8 million cars from the road). Energy efficiency and other priority initiatives of the fund are also expected to save 10.6 million MWh of electricity and 13.4 A – 14 million MMBtu of fuel consumption overall. New York State Public Service Commission Chair Audrey Zibelman said, "Under the Clean Energy Fund, every dollar of clean energy spending will achieve greater savings and enhance private investment, spurring innovation and new technologies that will bring more choices and value to New York consumers. We will build on the success of previous energydevelopment programs in a way that meets evolving customer and market needs and transition away from approaches that rely almost exclusively on ratepayer subsidies, which is unsustainable if we are to meet our ambitious goals in the longrun." NYSERDA President and CEO John B. Rhodes said, "The Clean Energy Fund allows the State to make faster and greater progress towards Governor Cuomo’s State Energy Plan and Clean Energy Standard goals, while reducing ratepayer collections. It also creates the demand for clean energy and the certainty we need to accelerate the growth of a dynamic clean tech economy that stimulates private investment and job creation." New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Acting Commissioner Basil Seggos said, "Through Governor Cuomo's leadership, New York State is a national model in investing in renewable energy and addressing climate change. The Clean Energy Fund will allow New York to build a clean tech industry while furthering its efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and provide utility savings for New Yorkers." In today's Clean Energy Fund order, the Commission also allocated $150 million for the development of new Large Scale Renewables power projects in 2016. As the Commission develops a Clean Energy Standard, it will create new incentives for large scale renewables and a new mechanism to prevent the premature retirement of safe, upstate nuclear power plants during this transition. In addition, the Commission ruled that the Clean Energy Standard should include nonemitting generation resources, like the nuclear power facilities in upstate New York. Without these plants, the state would lose some of the emission reductions already achieved by the state and possibly lead to an increase of more than 12 million metric tons of carbon dioxide. To complement further programs supported by the Clean Energy Fund, the Commission is directing that each investorowned utility seek to improve their own energyefficiency programs to better engage customers and meet the overall goals of the Clean Energy Standard and the State Energy Plan. Energyefficiency programs offered by major utilities are poised to offer greater value and new, costsaving services to consumers under streamlined rules approved today. Along with NYSERDA's 10year, $5 billion Clean Energy Fund, utilities will now develop energyefficiency programs that will achieve greater marketwide efficiency savings, target specific needs in the state and depend less on direct ratepayer support. NYSERDA will continue to offer energyefficiency programs designed for lowincome customers. However, the utilities and NYSERDA are directed to actively evaluate and develop innovative programs that reach deeper into low income communities. A – 15 MORE ON POLITICO Skelos sentenced to five years, as son receives six-and-a-half As Skelos is sentenced, Bharara NRG explores a new option for keeping a coal plant open ALBANY — A struggling coal-burning power plant outside Buffalo is looking into how much it would cost for ratepayers to subsidize it for another few years of operation. NRG Energy Inc. recently filed a request with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to establish a cost for a four-year bailout of the Huntley power plant outside Buffalo. Under the request submitted to federal regulators, ratepayers would subsidize the plant for about $260 million in that period. Any deal to save the plant must be approved by state regulators. Huntley is not the only plant potentially nearing its end. On the same August day that NRG announced the Huntley retirement, the company also announced that it would mothball its Dunkirk facility. The combined plant retirements would take a capacity of up to 900 megawatts offline at the same time. NRG cited competition from cheap natural gas as a primary reason for the closures. Tough new federal air pollution rules for power plants are also expected to pressure coal-burning plants to close. However, power plants facing closure qualify for a last-ditch economic lifeline, called a reliability support service agreement. Under an RSSA, ratepayers subsidize a struggling power plant — if it is determined that it is needed to maintain reliability on the electrical grid — until replacement power sources can be put in place. Typically, such agreements last years. The FERC filing comes just days before National Grid and the state’s independent grid operator, the New York State Independent System Operator, are expected to release a study that will determine whether or not the Huntley plant State effort to trim fat at CUNY expands to SUNY, but plan remains murky State removes bars for hepatitis C patients needing expensive cures Cuomo’s pipeline decision may have ripple effects for energy policy Regulator says faulty bolts at Indian Point most ever seen Uber plans post-budget push upstate MOST POPULAR Huntley Coal Plant. (WGRZ) By SCOTT WALDMAN 5:20 a.m. | Oct. 28, 2015 SECTIONS PRO POLITICO New York A – 16 brings up Moreland shutdown POLITICO New York Education: Federal, state probes hit education leaders is needed. If that study finds the plant is temporarily needed, National Grid and NRG must enter into an agreement to keep the plant running. A spokesman for National Grid, which earns money from transmission line development, has already said the plant may be able to be replaced by transmission lines. NRG’s filing ahead of the study suggests that the company, even as it publicly announced the plant’s shuttering, was working to squeeze a few more years of operation out of it, said Lisa Dix, spokeswoman for the Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal campaign. By taking a lot of power offline at once, she said, the company increased the chance it would receive a RSSA to keep Huntley alive for a few more years. “The market signal that the state is sending is that they will bail out coal plants, so why wouldn’t owners set themselves up to take advantage of that,” Dix said. Dix said Cuomo should work to take all of the state’s coal plants offline, instead of offering them bailouts to continue operating. It will be nearly impossible for the state to reach its goal of reducing emissions 40 percent by 2030 if there are still coal-burning power plants operating, she said. Environmentalists consider Huntley to be one of the dirtiest plants in the state. Earlier this month, at a climate change event at Columbia University, Cuomo highlighted New York’s record on closing coal plants. “We know what needs to be done, we just need the political will to do it,” Cuomo said. “In New York, thanks to the action of the New York State Legislature, we are well underway. We established the state’s fist carbon dioxide emissions standard when siting new power plants which will ensure that no new dirty, coal-burning plants will be built in the State of New York, period,” he said. “We are also repowering and converting or closing the existing coal plants.” A NRG spokesman said the FERC filing was not for a bailout, but rather just an attempt to establish a cost to operate Huntley in case the plant is needed to maintain the reliability of the state electrical grid. “If it is determined by NYISO and National Grid that Huntley is needed for reliability, the plant may be able to reach an agreement with those parties before March 1, 2016,” NRG spokesman David Gaier said in a statement. “However, we’ve made this filing so that a rate to operate the plant could still go into effect even if negotiations among the parties do not result in a contract.” There is already recent precedent for keeping uneconomical plants from shuttering. Ratepayers in Western New York will pay almost $200 million to keep the Ginna nuclear facility online as the region’s utility works on replacement plants. The Cayuga coal-burning power plant outside of Ithaca is operating under a reliability plan until next year and is being subsidized by ratepayers by about $200 million as well. The Dunkirk and Huntley plants contribute more than $14 million in tax revenue to local municipalities, including school districts. About 150 employees will lose their jobs if both plants are closed. A – 17 A – 18 ! " # ! $ " % ! & " ' ( ) * + * ! & % " , - . / , % 0 # 1 2 3 4 5 6 4 7 8 9 : ; 4 ; < = : > 7 4 ? 5 @ > 4 A 5 7 B < C = 4 ? @ : ? B 4 7 4 B A 8 C D D : 7 E F E 4 ; F C ? 4 G 4 ? F C > C H I J K L M N O P N J K M Q J R S L M N N T K J R J O U P V K W J K W J X O K M T UL M N N T K J R J O U YZ 2 3 4 [ ? C \ E D E F 9 5 7 5 > 9 ; E ; H 5 ; 8 C 7 B : 8 F 4 B : ; E 7 6 F 3 4 ] ^ _ ` ; 4 7 = E ? C 7 D 4 7 F 5 > a : ; F E 8 4 D 5 [ [ E 7 6 V K W U L Q O O K J K X R M M b P c d e f g c c h Y i A – 19 ! " # $ % & ' ( ) * +& , % * " - , # # )& - # . * - - / 0 1 . " , 2 . 3 4 5 6 3 7 8 ( 9 : 4 5 ; $ 3 3' - # ( $ 3 3< , - = $ 3 3 - ! )0 & $ 3 3$ " 0 & > > , ? % ) * . & . , $ * ? % ) ( ? % ) ' @ ? % ) A ' - , / ? % )B C D E F G H H IJ K L M N O J P Q R L J M K O S H I T U U V W X W U X F X W W X E X W B X U Y U V U W H I I Y V B I Y F E I Y H T I Y I V I Y W ZC [ \ [ ] ^ _ K S R ^ R O _ N O `a b c d e af g h i j k l m n o k l p j qr j n j q g o m l n s t s a d u u v w u v s v d b v a v d a v d d x d y z d z t t x a s t x w b t x z d t x t a t x a w{ | } | ~ € g o j j n € m n hu y c e s w j ‚ o ƒ j o „ l q €f n j q h … † o g o m l n s a e a w u s v u w v d v d t v a v d s v d t x z y e z y t x y t t x w s d x t t t x t s t x z e{ | } | ~ € g o j j n € m n hB W G W H W‡ R R ^ Q K S R L B Z F V Z E X B F X W X W F X E X W H X W I Y W V U W I I I Y E Z I Y B W I Y F T I Y B U I Y F HC [ \ [ ] ^ _ K S R ^ R O _ N O `d y c b y uˆ ‰ f n h i g n € u w b z d a v u w v u v b v s v u d v z x b s t d d t t x u z t x t s t x t u t x t d t x d a{ | } | ~ € g o j j n € m n hW V G V F ZŠ P ` K O ‹ R O R L K S N O `Œ P ^ K O Ž Š J W I I V Z Z Z X Z U X W X W H X T X W I X W I Y H V U B I I I Y E U I Y E T B Y V I I Y W Z W Y V IC [ \ [ ] ^ _ K S R ^ R O _ N O `d y c w e d g ‘ ’ j q ‚ l h j n j q g o m l n ‰ k d t s a a w y v w s v u v d e v b v d s v d t x u y e w e t x s e t x d w t x s b t x w s d x z t{ | } | ~ € g o j j n € m n hb c y s zk j € q m “ ” o l p n l h j n j q g o m l n l ‘ g n … ‰ k d t t e e w y v w t v u v d w v a v d d v d t x y y e d u t t x y s t x u y t x a s t x u d t x y t{ | } | ~ € g o j j n € m n hs c w s sr m i ’ j q o u w e w b v d a v d v a v s v d e v d t x u y a d w t x y s t x u e t x t a t x t y t x u w{ | } | ~ € g o j j n € m n hC • W G W F T G Z H V– K — R O ˜ Q P P _ B H I I V Z X B F X W I X W W X H X W V X W W Y T V Z Z T I I Y E B I Y B I I Y W I I Y I E W Y T IC [ \ [ ] ^ _ K S R ^ R O _ N O `d c d t e c u t aˆ q l l ” i … n { g ™ …š g q € l h j n j q g o m l n s y e d y s a v w z v d d v d z v a v d t v d d x a y y w s t t x b d t x w y t x d s t x t a t x e w{ | } | ~ € g o j j n € m n hW G I H I G V Z U› K ˜ S – N — R L B V U Z V V X Z B X W I X W Z X H X W B X W W Y T V V V H I I Y E W I Y B V I Y W B I Y I T W Y H IC [ \ [ ] ^ _ K S R ^ R O _ N O `d c t u w c w e y| ‚ o l q m gr j n j q g o m n h † o g o m l n z e t a a z v y w v d s v u d v a v d u v d d x b y w u a t t x a d t x d a t x t z t x t s d x u t{ | } | ~ € g o j j n € m n he s e c u u as t t œ s a d e a b u v y s v d a v u w v a v d u v d d x a y w u b t t x a d t x d s t x t z t x t s d x u t{ | } | ~ € g o j j n € m n hF T W G E F E[ ˜ S P L N K › O R L ` Ž H T E E V T H X V E X B B X B E X E X W W X W W Y E V V B U I I Y E Z I Y W V I Y I U I Y I V W Y W IC [ \ [ ] ^ _ K S R ^ R O _ N O `z a z c t e e| ‚ o l q m g f n j q h … s s w b s b a v y a v u u v u b v a v d d v d d x a y y u z t t x a w t x d y t x t e t x t y d x t t{ | } | ~ € g o j j n € m n hB I I G F T HC K ˜ ˜ K ] › O R L ` ŽŒ P L ^ H B I H E H F X B H X W I X W F X E X W Z X U Y H V U B B I I Y T W I Y V V I Y I Z I Y I B I Y I UC [ \ [ ] ^ _ K S R ^ R O _ N O `d z w c u z wž j n n j € …Ÿ n o j q n g o m l n g i| m q l q o l h j n s y d d y z b v u z v y v d b v b v d u v d t x d y z w d t t x a t t x d a t x t a t x t w t x a e{ | } | ~ € g o j j n € m n hd a z c u u yˆ j o g h j k l p j qk i g n o s t u e u u w v d d v w v z v s v d a v e x w y e d a t t x z u t x s u t x t w t x t u t x t z{ | } | ~ € g o j j n € m n hd d a c e w w g q ¡ l “ ” g p g … u s d w a y v w b v d d v u d v z v d w v e x a y e w y t x s d t x d a t x t s t x t u d x s t{ | } | ~ € g o j j n € m n hW W E G V E U› ¢ £ K L L R S S B H W W B W X W V X Z X T X H X W E X U Y B H W Z T I Y E T I Y W H I Y I Z I Y I B I Y T VC [ \ [ ] ^ _ K S R ^ R O _ N O `d t z c y b uk m n j i g p n k l p j q‰ ‰ s a d z z y a v d e v a v d y v a v d u v e x t s t u t t t x y z t x y w t x t y t x t d t x d u{ | } | ~ € g o j j n € m n hU V G W W T[ L S ¤ ] L ¥ N M M‹ R O R L K S N O ` ¦ S K S N P O B V U I Z F X B W X T X W B X E X W B X W I Y T V T B W I I Y B W I Y W F I Y V I I Y W U I Y E FC [ \ [ ] ^ _ K S R ^ R O _ N O ` § ¨ A – 20 ! " # $ % & ' ( ) * +& , % * " - , # # )& - # . * - - / 0 1 . " , 2 . 3 4 5 6 3 7 8 ( 9 : 4 5 ; $ 3 3' - # ( $ 3 3< , - = $ 3 3 - ! )0 & $ 3 3$ " 0 & > > , ? % ) * . & . , $ * ? % ) ( ? % ) ' @ ? % ) A ' - , / ? % )B C • F U G W I U– N © ¤ K L _ ª ¢ M Ž O O T Z W V B I X W V X Z X W I X H X W W X F Y T V T W W I I Y B Z I Y B B I Y I T I Y I W I Y I FC [ \ [ ] ^ _ K S R ^ R O _ N O `b e c u u z¡ j n ‚ ‚ j i g j q l h j n s y t w y y s v y w v u v d w v a v d t v z x e y t d y t t x b t t x d y t x s e t x t d t x y b{ | } | ~ € g o j j n € m n hb a c e d bf ‘ m q jr j n j q g o m n h l‰ ‰ s a u s e y s v y w v u v d w v a v d t v z x e y t d y t t x b t t x d y t x a t t x t d t x y z{ | } | ~ € g o j j n € m n hb a c t y yr i j n p l l € u s d y u z v d z v b v d t v a v d a v d t x d y a d y t t x a b t x b e t x t s t x t u t x a z{ | } | ~ € g o j j n € m n hT H G B V UŒ K L L ¦ S L R R S‹ R O R L K S N O ` ¦ S K S N P O H I U T F B F X Z F X Z X W W X H X W V X F Y U Z U F W I Y E H I Y I U I Y B U I Y W H I Y W HC [ \ [ ] ^ _ K S R ^ R O _ N O `a e c z u aŸ n € j “ ” š j q ” j ‚f n j q h … j n o j q s t y s d u y v y d v w v d y v a v d y v e x e y s d d t t x z t t x t s t x z a t x t d t x b z{ | } | ~ € g o j j n € m n hE T G F V V¦ Ž L K © ] ˜ R › O R L ` Ž H I E H W B V X V Z X V X W F X T X W H X F Y U Z U F W I Y E U I Y B B I Y H U I Y W F I Y Z EC [ \ [ ] ^ _ K S R ^ R O _ N O `a u c e t wr œ œ œ j ‚ o l ™ j q u s u a u u v y t v u v d t v s v d a v z x a y d y d t x a d t x u s t x d y t x t d t x b e{ | } | ~ € g o j j n € m n hs e c b w z l q o m ‚ o g q { l q o } l n g p g n € g s y d w d b v u s v d v e v a v d a v e x e y y y u t x s y t x t a t x w e t x t d t x a b{ | } | ~ € g o j j n € m n hH F G F I ZŒ « – R ˜ P ] L © R ˜¦ Ž L K © ] ˜ R W I E B W W F X Z F X Z X W H X E X W E X F Y U Z U F W I Y E T I Y B V I Y E E I Y W E I Y Z TC [ \ [ ] ^ _ K S R ^ R O _ N O `y z c y a w ¡ ¬ ~ n o i j …r j n j q g o m n h † o g o m l n u s y e u a v y a v y v d a v b v d w v e x e y s e z t x z t t x t s d x d t t x t d d x t t{ | } | ~ € g o j j n € m n hV E G T B U£ P Q M N O R J P N O S B E B H V T X B B X F X W E X E X W Z X U Y W V V E T I Y Z V I Y I H I Y Z F I Y I B I Y U ZC [ \ [ ] ^ _ K S R ^ R O _ N O `y t c d s d g m o n j ‚ ‚ ‰ l n hŸ ‚ i g n € f n j q h … j n o j q s a u w y y d v u y v y v d u v z v e v z x s y b s z t x d y t x d t t x t y t x t d t x t e{ | } | ~ € g o j j n € m n hZ T G I T HJ P L S D R R L ˜ P O B H W T W U X W H X Z X H X E X W V X F Y U V T H B I Y B E I Y V W I Y I V I Y I W I Y V HC [ \ [ ] ^ _ K S R ^ R O _ N O `u a c a e z{ l q o l q o u s d a z v e v d v w v s v d a v e x u y z d t t x s w t x t a t x t y t x t d t x u e{ | } | ~ € g o j j n € m n hB H G W W W O _ R © ® ¯ ˜ Q R ` P› O R L ` Ž Œ R O S R L H I V H I W I X V B X I X W Z X V X W Z X F Y Z V I E B I Y E Z I Y B H W Y B I I Y I B W Y Z IC [ \ [ ] ^ _ K S R ^ R O _ N O `u y c d b z† g q g n g “ g “ m i m o … s y s b y d t v y d v d v d y v y v d y v z x t w a u s t x y b t x d b t x w b t x t t t x y s{ | } | ~ € g o j j n € m n hu y c d w a° ‚ p j h l ¬ g q ’ l qk l p j q u s e y d t v y u v t v d u v y v d w v z x w y t a y t x a a t x u s d x w t t x t u d x w t{ | } | ~ € g o j j n € m n hu t c b e sŸ n € j “ ” ° i j g nf n j q h … j n o j q s y t b a e v w e v d v e v a v d s v z x d y y a t t x b u t x u a t x s d t x t d t x y t{ | } | ~ € g o j j n € m n hd e c w z sˆ g o g ™ m g k l p j qk i g n o s y s e w d u v w a v d v e v b v d b v z x a y w s w t x a y t x t s t x u d t x t u t x b s{ | } | ~ € g o j j n € m n hW F G Z V W‡ ] O ® N L ®‹ R O R L K S N O ` J M K O S B H H V B E X V T X E X W T X E X W V X F Y E V T Z H I Y T H I Y I B B Y I I I Y I I I Y T ZC [ \ [ ] ^ _ K S R ^ R O _ N O `d a c e d wˆ j o i j j ‘f n j q h … j n o j q u s w e d s v d s v d v s v s v d w v z x b y t b e t x w y t x t b t x u u t x t d t x s t{ | } | ~ € g o j j n € m n h § ± A – 21 ! " # $ % & ' ( ) * +& , % * " - , # # )& - # . * - - / 0 1 . " , 2 . 3 4 5 6 3 7 8 ( 9 : 4 5 ; $ 3 3' - # ( $ 3 3< , - = $ 3 3 - ! )0 & $ 3 3$ " 0 & > > , ? % ) * . & . , $ * ? % ) ( ? % ) ' @ ? % ) A ' - , / ? % )B C • W E G H I H– P ˜ R S P O‹ R O R L K S N O `¢ K © N M N S Ž F I I E B U X W V X B X F X T X W Z X U Y B V B B I I Y Z W I Y W I I Y W I I Y I B I Y V VC [ \ [ ] ^ _ K S R ^ R O _ N O `d a c y u sƒ g n ‚ ” g ‘ ‘ j qr j n j q g o m n h † o g o m l n u y z t u z v d s v u v e v b v d y v e x u y u d z t x w w t x d t t x d t t x t u t x y s{ | } | ~ € g o j j n € m n hd a c t z tˆ i g “ ” ¡ m ™ j qr j n j q g o m l n d t y a y w w v y a v w v z v d w v w v b x e w b w t x d z t x t b t x t e t x t d t x t e{ | } | ~ € g o j j n € m n hd s c a d a‰ l “ ” l q o f n j q h …| ‚ ‚ l “ m g o j ‚ ‰ k s y t y d d z v y w v t v d s v a v d u v e x y y y w w t x a y t x w z d x y t t x t d t x y y{ | } | ~ € g o j j n € m n hW B G T E Eª K ˜ ˜ R O K › O R L ` Ž¢ K © N M N S Ž H V H U B E X Z U X W X W W X T X W T X F Y U Z W Z I I Y E H I Y I E I Y E H I Y I I I Y F WC [ \ [ ] ^ _ K S R ^ R O _ N O `d u c b w y† o j q i m n h k l p j qk i g n o s t b y y a v u b v t v z v a v d a v z x y w z e t x a s t x t w t x y w t x t u t x e s{ | } | ~ € g o j j n € m n hW W G H U U¦ R M ® N L ® Œ P ` R O W I T B H W W X W B X W X Z X E X W B X F Y H V I W W I Y B V I Y I T I Y W F I Y I W I Y V BC [ \ [ ] ^ _ K S R ^ R O _ N O `b c s y y g q o g h j f n j q h …‰ ‰ d t a u t e v y u v t v d a v e v d w v b x a w b u t x a s t x d z t x s s t x t d t x y s{ | } | ~ € g o j j n € m n hb c s u y° h € j n ‚ ’ ~ q hk l p j q d t z t w d z v y u v d v d a v y v d u v z x b w w z t x y e t x d t t x u y t x t t t x s e{ | } | ~ € g o j j n € m n hE G H Z IŒ K ˜ S M R S P O › O R L ` ŽŒ R O S R L W I W U I V X W F X W X U X H X W F X F Y E V I H T I Y H W I Y I H I Y E F I Y I W I Y W VC [ \ [ ] ^ _ K S R ^ R O _ N O `s c b u zŸ n € j “ ” l q m n o f n j q h … j n o j q s t y s z s v w t v t v d u v a v d y v z x t w b d d t x s s t x t s t x t s t x t t t x s t{ | } | ~ € g o j j n € m n hH G B V B[ S ¤ R O ˜‹ R O R L K S N O ` J M K O S H H V I H W F X B T X W X W V X V X W E X F Y W V W W T I Y V F I Y W I I Y I Z I Y I W I Y V ZC [ \ [ ] ^ _ K S R ^ R O _ N O `w c w w d† m o jŸ n € j j n € j n “ j† o g o m l n s y s y b s v w z v t v d a v s v d u v z x w y t e t x d e t x u s t x u s t x t u t x y w{ | } | ~ € g o j j n € m n hw c d a zŸ n € j “ ” † m i ™ j q† q m n h ‚ f n j q h … j n o j q s t y y e u v w u v t v z v s v d a v z x u y y d d t x a u t x t u t x t s t x t d t x t a{ | } | ~ € g o j j n € m n hu c y a d ¬ ¡ j ‚ l ~ q “ j ‚ˆ j g ™ j q g i i ‚ d t a d b y v u d v t v b v b v d y v b x w w a u t x s u t x t w t x y d t x t d t x y t{ | } | ~ € g o j j n € m n hd c d s zr œ œ r q j j n m € h j‰ ‰ u s u b z v y y v w v d e v a v d s v z x u y u s t x y s t x t a t x t w t x t d t x y b{ | } | ~ € g o j j n € m n hW G W V W¦ P R L ˜ R S¯ ^ R L K S N O ` Œ P Š Š Œ E I F B E X Z B X I X W I X V X W I X F Y F V H B I Y E I I Y I V I Y B B I Y I W I Y W BC [ \ [ ] ^ _ K S R ^ R O _ N O `e z z g … ~ h g ° j q g o m n h l ‘ g n … u s w s s v d a v t v z v s v d z v z x y y u u t x w z t x t w t x d b t x t d t x d b{ | } | ~ € g o j j n € m n hF I V[ M M R ` K O Ž Œ P ` R O T T F V W X V E X W X U X F X W H X F Y I V V T I Y H W I Y I B I Y I U I Y I W I Y I ZC [ \ [ ] ^ _ K S R ^ R O _ N O `w ƒ u d a c s z uˆ j n n m n h a t w z u v w b v d v d a v a v d u v d t x w s d u d t t x a b t x u e t x u b t x t u t x w b{ | } | ~ € g o j j n € m n hƒ f a e c u z y¬ g … ¡ l g € b d s w a y v y s v u v d b v b v d w v d t x w y e u y t t x a y t x u t t x s w t x s y t x a a{ | } | ~ € g o j j n € m n hE I G F V V› _ ` R ª P P L H U Z E F X V E X B X W F X T X W B X W I Y Z V U B I I I Y E Z I Y B W I Y H U I Y V H I Y T TC [ \ [ ] ^ _ K S R ^ R O _ N O ` § ² A – 22 API CALL TO USE http://api.eia.gov/series/?api_key=YOUR_API_KEY_HERE& series_id=ELEC.PLANT.GEN.2497-ALL-ALL.A SERIES NAME Net generation : Indian Point 2 (2497) : all fuels : all primemovers : annual SERIES ID: ELEC.PLANT.GEN.2497-ALL-ALL.A Show me how to embed a chart of this series Open Data API Query Browser EIA Data Sets > Electricity > Plant level data > New York > (2497) Indian Point 2 (2497) Chart Data Series Name Period Frequency Value Units Net generation : Indian Point 2 (2497) : all fuels : all 2015 A 8811875 megawatthours Net generation : Indian Point 2 (2497) : all fuels : all primemovers : annual 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 0 2,500,000 5,000,000 Source: Energy Information Administration megawatthours Series ID: ELEC.PLANT.GEN.2497-ALL-ALL.A 10,000,000 7,500,000 A – 23 API CALL TO USE http://api.eia.gov/series/? api_key=YOUR_API_KEY_HERE&series_id=ELEC.PLANT.GEN.8907ALLALL.A SERIES NAME Net generation : Indian Point 3 (8907) : all fuels : all primemovers : annual SERIES ID: ELEC.PLANT.GEN.8907ALLALL.A Show me how to embed a chart of this series Open Data API Query Browser EIA Data Sets > Electricity > Plant level data > New York > (8907) Indian Point 3 (8907) megawatthours Net generation : Indian Point 3 (8907) : all fuels : all primemovers : annual Series ID: ELEC.PLANT.GEN.8907ALLALL.A 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 0 10,000,000 2,500,000 5,000,000 7,500,000 Source: Energy Information Administration A – 24 May 18, 2012 | 4:00am OPINION Indian Point: Still safe Another year, another Nuclear Regulatory Commission safety inspection passed with flying colors by Indian Point. By Post Staff Report Photo: AP Indian Point A – 25 So will this finally silence the “shut it down” crowd — starting with Gov. Cuomo, who says his mantra “has always been ‘safety first’?” Don’t hold your breath. The NRC’s annual report card on the safety of nuclear plants around the country gave Indian Point yet another thumbs up. Yes, some 25 issues need attention. But the NRC’s regional administrator, Bill Dean, said they were all deemed “very low risk” or of “very low safety significance.” Indian Point’s 2,062 megawatts provide 12 percent of New York state’s power — 30 percent for the city and Westchester. There is no way to replace that juice — itself barely sufficient — either quickly or affordably. And certainly not both. Not to mention the 1,300 jobs and $800 million for the local economy the plant provides. But safety first, as the governor says. And the verdict is in: Indian Point is safe. A – 26 SIGN IN ADVERTISEMENT Related: STOCKS, BONDS, MARKETS, ENERGYMarkets | Wed Nov 28, 2012 3:02pm EST New York tells Con Ed to prepare in case Indian Point shuts * New York governor wants Indian Point shut * Entergy wants to run reactors for 20 more years * Indian Point current licenses expire in 2013, 2015 By Scott DiSavino Nov 28 New York energy regulators told power companies in New York City to develop plans to keep the lights on in the Big Apple in case the giant Indian Point nuclear power plant, which supplies about a quarter of the city's electricity, is forced to shut down. New York Governor Andrew Cuomo wants the two reactors at Indian Point shut when their operating licenses expire in 2013 and 2015 in part because the nuclear plant is located in the New York metropolitan area, home to some 19 million people. The governor has said even the most unlikely possibility of an accident is too much in the heavily populated area. U.S. power company Entergy Corp, which owns Indian Point, says, however, the plant is safe, and the company is seeking to extend the reactors' licenses for another 20 years. The 2,063-megawatt (MW) Indian Point plant is about 40 miles (60 km) north of Manhattan along the Hudson River. "Entergy and its employees continuously demonstrate the plants are safely operated, and is committed to safely operating this important facility for many more years to come," Entergy spokesman Jerry Nappi told Reuters Wednesday in an email. On Tuesday, the state's energy regulator, New York Public Service Commission (NYPSC), directed New York City power company Consolidated Edison Inc to work with the New York Power Authority (NYPA) to develop a contingency plan to address the needs that would arise in the event Indian Point shuts down. NYPA is a state-owned power generator that supplies electricity to government customers in New York City, including schools, hospitals, government buildings, subways and commuter trains. "We will comply with the Commission's directive to work with the New York Power Authority to develop a contingency plan addressing the needs that would arise in the event of an Indian Point shutdown," Con Edison told Reuters in an emailed statement. A shutdown of Indian Point, without sufficient alternatives, would threaten electric system reliability and potentially raise electric market prices, Con Ed said. Several energy companies have already proposed power plants and transmission lines Brazil's Rousseff vows fight; incoming interim president sets sights on economy | 1 Exclusive: U.S. plans new wave of immigrant deportation raids 2 U.S. judge hands win to Republicans in Obamacare challenge | 3 Exclusive: Trump surges in support, almost even with Clinton in national U.S. poll 4 U.S. activates Romanian missile defense site, angering Russia | 5 TRENDING ON REUTERS Business Markets World Politics Tech Commentary Breakingviews Money Life EDITION: UNITED STATES A – 27 that could partially replace Indian Point, including units of NRG Energy Inc, Brookfield Asset Management Inc, BP Plc, Calpine Corp , GenOn Energy Inc and Iberdrola SA. ENTERGY SEEKS NEW LICENSES To keep the reactors running over the next couple of decades, Entergy filed with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in 2007 to renew the Indian Point licenses. A decision by the NRC commissioners on the licenses might not happen for years, as agency judges are still holding hearings on challenges to the plant's continued operation. Entergy, however, can continue to operate the reactors even after their licenses expire so long as the federal renewal process is ongoing. The three judges at the NRC's Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB), which serves as the agency's judicial arm, started evidentiary hearings near the plant in October to consider 10 complaints raised by New York State and two public interest groups, Hudson River Sloop Clearwater Inc and Riverkeeper Inc. The NRC has scheduled several days of hearings through at least mid-December. On Wednesday, the NRC said it did not know when, or if, a second round of hearings would be scheduled and that a decision on the challenges would likely come months after the hearings are done. SANDY PROMPTS ACTION The contingency plan for Indian Point was one of Governor Cuomo's Energy Highway Blueprint proposals issued by a task force in October. Cuomo proposed the Energy Highway plan in January to modernize the state's energy infrastructure. The state's Public Service Commission said it decided to move forward this week on three proposals in the Energy Highway Blueprint, including the Indian Point proposal, because of Superstorm Sandy. Sandy caused billions of dollars of damage and left millions of New Yorkers in the dark - some for more than two weeks - after striking the U.S. East Coast in late October. The other Blueprint recommendations the Public Service Commission said it has decided move forward on now are proposals to build over 1,000 MW of new transmission capacity between upstate New York and New York City, at an estimated cost of $1 billion, and proposals to expand the state's use of natural gas by residential and business customers. One megawatt can power about 1,000 homes in New York. PHOTOS OF THE DAY IN PHOTOS: DILMA'S PRESIDENCY BUILD YOUR PERFECT CANDIDATE Download Reuters' White House Run from the App Store More From Reuters Cruz returns to Washington, warns of 'volcanic anger' |11 May Chinese state entities argue they have 'sovereign immunity' in U.S. courts |11 May 'Y'all ruined my life,' says man, killing co-worker, self in Texas |4 May Selfie gone wrong fells 126-year-old statue of Portuguese king |4 May Pope condemns pedophilia as details of girl's death shock Italy |1 May U.S. to switch on European missile shield despite Russian alarm |11 May Romney: It's 'disqualifying' for Trump not to release tax returns |11 May A – 28 Prepared For: New York City Department of Environmental Protection 59-17 Junction Blvd. Flushing, NY 11373-5108 Indian Point Energy Center Retirement Analysis Prepared By: Charles River Associates 200 Clarendon Street Boston Massachusetts 02116 www.crai.com Date: August 2, 2011 CRA Project No. D16322 A – 29 D16322 August 2, 2011 Charles River Associates Final Report Page 7 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY “Greater reliance on nuclear power for the Con Edison service area in the 1990s, while perhaps compelling by economic, and to a lesser extent, environmental logic, will require the endorsement of society. The future societal judgment concerning nuclear power constitutes the largest uncertainty in long-range electric energy planning.” Strategic Planning for Electric Energy in the 1980s for New York City and Westchester County, MIT Energy Laboratory, 1981. MIT report MIT-EL-81-008 1.1. INTRODUCTION The Indian Point Energy Center (IPEC) is a nuclear powerplant consisting of one retired and two active reactors, sited in Buchanan, New York, in Westchester County. Unit 1 (IP1) was retired in 1974. Units 2 and 3 (IP2 and IP3) each generate approximately 1,020 MW of electrical energy, or 2,040 MW combined. This makes IPEC one of the largest powerplants in New York State, and its location on the electric grid near the major load center of New York City (NYC) gives it substantial impact in engineering, environmental, and economic contexts.1 Recent events in Japan have led to calls for a thorough examination of the safety and environmental issues surrounding the continued operation of IPEC, and various proposals have been put forth, at least in general terms, to replace some or all of IPEC’s generating capacity. IPEC’s two federal operating licenses expire in September 2013 and December 2015 respectively, and recent debate has centered on the question of whether the reactors should continue to operate after their licenses expire. Charles River Associates (CRA) was retained by the New York City Department of Environmental Protection (NYCDEP) to develop an analysis of the impact of an IPEC retirement from economic, environmental and reliability perspectives. The purpose of this analysis is to help the City of New York and other key energy stakeholders understand the implications of IPEC’s potential retirement. This is not an analysis intended to answer the 1 Various sources contend that IPEC supplies anywhere from five to thirty percent of NYC’s energy. The measurement of IPEC’s contribution to the grid as a single number is an oversimplification, and can be misleading. The contribution of any given powerplant to the system is a function of its size, its position relative to transmission constraints, and the location of load on the system. IPEC’s physical generation output cannot be directed to any specific location on the grid; its physical output flows over the network to the broader New York and regional energy markets, affecting the prices and flows of energy over a very wide area, beyond New York’s borders. Part of IPEC’s output is economically contracted to load-serving entities (e.g. ConEdison and NYPA) in NYC and Westchester County. This contracted percentage, however, is purely an economic construct, and has little relevance to actual physical flows of energy on the system and IPEC’s effect on the power markets. A – 30 D16322 August 2, 2011 Charles River Associates Final Report Page 8 question of whether IPEC should retire, but rather to systematically examine the implications of such a retirement should it occur. Any powerplant, including IPEC, can be retired, but not without costs and tradeoffs. It is crucial to understand that the critical question is not whether IPEC can be retired, but rather what the economic, reliability and environmental impacts of such a decision are. In the case of IPEC’s potential retirement, these impacts are sufficiently large to warrant careful consideration. It is also important to understand the distinction between an effect of IPEC’s retirement, and the effect of a response to its retirement. Economic and environmental impacts can be mitigated through policy actions, but these policy actions come with their own costs and implications. We have focused in this study on the effects of IPEC’s retirement; the question of the best policy response to potentially mitigate the effects of this retirement lacks a simple answer and will be answered differently by those with differing objectives. IPEC’s retirement will exert measurable net economic and environmental costs, which we have quantified in part here. Broadly speaking, the question is how the different nuclear safety2 risks and water quality effects at IPEC compare to the costs which would be incurred by the public in its retirement. Numerous parties have opposed the continued operation of IPEC because of claimed effects on the Hudson River and its marine life. The benefits of altered risk and environmental impact (e.g. Hudson River effects vs. deleterious effects on air quality) resist simple quantification, and properly lie within the realm of public policy. We conducted our study with the input of a technical advisory group (Group) representing numerous energy interests in NYC and New York State (NYS), including Con Edison, the New York Independent System Operator (NYISO), the New York Power Authority (NYPA), and the City of New York.3 With the input of these parties, we developed appropriate methodologies and assumptions so that our analysis was as accurate, comprehensive, and unbiased as possible. Our Group members were not always unanimous in their views, and we have attempted to provide a balanced representation of their input.4 We would like to express our thanks to them for their valuable input. Our analysis is not exhaustive, nor is it intended to be, in considering all possible reliability, economic or environmental perspectives. We have quantified what we reasonably can given 2 The retirement of IPEC will still mean indefinite storage of spent nuclear fuel at the Buchanan site, either in storage pools or eventually in dry-cask storage. There is currently neither long-term storage site for spent nuclear fuel (e.g. the proposed Yucca Mountain site in Nevada), reprocessing facilities for spent uranium, nor regulations which would permit the transport of the spent fuel off the Buchanan site. 3 The plant’s owner, Entergy Nuclear (Entergy), was neither a Group member nor a participant in this analysis, although the company did verify some technical details regarding IPEC, for which we express our thanks. No private project developers were engaged in this study. 4 Group members do not explicitly endorse the analytical results or the views expressed in this study. A – 31 D16322 August 2, 2011 Charles River Associates Final Report Page 9 the constraints of finite schedules and resources, and we have identified those less-obvious costs which must be given full treatment in a comprehensive accounting. We have not attempted to quantify all these costs; many of them are well beyond the scope of this analysis. The inclusion of conceptual projects is intended to help decision-makers identify and evaluate options that have not previously been analyzed, and to provide guidance as to potentially valuable initiatives which might warrant further consideration. Despite the similarity of some conceptual projects to actual proposals that have been put forth or discussed, the intent is not to analyze specific commercial proposals for projects. 1.2. OPTIONS EVALUATED In order to serve all New York customers reliably, there must be enough installed generating capacity to meet peak loads, plus a reserve margin. Therefore, barring a radical change in the demand for electricity, an IPEC retirement means that new generation or transmission capacity will be required at some point; we framed our analysis around this basic concept. Following discussions with the parties, we evaluated three distinct options for replacing the prospect of IPEC’s lost capacity. They are not necessarily intended to represent or select the “best” options, but rather those that may represent what could be commercially feasible and plausible in a regulatory context.5 Every option evaluated comes with tradeoffs, and different parties will necessarily define the “best” option according to different criteria. In addition to the three replacement options we evaluated, we also evaluated a scenario in which no new generation was added to replace IPEC. Such a scenario is not feasible from a reliability standpoint, but it represents a bounding scenario for our analysis, and a rough approximation of the economic effects of a scenario in which just enough conservation measures were employed to avoid some reliability issues. Every scenario in this study assumes that three major new projects, Astoria Energy II, the Bayonne Energy Center (BEC), and the Hudson Transmission Partners (HTP) Cable are constructed and in service by the time of IPEC’s retirement. 5 We had the option of constraining our analysis to a set of limited replacement options which may technically feasible by 2016, or analyzing options which may yield greater benefits but may not necessarily be available by the date of IP3’s retirement. We adopted the latter approach in this analysis, and the inclusion of any specific replacement option should not be construed as a finding that such a solution could be operational by the date of IP3’s retirement. A – 32 D16322 August 2, 2011 Charles River Associates Final Report Page 10 Status Quo The status quo scenario consists of federal relicensing of the reactors for an additional twenty years. This is our “base case” for comparisons. We did not assume that cooling towers were installed at the site.6 Conventional Thermal In the Conventional Thermal scenario, we assumed that 500 MW of capacity was constructed at the IPEC site in the Lower Hudson Valley (LHV) upon IP3’s retirement, followed by an additional 500 MW of capacity constructed in New York City in 2018. In addition to this basic scenario, we also modeled a scenario in which 500 MW of gas-fired combined cycle (CC) capacity was developed at the IPEC site in the LHV, with no additional capacity in New York City (NYC), upon IPEC’s retirement. The scenario in which only 500 MW of capacity is developed at or near the IPEC site can be a considered a rough approximation of a market- based response to IPEC’s retirement.7 Low-Carbon The low-carbon scenario consists of the construction of a 1,000 MW High-Voltage Direct Current (HVDC) line to New York City, combined with a 500 MW offshore-wind farm interconnected into Brooklyn. This scenario was chosen to investigate the possibility of a conscious policy decision to implement a low-carbon replacement plan that takes into account the beneficial greenhouse gas effects of IPEC. One-for-One The one-for-one scenario consisted of replacing IPEC’s capacity with an equivalent amount (2,000 MW) of gas-fired combined cycle capacity at or near IPEC’s current site. For the purposes of this analysis, this option need not consist of a single power plant, but of the equivalent amount of new generation located in the LHV. This scenario is perhaps the 6 One current issue surrounding IPEC is whether cooling towers would need to be installed to be compliant with the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) decision to deny IPEC a Clean Water Act permit. Entergy is contesting the need for such towers, and that issue is now being addressed in a DEC administrative proceeding. It is unclear whether Entergy could or would stage the installation of the cooling towers so that both reactors were not offline simultaneously, avoiding a reliability violation. Had we developed a status quo base case in which cooling towers were retrofit, it may have reduced the economic impact to consumers, as the base case would have higher energy prices. Note, however, that requiring the installation of cooling towers will increase the cost to consumers, since during the period in which the towers are being installed, prices would rise. Finally, note that our economic analysis starts in 2016 – if any cooling tower retrofit were to be completed before the scheduled retirement of the second reactor, there would be no effect on our analysis. Entergy has stated that the both reactors could need to be closed simultaneously for 42 weeks to retrofit the cooling towers, and that these costs could exceed $1billion. (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/04/nyregion/04indian.html) 7 As detailed in section 4.2.2, a hypothetical 500 MW combined cycle unit installed in the LHV was the only replacement option analyzed which would not require subsides to be constructed and operated. A – 33 D16322 August 2, 2011 Charles River Associates Final Report Page 11 simplest one conceptually, but with perhaps the most complex implementation, and raises serious potential issues related to fuel supply adequacy at its site. 1.3. KEY FINDINGS IPEC’s retirement will increase the cost to New York’s consumers under every feasible scenario Every replacement option studied will result in a cost increase to energy consumers throughout the state, either through increased market prices or subsides to new generators. If the market is allowed to function without subsidies for new generation, consumer prices will see marked increases. The state market would see wholesale cost increases of approximately $1.5 billion per year8, or roughly a 10% increase under our base-case scenarios. NYC consumers would pay approximately $300 million per year more for wholesale energy, or approximately a 5-10% increase.9 IPEC’s retirement will force greater reliance on fossil-fueled generation resources, increasing the sensitivity of electricity prices to volatility in natural gas prices, which we did not explicitly quantify in this study. Retail price increases (in percentage terms, but not absolute amount) will be lower than wholesale price increases. These price increases do not include financial support which would be necessary to construct projects which would otherwise be uneconomic, nor does it include other costs which would be necessary to reinforce the grid to support new generation. It is likely, given our analysis, that additional ratepayer support would be necessary to develop these new generation resources, in which case these costs would be passed on to utilities, and ultimately to consumers. Our analysis indicates that the additional costs to consumers from the various options range from a total net present value (NPV) of $691 million for a combined cycle thermal replacement option in the LHV and NYC to $2.1 billion for a low-carbon solution. These costs are in addition to increased costs for energy, and given the large uncertainties associated with project development, should be considered a minimum. IPEC’s retirements may have far-reaching ancillary economic impacts. IPEC is a major employer in the region, employing approximately 1,100 people, with additional jobs created through indirect and induced economic activity. We have focused our analysis on the electricity market impacts of a potential IPEC retirement, but the ancillary economic impacts may be substantial. We have not attempted to calculate these induced and indirect benefits in this analysis, although other studies have been conducted on this topic.10 8 All dollar amounts in this report, unless otherwise stated, are expressed in real 2010 dollars. 9 Consumers saw cost increases in neighboring regions, such as PJM, but those effects are not summarized here. 10 Economic Benefits of Indian Point Energy Center, Nuclear Energy Institute, April 2004 A – 34 D16322 August 2, 2011 Charles River Associates Final Report Page 12 Finally, and least predictably, there may be costs associated with a regulatory or legal settlement associated with retiring IPEC. In the event IPEC is forced to retire, Entergy may pursue legal action. We have not attempted to quantify any costs associated with litigation in this study, although legal action is almost inevitable even if the ultimate outcome is uncertain. IPEC’s retirement without new generation or transmission system additions will compromise the reliability of the electricity grid The grid must meet multiple criteria to be considered reliable. These include resource adequacy, regional and local transmission system security, and system operation. We only analyzed the first of these items. There are proprietary analyses from some Group members which strongly suggest that there are other factors which will result in local (i.e., in-City) and broader system reliability issues. Some transmission issues will remain even if sufficient generation capacity is available to meet resource adequacy criteria upon IPEC’s retirement. The system cannot be considered to be reliable until these other issues are analyzed. A common metric used to assess the reliability of power systems is the level of “resource adequacy.” A highly simplified definition of resource adequacy is that there must be enough powerplants to adequately serve consumer electrical demand for all reasonably expected operating conditions. Resource adequacy considers the limitations of the transmission lines which connect the powerplants to consumers, but does not encompass a comprehensive analysis of all transmission limitations. This methodology measures the probability of interruption to consumer service (blackouts) due to insufficient generating and transmission capability. This probability is defined as the Loss of Load Expectation (LOLE), and by Northeast Power Coordinating Council (NPCC) and NYS regulations can be no greater than experiencing an event not more than once in ten years, or an LOLE of 0.1. Lower LOLEs indicate greater resource adequacy and a more reliable system, while higher LOLEs indicate a less reliable system. Unless new generation or transmission capacity is constructed beyond those additions currently planned, the retirement of IP3 in 2015 would cause the grid to fall short of minimum resource adequacy standards in the summer of 2016, with an LOLE for New York of 0.113. Therefore, new generation or transmission must be constructed if IPEC is to retire. The resource adequacy impact of IPEC’s retirement is highly dependent on the load forecast assumed, which has changed substantially over time. We used the NYISO’s 2011 load forecast (“Gold Book”), adjusted for historical rates of energy conservation achievement and have explicitly included the impacts of energy efficiency and conservation programs in our analyses.11 New capacity will be needed eventually, and these changes in demand will postpone, not eliminate, the need for new capacity if IPEC retires. 11 Since 2009, the level of energy conservation versus target levels in New York has been 57%. The most recent 2011 NYISO load forecast assumes 91% achievement of energy efficiency penetration and an aggressive implementation schedule in the future. We have assumed 50% achievement in our study, in order to develop a realistic picture of the impact of an IPEC retirement. A – 35 D16322 August 2, 2011 Charles River Associates Final Report Page 13 Load forecasts are axiomatically imprecise; reliability analyses, conducted by the NYISO with the best available data over the last two years, have shown a range of seven years in the need date for new capacity. A 2009 analysis by the NYISO12 found that reliability criteria would be violated upon the retirement of the first of IPEC’s reactors in 2013 and that approximately two gigawatts (GW) of new generating capacity would be necessary to maintain reliability. A 2010 NYISO analysis found that the retirement of both reactors would violate reliability criteria13 in 2016, as did we in our analysis. The NYISO has not yet released a 2011 assessment of the reliability impact of IPEC’s retirement. Small changes in future energy consumption (on the order of 1-2%) can determine whether the system will meet reliability standards upon IPEC’s retirement. The amount of electrical demand which may determine whether an IPEC retirement violates reliability standards is well within the range of uncertainty of the load forecast. Resource adequacy is only one component of overall system reliability, and meeting the resource adequacy criterion alone will not make the system reliable. We emphasize that independent analyses from some of our Group members indicate that there are reliability issues raised by the loss of IPEC which go beyond resource adequacy and would need to be addressed even if minimum resource adequacy standards were met. 14 Simply adding capacity or reducing load cannot be assumed to ensure a reliable system. More analysis is necessary on this topic. Each option for replacement of IPEC’s capacity would measurably increase air emissions IPEC is able to provide approximately 2 GW of baseload generation with no direct15 air emissions. Its retirement will cause a substantial increase in air emissions under all the scenarios analyzed in our study. Our analysis indicates that both NYC and NYS would see approximately a 15% increase in carbon emissions under most conventional replacement scenarios, with roughly a 7-8% increase in NOx emissions. Even lower-carbon scenarios such as hydropower imported from Canada combined with offshore wind would cause carbon and NOx increases of between 5-10% in NYC and statewide. This is because the plausible increases in imports from Canada we modeled would be insufficient to totally replace IPEC’s capacity; additional generation from conventional thermal powerplants would be required. 12 NYISO 2009 Comprehensive Reliability Plan (CRP) 13 NYISO 2010 Reliability Needs Assessment (RNA) 14 One example is the second contingency design (N-1-1) of the Con Edison electric system, which allows the system to maintain reliability with the loss of the system’s two largest elements during peak conditions. 15 There is a considerable amount of embedded life-cycle energy in the enriched uranium fuel and the construction of plant itself, but the latter is a characteristic of all plants, not just IPEC. A – 36 D16322 August 2, 2011 Charles River Associates Final Report Page 14 Developing a solution in which there is no net emissions increase would be extraordinarily expensive. The largest commercial-scale projects currently proposed amount to slightly more than half of IPEC’s generating capacity.16 Retirement of IPEC would substantially reduce the possibility of reaching PlaNYC’s goals of reducing NYC’s carbon emissions by 30% from 2007 levels. The largest uncertainties are regulatory While a great deal of discussion has been devoted to the impact of exogenous factors such as natural gas prices, demand growth and potential emissions policies, the largest uncertainties surrounding the impact of IPEC’s potential retirement are regulatory in nature. The principal and most obvious uncertainty is the shutdown of IPEC itself. While positions have been staked out regarding environmental permits and license reissuance, there is a substantial chance that the decision whether and under what circumstances to retire IPEC will be decided in the regulatory arena, and ultimately by litigation. Another principal uncertainty relates to the state of the markets themselves. New York has a regulatory system oriented towards competitive entry and market-based solutions. There have been some recent projects, however, which have not entered the market on a pure merchant basis, but rather through power-purchase agreements with regulated entities or by New York’s Power Authorities17. New York has competitive wholesale markets for both energy and installed capacity. Several recent and pending rules in the installed capacity market may have a substantial impact on the economic effects of an IPEC retirement. NYISO has considered implementing new zones for capacity in the Lower Hudson Valley (LHV)18, and various measures for mitigating market power. How one interprets the prospects for these regulations will have a major impact on the economic impacts of IPEC’s retirement. NYISO’s wholesale market rules have changed numerous times since their creation, both by regulatory mandate and through the NYISO’s stakeholder governance process. As a result, one needs to consider the possibility that other changes could occur with unknown future impacts. 16 We have included in our replacement scenarios some which incorporate renewable resources. Renewable resources must be de-rated to account for their intermittent nature. For instance, the best-performing offshore wind farms proposed for the NYC region would have a capacity factor of approximately 40%, with a capacity de- rate for reliability purposes of approximately 35%. This means that in order to generate the equivalent amount of energy from a 500 MW thermal plant, 1,500 MW of offshore wind would be required. Onshore wind is derated to approximately a 10% capacity factor, meaning that approximately 5,000 MW of terrestrial wind capacity would be required to replace the capacity of one combined-cycle gas-fired plant. 17 A notable recent exception is the Bayonne Energy Center. 18 The New York market utilizes market zone definitions, which define geographical areas for metrics related to the markets. These zones are defined as Zone A through Zone K, where Zone A is in Western NY and Zone K is Long Island. The other zones are in between. The LHV comprises Zones G, H, and I, while NYC is Zone J. A – 37 D16322 August 2, 2011 Charles River Associates Final Report Page 15 Consistent and clear regulation, and a thorough understanding of the effects of that regulation, are critical to ensuring a secure grid and a stable market which can produce economically rational outcomes. Action will be necessary to ensure the grid’s reliability In the event of IPEC’s retirement, and absent action by policymakers or merchant-based solutions, NYISO “backstop” processes will likely be triggered in which transmission owners will provide proposed solutions to maintain the grid’s reliability. Whether pre-emptive or by regulatory mandate, action will be necessary to maintain the grid’s reliability if IPEC retires. Some of the scenarios considered in this report are similar to those that could be backstop- process proposals. These proposals will invariably be subject to similar comparisons and analyses as are being conducted now. Forming a contingency plan now allows the benefit of time to carefully weigh the relative costs and benefits of each potential solution. Action by policymakers and decision-makers to weigh these alternatives now is in the best interest of consumers. Energy conservation must be considered in a realistic context The issue of energy efficiency and conservation are often discussed in the context of an IPEC retirement. Conservation is a critical part of the State’s and City’s overall energy strategy, and progress has been made in achieving conservation objectives, but it is important to adopt an informed approach to considering its impact. Increased energy efficiency and conservation measures may forestall a resource adequacy crisis upon IPEC’s retirement, but will still result in increased consumer prices and air emissions. Eventual construction of new powerplants, transmission lines, or gas pipelines in the Lower Hudson Valley or New York City is an inevitable consequence of IPEC’s retirement. Over the past three years, NYS has achieved 57% of its targets for energy efficiency, which has had an impact on the grid and markets. The most recent forecasts for energy consumption19, however, forecast 91% achievement in the future, with many programs forecast to achieve virtually all of their potential impact by 2018. If these programs fall behind schedule, or do not achieve greater success in the future than they have in the past, then the load could be higher than forecast and the reliability consequences could be substantial upon IPEC’s retirement. We have assumed in our study that 50% of energy efficiency targets will be achieved over the timeframe of our study to address these factors.20 19 The NYISO’s 2011 “Gold Book”, described in greater detail in the next section. 20 These assumptions are discussed at greater length in section 3.2.1. A – 38 D16322 August 2, 2011 Charles River Associates Final Report Page 16 New replacement options may not be fully supported by market revenues; subsidies or contracts may be required For the purposes of our electric market simulation, we assumed that new capacity enters the market without regard to its funding source to ensure system reliability. If that new capacity does enter the market, it is unlikely that the revenues from the wholesale markets will provide a sufficient return for investors for these projects, meaning that consumers will partially bear the costs of these projects through above-market subsidies. In recent years, many projects have entered the market (Astoria Energy II, the Neptune Cable, and soon HTP) with some form of contract with a load-serving entity (or off-taker) of the project’s output. The role of this power-purchase agreement, or PPA, is often critical to these projects’ development. Construction of generation and transmission projects is highly capital-intensive, and securing a PPA allows developers to seek financing to construct their projects because of revenue certainty.21 We developed high-level estimates of project costs and representative pro-forma financial analyses for each project. These analyses indicate that these projects would not be supported by market revenues, and would need additional financial contractual support from the City or other off-takers (e.g. NYPA, LIPA). It is not clear precisely how this contractual support may be reflected in consumer rates, but because the support would come from an off-taker who would presumably serve end-use customers, the costs would have to flow through in some manner. There is uncertainty about the capital cost of these projects themselves, as well as the engineering system upgrades (e.g. interconnection upgrades) necessary to actually construct them. In general however, the consumer effects that are seen through increased energy prices and contractual support for projects dominate the calculation of cost impact. New resources will be necessary to replace IPEC’s lost capacity – the only question is when they would be required. When considering how to weigh different costs under different scenarios, it is important to remember that if energy prices and revenues are lower (through lower demand, greater energy efficiency, reduced gas prices, or other factors), then the subsidies or financial support necessary for such projects will be higher. “Letting the market function” is an option. There are two important caveats to this approach, however. The first is that there is a real chance that market-based solutions may not have sufficient time to develop by 2016, and there is a chance of reverting to the backstop process. The second is that a hands-off, market-based approach will result in higher consumer prices. Based on our analysis, only an increase in market prices will provide revenues sufficient to support a market-based solution. Any solution to the retirement of IPEC which includes subsidies to replacement capacity may also precipitate legal challenges at the state and federal level from market participants. The 21 The PPA also has the effect, in many cases, of transferring risk from the investors to the consumers. A – 39 D16322 August 2, 2011 Charles River Associates Final Report Page 17 impact of these challenges must be factored into plans for the development of replacement capacity. Not all replacement options for IPEC’s capacity may be available upon IPEC’s scheduled retirement Assuming the retirement of both units by December of 2015, the critical date is the following peak demand period, which is the summer of 2016. Our analysis indicates that given the current prospects for new capacity in New York, resource adequacy will fall below acceptable levels at that point unless new generation is constructed. For planning purposes, the critical piece of information is not when the IP3 unit is scheduled to retire, but rather when Entergy announces its intention, or a final regulatory decision concerning the fate of the plants is made. It is unlikely that a private market participant would commit capital and resources to the development of new resources without knowing with certainty if and when IPEC would retire. Similarly, a public or quasi-public entity cannot reasonably be expected to seek new sources of energy and capacity necessary to maintain reliability without definitive knowledge of IPEC’s future status. If Entergy were to announce its intentions at the latest possible date22, there would be insufficient time to put a solution in place unless new generation were already under construction. Development and construction of large capital projects can take many years however, and a duration of 4-5 years for development of a major (500 MW or larger) project is not unusual.23 Working backwards from the scheduled IP3 retirement date of December 2015, this means that development on its replacement should already be well underway now. Several transmission and generation projects have been proposed to provide new generating and transmission capacity, and are at various early stages of development, but significant challenges still remain to developing these projects. Some Group members felt that some projects (including several CC units in the LHV) proposed by developers were ready for construction and could be developed rapidly; others felt that the development difficulties were underestimated. Time is a valuable commodity; solutions are available that can act as an interim reliability measure, but more sustainable and economically beneficial solutions will take considerable time to be planned and implemented. 22 Entergy could submit a notice of retirement as late as 180 days prior to actual unit retirement. See NYPSC Case No. 05-E-0889, Proceeding on Motion of the Commission to Establish Policies and Procedures Regarding Generation Unit Retirements, Order Adopting Notice Requirements for Generation Unit Retirements (issued and effective December 20, 2005); see also NYISO Technical Bulletin 185 (establishing procedures for generation unit retirements). 23 Astoria Energy Phase II, entering service in July of 2011, was proposed in an RFP in 2007. The HTP cable was originally proposed in response to that same RFP. A – 40 D16322 August 2, 2011 Charles River Associates Final Report Page 18 Gas-fired generation development in the Lower Hudson Valley may be an attractive option, but with important tradeoffs and uncertainty There was distinct difference of opinion in our Group regarding whether the development of an equivalent (2,000 MW) amount of gas-fired capacity in the LHV warranted inclusion in our option set. While the ability to replace IPEC’s inframarginal (i.e., base-load) generation capacity with a roughly equivalent amount of inframarginal gas-fired capacity is intuitively appealing from the perspective of minimizing wholesale market price impacts, substantial uncertainty, risks and tradeoffs accompany this option. This option could yield nearly no increase in one of the metrics evaluated, wholesale energy rates, but with the highest required subsidies of any conventional solution we studied. Based on our analysis, the development of 2,000 MW of capacity in the LHV would require a NPV of $1.4 billion of support to developers, costs that would be passed on to consumers. An issue of concern to some Group members was that the difficulty of developing this new capacity was being substantially underestimated. Constructing two new 1,000 MW gas-fired CC units would mean constructing the two largest gas-fired power plants in the northeast United States in the LHV, traditionally one of the most difficult locations to develop power projects. Development uncertainties are nearly impossible to quantify, but planning centered on construction of large amounts of capacity in the LHV should incorporate a realistic view of development risk. In addition, there is substantial uncertainty regarding electrical system, and gas pipeline system upgrade costs. We did not conduct a detailed assessment of physical upgrades which may be necessary to develop the gas pipeline capacity needed to support operation of these plants, nor the economic impact of firm gas supply contracts which would be necessary to supply them. To be clear, every option we studied had some amount of inherent uncertainty related to incremental infrastructure costs necessary to support the project, but some in our group felt that the uncertainties of this option were distinctly larger. One of the Group members performed a high-level analysis of the potential gas system upgrades which would be required to support this generation option. Their analysis indicates that the upgrade costs would be approximately $350 million, and would include the construction of a new gas service line to interconnect with the Algonquin Pipeline, associated meter facilities, and an expansion of the Algonquin Pipeline which would include a horizontal drilling effort under the Hudson River. This infrastructure would also require filing an application with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for approval to construct the necessary facilities, a process estimated to take up to five years. These cost estimates were based on industry-standard parameters, and could be higher because of the necessity to construct these upgrades in congested or environmentally sensitive areas in the LHV. While a full replacement of IPEC’s capacity with CC units in the LHV would likely have little impact on wholesale market electricity prices, it would require the largest project subsidies among the conventional options studied and also result in the largest emissions increases of the all the options studied. Thermal generation, even with high-efficiency and modern control emission equipment, would result in the largest CO2 and NOx emissions increases of any A – 41 D16322 August 2, 2011 Charles River Associates Final Report Page 19 option we evaluated. Westchester County is also an environmental non-attainment zone, raising further difficulties related to project siting. This option is often put forward as a response to the retirement of IPEC in the public debate, and at the present time, this option has captured the attention of those looking to mitigate the impact of IPEC’s potential retirement. These factors warrant further analysis of this option, which goes beyond the scope of this report. The ultimate choice as to whether this is the best option for New York, however, may not be decided solely by complex quantitative analyses, but rather by the importance which policymakers and the public ascribe to the tradeoffs and uncertainties which accompany this approach. 1.3.1. Implications for policymakers Every option will require tradeoffs Articulating planning objectives is critical in the public debate, as the decision of how to address IPEC’s retirement can be viewed as a tradeoff between increased consumer cost, increased emissions, and increased development risk.24 There is no option, including plausible increases in energy conservation, which achieves low increases in cost, low increases in emissions, and an easy development process. The decisions regarding these tradeoffs will lie in the realm of public policy. Those who assert that there are “cheap” and “simple” solutions simply fail to acknowledge these tradeoffs. Additionally, policymakers must consider the long-term policy consequences of their actions. We take as given in our analysis that there is a fundamental orientation towards market- based approaches to electricity markets in New York State; a desire to minimize consumer impacts should take into account the effects on the goal of having an economically sustainable electricity market. The importance of IPEC to New York’s energy portfolio means that coordinated planning among key stakeholders in the region is necessary to prepare contingency plans in the event of IPEC’s retirement. This study, and others like it, is evidence that there is already a public debate underway regarding the impact of an IPEC retirement. Location and type of new generation Policymakers face a choice not only of whether to encourage the development of new generation and transmission, but if so, where? Because of the structure of New York’s grid and markets, the location of the generation which might replace IPEC is an important decision. Ceteris paribus, new generation capacity in the LHV is a higher priority than generation in NYC. New generating or transmission capacity in NYC is valuable and 24 We have not identified reliability as a tradeoff because we assume that the grid must meet minimum reliability standards, and thus reliability is a binary quality and constraining characteristic of any replacement option. A – 42 D16322 August 2, 2011 Charles River Associates Final Report Page 20 contributes to overall system reliability, but is not a complete substitute for generation in the LHV. Additional generation in NYC will, however, contribute to system reliability. The question of whether new generation in NYC is repowered generation or new development is not material to the question of system reliability; the overall net increase in capacity is the important metric. While we have assumed for this study that new NYC generation would be greenfield development, it could just as easily be repowering of an existing site; the economic and reliability effects would be similar, although there may be other benefits to repowering not fully captured in our methodology. Renewable generation can and should be part of the State’s energy mix. Because of IPEC’s substantial influence on the reliability of the grid, however, the reliability impact of renewable technologies on the grid must be considered and fully analyzed. Finally, NYC and the LHV are among the most challenging places in North America to construct new power plants, transmission lines, and gas pipelines. High development costs, stringent environmental regulations, a complex regulatory system and strong community concerns are significant challenges for any project. New efforts by the State to streamline the process may mitigate some of these factors, but development risk is still high. Solutions which assume rapid development of new or repowered power projects in southeast New York must take these factors into account. Decisions on new capacity can be postponed, but not avoided. If no action is taken by private developers in the market-based context, there is a process by which backstop reliability solutions would be implemented to prevent compromising the grid’s reliability. Upon the NYISO’s determination that reliability criteria would be violated (as would likely happen if IPEC’s retirement is announced), the NYISO would solicit market-based solutions and direct the New York Transmission Owners (NYTOs) to develop regulatory backstop solutions to maintain the grid's reliability. If and when that occurs, the debate over the relative merits, economics and costs of each option will be similar to the discussion today, with the only difference being there would be less time to make critical decisions. The economic, reliability, and environmental consequences of an IPEC retirement are sufficiently large that adequate time must be allocated to reach a well-considered and prudent decision regarding its replacement; more time will help ensure such an outcome. Lack of regulatory and commercial certainty will impede market-based solutions Power plant development in any market, and especially in New York, is a challenging endeavor. The regulatory, economic and financial environment all present a great amount of inherent uncertainty. Power projects, whether in the form of transmission or generation, are large, capital-intensive projects, and investors will understandably require some measure of certainty to commit that capital. In this instance, it is reasonable to assume that that no private entity will commit capital to replacement solutions for IPEC unless and until there is a high degree of certainty as to its retirement date. A – 43 D16322 August 2, 2011 Charles River Associates Final Report Page 21 Costs for Upstate versus Downstate The price impact is not confined to southeast New York consumers. The wholesale cost of electricity to consumers consists of two principal components, energy and capacity. The cost of energy is relatively straightforward: it is the cost of producing and delivering electrical energy in various locations throughout the State, and it is determined principally by generation mix, fuel prices, and transmission topology. The second component is installed capacity, or ICAP. This is a market in which generators are paid for having physical power plants available. The State is divided into three zones: Long Island, NYC, and the rest of NYS (ROS). IPEC is located in the ROS zone; its retirement will reduce supply in the ROS zone, and those effects will be felt everywhere in New York outside of NYC and Long Island. Because there is an economic surplus of supply in the NYC market, these effects will be somewhat attenuated in NYC.25 To generalize, the principal impact on energy markets is felt in the LHV and NYC regions, while principal impact on ICAP markets is felt upstate. Paying for Replacement Options Despite the fact that New York has among the highest electricity prices in the country, NYS as a whole, and NYC in particular, currently have a level of generation supply which yields relatively low (compared to historical levels) energy and capacity prices and makes new entry by merchant (i.e. non-contracted) generation challenging because of the high costs associated with developing new generation and transmission here. The slow rate of load growth, increasing penetration of energy efficiency, and low natural gas prices contribute to these effects. While some have stated that these factors combine to create an ideal opportunity to retire IPEC, they also make the development of privately-funded market-based solutions much more challenging. Based on our analysis, the new generation which would be required to maintain system reliability may not be supported by market revenues, and would likely need contractual support or subsides to be constructed. These costs (including associated infrastructure upgrades) will eventually be passed on to consumers through higher rates or other mechanisms. The magnitude of these costs is debatable, but they are real and significant. 25 IPEC’s retirement may help precipitate the formation of a new LHV ICAP zone, but for this analysis, we analyzed the market as it exists today. Formation of such a zone would reduce, but not eliminate, the effect of increased costs on upstate consumers. A – 44 D16322 August 2, 2011 Charles River Associates Final Report Page 22 1.4. SUMMARY OF RESULTS 1.4.1. Reliability Impacts We conducted a resource adequacy analysis of the New York system to determine whether IPEC’s retirement would violate reliability criteria, and the effect of each replacement option on system reliability (i.e., resource adequacy). Resource adequacy is only one component of overall system reliability. There are many system reliability impacts related to the potential retirement of IPEC which we did not analyze, including but not limited to transmission system security, generation deliverability, and voltage support issues. Resource adequacy is a necessary, but not sufficient, criterion for overall system reliability. Other analyses have been conducted related to the potential retirement of IPEC. While some of these have addressed resource adequacy, many of them have focused on other issues related to transmission system security and generation deliverability. Initial results from these analyses show that there are system reliability concerns which go beyond resource adequacy; adding capacity sufficient to meet resource adequacy criteria (or reducing demand) cannot be assumed to be sufficient alone to ensure overall system reliability. To be clear, changes in the grid can be effected to address these other system reliability concerns, but will likely require substantial cost. Table 1 displays the LOLE for the New York Control Area (NYCA) using the base-case assumptions for the scenarios described at the beginning of section 1.2. Shaded and bold- text cells indicate those years in which the standard of 0.1 days/year is violated, indicating the system does not meet minimum reliability standards. Resource adequacy criteria are violated in 2016 in the case in which IPEC retires. A – 45 Breaking Energy LEGAL, NUCLEAR, REGULATION Exclusive Interview: Current Status of Indian Point Nuclear Plant Relicensing By JARED ANDERSON on April 23, 2015 at 2:00 PM One of the more contentious issues in the US today is relicensing the nuclear power plant fleet for additional 20-year periods. As you can imagine, this issue can be particularly divisive in the local communities in which these plants are located. That is certainly the case with the Indian Point Energy Center – owned by Entergy – located roughly 35 miles north of New York City on the east bank of the Hudson River in the Town of Buchanan. Drive around the area and chances are you will see signs in people’s yards calling for the plant to be permanently shut down. That’s easier said than done, however, given the volume of power the plant contributes to the region. With over 2,000 megawatts of electricity generated at Indian Point, the facility accounts for 20 percent to 40 percent of the power consumed in New York City and Westchester Country, which is located just north of the Bronx. For comparison, a typical coal plant generates around 500 MW of power. Indian Point is currently operating under what is called a “period of extended operations” while relicensing proceedings unfold. “We are in the process of achieving license renewal,” Michael Twomey, Vice President for External Affairs at Entergy told Breaking Energy in an interview on the sidelines of the recent Future of Energy A – 46 Summit organized by Bloomberg New Energy Finance. The original license for unit 2 would have expired in September of 2013 and the unit 3 license would expire at the end of December 2015. But because Entergy is undergoing the license renewal process in front of the NRC and because the license renewal request was submitted more than 5 years before original license expiration, the facility is permitted to continue operations until the renewal process is complete, Twomey explained. Read additional Breaking Energy coverage of the Indian Point relicensing debate here. The renewal proceedings can be broken down into a three-part process. “We have to get the NRC to agree that our license should be extended. We are in that process with the NRC. We have gone through one round of hearings on contentions. All of those contentions have been resolved in our favor,” said Twomey. “We believe we meet all of the NRC requirements and I’m optimistic we will be able to work through that process and obtain license renewal on the other end,” he added. The State of New York challenged the Indian Point severe accident mitigation alternatives (SAMA) analysis, contesting particular decontamination times and decontamination cost assumptions. On February 18, 2015, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board granted the State two petitions that allow further SAMA contention review. The second issue involves Entergy getting a Coastal Zone Management Act determination in order to satisfy the NRC. “We are pursuing a couple different paths to achieve that,” said Twomey. “We’ve made an argument to the NRC that we don’t need a CZMA certification from New York because those facilities were previously reviewed by the State of New York when we purchased the plants back in 2000/2001. That issue is in front of the NRC and has not yet been resolved.” Entergy also made an argument to the state court that Indian Point was grandfathered under existing state law and did not need a new CZMA certification. “The New York Appellate Court agreed with us,” he said. That decision is in front of the highest New York State court – the Court of Appeals – right now and if the highest court agrees with the lower court than Entergy will not need to get a new CZMA certification. The third issue for license renewal is a water quality certificate from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation which is in the hearing phase now. “We believe we have demonstrated that we are entitled to a water quality certificate. We have to finish the administrative process to see what the NYSDEC says,” Twomey told Breaking Energy. A – 47 “We do have an alternative argument that we’ve raised with the NRC, which is under the NRC guidelines the State of New York had one year to make a determination on our request for a water quality certificate. We submitted that request I believe in 2009. It is 2015 and we do not yet have a final determination from the NYSDEC. So our argument is they waived their right to answer that question because they failed to act within a year.” The NYSDEC staff did issue a recommended denial within a year, but it’s Entergy’s position that that was not a final agency decision and thus does not satisfy the requirement. So it is now up to the NRC to determine whether the NYSDEC did in fact waive their right by not issuing an agency decision within a year, or if a staff-level recommended decision is sufficient in this particular case. At this point, if Entergy obtains favorable decisions from the NRC regarding the license renewal contentions, the New York State Court of Appeals regarding the CZMA determination and the NYSDEC regarding the water quality issue, then the company will have satisfied all the requirements needed to obtain the 20-year license renewal for Indian Point. Twomey said Entergy does not expect that three-part process to be completed before at least 2018 and probably later than that. In the meantime the plant will continue to operate under the period of extended operations as per NRC regulation, while opponents continue to mount legal challenges against the license renewal. A – 48 Washington, D.C., June 08, 2015 Indian Point Nuclear Plant Boosts New York’s Economy $1.6 Billion/Yr. NEI Study Finds Nuclear Plant Bolsters Economy, Tax Base and Employs Thousands BUCHANAN, N.Y.—Entergy’s Indian Point nuclear power plant in Westchester County annually contributes an estimated $1.6 billion to New York’s economy and $2.5 billion to the nation as a whole, according to a Nuclear Energy Institute study released today. The study is titled: “Economic Impacts of the Indian Point Energy Center.” (/Master-Document-Folder/Backgrounders/Reports-And- Studies/Economic-Impacts-of-the-Indian-Point-Energy-Center) The study found that in 2014, operation of Indian Point units 2 and 3—located in Buchanan, N.Y., north of New York City—generated $1.3 billion of annual economic output in the local counties and $1.6 billion statewide. One of the largest taxpayers in Westchester County, the facility contributed $30 million in state and local property taxes, with a total tax benefit of $340 million to local, state and federal governments. The facility’s nearly 1,000 employees benefit from an annual payroll of approximately $140 million, which stimulates nearly 4,400 additional jobs in other businesses in New York. “Indian Point greatly strengthens the local, regional and state economies through job creation, tax payments, and direct and secondary spending,” said Richard Myers, NEI’s vice president for policy development and planning, who directed the study. “In many ways, Indian Point and its 1,000 employees provide outputs that are crucial for the well-being of the local communities and the state.” The power plant also provides more than economic benefits. “Indian Point is a safe, proven source of reliable, affordable, carbon-free electricity that New Yorkers can count on,” said Bill Mohl, president of Entergy Wholesale Commodities. “The facility prevents the release of 8.5 million metric tons of carbon dioxide annually—the same as taking 1.6 million cars off the road. It produces about 10 percent of New York State’s total electricity, enough to power 2 million homes, and it does so very reliably. Over the past 10 years, the unit has operated at a capacity factor over 93 percent. This reliability is above the nuclear industry’s A – 49 the unit has operated at a capacity factor over 93 percent. This reliability is above the nuclear industry’s average and well above any other source of electricity.” Key findings of NEI’s study: Indian Point’s annual spending creates a huge ripple effect in the state and nationwide: The facility’s operation generates $1.3 billion of annual economic output in the local counties, $1.6 billion statewide and $2.5 billion across the United States. The study finds that for every dollar of output from Indian Point, the local economy produces $1.27, the state economy produces $1.55 and the U.S. economy produces $2.48. Entergy provides higher-than-average wages at Indian Point: Entergy directly employs approximately 1,000 people at Indian Point. Because they are technical in nature, these jobs typically are higher-paying. This direct employment leads to another 2,800 indirect jobs in surrounding counties and 1,600 in other industries in New York for a total 5,400 jobs in-state. There are an additional 5,300 indirect jobs outside the state for a total of 10,700 jobs throughout the United States. Indian Point is one of the largest taxpayers in Westchester County: Indian Point paid $30 million in state and local property and sales taxes in 2014. The total tax impact (direct and secondary) was nearly $340 million in tax revenue to the local, state and federal governments. Indian Point is a very reliable source of electricity: Over the past decade, Indian Point maintained a capacity factor (measure of performance reliability) of 93 percent or greater. This is consistently higher than the nuclear energy industry average and significantly higher than other forms of electric generation. This reliable production helps offset the potentially severe price volatility of other energy sources (e.g., natural gas) and the intermittency of renewable electricity sources. Indian Point is a critical part of New York’s clean energy mix: Indian Point generates about 25 percent of the electricity used in New York City and Westchester annually, approximately 10 percent of the state’s total electricity supply. Indian Point also produces about 24 percent of the state’s carbon-free electricity, preventing the emission of more than 8.5 million tons of carbon dioxide annually, the equivalent of more than 1.6 million cars. This emissions-free energy aids the state in meeting its clean air objectives under the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. Closing Indian Point would undo all the renewables investment made by New York over the past decade to comply with the initiative’s requirements. On an annual basis, Indian Point greatly contributes to the quality of life in the local communities: Entergy and Indian Point Energy Center have a tradition of generously contributing to non-profit organizations, schools, and universities in New York. Specific initiatives include: Hudson River Healthcare, Guiding Eyes for the Blind, Today’s Students – Tomorrow’s Teachers, Westchester Library System, Boys & Girls Club of Mt. Kisco, Friends of Westchester County Parks, Meals on Wheels of Rockland County and many others. Dedicated Indian Point employees contribute thousands of volunteer hours throughout the communities in the region. Employees have several long-standing traditions at Indian Point supporting community organizations, the longest running tradition being the employee-led Gifts for Rosary Hill, which has been an annual campaign dating back to 1961. About Entergy’s Indian Point Energy Center: Indian Point Energy Center, in Buchanan, N.Y., is home to two operating nuclear power plants, unit 2 and unit 3, which generate approximately 2,000 megawatts of electricity and supply about 25 percent of power used annually by homes, business and public facilities in New York City and Westchester County. Entergy Corp. is an integrated energy company engaged primarily in electric power production and retail distribution operations. Entergy owns and operates power plants with approximately 30,000 megawatts of electric generating capacity, including nearly 10,000 megawatts of nuclear power, making it one of the nation’s leading nuclear generators. NEI Study Methodology: NEI conducted the analysis using a nationally recognized model to estimate the facility’s economic impacts on the state and national economies. Regional Economic Models Inc. developed the Policy Insight Plus (PI+) economic impact modeling system, which is the methodology employed in this analysis A – 50 A –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` L , ( : ! % $ % < 0 3 = / . - F 5 @ H . @ 6 5 6 5 . /I ^ a b / ` L c ! ; # ( * ! ' < 0 2 3 6 5 0 @ 3 < + C _ - . d 1 5 - . G . @ 6 / > ; ' ! e ! ' ! % ! & # & ! * V % ! & # % & ! : ! ; ! % & ! % 8 f g h i j k l m f n o p q r s s t u h t p t v w t x r v y z o h t { | z v t } t o q~ t € ‚ ƒ „ p r s s t p q r … s z p q t † ƒ ‡ v t { | z v t } t o q ˆ ‰ v q t € „ Šp | ‹ q r q q t Œ v ‰ … r … z s z q Ž ‰ v v z p ‰ ˆ u z p ‹ ‰ o o t ‹ q z o y r o ‘ ’ “ ” • – — ˜u | t q ‰ “ ™ š – › “ œ ™ u t ˆ z ‹ z t o ‹ z t p p r s s … t ‰ o r w t v r y t o ‰ q } ‰ v t q r o‰ o ‹ t z o q t o t r v p j m ‰ } Œ s z r o ‹ t ž z q q z p ‹ v z q t v z ‰ o p r s s … tt w r s | r q t u Œ v ‰ … r … z s z p q z ‹ r s s p | ‹ q r q q t s ‰ p p ‰ ˆ • – — ˜ t Ÿ Œ t ‹ q r q z ‰ oŽ ¡ ¢ ‰ ˆ u z p ‹ ‰ o o t ‹ q z o y ‘ ’ “ ” • – — ˜ u | t q ‰ “ ™ š – › “ œ ™ u t ˆ z ‹ z t o ‹ z t p A – 52 £ ¤ ¥ ¦ § ¨ © ª ¦ « § ¤ ¬ § ª ¤ « ® ¯ « © ° ± ² ¬ ¥ ³p r s s … t ‰ o r w t v r y t o ‰ } ‰ v t q r o ´ j i u r Œ t v t r v j ~ z pt w r s | r q z ‰ o p r s s } r t u | t r s s ‰ ž r o ‹ t ˆ ‰ v u t } r o u | o ‹ t v q r z o q p ‹ t u | s t u ‰ | q r y t p r o u u t v r q z o y p ˆ ‰ v ‹ t u ‰ | q r y t p r o u u t v r q z o y p r p p z p q r o ‹ t ‰ w t v z o q t v ‹ ‰ o o t ‹ q z ‰ o p ž z q o t z y … ‰ v z o y œ – µ ¶ “ – • — “ ™ — š € ‚ · “ — µ š ” ’ š š ’ – µ ‚ ¸ š ¶ ™ ” ™ ” ™ “ ¹ ™ µ œ ¸ ¶ “ — µ š ‘ ™ “ œ — º — » ’ • ’ ¶ ¸ r o uœ — º — œ ’ ¶ ¸ r o u ¼ ‰ v • – — ˜ “ ™ • ’ ™ ‘ ˆ v ‰ } r w r z s r … s t – º ™ “ — ¶ ’ µ ¹ º “ – œ ™ ˜ › “ ™ š jf g h ½ j ‰ r u ¾ t v w z o y ¢ o q z q n o p q r s s t u m r Œ r ‹ z q h t { | z v t } t o q p¿ ‚ À š p r s s … t v t { | z v t u q ‰ Œ v ‰ ‹ | v t p | ˆ ˆ z ‹ z t o q “ ™ š – › “ œ ™ œ — º — œ ’ ¶ ¸ ˆ ‰ vq t t o q z v t € † ‚ Á u t ˆ z o t u – » • ’ ¹ — ¶ ’ – µ º “ – œ › “ ™ ” ™ µ ¶ º ™ “ ’ – ˜ p ‰ r p q ‰} t t q q t p q r q t ž z u t † ƒ ‡ v t { | z v t } t o q u t q t v } z o t u ˆ v ‰ } f g h i j | v q t v q z p ¿ ‚ À œ — º — œ ’ ¶ ¸ ‰ … s z y r q z ‰ o p r s s … t u z p q v z … | q t u p ‰ r p q ‰} t t q • – œ — ¶ ’ – µ — • † „ Š à “ ™ Ä › ’ “ ™ ” ™ µ ¶ š ‹ ‰ o p z u t v z o y q t — Å — ’ • — » ’ • ’ ¶ ¸ r o u‹ r Œ r … z s z q ‰ ˆ q t € ‚ · “ — µ š ” ’ š š ’ – µ ‚ ¸ š ¶ ™ ” q ‰ } r z o q r z o f g h i“ ™ • ’ — » ’ • ’ ¶ ¸ v t { | z v t } t o q p jf g h Æ j ¢ Ÿ q t v o r s n o p q r s s t u m r Œ r ‹ z q † „ Š à ˆ v ‰ } “ ™ š – › “ œ ™ š t Ÿ q t v o r s q ‰ q t € „ Š ˆ ‰ v p r q z p ˆ z o y r Œ ‰ v q z ‰ o‰ ˆ ¿ ‚ À † „ Š à v t { | z v t } t o q p } | p q … t u t } ‰ o p q v r q t u q ‰ … t r w r z s r … s tr o u u t s z w t v r … s t q ‰ q t € „ Š … ‰ v u t v p j † „ Š à ˆ v ‰ } “ ™ š – › “ œ ™ št Ÿ q t v o r s q ‰ q t € „ Š p r s s … t Œ t v } z q q t u q ‰ q t t Ÿ q t o q f g h i“ ™ • ’ — » ’ • ’ ¶ ¸ v t { | z v t } t o q p r v t p r q z p ˆ z t u 8 f g x i j & # # * ; & # # ? $ : - . / 0 1 - 2 . 3 = . d 1 3 2 7 % ( * % ( * & % % , ( * % & % ) * + K Ç 9 % & # # " & * A – 53 A STRONGER, MORE RESILIENT NEW YORK A – 54 A STRONGER, MORE RESILIENT NEW YORK111 Utility Regulation A combination of private companies and public authorities own and operate New York’s energy system, which is subject to a complex system of Federal and State oversight. Within this regulatory system, different entities are respon- sible for setting reliability expectations and stan- dards, providing regulatory oversight, and for monitoring compliance with performance stan- dards. The overall goal is to ensure safe, reliable, and affordable delivery of electricity, natural gas, and steam. (See graphic: Utility Regulation) In the electric sector, the Federal Energy Regu- latory Commission (FERC) oversees interstate transmission rates and wholesale electricity sales, while the New York State Reliability Coun- cil (NYSRC) establishes the State’s electric reliability standards for the bulk power and bulk transmission systems. Subject to these stan- dards, the NYISO operates the state’s wholesale electricity market and high-voltage transmis- sion system, and monitors the reliability of the state-wide transmission system. The New York State Public Service Commission (PSC) oversees all aspects of retail electric service, in- cluding the utilities’ rates, terms, and condi- tions of service, as well as the safety, adequacy, and reliability of the service they provide. Reliability expectations set by regulators govern the design and operation of the electric system. In the generation and transmission system, the reliability standards are set by the NYSRC, which requires that the bulk power and transmission system be designed so as to have an unplanned outage no more than once in 10 years. Con Edison, in turn, designs and operates its electric system so that its network system, the portion of its system that serves the city’s more densely-populated areas, is able to withstand the loss of two components within a distribu- tion network and still maintain service. In less densely-populated areas, the system is de- signed to withstand the loss of one component. Oversight of the rates, terms, and conditions of electric service is the domain of the PSC. One mechanism used by the PSC towards this end is the “rate case” process, in which the PSC deter- mines the conditions for utility rate increases. During this process, a utility submits a filing that contains a justification for a rate increase, includ- ing details on capital investments that it proposes to make. The City and a variety of other stake- holders offer comments, testimony, and recom- mendations on the rate request and other related issues. The PSC then makes a decision about the proposed increase based on factors including whether the rates adopted will maintain safe and adequate service for customers. The same process applies to gas and steam utilities. To measure how well the electric utilities are performing, the PSC uses quantitative metrics. The two main metrics are the System Average Interruption Frequency Index (SAIFI) and the Customer Average Interruption Duration Index (CAIDI). SAIFI measures the average number of interruptions per customer per year, while CAIDI measures the average length of each interruption. Con Edison’s SAIFI is the lowest in the nation among large investor-owned utilities; its CAIDI, however, is above the national average. This generally reflects the fact that Con Edison’s underground network systems are quite robust, suffering outages less frequently than typical above-ground systems – but when outages do occur, they can take longer to address and repair than overhead disruptions. (See chart: Reliability Performance Comparison Among Selected US Utilities) For the natural gas and steam utilities, regulation of system design and operations is focused on safety. Oversight on rates and conditions of services is regulated similarly to the electric sector. In the case of the natural gas system, the FERC regulates interstate pipelines and the PSC New York Power Authority (NYPA) • Secures energy supply for government facilities through own assets or contracts with outside suppliers • With City, co-administers program to improve energy efficiency of City government buildings New York City Government • Enacts policies to minimize cost of the supply portfolio • Advocates for the interests of city businesses, residents, and government through PSC rate cases • Administers program to improve energy efficiency of City government buildings • Consumes electricity Public Service Commission (PSC) • Provides broad oversight over utilities • Sets utility rates and terms of service Con Edison • Provides electric utility service in New York City except for the Rockaways, and in Westchester County New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) • Creates and implements incentive programs for renewable energy and energy efficiency initiatives funded through the Systems Benefit Charge (SBC) New York City Customers • Consume electricity • Pay electricity bills Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) • Regulates interstate gas pipelines and electric transmission • Oversees the NYISO • Regulates wholesale market North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) • Sets reliability standards for bulk power system New York Independent Systems Operator (NYISO) • Manages New York State high voltage transmission system • Administers wholesale electricity market • Assesses supply needs on a 10-year horizon New York State Reliability Council (NYSRC) • Sets and monitors compliance with reliability rules for New York’s bulk power system Power Plant Owners and Operators • Develop, own, and operate power plants • Sell power to NYISO or directly to utility (Con Edison, LIPA, or NYPA) or large customers Long Island Power Authority (LIPA) • Provides electric utility service in Long Island and the Rockaways New York Governor • Nominates PSC Commissioners • Nominates NYPA, LIPA, and NYSERDA board members • Sets energy policy for the state NY State non-utility participants Bulk power participants NYC non-utility participants NYC utility providers Overview of Electric Industry Participants Source: OLTPS A – 55 CHAPTER 6 | UTILITIES 112 UTILITY SERVICE RELIABILITY EXPECTATIONS REGULATORY OVERSIGHT • N/A, focus is on safety Steam • PSC regulates rates, terms, and conditions of service • PSC measures response time to leaks and leak repair backlog • N/A, focus is on safety • N/A Natural Gas transmission • FERC regulates rates, terms, and conditions of service • USDOT regulates pipeline safety Natural Gas transmission • N/A, focus is on safety • PSC regulates rates, terms, and conditions of service • PSC regulates pipeline safety as USDOT’s delegate • PSC measures emergency response time to leaks, leak repair backlog, damages to gas facilities, and replacement of leak-prone gas mains PERFORMANCE MONITORING Electric distribution Electric generation and transmission • NYSRC requires that the probability of the loss of firm load due to system wide resource deficiencies be no more than 1 day per 10 years in accordance with Federal standards set by NERC • FERC oversees NERC and NYISO, which manages bulk electricity generation and transmission in New York • NYSRC sets reliability standards (with FERC and PSC oversight) • Compliance with NERC and NYSRC standards is monitored by the NYSRC and NYISO through reporting, audits, and investigations Electric distribution • Con Edison designs network system to withstand the loss of two components; parts of the overhead system are designed to withstand the loss of one component (depending on location and population density) • PSC regulates rates, terms, and conditions of service • PSC measures performance using SAIFI, CAIDI, and major outage events • PSC also tracks use of remote monitoring systems and restoration times following outages regulates local distribution companies and the provision of retail gas service. Gas pipeline safety is regulated by the United States Department of Transportation (US DOT), though in New York State, the PSC is the US DOT’s designee for this purpose. The steam system, on the other hand, is regulated solely by the PSC. For both systems, performance metrics used by the PSC measure how well utilities manage leaks and how quickly they respond to reports of them (and, in the case of the natural gas utilities, odors). Across all of the city’s energy systems, the PSC also establishes financial incentives for each utility. These incentives impose revenue adjustments for failure to achieve specified thresholds or target levels of performance. Climate change and its associated risks are not considered with respect to virtually any aspect of the regulatory framework applicable to New York’s energy system. For example, the models that the NYISO runs to test whether the electric system will be able to meet future standards fac- tor in the possibility of future heat waves, but do not yet consider the fact that in the future, heat waves are likely to be more frequent, more intense, and longer lasting than today, impacting electric demand. Similarly, when the utilities de- sign their equipment, they tend to do so with a certain level of storm surge in mind. The regula- 0 100 200 300 400 500 Con Edison* Con Edison* 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 1st quartile 2nd quartile 3rd quartile 4th quartile 1st quartile 2nd quartile 3rd quartile 4th quartile Customer Average Interruption Duration Index (CAIDI), 2009 Defined as the number of minutes an average customer interruption lasts * Con Edison numbers include the underground network system, which is unique among compared utilities Note: Chart values include major storm events System Average Interruption Frequency Index (SAIFI), 2009 Defined as the total number of customer interruptions divided by the total number of customers served Reliability Performance Comparison Among Selected US Utilities Source: Edison Electric Institute, NYS PSC, Team Analysis Source: OLTPS Utility Regulation A – 56 tors, however, do not yet require these utilities to consider a full range of present and future storm surge risks. When it comes to measuring perform- ance, some versions SAIDI and CAIFI metrics that are used for the purpose actually exclude outages that are caused by major weather events. What Happened During Sandy Sandy caused unprecedented damage to New York’s electricity and steam systems, while the city’s gas system experienced damage that was smaller in scale and impact. In all three systems, however, damage occurred to infrastructure and customer equipment alike, leaving hun- dreds of thousands of customers without elec- tricity, tens of thousands of customers without natural gas, and hundreds of the city’s largest buildings without steam for heat and hot water. Most of the city’s energy systems ultimately re- covered within a week of Sandy’s departure. However, in parts of the city where floodwaters inundated basements and sub-basements, it took additional weeks to make the extensive re- pairs to homes and businesses that were nec- essary for utility service to be restored. Electric System The total number of New York customers left without power as a result of Sandy ultimately came to 800,000, which, given that utilities de- fine a customer as a single electric meter, is equal to more than 2 million people. This is five times as high as the number that lost power during Hurricane Irene, the second most-dis- ruptive storm in recent history. Despite actions by the utilities to protect their assets, the storm caused serious damage to generation, trans- mission, and distribution systems, as well as to customer-owned equipment. While utilities sought to restore services as quickly as possi- ble, the extent of the damage led to a complex and lengthy restoration process. Service to most Con Edison customers was restored within four days. However, some customers’ service was not restored for almost two weeks, making this event the longest-duration outage in Con Edison’s history. LIPA’s electric service restoration in the Rockaways took an average of almost 14 days—with some customers en- during outages over a much longer period. In the days leading up to Sandy, the utilities took preemptive actions to minimize potential downtime by protecting and preserving their in- frastructure. For example, to mitigate the im- pact of a surge (which, based on the best available forecasts, would top 11 feet at the Battery in Manhattan), the utilities protected critical facilities with sandbags, plywood and other temporary barriers. Then, as the storm arrived on the night of October 29, Con Edison shut down three entire networks preemp- tively—its Bowling Green and Fulton networks in Lower Manhattan, and its Brighton Beach network in Brooklyn—to prevent catastrophic flood damage to several clusters of under- ground distribution equipment as well as to customer equipment. Elsewhere, Con Edison prepared to de-energize feeders when flooding appeared imminent at key underground trans- former vaults. Because of the configuration of the network distribution system, many of these preemptive moves caused the loss of electricity not only to customers in areas that were antic- ipated to be in Sandy’s inundation zones but also to many customers that were expected to be outside of those zones. When the storm arrived, the surge exceeded projections, topping out not at 11 feet but at 14 feet (MLLW) at the Battery and overwhelm- ing many pre-storm preparations. Flooding forced several power plants and several trans- mission lines that import electricity from New Jersey to shut down, leaving New York City more dependent on a subset of its in-city gen- eration capacity and on the electricity supply from Upstate New York. Some facilities also were damaged severely by Sandy’s surge. This was true, for example, at the Brooklyn Navy Yard Cogeneration plant and the Linden Cogen- eration plant. Other facilities, meanwhile, were disconnected temporarily because of impacts to the transmission system. While the impacts to electricity supply were significant, Sandy, ul- timately, did not have the impact it might have had, had the storm arrived during the summer. (See sidebar: Summer Demand Scenario) Perhaps the most significant (and dramatic) im- pact that Sandy had on the operation of the transmission and distribution systems occurred when the storm’s surge came into contact with several key substations—including substations that, based on earlier surge forecasts, were not A STRONGER, MORE RESILIENT NEW YORK113 The Arverne Substation in the Rockaways was severely damaged by Sandy. Credit: LIPA A – 57 Committee on Alternatives to Indian Point for Meeting Energy Needs Board on Energy and Environmental Systems Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences ALTERNATIVES TO THE Indian Point Energy Center FOR MEETING NEW YORK ELECTRIC POWER NEEDS Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Alternatives to the Indian Point Energy Center for Meeting New York Electric Power Needs http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11666.html A – 58 THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS • 500 Fifth Street, N.W. • Washington, DC 20001 NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance. This report and the study on which it is based were supported by Contract No. DE-AT01-04TD45037 (Task Order No. 6) from the U.S. Department of Energy. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the view of the organizations or agencies that provided support for the project. International Standard Book Number: 0-309-10172-7 Cover: The transmission network links generating plants, including Indian Point, with demand centers in all parts of New York State. Map courtesy of the New York State Independent System Operator. Indian Point Energy Center image courtesy of Entergy Corporation. Available in limited supply from: Additional copies available for sale from: Board on Energy and Environmental The National Academies Press Systems 500 Fifth Street, N.W. National Research Council Lockbox 285 500 Fifth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20055 Keck W934 800-624-6242 or 202-334-3313 Washington, DC 20001 (in the Washington metropolitan area) 202-334-3344 http://www.nap.edu Copyright 2006 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Alternatives to the Indian Point Energy Center for Meeting New York Electric Power Needs http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11666.html A – 59 144 F Background for the System Reliability and Cost Analysis Samuel M. Fleming1 1Samuel M. Fleming is a member of the Committee on Alternatives to Indian Point for Meeting Energy Needs. This appendix contains the following: • Appendix F-1, “The NYISO Approach,” and • Appendix F-2, “Notes on the MARS-MAPS Simula- tions.” Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Alternatives to the Indian Point Energy Center for Meeting New York Electric Power Needs http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11666.html A – 60 APPENDIX F 153 on some aspects of reactive power in which the capital cost of a static VAR compensator (SVC) or a Statcom is stated to be in the range of $50/kvar, and that of a synchronous con- denser is about $35/kvar. All three of these devices have fast dynamic response. So as a rough order of magnitude, the capital cost of a 1,000 Mvar correction at $50/kvar would be about $50 million. In comparison, capital cost of a 1,000 MW power plant, at a cost of order $1,000 per kW installed, is on the order of $1 billion. So as a rough rule of thumb, the cost of correcting 1 Mvar of reactive power is about 5 per- cent or so of the cost of replacing 1 MW of real power. It might be possible to use the existing generators at In- dian Point Units 2 and 3 as synchronous condensers after retiring the nuclear reactors. As synchronous condensers (see Gerstenkorn, 2004, p. 271), the generators could add reac- tive power (but not real power) to the transmission system. However, there might be no significant advantage to doing so, as the capital cost of a synchronous condenser is about $35/kvar O’Neill (2004). Replacing the 1,000 Mvar of reac- tive power supplied by Indian Point Units 2 and 3 with a new synchronous condenser in the area would cost only about $35 million. Preliminary Screening Analysis The committee’s initial reliability analysis was intended to scope the amount of compensation that would be neces- sary to replace Indian Point. It is included here (but not in the final GE report to the committee or in Chapter 5) to illustrate how the committee reached its final scenarios. The capacity resource compensation hypothesized in the committee’s pre- liminary screening case included 150 MW of additional en- ergy-efficiency and demand-reduction measures by 2007, added 3,510 MW by 2010, and a total 3,740 MW of new capacity, energy-efficiency, and demand-reduction measures by 2015. As noted, these illustrative capacity additions were limited to proposed generation projects that were not mature enough from a permitting or financing standpoint to meet the NYISO (2005) criteria for inclusion in its Initial Base Case assessment. The committee adjusted the timing of ad- ditions somewhat arbitrarily to meet 2010 or 2015 objec- tives. The additions are illustrative only of capacity that would be required, and no suggestion is made or implied that the “projects” or their timing constitute financially feasible, practical options, or that other projects would not be reacti- vated, or others proposed later. In sum, the committee’s screening analysis showed first that, with the additional compensatory resource capacity as- sumed, the early-retirement scenario still resulted in an NYCA LOLE of 0.103 in 2010, increasing to 0.585 by 2013. For retirement at the end of current licenses, the NYCA LOLE slightly exceeded the required 0.1 beginning in 2013 as Indian Point Unit 2 is shut down and reached 1.39 in 2015, when Indian Point Unit 3 is shut down. Thus, the additional capacity compensation assumed in the screening case analy- sis would not alone accommodate either the early shutdown or an end-of-license shutdown of Indian Point Units 2 and 3. The analysis then continued with the Reference Case and following scenarios, as given in Table F-2-9 and following and discussed in Chapter 5. Tabulated Results of MARS Calculations Tables F-2-3 through F-2-23 are a compendium of the results from the GE MARS modeling of the various sce- narios examined during this study. The tables provide suffi- cient numerical detail to provide insight into the changes by geographic region, and the compensatory resources intro- duced, given each of the scenarios adopted by the commit- tee. The comparisons generally should be made relative to the Reference Case assumed by the committee as a baseline for meeting LOLE requirements, meeting load growth and scheduled retirements of capacity (without retiring Indian Point). TABLE F-2-3 NYISO Initial Base Case—Qualifying Additions to Capacity (MW) Rest of Yearly Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone State Total Year Qualifying Additions to Capacity (Zone, MW) G H I J K (ROS) (MW) 2005 ConEd East River Repowering (J, 298, in service); 798 160 770 1,728 Astoria Energy (J, 500); Calpine Bethpage 3 (K, 79.9); Pinelawn Power I (K, 79.9); PSEG Bethlehem (ROS, 770) 2006 NYPA Poletti Expansion (J, 500) 500 500 2007 Neptune HVDC Cable (PJM to K, 600) 600 600 2009 0 2010 0 Totals 0 0 0 1,298 760 770 2,828 NOTE: New York Control Area load zones as shown in Figure 1-3. Neptune Cable is reported later at 660 MW. Abbreviations are defined in Appendix C. SOURCE: Derived from NYISO (2005). Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Alternatives to the Indian Point Energy Center for Meeting New York Electric Power Needs http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11666.html A – 61 154 ALTERNATIVES TO THE INDIAN POINT ENERGY CENTER TABLE F-2-4 Committee’s Screening Study—Early Shutdown with Assumed Compensation from Planned NYCA Projects and Added Energy-Efficiency and Demand-Side-Management Measures (MW) Statewide Yearly Cumulative Additions Cumulative Year Qualifying Additions to Capacity Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Rest of EE and DSM Total, Beyond NYISO Additions (Zone, MW) G H I J K State Measures MW Initial Base Case from 2005 2005 ConEd East River Repowering 798 160 770 1,728 (J, 298, in service); Astoria Energy (J, 500); Calpine Bethpage 3 (K, 79.9); Pinelawn Power I (K, 79.9); PSEG Bethlehem (ROS, 770) 2006 NYPA Poletti Expansion 500 500 (J, 500) 2007 Neptune HVDC Cable (PJM to 600 150 750 150 2,978 K, 600) 2008 Reliant Astoria Repowering I 1,040 533 150 1,723 1,873 4,701 (J, 367); Reliant Astoria Repowering II (J, 173); SCS Astoria Energy II (J, 500); LIPA Caithness CC (K, 383); LIPA LI Sound Wind (K, 150); EE (100); DSM (50) 2009 0 1,873 4,701 2010 Calpine Wawayanda (G, 540); 1,290 350 1,640 3,513 6,341 Mirant Bowline Point 3 (G, 750); EE (250); DSM (100) 2011 0 3,513 6,341 2012 0 3,513 6,341 2013 EE (75); DSM (75) 150 150 3,663 6,491 2014 0 3,663 6,491 2015 EE (50); DSM (25) 125 125 3,788 6616 Totals 1,290 0 0 2,338 1,293 770 925 6,616 3,788 6,616 NOTE: New York Control Area load zones as shown in Figure 1-3. Abbreviations are defined in Appendix C. SOURCE: Hinkle et al., personal communication, September 2005. Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Alternatives to the Indian Point Energy Center for Meeting New York Electric Power Needs http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11666.html A – 62 APPENDIX F 155 TABLE F-2-5 Committee’s Screening Study—End-of-License Shutdown with Assumed Compensation from Planned NYCA Projects and Added Energy-Efficiency and Demand-Side-Management Measures (MW) Statewide Yearly Cumulative Additions Cumulative Year Qualifying Additions to Capacity Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Rest of EE and DSM Total, Beyond NYISO Additions (Zone, MW) G H I J K State Measures MW Initial Base Case from 2005 2005 ConEd East River Repowering 798 160 770 1,728 (J, 298, in service); Astoria Energy (J, 500); Calpine Bethpage 3 (K, 79.9); Pinelawn Power I (K, 79.9); PSEG Bethlehem (ROS, 770) 2006 NYPA Poletti Expansion (J, 500) 500 500 2007 Neptune HVDC Cable 600 150 750 150 2,978 (PJM to K, 600) 2008 SCS Astoria Energy II (J, 500); 500 533 150 1,183 1,333 4,161 LIPA Caithness CC (K, 383); LIPA LI Sound Wind (K, 150); EE (100); DSM (50) 2009 0 1,333 4,161 2010 Astoria Repowering I (J, 367); 1,290 367 350 2,007 3,340 6,168 Calpine Wawayanda (G, 540); Mirant Bowline Point 3 (G, 750); EE (250); DSM (100) 2011 Astoria Repowering II (J, 173) 173 173 3,513 6,341 2012 0 3,513 6,341 2013 EE (75); DSM (75) 150 150 3,663 6,491 2014 0 3,663 6,491 2015 EE (50); DSM (25) 75 75 3,738 6,566 Totals 1,290 0 0 2,338 1,293 770 875 6,566 3,738 6,566 NOTE: New York Control Area load zones as shown in Figure 1-3. Abbreviations are defined in Appendix C. SOURCE: Hinkle et al., personal communication, September 2005. TABLE F-2-6 NYISO Initial Base Case with Alternate New England Transmission Constraints— Projected NYCA Reliability Loss-of-Load Expectation (LOLE) and Reserve Margin LOLE Results NYISO Initial Base Case 2008 2010 2013 2015 ZONE A 0 0 0 0 ZONE B 0 0 0 0 ZONE C 0 0 0 0 ZONE D 0 0 0 0 ZONE E 0 0 0 0 ZONE F 0 0 0.001 0.002 ZONE G 0.001 0.017 0.103 0.291 ZONE H 0.001 0.008 0.017 0.018 ZONE I 0.058 0.617 2.464 4.401 ZONE J 0.095 0.785 2.618 4.473 ZONE K 0.051 0.418 1.888 3.526 NYCA 0.122 0.966 3.164 5.21 NYCA Capacity @ Peak Unit of Measure 37,039 37,039 37,039 37,039 NYCA Peak Load Unit of Measure 33,330 34,200 35,180 35,671 Special Case Resources (SCRs) Unit of Measure 975 975 975 975 NYCA Reserve Margin (%) 14% 11% 8% 7% NOTE: New York Control Area load zones as shown in Figure 1-3. LOLEs were calculated using SCRs (975 MW) and UDRs (HVDC Cables—990 MW). NYCA Reserve Margin reported includes SCRs, but not UDRs. Abbreviations are defined in Appendix C. SOURCE: Hinkle et al., personal communication, September 2005. Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Alternatives to the Indian Point Energy Center for Meeting New York Electric Power Needs http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11666.html A – 63 156 ALTERNATIVES TO THE INDIAN POINT ENERGY CENTER TABLE F-2-7 Committee’s Screening Study: Impact on Reliability and Reserve Margins of Shutting Down Indian Point Without Adding Compensatory Resources: Comparison of the NYISO Initial Base Case with Early-Shutdown and End-of- Current-License Shutdown Cases NYISO Initial Base Case, Using Early Shutdown: IP2 Shutdown End-of-License Shutdown: Alternate New England 1/1/08, IP3 Shutdown 1/1/10; IP2 Shutdown 1/1/13, IP3 Transmission Constraints No Compensatory Resources Shutdown 1/1/15; No (Draft v.2 RNA Report) Added Compensatory Resources Added Predicted Reliability (LOLE) Predicted Reliability (LOLE) Predicted Reliability (LOLE) 2008 2010 2013 2015 2008 2010 2013 2015 2008 2010 2013 2015 Zone A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Zone B 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Zone C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Zone D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Zone E 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Zone F 0 0 0.001 0.002 0 0 0.002 0.002 0 0 0.002 0.002 Zone G Hudson Valley 0.001 0.017 0.103 0.291 0.003 0.302 0.876 1.967 0.001 0.017 0.339 1.967 Zone H Millwood 0.001 0.008 0.017 0.018 0.035 5.568 8.913 10.77 0.001 0.008 0.377 10.77 Zone I Dunwoodie 0.058 0.617 2.464 4.401 0.323 5.956 9.582 11.554 0.058 0.617 5.914 11.554 Zone J New York City 0.095 0.785 2.618 4.473 0.292 4.927 7.701 9.742 0.095 0.785 5.071 9.742 Zone K Long Island 0.051 0.418 1.888 3.526 0.226 5.456 8.344 10.528 0.051 0.418 4.595 10.528 NYCA 0.122 0.966 3.164 5.21 0.4 6.338 10.074 12.061 0.122 0.966 6.444 12.061 NYCA Capacity @ Peak Unit of Measure 37,039 37,039 37,039 37,039 36,077 36,086 35,086 35,086 37,039 37,039 36,077 35,086 NYCA Peak Load Unit of Measure 33,330 34,200 35,180 35,671 33,330 34,200 35,180 35,671 33,330 34,200 35,180 35,671 Special Case Resources (SCRs) Unit of 975 975 975 975 975 975 975 975 975 975 975 975 Measure NYCA Reserve Margin (%) 14% 11% 8% 7% 11% 8% 3% 1% 14% 11% 5% 1% NOTE: IP2, Indian Point Unit 2; IP3, Indian Point Unit 3; see Appendix C for definitions of abbreviations. LOLEs were calculated using SCRs (975 MW) and UDRs (HVDC Cables—990 MW). NYCA Reserve Margin reported includes SCRs, but not UDRs. SOURCE: Hinkle et al., personal communication, September 2005. Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Alternatives to the Indian Point Energy Center for Meeting New York Electric Power Needs http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11666.html A – 64 POWER TRENDS 2010 NEW YORK INDEPENDENT SYSTEM OPERATOR Crossroads A – 65 P o w e r T r e n d s 2 0 1 0 Crossroads NEW YORK’S EMERGING ENERGY 18 ! " # # $ % & ' ' # $ ( ) ! # # * ! * + , - . / - 0 1 . ! + ' $ 2 3 & ! 45 6 7 8 5 9 : 1 1 ; ) # # ! # ' * " ! % $ & % & ! # < * ! ! & ! ! ) # ! ! ! 2 $ = ; - 6 ! $ ! ' ' % ! % & & ! % ! ! > ! ! 2 $ $ ! 4 Assessing Reliability Needs? ' ! " & # $ ! * ( ! @ A B C D > ' # 2 ' 3 ! % & * 1 ! < 3 ! ! * ! ! ! * ! # # $ & ' ' # $ % ! 3 ! * 3 & ! * ! * - E F - 6 7 8 5 9 0 . 3 ! 3 & # * * " ! ! # $ ' 3 ! # # $ % ! ! # ! 3 3 $ ! 4 G HI 1 J K K L 6 7 8 5 9 - 0 = 1 J K M L 6 0 M K / N 3 ! 3 ! ( 3 # & * 2 OP Q R S R T U V T W R Q X Y Z [ X \ ] W Q R ^ X \ R _ ] Y X ` a b _ c X d ] T T ] R \ T V ] d ] W U e R \ T f Q R d § f R T T ] V g f Z X V X Y S R h X Q S V U \ W T ] \ a X h i R Q j k h l ] [ l [ R Z V Y V X U Y W R X U Q V mQ X e Q X d X \ W R f T R d X S R h X Q f U [ ] V ] e X T k ] d S U [ e \ ^ T m T W X d Q X V ] U n ] V ] W mY Z Q ] \ ^ S X Q ] R Y T R f S X U j Y X d U \ Y o p f T Z [ l [ ] Q [ Z d T W U \ [ X T U Q ] T X U \ YQ X S V U [ X d X \ W Q X T R Z Q [ X T U Q X \ R W U q U ] V U n V X k Q X V ] U n ] V ] W m [ R \ [ X Q \ T [ R Z V YY X q X V R S U T T R R \ U T W l X S Q R ^ Q U d T W U Q W T ] \ r s t r ou \ X _ S X [ W X Y Q X e Q X d X \ W R f R \ X R f W l X W h R p \ Y ] U \ P R ] \ W \ Z [ V X U Q Z \ ] W T k § h l ] [ l k Y Z X W R W l X ] Q V R [ U e R \ ] \ U [ R \ T W Q U ] \ X Y S U Q W R f W l X T m T W X d kh R Z V Y [ Q X U W X Q X V ] U n ] V ] W m \ X X Y T ] f R W l X Q Q X T R Z Q [ X T h X Q X \ R W d U Y XU q U ] V U n V X ] \ U \ U S S Q R S Q ] U W X V R [ U e R \ o5 6 7 8 5 9 1 1 & ' 2 * ! $ ) ! * ! $ ! ! # # $ 4 17 2009 Reliability Needs Assessment, New York Independent System Operator, January 2009. 2009 Comprehensive Reliability Plan, New York Independent System Operator, May 2009. A – 66 POWER TRENDS 2009 N E W Y O R K I N D E P E N D E N T S Y S T E M O P E R AT O R A – 67 Power Trends 2009 17 Force recommended an evaluation of increasing the goal. In October 2008, the NYS PSC initiated a proceeding to increase the RPS goal to 30% and extend the target date to 2015. Governor David Paterson made it a component of the “45 X 15” Plan he proposed in his 2009 State of the State Message. Two primary challenges must be addressed if the state is to realize the full potential of the RPS initiative: Fully integrating wind-produced electricity into the bulk electricity system . Because of the intermittent nature of wind speed and the energy it produces, managing the availability of bulk wind-generated electricity to meet consumer demands is diffi cult. The NYISO has embarked on an innovative wind-forecasting program to overcome this hurdle and make wind power an important contributor to meeting consumer electricity needs. Transporting power from renewable resources to consumers. This is a serious issue that requires capital investment in transmission system infrastructure. Most wind and hydropower projects are located in remote areas far from the population centers where electricity is needed most. The NYISO is analyzing the feasibility of options to mitigate transmission constraints and facilitate the fl ow of renewable energy to high- demand areas. The groundwork for such efforts will be laid by studies of long-range transmission needs and the initiation of NYISO’s economic planning process in 2009. National Renewable Portfolio Standard• In recent years, various legislative proposals have sought to establish a national RPS as New York State, 28 other states, and the District of Columbia have each adopted renewable energy requirements. President Obama and the leadership of the 111th Congress have signaled their interest in a national RPS. Deliberations on the federal initiative require the attention of New York State to ensure consistency between the provision of a federal RPS and New York State’s renewable energy goals. Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI)• This initiative is a compact of ten eastern states, including New York, seeking to restrict carbon dioxide emissions from power plants. It is a market-based effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to global climate change. RGGI is designed to make clean A – 68 18 power generating resources and conservation more economically competitive with fossil-fuel power plants. The program’s fi rst three-year compliance period began January 1, 2009. The availability of RGGI emission allowances can become a crucial factor in the dynamics of the power system. Retirement of a major plant in certain key locations – for example, if the operating licenses of one or both of the Indian Point nuclear power units were not extended – could cause a severe shortage of electricity resources and create a strain on the availability of emission allowances. The NYISO continues to closely monitor the electric power grid to ascertain the impact of RGGI and other programs on system reliability. Federal Cap and Trade Legislation• President Obama has said that his administration’s priorities include a national cap and trade program that would reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and reduce emissions by 80% by 2050. A number of legislative proposals for national cap and trade systems have been introduced in recent sessions of the U.S. Congress, some of which focus on power plant emissions, while others address emissions by all sectors of the economy. Ozone Compliance• Ground level ozone is the product of hydrocarbons (HC) and nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions – from oil, coal and other fossil fuel power plants as well as cars and other transportation vehicles – reacting with sunlight to create ground-level smog. In 2005, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) covering 28 eastern states and created the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC). New York’s proposed implementation plan is under review by the EPA. However, in 2008 federal courts fi rst vacated and then temporarily reinstated the CAIR, resulting in great uncertainty about the timing and direction of federal and state efforts to limit NOx emissions The NYISO is working under the expectation that rigorous NOx emission control requirements will emerge from the regulatory process. The highest NOx emitters in the state are old “peaking” generators, which are located primarily in southeastern New York and operate on extremely hot and cold days when consumer power demand is at its highest. The NYISO is assisting, with its technical expertise, New York State’s efforts to develop an effi cient, cost- A – 69 Select Language ▼ Report Fallen Wires FAQs User ID: Password: » Forgot User ID » Forgot Password » New user registration » Login FAQs Pay Bill CenHub Store Report Outage/Check Status Outage Map Report Gas Odor Forms Contact Us Community Safety News Rates Efficiency Employment Working With Us More … Powering New York » Home » My Energy » Powering New York Investments in the state's transmission infrastructure will provide economic, environmental and reliability benefits to Central Hudson customers and all New Yorkers by addressing known bottlenecks in the statewide electric grid. This approach will enable lower cost energy and renewable power located upstate, particularly wind power, to flow more readily throughout New York. To address the problems caused by system congestion and support the state's Energy Highway Blueprint, Central Hudson and other utility companies jointly created New York Transco and proposed statewide transmission improvement projects in New York. Why Transmission? 1. It Will Reduce Hefty Congestion Costs Congestion in New York's electric transmission system adds hundreds of millions of dollars to New Yorkers' energy costs each year — including $8.5 billion over the last 10 years — by limiting the available supply of electricity for purchase and use. In addition to addressing congestion costs, transmission line upgrades proposed by NY Transco could reduce the impact of or even eliminate the Lower Hudson Valley capacity zone, which alone is adding 6-10% in costs to Central Hudson customer energy bills. These projects could also help reduce energy supply price volatility, which has led to bouts of higher than expected utility bills for customers at times in recent years. My Account My Energy Self-Service Storms & Outages A – 70 The cost added to New York state customer electric bills by transmission congestion over the last 10 years is $8.5 billion, including more than $1 billion in both 2013 and 2014. New Capacity Zone Congestion on the transmission system led the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to create the Lower Hudson Valley capacity zone in 2014. The new capacity zone is adding $230 million to energy costs, per year, in lower New York, including $55 million for the Hudson Valley. The new capacity zone is increasing residential customer bills by 6 percent and industrial customer bills by 10 percent. Supply Price Volatility Electricity prices can vary greatly across New York due to constraints in the transmission system, particularly when energy demands are high. This map, a snapshot from the NYISO website, shows energy prices for the various zones for the day-ahead market on March 4, 2015, with prices highest for areas east of the constraints. In some instances, prices listed here for the Capital District and Hudson Valley are more than two times as high as for some other regions in New York. 2. It Will Grow Green Energy The transmission projects proposed by NY Transco would help advance renewable energy development in New York, which would help drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the state. Regulators: Transmission proposals complement renewable energy goals "Achieving the objectives of the REV proceeding will not, at any time in the foreseeable future, eliminate the need for more robust and flexible transmission infrastructure linking the upstate regions to downstate through the Mohawk and Hudson Valleys. At the same time, improving the existing infrastructure will support some of the REV goals. ... It will facilitate the development of new renewable resources, such as wind, most of which will be sited upstate on the constrained side of the congested interfaces.” - NYS Public Service Commission Order Establishing Modified Procedures for A – 71 Comparative Evaluation, Dec. 16, 2014 3. It Will Improve Reliability Improving the ability of electricity to circulate more freely throughout the state now will help address capacity shortfalls in lower New York at a time when much of the state's transmission system already needs replacement and as older generating facilities near retirement. Transmission Line Replacements Anticipated time frames Aging System: By the Numbers 40% of the state's transmission systemneeds to be replaced within 30 years 42% of NYS generating plants are morethan 40 years old 84% of NYS transmission lines were builtbefore 1980 Proposed Transmission Projects New York Transco submitted enhanced and innovative transmission line proposals to the New York Public Service Commission (PSC). The proposals address the state’s long-term energy needs while using existing rights of way while reducing the visual impact. A visual simulation depicting the right-of-way and what it might look like between (National Grid’s) Churchtown Switching Station (in Columbia County) and the Pleasant Valley substation under one of the alternative projects proposed by New York Transco. Local Concerns Addressed A – 72 Plans rely on existing rights of way: Projects are designed to be constructed within the existing rights of way or properties currently owned by the utilities. Fewer structures than exist now: Proposed alternatives optimize the use of existing rights-of-way. In the Hudson Valley, where some proposals include the construction of new circuits to replace existing circuits, the total number of structures on rights-of- way will be fewer than what exists today. Reduced visual impact: New structure heights will be comparable – some slightly higher, some lower – but overall less intrusive visually than existing structures. Greater reliability: In most of the alternatives, transmission facilities that are, in some cases, more than 80 years old will be replaced with new, more modern structures. This will not only improve the visual impact but it will augment the transmission lines’ resiliency against severe weather, and replaces lines that must be eventually rebuilt regardless. Investing in region's future: An enhanced electric system provides greater system operating flexibility and capacity to meet the region’s transmission needs for the decades to come. Costs reduced: The proposals improve the UPNY/SENY interface transfers and provide greater than 1,000 MW of increased transfer capacity. These will significantly reduce system congestion and congestion costs to New York consumers. Projects Summarized Knickerbocker to Pleasant Valley 345 kV Transmission line » Project summary: A new, 345 kV transmission line from Knickerbocker (Rensselaer County) to Pleasant Valley (Dutchess County), placed within an existing transmission corridor on a monopole structure of approximately the same height as the existing towers it will replace. » Transmission System Benefits: Reduces congestion, replaces aging infrastructure, storm resiliency. Edic to New Scotland 345 kV Transmission Line » Project summary: A new, 345 kV transmission line from Edic to New Scotland, placed within an existing transmission and replacing existing towers. » Transmission System Benefits: Reduces congestion, replaces aging infrastructure, storm resiliency. The New York State Department of Public Service presented their AC Transmission Trial Staff Final Report on Sept. 22, 2015, summarizing their findings and recommending three proposals submitted by New York Transco and other developers (two of which were proposed by New York Transco). On Dec. 16, 2015, The Public Service Commission approved Staff’s recommendation, requesting three developers, including New York Transco, submit new proposals on these recommended projects. These will be reviewed and developers selected during 2016. To view Staff’s report and recommendations, go to: http://www3.dps.ny.gov/W/PSCWeb.nsf /All/F0CA55256932ED7085257C380068D910?OpenDocument. To view the PSC’s Order, go to: http://documents.dps.ny.gov/public/MatterManagement/CaseMaster.aspx?MatterCaseNo=13-E-0488 SavingsCentral Mobile App Mobile Site Your Rights & Responsibilities FERC Open Access Documents CH Energy Group Fortis Inc. © Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp., All Rights Reserved | Privacy Policy | Site Map A – 73 New York Nuclear Power Plants’ Contribution to the State Economy PREPARED FOR PREPARED BY Mark Berkman, Ph.D. Dean Murphy, Ph.D. September 2015 A – 74 10 | brattle.com F. NEW YORK NUCLEAR PLANTS PREVENT SUBSTANTIAL CARBON DIOXIDE AND CRITERIA POLLUTANT EMISSIONS ! " # $ % " & & & ! ! & & & ' ( ) * + ) $ % , - , . ! + , . / & 0 1 % * & ) ! ( ) $ # 2 # 3 % 1 # % 4 5 6 7 8 9 : ; < = > > = ? @ > A B 8 C 8 @ D 8 E 6 F G 8 H I ? B J G K L 7 8 5 B A 7 5 @ D >M N C 8 B 5 O 8 N @ @ K 5 7 P Q R S T Q R Q U V # - W X * * / Y 0 % 1 % , . ! + , . / & Z # / & W / / ! * W X * W X ! % # 1 % W ! & # % # % % % % % % [ \ ] ^ _ _ ` a b c a d e ^ f g h g h i f j j f ^ c j k l m n o pq r s t u v w t t v w x wy r s z v { x z| r } t t v ~ t w € t u ‚ v x w z € ‚ ƒ ‚ v w „ ‚ A – 75 Climate Change 2014 Mitigation of Climate Change Working Group III Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Edited by Ottmar Edenhofer Working Group III Co-Chair Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research Ramón Pichs-Madruga Working Group III Co-Chair Centro de Investigaciones de la Economía Mundial Youba Sokona Working Group III Co-Chair South Centre Jan C. Minx Head of TSU Ellie Farahani Head of Operations Susanne Kadner Head of Science Kristin Seyboth Deputy Head of Science Anna Adler Team Assistant Ina Baum Project Officer Steffen Brunner Senior Economist Patrick Eickemeier Scientific Editor Benjamin Kriemann IT Officer Jussi Savolainen Web Manager Steffen Schlömer Scientist Christoph von Stechow Scientist Timm Zwickel Senior Scientist Working Group III Technical Support Unit A – 76 Cambridge University Press 32 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10013-2473, USA Cambridge University Press is part of the University of Cambridge. It furthers the University’s mission by disseminating knowledge in the pursuit of education, learning and research at the highest international levels of excellence. www.cambridge.org Information on this title: www.cambridge.org / 9781107654815 © Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2014 This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press. First published 2014 Printed in the United States of America A catalog record for this publication is available from the British Libary. ISBN 978-1-107-05821-7 hardback ISBN 978-1-107-65481-5 paperback Cambridge University Press has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of URLs for external or third-party Internet Web sites referred to in this publication and does not guarantee that any content on such Web sites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate. Please use the following reference to the whole report: IPCC, 2014: Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Edenhofer, O., R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, E. Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth, A. Adler, I. Baum, S. Brunner, P. Eickemeier, B. Kriemann, J. Savolainen, S. Schlömer, C. von Stechow, T. Zwickel and J.C. Minx (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. Cover photo: Shanghai, China, aerial view © Ocean / Corbis A – 77 1335 Technology-specific Cost and Performance ParametersAnnex III AIII Table A.III.2 | Emissions of selected electricity supply technologies (gCO2eq / kWh) i Options Direct emissions Infrastructure & supply chain emissions Biogenic CO2 emissions and albedo effect Methane emissions Lifecycle emissions (incl. albedo effect) Min / Median / Max Typical values Min / Median / Max Currently Commercially Available Technologies Coal — PC 670 / 760 / 870 9.6 0 47 740 / 820 / 910 Gas — Combined Cycle 350 / 370 / 490 1.6 0 91 410 / 490 / 650 Biomass — cofiring n. a. ii – – – 620 / 740 / 890iii Biomass — dedicated n. a. ii 210 27 0 130 / 230 / 420iv Geothermal 0 45 0 0 6.0 / 38 / 79 Hydropower 0 19 0 88 1.0 / 24 / 2200 Nuclear 0 18 0 0 3.7 / 12 / 110 Concentrated Solar Power 0 29 0 0 8.8 / 27 / 63 Solar PV — rooftop 0 42 0 0 26 / 41 / 60 Solar PV — utility 0 66 0 0 18 / 48 / 180 Wind onshore 0 15 0 0 7.0 / 11 / 56 Wind offshore 0 17 0 0 8.0 / 12 / 35 Pre-commercial Technologies CCS — Coal — Oxyfuel 14 / 76 / 110 17 0 67 100 / 160 / 200 CCS — Coal — PC 95 / 120 / 140 28 0 68 190 / 220 / 250 CCS — Coal — IGCC 100 / 120 / 150 9.9 0 62 170 / 200 / 230 CCS — Gas — Combined Cycle 30 / 57 / 98 8.9 0 110 94 / 170 / 340 Ocean 0 17 0 0 5.6 / 17 / 28 Notes: i For a comprehensive discussion of methodological issues and underlying literature sources see Annex II, Section A.II.9.3. Note that input data are included in normal font type, output data resulting from data conversions are bolded, and intermediate outputs are italicized. ii Direct emissions from biomass combustion at the power plant are positive and significant, but should be seen in connection with the CO2 absorbed by growing plants. They can be derived from the chemical carbon content of biomass and the power plant efficiency. For a comprehensive discussion see Chapter 11, Section 11.13. For co-firing, carbon content of coal and relative fuel shares need to be considered. iii Indirect emissions for co-firing are based on relative fuel shares of biomass from dedicated energy crops and residues (5-20%) and coal (80-95%). iv Lifecycle emissions from biomass are for dedicated energy crops and crop residues. Lifecycle emissions of electricity based on other types of biomass are given in Chapter 7, Figure 7.6. For a comprehensive discussion see Chapter 11, Section 11.13.4. For a description of methodological issues see Annex II of this report. A – 78 Today in Energy August 1, 2012 U.S. energy-related CO2 emissions in early 2012 lowest since 1992 Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, Monthly Energy Review. Note: Reflects total carbon dioxide emissions in metric tons by quarter. U.S. carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions resulting from energy use during the first quarter of 2012 were the lowest in two decades for any January-March period. Normally, CO2 emissions during the year are highest in the first quarter because of strong demand for heat produced by fossil fuels. However, CO2 emissions during January-March 2012 were low due to a combination of three factors: A mild winter that reduced household heating demand and therefore energy use A decline in coal-fired electricity generation, due largely to historically low natural gas prices Reduced gasoline demand U.S. CO2 emissions from energy consumption totaled 1,340 million metric tons during the first quarter of 2012, down nearly 8% from a year earlier and the lowest for the January-March period since 1992, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration's June Monthly Energy Review. A – 79 ECOFYS Netherlands B.V. | Kanaalweg 15G | 3526 KL Utrecht| T +31 (0)30 662-3300 | F +31 (0)30 662-3301 | E info@ecofys.com | I www.ecofys.com Chamber of Commerce 30161191 International comparison of fossil power efficiency and CO2 intensity – Update 2014 FINAL REPORT By: Charlotte Hussy, Erik Klaassen, Joris Koornneef and Fabian Wigand Date: 5 September 2014 Project number: CESNL15173 © Ecofys 2014 by order of: Mitsubishi Research Institute, Japan A – 80 81 CO2-intensity Table 35 CO2-intensity coal-fired power (g/kWh) 2009 2010 2011 Average Australia 1,100 1,055 1,051 1,069 China 991 962 954 969 France 892 819 787 833 Germany 944 912 920 925 India 1,307 1,323 1,261 1,297 Japan 837 835 840 837 South Korea 930 934 959 941 Nordic countries 846 837 843 842 United Kingdom + Ireland 899 906 903 903 United States 953 954 954 954 Canada 870 938 933 903 Italy 916 902 890 903 Table 36 CO2-intensity oil-fired power (g/kWh) 2009 2010 2011 Average Australia 861 834 693 796 China 794 794 794 794 France 1,039 906 882 942 Germany 724 718 724 722 India 1,919 1,134 1,334 1,462 Japan 645 643 645 644 South Korea 707 694 582 661 Nordic countries 798 716 743 753 United Kingdom + Ireland 779 796 896 824 United States 732 734 677 714 Canada 700 890 903 831 Italy 681 798 731 737 A – 81 82 Table 37 CO2-intensity gas-fired power (g/kWh) 2009 2010 2011 Average Australia 539 482 511 511 China 519 519 519 519 France 583 637 594 605 Germany 458 444 428 443 India 431 469 399 433 Japan 424 423 425 424 South Korea 396 395 392 394 Nordic countries 435 422 428 428 United Kingdom + Ireland 392 387 380 386 United States 409 411 411 410 Canada 448 481 474 467 Italy 396 400 398 398 Table 38 CO2-intensity fossil-fired power (g/kWh) 2009 2010 2011 Average Australia 1,023 962 953 979 China 982 953 945 960 France 783 749 686 739 Germany 848 815 823 828 India 1,178 1,195 1,149 1,174 Japan 618 618 599 612 South Korea 787 751 751 763 Nordic countries 723 703 714 713 United Kingdom + Ireland 598 593 616 602 United States 779 777 766 774 Canada 750 778 756 761 Italy 540 548 553 547 Table 39 CO2 emission reduction potential fossil-fired power (g/kWh) 2009 2010 2011 Average Australia 337 285 284 302 China 265 237 229 243 France 222 202 185 203 Germany 177 149 153 160 India 511 528 474 505 Japan 99 97 98 98 South Korea 167 159 167 164 Nordic countries 119 106 113 113 United Kingdom + Ireland 108 106 107 107 United States 178 179 175 177 Italy 97 107 100 101 Canada 131 175 178 161 A – 82 WNA Report Comparison of Lifecycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Various Electricity Generation Sources A – 83 6 4 Summary of Assessment Findings Lifecycle GHG emissions for the different electricity generation methods are provided in Table 2 and shown graphically in Figure 2. Although the relative magnitude of GHG emissions between different generation methods is consistent throughout the various studies, the absolute emission intensity fluctuates. This is due to the differences in the scope of the studies. The most prominent factor influencing the results was the selection of facilities included in the study. Emission rates from power generation plants are unique to the individual facility and have site-specific and region-specific factors influencing emission rates. For example, enrichment of nuclear fuel by gaseous diffusion has a higher electrical load, and therefore, lifecycle emissions are typically higher than those associated with centrifuge enrichment. However, emissions can vary even between enrichment facilities dependant upon local electrical supply (i.e. is electricity provided by coal fired power plants or a low carbon source). Another factor influencing results was the definition of lifecycle. For example, some studies included waste management and treatment in the scope, while some excluded waste. When the study was completed, also led to a broader range in results, and was most prevalent for solar power. This is assumed to be primarily due to the rapid advancement of solar photovoltaic panels over the past decade. As the technology and manufacturing processes become more efficient, the lifecycle emissions of solar photovoltaic panels will continue to decrease. This is evident in the older studies estimating solar photovoltaic lifecycle emission to be comparable to fossil fuel generation methods, while recent studies being more comparable to other forms of renewable energy. The range between the studies is illustrated within the figure. Technology Mean Low High tonnes CO2e/GWh Lignite 1,054 790 1,372 Coal 888 756 1,310 Oil 733 547 935 Natural Gas 499 362 891 Solar PV 85 13 731 Biomass 45 10 101 Nuclear 29 2 130 Hydroelectric 26 2 237 Wind 26 6 124 *iii, iv, v, vi, vii, viii, ix, x, xi, xii, xiii, xiv, xv, xvi, xvii, xviii, xix, xx, xxi, xxii, xxiii Table 2: Summary of Lifecycle GHG Emission Intensity A – 84 October 2015 U.S. Energy Information Administration | Energy-Related Carbon Dioxide Emissions at the State Level, 2000-2013 8 Table 2. 2013 state energy-related carbon dioxide emissions by fuel million metric tons of carbon dioxide Shares State Coal Petroleum Natural Gas Total Coal Petroleum Natural Gas Alabama 53.3 33.2 33.4 119.8 44.5% 27.7% 27.8% Alaska 1.4 17.1 17.7 36.1 3.9% 47.2% 48.9% Arizona 43.0 32.8 18.1 93.8 45.8% 34.9% 19.3% Arkansas 30.9 21.6 15.3 67.8 45.5% 31.9% 22.5% California 3.6 217.7 131.8 353.1 1.0% 61.7% 37.3% Colorado 34.3 30.6 25.6 90.5 37.9% 33.8% 28.2% Connecticut 0.7 20.8 12.7 34.3 2.1% 60.7% 37.1% Delaware 1.7 6.3 5.3 13.4 12.8% 47.2% 39.9% District of Columbia 0.0 1.0 1.8 2.8 0.0% 35.5% 64.5% Florida 47.7 103.9 66.1 217.6 21.9% 47.7% 30.4% Georgia 40.2 58.6 33.7 132.5 30.4% 44.2% 25.4% Hawaii 1.4 16.8 0.0 18.3 7.9% 92.0% 0.1% Idaho 0.8 10.3 5.7 16.7 4.5% 61.6% 34.0% Illinois 96.9 76.9 56.4 230.2 42.1% 33.4% 24.5% Indiana 112.8 50.9 36.1 199.8 56.5% 25.5% 18.1% Iowa 38.0 25.7 16.3 79.9 47.5% 32.2% 20.3% Kansas 30.9 26.6 15.3 72.8 42.4% 36.5% 21.1% Kentucky 86.4 38.1 12.5 137.0 63.0% 27.8% 9.1% Louisiana 21.5 95.9 77.0 194.5 11.1% 49.3% 39.6% Maine 0.2 12.6 3.5 16.2 1.0% 77.4% 21.6% Maryland 17.3 29.6 11.0 57.9 29.9% 51.2% 18.9% Massachusetts 4.0 37.2 24.1 65.3 6.1% 57.0% 36.9% Michigan 62.1 54.0 44.2 160.2 38.7% 33.7% 27.6% Minnesota 25.3 38.0 25.4 88.6 28.5% 42.8% 28.7% Mississippi 9.2 28.2 22.7 60.2 15.3% 46.9% 37.8% Missouri 76.2 40.2 14.9 131.3 58.0% 30.6% 11.4% Montana 15.7 11.7 4.4 31.7 49.4% 36.8% 13.8% Nebraska 27.7 15.9 9.5 53.0 52.2% 29.9% 18.0% Nevada 6.1 14.7 15.0 35.8 17.1% 41.0% 41.9% New Hampshire 1.6 9.4 3.0 14.0 11.3% 67.5% 21.1% New Jersey 2.5 64.9 37.8 105.1 2.3% 61.7% 36.0% New Mexico 24.2 16.2 13.4 53.9 44.9% 30.1% 24.9% New York 6.5 83.7 70.1 160.3 4.0% 52.2% 43.7% North Carolina 46.6 52.1 23.6 122.4 38.1% 42.6% 19.3% North Dakota 37.1 15.1 4.5 56.6 65.5% 26.6% 7.9% Ohio 104.1 74.4 50.2 228.7 45.5% 32.6% 21.9% Oklahoma 31.7 35.1 36.3 103.1 30.8% 34.1% 35.2% A – 85 October 2015 U.S. Energy Information Administration | Energy-Related Carbon Dioxide Emissions at the State Level, 2000-2013 9 Table 2. 2013 state energy-related carbon dioxide emissions by fuel (cont.) million metric tons of carbon dioxide Shares State Coal Petroleum Natural Gas Total Coal Petroleum Natural Gas Oregon 3.7 21.8 13.0 38.4 9.6% 56.7% 33.8% Pennsylvania 105.9 77.1 60.8 243.9 43.4% 31.6% 24.9% Rhode Island 0.0 5.3 4.7 10.0 0.0% 52.9% 47.1% South Carolina 24.3 32.3 12.6 69.2 35.1% 46.7% 18.2% South Dakota 3.2 7.4 4.5 15.2 21.3% 49.1% 29.6% Tennessee 37.7 43.8 15.2 96.7 39.0% 45.3% 15.7% Texas 150.8 280.9 209.2 641.0 23.5% 43.8% 32.6% Utah 33.5 19.1 13.7 66.4 50.5% 28.8% 20.7% Vermont 0.0 5.1 0.5 5.6 0.0% 90.9% 9.3% Virginia 27.4 52.6 23.0 103.0 26.6% 51.1% 22.3% Washington 7.1 48.7 17.4 73.1 9.7% 66.5% 23.8% West Virginia 72.8 12.5 8.0 93.3 78.0% 13.4% 8.6% Wisconsin 42.9 32.7 23.9 99.5 43.1% 32.9% 24.0% Wyoming 49.2 11.0 8.3 68.4 71.9% 16.0% 12.1% Total¹ 1,701.7 2,167.9 1,409.0 5,278.6 32.2% 41.1% 26.7% Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), State Energy Data System and EIA calculations made for this analysis. Note: The District of Columbia is included in the data tables, but not in the analysis as it is not a state. 1For the United States as a whole see EIA, Monthly Energy Review, Section 12: Environment. Differing methodologies between the two data series causes the total for all states to be slightly different from the national-level estimate. See Appendix A for details on the data series differences. A – 86 New York State Profile and Energy Estimates Profile Overview Print Find address Basemaps Layers/Legend 200km 100mi Send map questions, comments and suggestions to: mapping@eia.gov Layer information and map data A – 87 Trillion Btu New York Energy Production Estimates, 2013 Coal Natural Gas Marketed Crude Oil Nuclear Electric Power Biofuels Other Renewable Energy 0 100 200 300 400 500 Source: Energy Information Administration, State Energy Data System thousand MWh New York Net Electricity Generation by Source, Jan. 2016 PetroleumFired Natural GasFired CoalFired Nuclear Hydroelectric Other Renewables 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 Source: Energy Information Administration, Electric Power Monthly A – 88 CP- 29 Page 1 CP- 29 Environmental Justice and Permitting New York State Department of Environmental Conservation DEC Policy Issuing Authority: Commissioner Erin M. Crotty Date Issued: 3/19/03 Latest Date Revised: 3/19/03 I. Summary: This policy provides guidance for incorporating environmental justice concerns into the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) environmental permit review process and the DEC application of the State Environmental Quality Review Act. The policy also incorporates environmental justice concerns into some aspects of the DEC’s enforcement program, grants program and public participation provisions. The policy is written to assist DEC staff, the regulated community and the public in understanding the requirements and review process. This policy amends the DEC environmental permit process by identifying potential environmental justice areas; providing information on environmental justice to applicants with proposed projects in those communities; enhancing public participation requirements for proposed projects in those communities; establishing requirements for projects in potential environmental justice areas with the potential for at least one significant adverse environmental impact; and providing alternative dispute resolution opportunities to allow communities and project sponsors to resolve issues of concern to the community. This policy will promote the fair involvement of all people in the DEC environmental permit process. It will do this by training and educating DEC staff on environmental justice; providing public access to DEC permit information; incorporating environmental justice concerns into DEC’s permit review process; and pursuing technical assistance grants to enable community groups in potential environmental justice areas to more effectively participate in the environmental permit review process. This policy contains groundbreaking elements which will lead the nation in environmental justice. As such, the DEC expects that the policy will be revised regularly to account for new information in the area of environmental justice and other issues encountered during the implementation of this policy. II. Purpose and Background: In 1998, various and diverse parties interested in environmental justice, including a number of environmental justice advocates and minority and low-income community representatives from across New York State, met with the DEC Commissioner to express concern over environmental justice issues. Concerns raised by interested parties included, but were not limited to: the lack of meaningful public participation by minority or low-income communities in the permit process; the unavailability or inaccessibility of certain information to the public early in the permit process; and the failure of the permit process to address disproportionate adverse environmental impacts on minority and low-income communities. A – 89 CP- 29 Page 2 On October 4, 1999, in response to the concerns raised by parties interested in environmental justice, DEC announced a new program to address environmental justice concerns and ensure community participation in the state's environmental permitting process. DEC named an Environmental Justice Coordinator to oversee the Office of Environmental Justice and develop DEC’s Environmental Justice Program, and created two staff positions in the Division of Environmental Permits. DEC also established the New York State Environmental Justice Advisory Group (Advisory Group) comprising representatives from state, local and federal government, community groups, environmental groups, and the regulated community. The Advisory Group, chaired by the Environmental Justice Coordinator, was asked to develop recommendations for an environmental justice permit policy and recommend elements for an effective environmental justice program. On January 2, 2002, the Advisory Group submitted a report to DEC Commissioner Erin M. Crotty containing its recommendations for creating an effective environmental justice program. The report: Recommendations for the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Environmental Justice Program focuses on the environmental permit process and is intended to ensure DEC's programs are open and responsive to environmental justice concerns. Additional recommendations for an environmental justice program are also included in the report. The DEC held public meetings state-wide to solicit public comment on the Advisory Group report and accepted public comment for a period in excess of 50 days, through February 22, 2002. This policy is based on the Advisory Group report, public comment on the report and DEC staff recommendations. On August 7, 2002, a draft of this policy was released for public review and comment. The comment period exceeded 90 days, ending on October 11, 2002. Numerous detailed comments were received by the DEC and are reflected in this policy and in the implementation of this policy. III. Policy: It is the general policy of DEC to promote environmental justice and incorporate measures for achieving environmental justice into its programs, policies, regulations, legislative proposals and activities. This policy is specifically intended to ensure that DEC’s environmental permit process promotes environmental justice. This policy supports the DEC’s continued funding and implementation of environmental programs that promote environmental justice, such as urban forestry, environmental education, the “I Fish NY” program and watershed enhancement projects. This policy also encourages DEC efforts to implement other programs, policies, regulations, legislative proposals and activities related to environmental justice. This policy shall become effective 30 days after the full text of this policy, or a summary thereof, along with information on how the full text may be obtained, has been published in the Environmental Notice Bulletin, as defined in Environmental Conservation Law 70-0105. Any application for a permit received after the effective date of this policy will be subject to the provisions of this policy. A – 90 * The percent threshold relies on 2000 U.S. Census data. The percent threshold may be adjusted as U.S. Census data is revised. CP- 29 Page 3 This policy shall be reviewed at least 18 months from the effective date and revised, as necessary, to consider the policy’s applicability to various DEC Programs, incorporate evolving information on environmental justice and reflect the best available environmental protection information and resources. The 18-month period shall enable DEC to further develop implementation procedures, better identify resources needed to implement the policy, and determine appropriate legislative, regulatory and policy changes that can be implemented. Thereafter, DEC shall periodically evaluate the need for further revision, as implementation experience is gained. This policy will not be construed to create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable by law or by equity by a party against the DEC or any right to judicial review. This policy may be subject to change at the discretion of DEC. A. Definitions. For purposes of this policy, the following definitions shall apply. 1. Census block group means a unit for the U.S. Census used for reporting. Census block groups generally contain between 250 and 500 housing units. 2. Environmental justice means the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. Fair treatment means that no group of people, including a racial, ethnic, or socioeconomic group, should bear a disproportionate share of the negative environmental consequences resulting from industrial, municipal, and commercial operations or the execution of federal, state, local, and tribal programs and policies. 3. Low-income community means a census block group, or contiguous area with multiple census block groups, having a low-income population equal to or greater than 23.59%*of the total population. 4. Low-income population means a population having an annual income that is less than the poverty threshold. For purposes of this policy, poverty thresholds are established by the U.S. Census Bureau. 5. Major project means any action requiring a permit identified in section 621.2 of title 6 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations of the State of New York (6 NYCRR Part 621.2), which is not specifically defined as minor. 6. Minority community means a census block group, or contiguous area with multiple census block groups, having a minority population equal to or greater than 51.1%* in an urban area and 33.8%* in a rural area of the total population. 7. Minority population means a population that is identified or recognized by the U.S. Census Bureau as Hispanic, African-American or Black, Asian and Pacific Islander or American Indian. A – 91 CP- 29 Page 4 8. Potential environmental justice area means a minority or low-income community that may bear a disproportionate share of the negative environmental consequences resulting from industrial, municipal, and commercial operations or the execution of federal, state, local, and tribal programs and policies. 9. Rural area means territory, population, and housing units that are not classified as an urban area. See definition for ‘urban area’ below. For purposes of this policy, rural classifications are established by the U.S. Census Bureau. 10. Urban area means all territory, population, and housing units located in urbanized areas and in places of 2,500 or more inhabitants outside of an urbanized area. An urbanized area is a continuously built-up area with a population of 50,000 or more. For purposes of this policy, urban classifications are established by the U.S. Census Bureau. B. Policy Directives. With respect to this policy, DEC shall: 1. Upon the effective date of this policy, provide enhanced accessibility to public permit information held by the DEC, including access to DEC permit information on the DEC Website and a toll free environmental justice hotline to enable the public to access the Office of Environmental Justice during business hours; 2. Upon the effective date of this policy, use geographic information system screening tools and U.S. Census data to identify potential environmental justice areas within New York State; 3. Upon the effective date of this policy, use enhanced public participation and public notification mechanisms, including those which are most effective in potential environmental justice areas. 4. Upon the effective date of this policy, DEC shall make guidance available to assist permit applicants in complying with the Public Participation Plan requirements of this policy. The guidance shall contain tools and information, including those that will better enable the applicant to engage community residents in potential environmental justice areas in the environmental permit review process; 5. Upon the effective date of this policy, facilitate alternative dispute resolution between permit applicants and the public to resolve conflicts in the permit review process; 6. Upon the effective date of this policy, educate permit applicants with respect to environmental justice, the environmental review process, the requirements of this policy and the methodology for identifying a potential environmental justice area by distributing information on environmental justice to permit applicants; A – 92 CP- 29 Page 5 7. Upon the effective date of this policy, provide to interested members of the public such information on environmental justice that is provided to permit applicants. Within six months from the effective date of this policy, the DEC shall identify and begin conducting workshops to educate the public with respect to environmental justice, the environmental review process, the requirements of this policy and the methodology for identifying a potential environmental justice area; 8. Upon the effective date of this policy, establish two work groups to assist DEC to develop and incorporate critical environmental justice information into the DEC environmental review process. Each work group shall report its results to the DEC Commissioner no later than six months after the effective date of this policy. The results will be considered by the DEC Commissioner when revising this policy; i. One work group shall develop recommendations for conducting a disproportionate adverse environmental impact analysis as a component of the environmental impact statement. Although the Advisory Group report recommended a basic methodology for conducting such an analysis, further definition and specific criteria are needed; ii. A second work group to be established in conjunction with the New York State Department of Health, shall identify reliable sources of existing human health data and recommend means to incorporate such data into the environmental review process; 9. Within three months from the effective date of this policy, educate DEC staff with respect to environmental justice, the environmental review process and the requirements of this policy. The DEC Office of Environmental Justice shall develop a curriculum and begin implementation of formal training on environmental justice to affected staff in the Divisions of Air Resources, Solid & Hazardous Materials, Water, Environmental Permits, Public Affairs and Education, and other divisions. DEC staff charged with policy implementation have already received training; 10. Within three months from the effective date of this policy, begin conducting supplemental compliance and enforcement inspections of regulated facilities to ensure that facilities are operating in compliance with the Environmental Conservation Law. Supplemental enforcement and compliance inspections will apply to facilities located in potential environmental justice areas where there is reason to believe that such facilities are not operating in compliance with the Environmental Conservation Law; 11. Within three months from the effective date of this policy, translate information on the DEC environmental permit process for comprehension by non-English speakers. The DEC Office of Environmental Justice shall translate the following documents into Spanish: What is SEQR?; A Citizen’s Guide to SEQR; The SEQR Cookbook; How to Apply for a DEC Permit; the Guide to Permit Hearings; and the Guide to Mediation Services. The DEC shall also evaluate the need for translation to other languages; 12. Within three months from the effective date of this policy, draft legislation to establish funding and criteria for a technical assistance grant program to assist the public in the permit review process. Funding for the technical assistance grant program shall be derived from the Environmental Protection Fund and may be supplemented by other funding opportunities; A – 93 U.S. Census Quick Facts QuickFacts Queens County (Queens Borough), New York QUEENS COUNTY (QUEENS BOROUGH), NEW YORK BRONX COUNTY (BRONX BOROUGH), NEW YORK KINGS COUNTY (BROOKLYN BOROUGH), NEW YORK People Population Age and Sex Race and Hispanic Origin Population Characteristics Housing Families and Living Arrangements QuickFacts provides statistics for all states and counties, and for cities and towns with a population of 5,000 or more. All Topics Population estimates, July 1, 2015, (V2015) 2,339,150 1,455,444 2,636,735 Population estimates, July 1, 2014, (V2014) 2,321,580 1,438,159 2,621,793 Population estimates base, April 1, 2010, (V2015) 2,230,541 1,385,107 2,504,710 Population estimates base, April 1, 2010, (V2014) 2,230,539 1,385,108 2,504,709 Population, percent change April 1, 2010 (estimates base) to July 1, 2015, (V2015) 4.9% 5.1% 5.3% Population, percent change April 1, 2010 (estimates base) to July 1, 2014, (V2014) 4.1% 3.8% 4.7% Population, Census, April 1, 2010 2,230,722 1,385,108 2,504,700 Persons under 5 years, percent, July 1, 2014, (V2014) 6.3% 7.6% 7.6% Persons under 5 years, percent, April 1, 2010 5.9% 7.4% 7.1% Persons under 18 years, percent, July 1, 2014, (V2014) 20.4% 25.5% 23.3% Persons under 18 years, percent, April 1, 2010 20.7% 26.6% 23.7% Persons 65 years and over, percent, July 1, 2014, (V2014) 13.6% 11.2% 12.1% Persons 65 years and over, percent, April 1, 2010 12.8% 10.5% 11.5% Female persons, percent, July 1, 2014, (V2014) 51.5% 52.8% 52.6% Female persons, percent, April 1, 2010 51.6% 53.1% 52.8% White alone, percent, July 1, 2014, (V2014) (a) 49.1% 45.5% 49.3% White alone, percent, April 1, 2010 (a) 39.7% 27.9% 42.8% Black or African American alone, percent, July 1, 2014, (V2014) (a) 20.8% 43.5% 35.2% Black or African American alone, percent, April 1, 2010 (a) 19.1% 36.5% 34.3% American Indian and Alaska Native alone, percent, July 1, 2014, (V2014) (a) 1.3% 2.9% 1.0% American Indian and Alaska Native alone, percent, April 1, 2010 (a) 0.7% 1.3% 0.5% Asian alone, percent, July 1, 2014, (V2014) (a) 25.8% 4.4% 12.1% Asian alone, percent, April 1, 2010 (a) 22.9% 3.6% 10.5% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone, percent, July 1, 2014, (V2014) (a) 0.2% 0.4% 0.1% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone, percent, April 1, 2010 (a) 0.1% 0.1% Z Two or More Races, percent, July 1, 2014, (V2014) 2.8% 3.3% 2.4% Two or More Races, percent, April 1, 2010 4.5% 5.3% 3.0% Hispanic or Latino, percent, July 1, 2014, (V2014) (b) 28.0% 54.8% 19.5% Hispanic or Latino, percent, April 1, 2010 (b) 27.5% 53.5% 19.8% White alone, not Hispanic or Latino, percent, July 1, 2014, (V2014) 26.2% 10.2% 35.8% White alone, not Hispanic or Latino, percent, April 1, 2010 27.6% 10.9% 35.7% Veterans, 20102014 53,484 32,336 47,085 Foreign born persons, percent, 20102014 47.8% 34.0% 37.5% Housing units, July 1, 2014, (V2014) 847,706 522,149 1,022,498 Housing units, April 1, 2010 835,127 511,896 1,000,293 Owneroccupied housing unit rate, 20102014 43.8% 19.1% 29.5% Median value of owneroccupied housing units, 20102014 $446,800 $366,400 $557,500 Median selected monthly owner costs with a mortgage, 20102014 $2,460 $2,404 $2,618 Median selected monthly owner costs without a mortgage, 20102014 $793 $733 $814 Median gross rent, 20102014 $1,350 $1,060 $1,189 Building permits, 2014 4,900 1,885 7,551 Households, 20102014 780,069 480,323 925,371 Persons per household, 20102014 2.89 2.85 2.74 U.S. Department of Commerce (//www.commerce.gov/) | Blogs (//www.census.gov/about/contactus/social_media.html) | Index AZ (//www.census.gov/about/index.html) | Glossary (//www.census.gov/glossary/) | FAQs (//ask.census.gov/) Search United States Census Bureau (//www.census.gov/en.html) A – 94 A – 95 A – 96 A – 97 A – 98 A – 99 A – 100 A – 101 A – 102 A – 103 A – 104 A – 105 A – 106 A – 107 A – 108 A – 109 A – 110 A – 111 A – 112 A – 113 A – 114 A – 115 A – 116 A – 117 A – 118 A – 119 A – 120 A – 121 A – 122 A – 123 A – 124 A – 125 A – 126 A – 127 A – 128 A – 129 A – 130 A – 131 A – 132 A – 133 A – 134 A – 135 A – 136 A – 137 Manufacturing Districts: M3 M3 districts are designated for areas with heavy industries that generate noise, traffic or pollutants. Typical uses include power plants, solid waste transfer facilities and recycling plants, and fuel supply depots. Even in M3 districts, uses with potential nuisance effects are required to conform to minimum performance standards. Like M2 districts, M3 districts are usually located near the waterfront and buffered from residential areas. Large M3 districts are mapped along the Arthur Kill in Staten Island, along the East River shore of the South Bronx, and along the Gowanus Canal in Brooklyn. Smaller M3 districts, such as portions of Astoria, are located along the waterfront in all five boroughs and accommodate public utilities. The two M3 districts, both with a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 2.0 and a maximum base height before setback of 60 feet, differ only in parking requirements. M31 districts are subject to the same parking requirements as M11, M12, M1‑3, M21 and M22 districts; M32 districts, found only in Manhattan, are exempt. M3 Manufacturing Districts A – 138 W. 14 5 W. W. W. AVE . W. AVE . ST . ST . ST . AMS TER DAM ST. NICH OLA S BRA DHU RST ST . 10 0 100 100 100 CL CL R6 A R7 D R7 A C6 -3 X R7 A R7A R6A R6 A400 35 0 40 0 CL 30 0 35 5 R7 A 17 0 R7 -2 R7 A R7A ST . TH ST . 14 4T H 14 3R D 14 2N D 13 8T H 10 0 M X- 15 M 1- 5/ 10 0 10 0 10 0 10 0 10 0 10 0 CL 100 100 10 0 10 0 10 0 20 0 100 R6A 10 0 R6 A 10 0 10 0 CL 10 0 10 0 10 0 10 0 10 0 CL PR OL . C L C L 100 100 10 0 CL CL 100 CL CL CL R7 -2 10 0 10 0 N. S.L . P RO L. C L 14 7T H W. 14 9T H ST . W. E. 14 6 ST . TH E. 14 4T H ST . ST . E. 14 0T H ST . E. 13 8T H E. 1 39 TH ST. E. 135 TH E. 14 9T H E. 14 6T H ST . CANA L GE O. P. RY AN SQ . E. 1 42 ND ST. ST . PAR K AVE . E. 1 36 TH ST . PA RK PL . ST . W. WALT ON GERA RD CONC OURS E AVE. AVE. E.1 37 TH S T. PR OL . AVE . 100 100 150 100 100 10 0 10 0 120 200 75 75 300 300 100 PR OL . 190 PA RK C 4- 4 R7-2 M1 -4 M1 -4/ R7 X M1 -4/ R7 A M1- 4/R 7A M 1- 4/ M1- 2 M1-4 / C6-2 A M2-1 C4 -4 M X -1 PR OL . M 2- 1 C4-4 BLVD. MAJOR DEEGAN SS L AV E. R6 A 275 MM 20 0 20 0 R8 A C6- 1 S.S .L. PR OL . 10 0 10 0 10 0 10 0 3b 3d 6c 6d 6b 5d5c M M C C N Y C4 -4 D 100 10 0 11 7 ST . W. W .11 6 ST . 12 2 R7 A R7 A 10 0 10 0 10 0 10 0 12 5 10 0 R8 A R8A R7B ADA M C LAY TON POW ELL JR. C4 -4 D R8 A ST . 85 215 PAR K MAD ISON KIN G JR . BL VD CO NC OU RS E VIL LA GE EA ST E 53 R D AE R7- 2 M X- 1 LINC OLN M 1- 3/ M 1- 5/ R8 A 37 0 R 8 M 3- 1 M 3- 1 TH11 8T H W. ND 10 0 TH C 4- 4 M 1-2 M1 -1 R6 C8- 3 ST . E. 15 3 RD RIE R R 7- 1 E .1 50 TH 600 MAJOR DEEGAN M 2- 1 151 ST E. ST. AVE. OF F OR ME R RU PP ER T PL . C L P A R K P A R K PA RK MARKET GATEWAY CE NTER O LE ARD C4 -4 D 10 01 60 N O TE : Z on in g in fo rm at io n as s o n on t is m ap is s ub je ct to c an ge or t e m os t u p to da te z on in g in fo rm at io n fo r t is m ap , vi si t t e Zo ni ng s ec tio n of t e D ep ar tm en t o f C it P la nn in g eb si te : w w w .n yc .g ov /p la nn in g or c on ta ct t e Zo ni ng In fo rm at io n D es a t ( ) 3 N O TE : W er e no d im en si on s fo r z on in g di st ric t b ou nd ar ie s ap pe ar o n t e zo ni ng m ap s, s uc d im en si on s ar e de te rm in ed in A rti cl e II, C ap te r 6 (L oc at io n of D is tri ct ou nd ar ie s) o f t e Zo ni ng R es ol ut io n 6 6 E E T C C C 3 C C 5 C C C 3 C C 5 W. 13 4 ST . TH 90 C 6- 2 10016 2N D E. AVE. 100 ST . R7A ST . 12 4 W. TH ST . 12 4 E. TH 12 6 E. TH 12 5 E. TH FIFT H BL VD . ST ./ D R. M AR TIN LU TH ER HAN COC K ST . 10 0 10 0 N S L P RO L 90 90 85 20 0 54 5 23 5 12 5 10 0 65 22 5 10 0 R6 A R6 A C4 -4 A C4 -4 D C4 -7R 6A C4 -4 A C4 -7 C4 -4 D R7 A C4 -4 A C4 -4 A C6 -3 C4 -41 5 PR OL . C4 -4 D LUT HER KIN G JR . ST . SU GA R RA Y R OB IN SO N CO RN ER LEX ING TON AVE . AVE . M1- 2 DR . 12 5 W. TH MA RT IN LU TH ER KI NG JR . ST ./ AF RI CA N SQ . 27 5 C4 -7 C6 -3 ST . W. 10 0 18 5 NIC HO LAS ST. 10 0 10 0S T. R8 A R8 AVE . THIR D C6 -3 C6-2 C.L. OF F ORM ER BER GEN AVE . R8 R7 -2 PL. PL. CAN AL ST . AV E. GRAN D E. 14 9T H ST . CA NA L CA NA L 135 TH ST . E. RID ER GRA HAM SQ . PA RK TH IRD AV E.E. 14 0T H E. 14 1S T ST . R6AM 1-4/ R 8A ST . C L C L 110 110 150 150 140 50 10 0 10 0 10 0 10 0 C L WES T E.1 62 ND LO U GE HR IG PL . C8 -3 R8 A C6 -2 C6-3 D C L E. 15 8 ST .TH ST . VILLA GE CON COU RSE E. 16 1S T C 4- 6 SH ER ID AN A VE . VILL AGE CON COU RSE EAST MOR RIS AVE. GRA NT AVE. SHE RMA N AVE . 541 541 ST. W. 13 0T H ST . 10 0 12 8T H W. TH IRD AV E. M X -1 20 0 M TH E N E W Y O R K C IT Y P LA N N IN G C O M M IS S IO N M aj or Z on in g C la ss ifi ca tio ns : R C MR , C M S pe ci al R eq ui re m en ts : E ffe ct iv e D at e( s) o f R ez on in g: R8 10 0 10 0 100 R8 N. S. L. PR OL . OF E. 13 2N D ST . CL PR OL . 12 9T H W. ST . P LA SK I P AR K WI LL IS AV E. BR ID GE AP PR OC H W IL LI S A E E. 13 2N D ST . E. 13 2N D ST . RI DG E CO RR ID O R W. 13 3R D ST . 350 W. 125 TH /DR . MA RTI N ST. AVE . R7A R8 A R7- 2 DON NEL LON SQ. 10 0 13 6T H ST . W. 13 7T H W. ST . 12 6 W. TH TER R.ST . W. 14 4 S T. TH 10 0 10 0 R8 R 6A R6 A 100 100 R7 A 360 R8 A R7 A E. RD ℄ 270 320 R7-2 16 3 ST . 15 0 10 0 E.1 39 TH ST . R7 -2MORRIS 10 0 MELR OSE A – 139 M 1 -2 M 1 -2 28 0 80 37 0 210 RD 13 3 PR O L. 100 TA T A 10 0 PI PI M P LH -1A PI LH -1 A C4 -6 6 b 5c 6a 6c 6d 9c 9a 8c5d 6b ZONING MAP M AP K EY Co py rig ht ed b y t he C ity o f N ew Y or k c R 7 -2 C6 -3 R7 A R 8A R 7 -2 R 7 -2 R 7 A R 8 A R 7A R 8A R 7A R 8A R7 A R 7B R 7A R7 A R 8 A 23 0 M 1 -4 R7 A R 7B R 7X R 7B R 7A R8 A R 7A R7 B R 7A R 7 B R 7 B C 4 -5 X R 8A H O LY RO SA RY SQ . RO NA LD E. C 1 -9 MC NA IRP L. ADA MC LAY TON POW ELL JR. 10 0 R 7 A R 8 A R8A 10 01 00 100 100 R 7 A ST. NICHOLAS W . 1 11 C 4 -7 E. 12 5 E. 12 4 ST . 13 3 RD BR UC KN ER BL VD . BRO OK AVE . BRO WN PL. ANN 'S A VE. ST. E. ND ST . E. 13 4 TH ST . M 1 -2 /R 6 A E. 13 2 ND ST . PL. ST. ANN 'S M X -1 M 3 -1 ST . ST . / DR . M AR TI N LU TH ER KIN G JR . BL VD . C4 -4 D ST . P AU L'S PL . ST . ST . ST . 18 0 ST . ST . TH MAL COL MX . BOU LEV ARD LEN OX AVE NUE AVE. C 2 -8 N O T E : Z on in g in fo rm at io n as s ho w n on th is m ap is s ub je ct to ch an ge . F or th e m os t u p- to -d at e zo ni ng in fo rm at io n fo r t hi s m ap , vi si t t he Z on in g se ct io n of th e D ep ar tm en t o f C ity P la nn in g w eb si te : w w w .n y c .g o v /p la n n in g o r c on ta ct th e Zo ni ng In fo rm at io n D es k at (2 12 ) 7 20 -3 29 1. N O T E : W he re n o di m en si on s fo r z on in g di st ric t b ou nd ar ie s ap pe ar o n th e zo ni ng m ap s, s uc h di m en si on s ar e de te rm in ed in A rti cl e V II, C ha pt er 6 (L oc at io n of D is tri ct B ou nd ar ie s) o f t he Z on in g R es ol ut io n. 60 0 0 60 0 12 00 18 00 F EE T C 1- 1 C 1- 2 C 1- 3 C 1- 4 C 1- 5 C 2- 1 C 2- 2 C 2- 3 C 2- 4 C 2- 5 M 1 -1 PA LA DI NO AV E. CL PR OL . CL PR OL . R 8 A ST . 50 10 0 10 0 10 0 13 0 75 90 C 4 -4 D C4 -4 T A - 1 2 5 100 10 0 10 0 50 ST . AVE . TH TH TA 1 2 5 C 6 -3 10 5 R 7 -2 E. 12 7T H ST . 32 5 E. 10 1S TE. 10 3R D 100 R 5 D LC 100 R 5 B 21S T ST . 19T H ST . R 5 B Z O N I N G M A P TH E N EW Y O R K C IT Y P LA N N IN G C O M M IS SI O N R C MR , C M RO BER T F. KEN NED Y BRI DGE ROB ERT F.K ENN EDY BRI DGE APP ROA CH PU LA SK I P AR K W IL LI S AV E. BR ID G E AP PR OC H W IL LI S AV E. BR ID G E CO RR ID OR 13 2 M 1 -5 /R 8 A P I E R H E A D U. S . & B U L K H E A D L I N E HAR LEM RIVE R DRI VE M 2 -2 MA RG IN AL S TR EE T W HA RF O R PL AC E MA RG IN AL S TR EE T W HA RF O R PL AC E WI LL IS AV E. BR ID GE R 8 A R7 A R 7 -2 20 0 180 10 0 A – 140 O P 1 6 d 16 a 16 c 17 a 17 b 23 a 22 c 22 a 16 b 16d ZONING MAP M A P K E Y Co py rig ht ed b y t he C ity o f N ew Y or k c R 6 10 0 R 7 B R 7A R 6 R 6 A 38 8 R 6 A R 6 A R 8A R 6 A R 6 B R 6 B R 6 B 10 0 R 6 B C 4- 3A R 6A 10 0 10 0 10 0 10 0 10 0 10 0 15 0 10 0 10 0 10 0 10 0 R6 A R 6 B R 6 B R 6 B R 6 B R 6 A R 6 B 10 0 R 5 B R 5 10 0 M 1- 2D M 1 -2 M 2- 1 3RD R 5 B R 6A PR OS PE CT PR OS PE CT 100 18 0 100 10 0 10 0 10 0 8TH M 1 -1 C ST . AVE . 10 0 R7 B R 5 B ST. M3 -1 N O T E : Z on in g in fo rm at io n as s ho w n on th is m ap is s ub je ct to ch an ge . F or th e m os t u p- to -d at e zo ni ng in fo rm at io n fo r t hi s m ap , vi si t t he Z on in g se ct io n of th e D ep ar tm en t o f C ity P la nn in g w eb si te : w w w .n y c .g o v /p la n n in g o r c on ta ct th e Zo ni ng In fo rm at io n D es k at (2 12 ) 7 20 -3 29 1. N O T E : W he re n o di m en si on s fo r z on in g di st ric t b ou nd ar ie s ap pe ar o n th e zo ni ng m ap s, s uc h di m en si on s ar e de te rm in ed in A rti cl e V II, C ha pt er 6 (L oc at io n of D is tri ct B ou nd ar ie s) o f t he Z on in g R es ol ut io n. 60 0 0 60 0 12 00 18 00 F EE T C 1- 1 C 1- 2 C 1- 3 C 1- 4 C 1- 5 C 2- 1 C 2- 2 C 2- 3 C 2- 4 C 2- 5 8TH PR OL . R 7 A W OO DR UF F CR OO KE AV E. AV E. ST. PL. PAR ADE PL. E. 21 RUGBY ARGYLE LI ND EN M AR TE NS E AV E. W ES TM IN ST ER R D. KE NM AR E TE RR .LE NO X PAUL ST MARLBOR OUGH E. 16 TH ST. - BUCKINGHA M R D. E. 17 TH ST. E. 19 TH ST.ST . PA UL S CT . 10 0 100 1 00 10 0 CL AR KS ON CAPTW.A. COAKLEY JR.SQ. MARTENSE CT. R 6 B R 6 B R3X R 6 B R 6 B C 4 -4 A 150 R 7 A R 7 A R 5 B 42 5 25 0 22 5 C L 35 0 12 5 15 0 27 5 95 125 22 5 100 C L 100 R 7 -1 10 0 WESTER LY RT.OF WAYOF N.Y.C.TA. C L C L PR OL . 10 0 C L 10 0 10 0C L 100 RD. RD. RD. ST . BL VD . CA TO N 10 0 ST. AV E. RD . E. 18 TH ST. R7-1 R 6 B R7A 10 0 ST . TH 29 TH ST . 30 ST 31 N D 32 RD 33 ST . ST . ST . Z O N I N G M A P TH E N EW Y O R K C IT Y P LA N N IN G C O M M IS SI O N R C MR , C M 60 E C -1 10 0 10 0 C L R 6 A R6B 17 5 R 7 A EA ST ER N PA RK W AY A – 141 1 6 a 12 b 12 d 16 c 16 d 16 b 16a ZONING MAP M A P K E Y Co py rig ht ed b y t he C ity o f N ew Y or k c C P R O L. O F F O R M E R 30 0 PA RK M 1 -1 H A LL E C K S T. L 20 0 M 3 -1 M 1 -1 M 3 -1 27 526 7 CA RR OL L N O T E : Z on in g in fo rm at io n as s ho w n on th is m ap is s ub je ct to ch an ge . F or th e m os t u p- to -d at e zo ni ng in fo rm at io n fo r t hi s m ap , vi si t t he Z on in g se ct io n of th e D ep ar tm en t o f C ity P la nn in g w eb si te : w w w .n y c .g o v /p la n n in g o r c on ta ct th e Zo ni ng In fo rm at io n D es k at (2 12 ) 7 20 -3 29 1. N O T E : W he re n o di m en si on s fo r z on in g di st ric t b ou nd ar ie s ap pe ar o n th e zo ni ng m ap s, s uc h di m en si on s ar e de te rm in ed in A rti cl e V II, C ha pt er 6 (L oc at io n of D is tri ct B ou nd ar ie s) o f t he Z on in g R es ol ut io n. 60 0 0 60 0 12 00 18 00 F EE T C 1- 1 C 1- 2 C 1- 3 C 1- 4 C 1- 5 C 2- 1 C 2- 2 C 2- 3 C 2- 4 C 2- 5 10 0 10 0 15 0 SU MM IT ST . 10 0 50 100 20 P U B LI C P A R K R 6 B PR ES ID EN T COLU MBIA CL PE D. OV ER PA SS HWY. R 6 B R 6 A R7 A R 6 B 10 0 12 0 10 0 10 0 10 0 10 010 0 10 0 C L C L KA NE ST . ST . C ONNE CTING QUEE NS BROO KLYN 3R D PL . 25 0 30 100 100 ST . 28 0 ST. R 6 A Z O N I N G M A P TH E N EW Y O R K C IT Y P LA N N IN G C O M M IS SI O N R C MR , C M M X -5 M 1- 1 /R 5 G O V E R N O R S I S L A N D R 3 -2 G I 26 75 BO UN DA RY LIN E OF G O VER NO RS ISLAN D OF G O V E R N O R S IS LA ND BOUNDARY LINE 58o 58 o A – 142 Copyright 2011 Center for Urban Research, The Graduate Center, City University of New York (CUNY) "Before / After" slider from www.catchmyfame.com: CC AttributionNoDerivs 3.0 Unported CUNY Graduate Center website disclaimer/legal info return to top"BEFORE AND AFTER" MAPS Comparing predominant race / ethnicity by block in 2000 & 2010 Click for Manhattan highlights NOTE: Neighborhood areas are NYC Dept of City Planning "Neighborhood Tabulation Areas". See DCP website for description. Manh. below 110th Manh. above 110th Bronx Brooklyn Queens (north) Queens (south) SI Show only 2000 Show only 2010 A – 143 R8 R8 B 10 0 10 0 ST . 10 0 C1 -9 C2 -8 C2 -7 A 10 0 10 0 10 0 10 010 0 10 0 10 0 10 0 10 0 10 0 10 0 10 0 10 0 10 0 10 0 10 0 10 0 C L C L C L C L C L C L C L C L C L C L C L C L C L C L C L C L C L C L E C -3 E C -2 E C -2 27 5 d5c 6a 6b 9a 8c 8a 5d ZONING MAP M A P K E Y Co py rig ht ed b y t he C ity o f N ew Y or k c R 8 A 10 0 MORNINGSIDE AVE. PAR K FR ED ER ICK DO UG LA SS CI RC LE PED .PA SS. R 8 A 100 R7 A R7 A N O T E : Z on in g in fo rm at io n as s ho w n on th is m ap is s ub je ct to ch an ge . F or th e m os t u p- to -d at e zo ni ng in fo rm at io n fo r t hi s m ap , vi si t t he Z on in g se ct io n of th e D ep ar tm en t o f C ity P la nn in g w eb si te : w w w .n y c .g o v /p la n n in g o r c on ta ct th e Zo ni ng In fo rm at io n D es k at (2 12 ) 7 20 -3 29 1. N O T E : W he re n o di m en si on s fo r z on in g di st ric t b ou nd ar ie s ap pe ar o n th e zo ni ng m ap s, s uc h di m en si on s ar e de te rm in ed in A rti cl e V II, C ha pt er 6 (L oc at io n of D is tri ct B ou nd ar ie s) o f t he Z on in g R es ol ut io n. 60 0 0 60 0 12 00 18 00 F EE T C 1- 1 C 1- 2 C 1- 3 C 1- 4 C 1- 5 C 2- 1 C 2- 2 C 2- 3 C 2- 4 C 2- 5 PK W Y. W . 10 2N D ST . W . 10 1S T ST . W . 10 3R D ST . ST . ST . 10 7T H W . 10 5T H W . 10 4T H W . 10 3R D W . 10 2 ND W . 10 1S T W . TH W . 99 TH W . 98 TH W . 97 TH ST . ST . ST . ST . CA TH ED RA L DU KE BL VD . - W . 1 06 THR 7 -2 R 8 PR OL . 75 50 95 10 0 95 10 0 10 0 10 0 10 0 10 0 10 0 10 0 100 10 0 10 0 10 0 10 0 10 0 R8 B R 8 B R 8 B R8 A R 8 B R9 A R 8 R7 -2 R 8 R8 B R9 A R8 BR8 R8 B R 1 0 A R 8B 10 0 10 0 10 0 10 0 10 0 10 0 10 0 10 0 10 0 10 0 10 0 10 0 10 0 10 0 10 0 10 0 R 8 R8 10 0 10 0 10 0 W ST . ST . ST . ST . ST . EL LIN GT ON Z O N I N G M A P TH E N EW Y O R K C IT Y P LA N N IN G C O M M IS SI O N R C MR , C M PK. PK. R8 B EC -3 E C -2 A – 144 M 1 -2 M 1 -2 28 0 80 37 0 210 RD 13 3 PR O L. 100 TA T A 10 0 PI PI M P LH -1A PI LH -1 A C4 -6 6 b 5c 6a 6c 6d 9c 9a 8c5d 6b ZONING MAP M AP K EY Co py rig ht ed b y t he C ity o f N ew Y or k c R 7 -2 C6 -3 R7 A R 8A R 7 -2 R 7 -2 R 7 A R 8 A R 7A R 8A R 7A R 8A R7 A R 7B R 7A R7 A R 8 A 23 0 M 1 -4 R7 A R 7B R 7X R 7B R 7A R8 A R 7A R7 B R 7A R 7 B R 7 B C 4 -5 X R 8A H O LY RO SA RY SQ . RO NA LD E. C 1 -9 MC NA IRP L. ADA MC LAY TON POW ELL JR. 10 0 R 7 A R 8 A R8A 10 01 00 100 100 R 7 A ST. NICHOLAS W . 1 11 C 4 -7 E. 12 5 E. 12 4 ST . 13 3 RD BR UC KN ER BL VD . BRO OK AVE . BRO WN PL. ANN 'S A VE. ST. E. ND ST . E. 13 4 TH ST . M 1 -2 /R 6 A E. 13 2 ND ST . PL. ST. ANN 'S M X -1 M 3 -1 ST . ST . / DR . M AR TI N LU TH ER KIN G JR . BL VD . C4 -4 D ST . P AU L'S PL . ST . ST . ST . 18 0 ST . ST . TH MAL COL MX . BOU LEV ARD LEN OX AVE NUE AVE. C 2 -8 N O T E : Z on in g in fo rm at io n as s ho w n on th is m ap is s ub je ct to ch an ge . F or th e m os t u p- to -d at e zo ni ng in fo rm at io n fo r t hi s m ap , vi si t t he Z on in g se ct io n of th e D ep ar tm en t o f C ity P la nn in g w eb si te : w w w .n y c .g o v /p la n n in g o r c on ta ct th e Zo ni ng In fo rm at io n D es k at (2 12 ) 7 20 -3 29 1. N O T E : W he re n o di m en si on s fo r z on in g di st ric t b ou nd ar ie s ap pe ar o n th e zo ni ng m ap s, s uc h di m en si on s ar e de te rm in ed in A rti cl e V II, C ha pt er 6 (L oc at io n of D is tri ct B ou nd ar ie s) o f t he Z on in g R es ol ut io n. 60 0 0 60 0 12 00 18 00 F EE T C 1- 1 C 1- 2 C 1- 3 C 1- 4 C 1- 5 C 2- 1 C 2- 2 C 2- 3 C 2- 4 C 2- 5 M 1 -1 PA LA DI NO AV E. CL PR OL . CL PR OL . R 8 A ST . 50 10 0 10 0 10 0 13 0 75 90 C 4 -4 D C4 -4 T A - 1 2 5 100 10 0 10 0 50 ST . AVE . TH TH TA 1 2 5 C 6 -3 10 5 R 7 -2 E. 12 7T H ST . 32 5 E. 10 1S TE. 10 3R D 100 R 5 D LC 100 R 5 B 21S T ST . 19T H ST . R 5 B Z O N I N G M A P TH E N EW Y O R K C IT Y P LA N N IN G C O M M IS SI O N R C MR , C M RO BER T F. KEN NED Y BRI DGE ROB ERT F.K ENN EDY BRI DGE APP ROA CH PU LA SK I P AR K W IL LI S AV E. BR ID G E AP PR OC H W IL LI S AV E. BR ID G E CO RR ID OR 13 2 M 1 -5 /R 8 A P I E R H E A D U. S . & B U L K H E A D L I N E HAR LEM RIVE R DRI VE M 2 -2 MA RG IN AL S TR EE T W HA RF O R PL AC E MA RG IN AL S TR EE T W HA RF O R PL AC E WI LL IS AV E. BR ID GE R 8 A R7 A R 7 -2 20 0 180 10 0 A – 145 LH- IA PI PI M P LH- IA 50 58 LH- IA PI LH- IA LH- IA LH- IA 12 5 15 0 15 0 12 5 LH- IA PI125 12 5 12 5 12 5 12 5 25 25 25 25 12 5 12 5 LH- IA TA TA M P PI LH- IA LH- IA PI LH- IA 12 5 12 5 T A 10 0 L CL Mi D R8B C1- 8X R10E . R8B 20 16 20 55 40 25 8c5d 6b 9a 9b 8d 8b8a 8cZONINGMAP M A P K E Y Co py rig hte d b y t he C ity of N ew Y or k c PAR K 5 5 5 . .. C6 - X R8 R R8 C 1- C 1-R1 0 R10 C 8- 4 10 0 10 0 30 0 C6- 60 C4 - Z on in g in fo rm at io n as s o n on t is m ap is s ub je ct to c an ge . or t e m os t u p to da te z on in g in fo rm at io n fo r t is m ap , vi si t t e Zo ni ng s ec tio n of t e D ep ar tm en t o f C it P la nn in g eb si te : o r c on ta ct t e Zo ni ng In fo rm at io n D es a t ( ) 9 . W er e no d im en si on s fo r z on in g di st ric t b ou nd ar ie s ap pe ar o n t e zo ni ng m ap s, s uc d im en si on s ar e de te rm in ed in A rti cl e II, C ap te r 6 (L oc at io n of D is tri ct B ou nd ar ie s) o f t e Zo ni ng R es ol ut io n. 6 6 8 E E T C C C C C 5 C C C C C 5 45 0 10 0 10 0 R8 A. 534 0 4 0 1- C6- R8 P.P . P.P . 15 0 . . . R1 0 45 0 Z O N IN G M A P TH E N E W Y O R K C IT Y P LA N N IN G C O M M IS S IO N M aj or Z on in g C la ss ifi ca tio ns : R C MR , C M S pe ci al R eq ui re m en ts : E ffe ct iv e D at e( s) o f R ez on in g: 12 5 1 25 25 0 . . 5 5 10 0 -4 -4 R R8 AR8 A C 10 0 10 0 10 0 50 0 45 0 . 5 5 N . N Y C N 10 0 10 0 10 0 10 010 0 10 010 0 10 0 C C C C C C 10 0 10 0 10 0 10 0 10 010 0 E C - E C - R8B C4-6A C6 - 12 5 12 5 - C4 - NN . 5 6 - 15 30 0 145 P . . 12 5 10 0 R A – 146 P I 100 100 9a ZONING MAP 9 a 5d 6b 6d 9c 9d 9b 8d8c M A P K E Y Co py rig ht ed b y t he C ity o f N ew Y or k c R 7A R9 M 1 -4 E . 9 3 ST . P R O L. C L R 7 -1 VER NON35 TH AV E. BL VD . M 1 -4 N O T E : Z on in g in fo rm at io n as s ho w n on th is m ap is s ub je ct to ch an ge . F or th e m os t u p- to -d at e zo ni ng in fo rm at io n fo r t hi s m ap , vi si t t he Z on in g se ct io n of th e D ep ar tm en t o f C ity P la nn in g w eb si te : w w w .n y c .g o v /p la n n in g o r c on ta ct th e Zo ni ng In fo rm at io n D es k at (2 12 ) 7 20 -3 29 1. N O T E : W he re n o di m en si on s fo r z on in g di st ric t b ou nd ar ie s ap pe ar o n th e zo ni ng m ap s, s uc h di m en si on s ar e de te rm in ed in A rti cl e V II, C ha pt er 6 (L oc at io n of D is tri ct B ou nd ar ie s) o f t he Z on in g R es ol ut io n. 60 0 0 60 0 12 00 18 00 F EE T C 1- 1 C 1- 2 C 1- 3 C 1- 4 C 1- 5 C 2- 1 C 2- 2 C 2- 3 C 2- 4 C 2- 5 ST. ST. ST. ST .ST . ST . DIT MA RS DR . RD . 29T H AS TO RI A AV E. AV E. SO UT H 19T H 28 TH ST . 28T H 29T H 29T H ST . 27T H ST. 27T H 32N D AV E. 29 TH RD . 14TH PL. ST. 26 TH 14TH ST.G EORG E CEM. CE M.M T. CA RM EL 25 TH RD . 24 TH RD . ST . 27 TH AS TO RIA 10 0 100 10 0 10 0 10 0 R5 R 7A R 5B R 5B R 4 -1 R 4 -1 R 5B R 6 A R 5 B LC LC R 4 100 100 10 0 10 0 10 0 LC R 6 10 0 150 R 7 X R 5 D 235 1 00 100 400 300 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 10 0 75 100 100 100 100 100 100 10 0 10 0 100 100 10 0 10 0 R 6 B R 6 B R 6 B R 6 B R 6 A R 6B R 6B C 4 -2 A C 4- 3 C 4 -3 C 4 -2 A R 6 B R 5 B R 5 B R 6 A 100 R 6 A R 6 A R 5B R 6 R 6 B 100 R 5 B R 5 BR 5 D 310 100 100 R 5 B R 5 R 5 B R 4 B 400 400 90 90 75 75 10 0 75 C 4 -4 A 10 0 20 0 20 0 10 0 10 0 10 0 20 0 100 10010 0 100 PRO L. 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 LC 100 10 0 100 LC LC 10 0 LC 10 0 10 0 10 0 100 80 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 R 5 D 20 0 20 0 R 7 B 100 100 R 5B 100 100 570 100 LC LC 100 100 90 80 130R 5 D 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 R 5 D 100 LC 100 100 1 00 LC 10 0 100 R 6 B 10 0 10 0 10 0 R 7A 100 100 100 100 100 LC LC LC LC LC LCLC LC LC LC LC LC C 4- 3 10 0 10 0 100 100 LC 10 0 10 0 LC LC LC 80 150 150 275 20 0 90 100 100 C 4 -2 A LC LC 10 0 10 0 LC LC 570 LC E- 24 5 PROL . 100 150 LC LC LC P RO L. LC 12 5 100 1 00 150 350 LC R 6 R 6 B R4 100 100 10 0 100 PA RK SO UT H HO YT RD . AV E. 30 TH 10 0 30 TH BL VD . ST . ST . R 7X AS TO R I A BL V D . HOYT AV E. NO RT H AS TO R I A BL V D . 37TH ST. 36TH 35TH 34TH 33RD 32N D 31ST 30TH 29TH 28TH 100 ST. 100 100 23 RD RD . AV E. 23 RD 26T H BL VD . 22 ND RD . PE TER CH AP PET TO ME MO RIA LS Q. R 5 B AS TO RI A SQ . AS TO RI A BL VD . R 5 D 28 TH RD . R 6 B 26 TH 38TH ST. ST. ST. ST. 330 R6 C 4- 2A C 4- 2A 100 100 R 6B 36 TH AV E. 100 M 1 -1 R5 D C L M1 -1 Z O N I N G M A P TH E N EW Y O R K C IT Y P LA N N IN G C O M M IS SI O N R C MR , C M ROB ERT F. KEN NED Y BRID GE 150 C 5 -2 100 10 0 AS TO RI A 27 1 ST. ST. TH ST BL VD . 150 150 275 R7 -3 M 1 -1 R 6 AS TO R I A AT HL ET IC FI EL D PR OL . CL 125 ST . M 1- 4 C 1 -9 31 5 73 E. RD 2ND BLV D. VERNON 150 150 8TH ST. AV E. AS TO RI A BL VD . 28 0 100 140 25 0 R 6 B R 7 A 240 M 1 -1 R 7 -3 4TH ST . # N O T E : S TR EE TS F O R T H E S TR EE T M A P C H AN G E C 1 30 38 4 M M Q A R E S H O W N O N T H IS M AP P R IO R T O B E C O M IN G E FF EC TI VE IN O R D ER T O LO C AT E ZO N IN G D IS TR IC T BO U N D A R IE S. # 10 0 A – 147 ABSTRACT Using New York City as a case study, this paper examines how zoning and the legal mechanism of zoning changes can con- tribute toward environmental injustice, and offers recommenda- tions for achieving justice through planning. Noxious uses tend to concentrate in poor and minority industrial neighborhoods due to re-zoning more affluent and less minority industrial areas to other uses, and expanding industrial zones in poorer neigh- borhoods and communities of color. This set of practices has been termed "expulsive" zoning, and is characterized by dis- placement of poor and minority people (and industry) from gen- trifying industrial zones, the intrusion of additional noxious land uses into predominantly poor and minority industrial areas, and the concomitant reduction of environmental quality there. Zoning policy, it will be argued, can have adverse impacts on public health and equity, by disproportionately burdening poorer and more minority populations with noxious or environmentally risky land uses. I N D U S T R I A L Z O N I N G C H A N G E S I N N E W Y O R K C I T Y A C a s e S t u d y o f " E x p u l s i v e " Z o n i n g JULIANA MAANTAY City University of New York, Lehman College, Department of Geology + Geography A – 148 ple were expected to eventually move out into better housing, but there was no better housing for that income bracket. There were entire blocks of non-conforming residential uses (Z.I. #5). As I will discuss in the sections below, the initial designation of some res- idential areas as industrial zones, the expansion of certain industrial areas, and the contraction of other industrial areas, all served to produce expulsive zoning outcomes. HOW ZONING AND ZONING CHANGES CONTRIBUTE TO ENVIRONMENTAL INJUSTICE IN NEW YORK CITY The inhabitants of industrial zones are subject to adverse impacts above and beyond the negative effects of segregation. Industrial zones gener- ally carry a higher environmental burden than do purely residential neigh- borhoods in terms of pollution impacts and risks (Miller & de Roo, 1996). These impacts stem directly from industrial processes as well as from associated heavy truck traffic. For instance, just one solid waste transfer station may require 1,000 truck trips per day to access its facility through a residential neighborhood, and some neighborhoods may have 20 or more of these facilities, such as, for instance, the Hunts Point Peninsula in the Bronx, and the Greenpoint-Williamsburg section of Brooklyn (Maantay, 2001a). Adverse impacts from truck traffic include reduced pedes- trian safety and increased air pollution, noise, vibration, and traffic con- gestion. In addition to truck-related impacts, other impacts from industrial and waste-related processes include emissions of toxic substances to air, soil, and water, visual blight, illegal dumping of hazardous materials, and safety and health risks from the use and storage of hazardous materials. Many of these impacts have been suspected of being linked to diseases, especially respiratory ailments and various types of cancers (Haggerty, 1996; Head, 1995; National Research Council, 1997; Novotny, 1998; Wright, Bryant, & Bullard, 1996). Parts of the city closest to the heaviest industrial zones, for instance, have extremely elevated rates of asthma (Nossiter, 1995). With the loss of many port-related activities and associated transporta- tion, warehouse, and manufacturing uses since the 1960s, the remain- ing industrially zoned areas in many parts of New York City have instead become repositories of noxious waste-related facilities. As manufacturing activities diminished in industrial areas in recent decades, both private and public waste-related facilities proliferated there (New York City Planning Commission [CPC] & The Sanborn Company, 1956, 1980, 1990). These include private solid waste transfer stations, marine transfer stations, waste water treat- ment plants, combined sewer overflow outfalls, sludge treatment facili- ties, recycled materials handling facilities, junkyards, auto salvage yards, scrap metal and construction debris processing facilities, and medical 72 Projections 3 A – 149 Maantay 73 waste disposal plants (Bronx Borough President's Solid Waste Management Task Force, 1997). The substitution of waste facilities for viable manufacturing fur- thers the impression that these communities are being disproportion- ately "dumped on" (Maantay, 2001a). New York City Industrial Zone Case Study - Analytical Methodology and Findings The scope of the impacts of industrial zones is not trivial: approximately 22 percent of New York City's 1990 census population lives in census tracts that are within these major M zones (Maantay, 2000; Maantay, 2001b). People living in or adjacent to the major M zones are more likely to be poorer than the average New Yorker, and more likely to be a member of a "minority" group (see Figure 2 and Tables 1 and 2). 4 This statement holds true for census data from 1960, 1970, 1980, and 1990 (Maantay, 2000). Although this study was conducted before the 2000 census data were available, subsequent analysis of Bronx 2000 census data reveals that the M zones still contain a higher percentage of minorities than bor- ough- or city-wide averages, despite the fact that the population of the Bronx is greater than 85% minority overall (Maantay, 2002b). Additionally, although the general locations of industrial districts have remained roughly the same over the past century, the geographic extents and boundaries of M zones have not remained static over time, with some M zones being increased and others decreased in area. Individual M zones are reduced or enlarged in extent via the legal mechanism of the zoning change. In order to examine the pattern of industrial zones and zoning changes and to characterize the proximate populations, major M zones and all re-zoning actions occurring between the years 1961-1998 were mapped using GIS. The 1961-1998 time frame was selected for the study because December 1961 marks the date of the last major overhaul “MINORITY” POPULATION WITHIN MAJOR M ZONES By Borough, Per Decade, As Compared with New York City and Borough Averages Table 1. A – 150 74 Projections 3 of the New York City Zoning Resolution. Data for actions prior to 1961 would not be directly comparable to data regarding later actions, due to significant changes in zoning categories, procedures, and record-keeping. October 1998 marks the time the archival data were researched and MEAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME WITHIN MAJOR M ZONES By Borough, Per Decade, As Compared with New York City and Borough Averages ($) Table 2. A – 151 compiled for this study, and thus represents the end point of the time frame. The "Major M Zones" as used in this study were those defined by the New York City Department of City Planning (DCP) in their "Citywide Industry Study: Geographical Atlas of Industrial Areas," January, 1993. DCP's determination of what constitutes "major" industrial zones was based on an assessment of several factors: the amount of land zoned for industry, the number of people employed in industry for that area, and transportation access. The boundaries for these major industrial districts were based on neighborhood boundaries, major geographic or physical features, historic and present day functions, and census tract bound- aries, where feasible. The determination of where M zone changes had occurred was based on comparison of archival zoning change maps, Map Sections 1-35, New York City DCP, 1961-1998. By comparing thousands of archival zoning change maps, by extracting the changes affecting M zones, and by spa- tially plotting the changes in industrial zones over time, the pattern of zoning changes affecting industrial zones between 1961-1998 can be shown. The locations of major M zones and M zone changes were overlain with a spatial database of census tracts, linked to attribute data of population characteristics. Digital data sources were used so that census data could be mapped and analyzed through Geographical Information Systems (GIS) on the computer (Adams, 1980; United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1990; United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1980). New York City was divided into 2,218 census tracts for the 1990 census. Population characteristics such as race, ethnicity, and income were obtained from census attribute data from 1960, 1970, 1980, and 1990, and these were mapped and compared using a standard deviation clas- sification method in order to allow longitudinal comparison of deviation from the average, since absolute numbers for income and percent minor- ity changed drastically over the four decade period. Population informa- tion was aggregated from census tract data for each of the four census periods, at the following geographic levels: city-wide, borough-wide, cen- sus tracts within major M zones, census tracts within 1/2 mile of "large" and "very large" M zone increases (see zoning change definitions above), and census tracts within 1/2 mile of "large" and "very large" M zone decreases. The re-zonings were classified by type and magnitude, and were aggre- gated both by decade and by borough. Size categories used were: minor boundary adjustments (very small zoning change measured in feet); small (one block or less); medium (more than one block, up to four Maantay 75 A – 152 76 Projections 3 blocks); large (more than four blocks, up to ten blocks); and very large (more than ten blocks). New York City's square block size is not consis- tent, and typically varies between 1 and 3 acres. Parts of the analysis focused on "large" and "very large" changes since, based on a review of City Planning Commission (CPC) reports and Public Hearing records available for the study time period, it was seen that many of the minor, small, and medium zoning changes appeared to be tied to the needs of specific property owners, and would seem to be an application of "spot zoning," having little to do with comprehensive planning objectives. Also, the large and very large zoning changes can be thought of as having a larger impact on the surrounding communities as well as on the city as a whole, although the incremental effect of many small changes cannot be discounted. The re-zoning action categories created reflected combinations of the size classification and either of two types of changes: "increases" or "decreases." "Increases" are M zones that were re-zoned either to expand the boundaries of the M zone in areal extent, or to change the zone designation to allow "heavier" (potentially more polluting) industrial uses within the zone. These latter types have been termed "switches to a heavier M zone." "Decreases" are M zones that were re-zoned either to reduce the boundaries of the M zone in areal extent, or to change the zone designation to allow "lighter" industrial uses, and prohibit "heavier" industrial uses within the zone. These latter types have been termed “LARGE” + “VERY LARGE” M ZONE CHANGES, 1961 - 1998 By Borough, Per Decade Table 3. A – 153 Maantay 77 "switches to a lighter M zone." New York has reduced the overall amount of land zoned for industry by re-zoning a substantial amount of its Manufacturing zones to other uses. There were approximately 409 re-zoning actions (map changes) affecting M zones between 1961 and the present. The city re-zoned land from M to residential (R) or commercial (C) about 50 percent more often than it re-zoned land from other uses to M. Eighty-two of these changes were large or very large in scope, affecting from more than four blocks up to ten blocks, and more than ten blocks, respectively. Not only was there a disparity between the number of M zone decreases versus increases, but there was also a disparity in where these changes occurred. Some bor- oughs have had virtually no large or very large increases, and some bor- oughs have had virtually no large or very large decreases (see Table 3). Industrial areas re-zoned to increase the size or intensity of M zones tended to have populations at the time of the re-zoning that were more heavily minority and poorer than borough and/or city averages, and often more so than the borough M zone average. Areas re-zoned to decrease the size or intensity of M zones tended to have populations at the time of the re-zoning that were not as poor or as heavily minority as the M zone average and/or borough and city averages (see Figure 3). The analysis also indicates that the areas that are re-zoned to increase M zones are not only more likely to have a higher than average percent- age of minority people with lower than average incomes, but that after re- zoning to increase M districts these areas increasingly diverge from the borough and city averages -- they become poorer and more heavily minor- BRONX “MINORITY” POPULATION IN REZONED M ZONES, BEFORE + AFTER REZONING Compared with Borough + Major M Zone Averages Table 4. A – 154 78 Projections 3 ity relative to the rest of the borough and city. Conversely, areas re-zoned to decrease M districts tend to become more similar to (or even surpass) the borough or city averages with regard to mean income, and more sim- ilar to (or lower than) borough and city averages with regard to percent minority population, after re-zoning (see Tables 4 and 5). Official documents outline the planning rationales behind the re-zoning actions. For instance, "marginal" or "deteriorated" residential neighbor- hoods are considered more appropriate for re-zoning to industrial than "stable" communities that have been "maintained." Sometimes "market forces" or "market pressures" are cited as reasons for re-zoning districts from M to other uses. The rationales for zoning changes were obtained from archival documentation such as Zoning Amendment Applications, City Planning Commission Calendars, Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP) applications, Urban Renewal Plans, Environmental Impact Assessments, Planning Studies, and letters and other documents obtained through the New York State Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) for the years 1961-1999. Documents from 1916-1961 were also con- sulted, as available, for context and background of later policy develop- ments. A complete list of archival documents used is given in Maantay (2000), Appendix C. Several previous studies have focused on whether the noxious land use or the minority population came first (Been, 1994; Been & Gupta, 1996). In other words, was the noxious facility sited before the nearby population BRONX AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD INCOME IN REZONED M ZONES, BEFORE + AFTER REZONING Compared with Borough + Major M Zone Averages Table 5. A – 155 became predominantly minority and/or poor, or was the neighborhood predominantly minority and/or poor when the facility was sited? I was able to consider this issue, not in terms of particular noxious uses, but in terms of the zoning changes that facilitate the siting of noxious uses. Thus, my research poses a different question: Which came first, the zon- ing changes or the people? I found that, in many instances, neighbor- hoods were zoned to increase industrial uses after they had already become poorer and more minority than the city and borough average, and they diverged further from city and borough averages after re-zoning. The issue of "which came first" may be important in establishing intent or racial animus in a legal context, but whether active discrimination or a series of thoughtless decisions and assumptions were behind the zoning changes, the end result remains the same: poor and minority people are disproportionately burdened by industrial zoning changes. Five Industrially-Zoned Communities In addition to the city- and borough-wide analyses of demographic and zoning changes, I also looked in detail at five smaller case study industrial areas. The intent of the case studies was to furnish more information about the complexity of the issues involved in the zoning change process than can be obtained by simply looking at the city- or borough-wide patterns and trends of industrial zoning changes. The case study areas were selected to represent a range of industrial areas, and each needed to contain substantial industrial zones as well as contain a residential population. In order to be illustrative of the different types of industrial zoning changes that had taken place, it was desirable to have at least one of each of the following areas represented in the analysis: an area where M zones had been increased; an area where M zones had been decreased; an area where M zones had remained basically the same; and an area where the M zones had been changed to a different kind of M zone. The zoning changes could then be correlated with policy trends, changing demographics, and land use conditions over the four decade study period. The five case study areas selected were Red Hook, Brooklyn (M zones vir- tually unchanged); Gowanus Canal, Brooklyn (M zones decreased); Hunts Point, Bronx (M zones "switched" to a heavier M zone); Bathgate, Bronx (large increases in M zones); and the Lower West Side of Manhattan (large decreases in M zones). The last two case study areas will be the focus of this section, and they offer the starkest contrast: the Bathgate area received several large M zone increases, and the Lower West Side received several large and very large M zone decreases. The data used in the case study area analysis included the census tract population data and the zoning change data used in the city- and bor- ough-wide analysis, as discussed above. In addition, the case study area analysis used land use data obtained from archival land use maps, plan- Maantay 79 A – 156 About Us | Work for Us | Help Employers Get candidates to fill your engineering and/or technical jobs within 24-48 hours! Contact us now! or call 1.800.659.5639 HOME | SALARY SURVEYS | NEWS | STOCKS | ALL POWERPLANT JOBS Send Resume | Job Alerts | Resources | Register > Advanced Search New Jobs Last 10 Days Search by Industry > Hot Power Plant Jobs > Jobs sorted by number > Job Alerts Other Job Types > Contract Jobs > Power Plant Jobs willing to sponsor > Executive Jobs > IT Jobs > Power Generation Power Plant Jobs > Resume writing help > Salary Surveys > Take Salary Survey > Salary Trends by Job Title > Opinion Polls Free Resume Help for Power Plant Jobs > Resume writing tips > Resume examples > Sample resumes > Resume templates The most popular Source for everything you need to know about Power Plant Jobs. Search 2000 + Worldwide Engineering Jobs and Power Plant Jobs Example: job number, keyword, etc. State Advanced Search NY Power Plants Utility Plant Name City State MegaWatt Adirondack Hydro-4 Branch LLC Fourth Branch Hydroelectric Facility Saratoga NY 3.3 AES Cayuga LLC AES Cayuga Tompkins NY 322.5 AES Greenidge AES Greenidge LLC Yates NY 162 AES Hickling LLC AES Hickling LLC Steuben NY 70 AES Jennison LLC AES Jennison LLC Chenango NY 60 AES Somerset LLC AES Somerset LLC Niagara NY 655.1 AES Westover LLC AES Westover Broome NY 118.8 AG Energy LP Ogdensburg Power St Lawrence NY 99.3 Alice Falls Corp Alice Falls Hydro Project Clinton NY 2.1 Ameresco LFG I Inc Al Turi Orange NY 5.9 American Ref-Fuel Co-Niagara American Ref-Fuel of Niagara Niagara NY 50 American Ref-Fuel Co of Hempstead American Ref-Fuel of Hempstead Nassau NY 78.6 American Sugar Refining Inc. The American Sugar Refining Co Brooklyn Kings NY 11.5 Astoria Energy LLC Astoria Energy Queens NY 0 Astoria Generating Co LP Astoria Generating Station Queens NY 1345 Athens Generating Company LLC Athens Generating Plant Greene NY 1323 Bassett Healthcare Bassett Healthcare Otsego NY 4 Bayswater Peaking Facility LLC Bayswater Peaking Facility LLC Queens NY 58 Beaver Falls Hydro Associates Beaver Falls II Lewis NY 1 Beaver Falls Hydro Associates Beaver Falls I Lewis NY 1.5 Berrians 1 Gas Turbine Power Berrians 1 Gas Queens NY 0 Besicorp-Empire Power Company LLC Besicorp-Empire Power Generating Facilit Rensselaer NY 0 Bio-Energy Partners Monroe Livingston Gas Recovery Monroe NY 2.4 A – 157 > Resume format > Resume cover letter > Samples for engineers > Learn how to write a resume! Paid Resume Services for Power Plant Careers > Resume services for engineers > Resume writing services > Resume builder services > Resume posting services > Resume cover letter tips > Resume writing tips > Job Search tips > Executive Resume > Technical Resume > Sales Resume > Marketing Resume > Entry-Level Resume > Jobs via RSS > Bio-Energy Partners High Acres Gas Recovery Monroe NY 3.2 Bio-Energy Partners Mohawk Valley Landfill Gas Recovery Herkimer NY 1.6 Black River Generation LLC Black River Generation Jefferson NY 55.5 Boralex New York Inc Boralex Chateaugay Power Station Franklin NY 19.7 Brookhaven Energy LP Brookhaven Energy Project Suffolk NY 0 Brooklyn Navy Yard Cogen PLP Brooklyn Navy Yard Cogeneration Kings NY 322 Buffalo Paperboard Buffalo Paperboard Niagara NY 1.5 Burrows Paper Corp Lyonsdale Associates Lewis NY 3 Caithness Long Island LLC Caithness Long Island Energy Center Suffolk NY 0 Calpine Eastern Corp Bethpage Power Plant Nassau NY 144 Carr Street Generating Sta LP Carr Street Generating Station Onondaga NY 122.6 Carthage Energy LLC Carthage Energy LLC Jefferson NY 62.9 Cellu Tissue Corporation Cellu Tissue Natural Dam New York NY 1 Central Hudson Gas and Elec Corp Neversink Sullivan NY 25 Central Hudson Gas and Elec Corp High Falls Ulster NY 3.2 Central Hudson Gas and Elec Corp South Cairo Greene NY 21.6 Central Hudson Gas and Elec Corp West Coxsackie Greene NY 21.6 Central Hudson Gas and Elec Corp Sturgeon Ulster NY 14.4 Central Hudson Gas and Elec Corp Dashville Ulster NY 4.8 Central Vermont Pub Serv Corp Carver Falls Washington NY 1.9 Chasm Hydro Partnership Chasm Hydro Partnership Franklin NY 1.6 CHI Energy Inc Pyrites Plant ST Lawrence NY 8.2 CHI Energy Inc Fenner Wind Madison NY 30 CHI Energy Inc Wethersfield Wind Farm Wyoming NY 6.6 CHI Energy Inc Copenhagen Plant Lewis NY 3.3 CHI Energy Inc Hailesboro 4 Plant ST Lawrence NY 1.4 CHI Energy Inc Diamond Island Plant Jefferson NY 1.2 CHI Energy Inc Black River Hydro Associates Lewis NY 5.7 CHI Energy Inc Theresa Plant Jefferson NY 1.3 CHI Energy Inc Goodyear Lake Plant Otsego NY 1.4 CHI Energy Inc Dexter Plant Jefferson NY 4.2 Cogent Little Falls GP Cogent Little Falls GP Herkimer NY 4.5 Consolidated Edison Co-NY Inc 74th Street New York NY 37 Consolidated Edison Co-NY Inc Hudson Avenue Kings NY 108.9 Consolidated Edison Co-NY Inc Waterside New York NY 199.8 Consolidated Edison Co-NY Inc East River New York NY 356.2 Consolidated Edison Co-NY Inc 59th Street New York NY 17.1 Consolidated Hydro New York Inc. Walden Orange NY 2.4 Consolidated Hydro New York Inc. Victory Mills Cayuga NY 1.7 Cornell Hydro Cornell Hydro Tompkins NY 1.9 A – 158 Cornell University Cornell University Central Heat Tompkins NY 7.5 Covanta Babylon Inc Covanta Babylon Energy Suffolk NY 17 Covanta Onondega LP Onondaga County Resource Recovery Onondaga NY 39.5 Dahowa Hydro Dahowa Hydro Washington NY 10.5 Dunkirk Power LLC Dunkirk Generating Station Chautauqua NY 560 Dynegy Northeast Gen Inc Danskammer Generating Station Orange NY 537.4 Dynegy Northeast Gen Inc Roseton Generating Station Orange NY 1242 Eastman Kodak Co Kodak Park Site Monroe NY 206.8 Electro Ecology Inc Wappinger Falls Hydroelectric Dutches NY 2 Empire Hydro Partners Port Leyden Hydroelectric Project Lewis NY 1 Entergy Indian PT Peaking Fac Entergy Indian PT Peaking Fac Westchester NY 0 Entergy Nuc Fitzpatrick LLC James A Fitzpatrick Oswego NY 882 Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2 Indian Point 2 Westchester NY 1299 Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3 Indian Point 3 West Chester NY 1012 Equus Power I L.P. Equus Freeport Power Nassau NY 60 Erie Boulevard Hydropower LP Raymondville St Lawrence NY 2 Erie Boulevard Hydropower LP Sherman Island Saratoga NY 28 Erie Boulevard Hydropower LP Oswego Falls West Oswego NY 3 Erie Boulevard Hydropower LP Five Falls St Lawrence NY 24 Erie Boulevard Hydropower LP Black River Jefferson NY 6 Erie Boulevard Hydropower LP Hannawa St Lawrence NY 8 Erie Boulevard Hydropower LP Allens Falls St Lawrence NY 4 Erie Boulevard Hydropower LP Stark St Lawrence NY 26 Erie Boulevard Hydropower LP Schaghticoke Rensselaer NY 16 Erie Boulevard Hydropower LP Spier Falls Saratoga NY 56 Erie Boulevard Hydropower LP Flat Rock St Lawrence NY 5 Erie Boulevard Hydropower LP Feeder Dam Hydro Plant Saratoga NY 5 Erie Boulevard Hydropower LP Taylorville Lewis NY 4 Erie Boulevard Hydropower LP Schuylerville Saratoga NY 2 Erie Boulevard Hydropower LP Talcville St Lawrence NY 1.1 Erie Boulevard Hydropower LP Blake St Lawrence NY 15 Erie Boulevard Hydropower LP Norfolk St Lawrence NY 5 Erie Boulevard Hydropower LP Hydraulic Race Niagara NY 3 Erie Boulevard Hydropower LP Effley Lewis NY 3 A – 159 Erie Boulevard Hydropower LP Beebee Island Hydro Plant Jefferson NY 9 Erie Boulevard Hydropower LP Varick Oswego NY 8 Erie Boulevard Hydropower LP Browns Falls St Lawrence NY 16 Erie Boulevard Hydropower LP Kamargo Jefferson NY 6 Erie Boulevard Hydropower LP Prospect Oneida NY 19 Erie Boulevard Hydropower LP Moshier Herkimer NY 8 Erie Boulevard Hydropower LP Higley St Lawrence NY 12 Erie Boulevard Hydropower LP Chasm Franklin NY 3 Erie Boulevard Hydropower LP Inghams Fulton NY 6 Erie Boulevard Hydropower LP Elmer Lewis NY 2 Erie Boulevard Hydropower LP Fulton Oswego NY 1.3 Erie Boulevard Hydropower LP Norwood St Lawrence NY 2 Erie Boulevard Hydropower LP South Colton St Lawrence NY 21 Erie Boulevard Hydropower LP Glenwood Orleans NY 1.5 Finch Pruyn and Co Inc Finch Pruyn Warren NY 40.8 Fishers Island Electric Corp Fishers Island Suffolk NY 1 Fort Miller Associates Fort Miller Hydroelectric Facility Saratoga NY 5 Fortistar LLC Bloomfield Generating Chelsea Road Richmond NY 0 Fortistar LLC Bloomfield Generating South Avenue Richmond NY 0 FortisUS Energy Corp Dolgeville Hydro Herkimer NY 5 FortisUS Energy Corp Philadlephia Jefferson NY 3.6 FortisUS Energy Corp Moose River Lewis NY 12.6 FortisUS Energy Corp Diana Hydroelectric Lewis NY 1.8 Fourth Branch Assoc-Long Fall Longfalls Facility Jefferson NY 3.3 Freeport Village of Inc Plant No 1 Nassau NY 13.2 Freeport Village of Inc Plant No 2 Nassau NY 97.8 Fulton Cogen Assoc- Fulton Cogen Fulton Cogeneration Associates Oswego NY 47 General Mills Inc General Mills Inc. Erie NY 3.8 Glenville Energy Park LLC Glenville Energy Park Project Schenectady NY 0 Greenport Village of Greenport Suffolk NY 6.8 Hampshire Paper Co Inc Hampshire Paper St Lawrence NY 3.4 Hawkeye Energy Greenport LLC Hawkeye Energy Greenport LLC Suffolk NY 54 Heritage Power LLC Heritage Station Oswego NY 0 Hofstra University Hofstra University Nassau NY 2.2 Hollingworth and Vose Co Center Falls Washington NY 1.1 Hollow Dam Power Co Hollow Dam Power Partnership St Lawrence NY 1 Honeywell Farm Inc Honeywell Farms Queens NY 4.4 Hospira Inc Hospira Inc. Erie NY 2.2 Huntington Resource Recovery Huntington Resource Recovery Facility Suffolk NY 28 A – 160 Erie Boulevard Hydropower LP Piercefield St Lawrence NY 2.7 Erie Boulevard Hydropower LP Lighthouse Hill Oswego NY 8 Erie Boulevard Hydropower LP Eagle Lewis NY 6 Erie Boulevard Hydropower LP Belfort Lewis NY 2 Erie Boulevard Hydropower LP Minetto Oswego NY 10 Erie Boulevard Hydropower LP Beardslee Herkimer NY 20 Erie Boulevard Hydropower LP Macomb Franklin NY 1 Erie Boulevard Hydropower LP Yaleville St Lawrence NY 2 Erie Boulevard Hydropower LP Waterport Orleans NY 4 Erie Boulevard Hydropower LP Ephratah Fulton NY 4 Erie Boulevard Hydropower LP Herrings Jefferson NY 5.4 Erie Boulevard Hydropower LP Deferiet Jefferson NY 12 Erie Boulevard Hydropower LP Parishville St Lawrence NY 3 Erie Boulevard Hydropower LP Eel Weir St Lawrence NY 2.5 Erie Boulevard Hydropower LP Franklin Franklin NY 2 Erie Boulevard Hydropower LP Oswego Falls East Oswego NY 6 Erie Boulevard Hydropower LP Soft Maple Lewis NY 16 Erie Boulevard Hydropower LP School Street Albany NY 42 Erie Boulevard Hydropower LP Colton St Lawrence NY 36 Erie Boulevard Hydropower LP Rainbow Falls St Lawrence NY 25 Erie Boulevard Hydropower LP East Norfolk St Lawrence NY 4 Erie Boulevard Hydropower LP High Falls Lewis NY 6 Erie Boulevard Hydropower LP Johnsonville Rensselaer NY 4 Erie Boulevard Hydropower LP Heuvelton St Lawrence NY 1 Erie Boulevard Hydropower LP Trenton Falls Oneida NY 21.9 Erie Boulevard Hydropower LP Bennetts Bridge Oswego NY 36 Erie Boulevard Hydropower LP E J West Saratoga NY 22 Erie Boulevard Hydropower LP Granby Oswego NY 10 Erie Boulevard Hydropower LP Sewalls Jefferson NY 2 Erie Boulevard Hydropower LP Sugar Island St Lawrence NY 4 Erie Boulevard Hydropower LP South Edwards St Lawrence NY 4 Erie Boulevard Hydropower LP Stewarts Bridge Saratoga NY 36 A – 161 Indeck-Corinth Ltd Partnership Indeck Corinth Energy Center Saratoga NY 147 Indeck-Energy Serv Silver Spg Indeck Silver Springs Energy Center Wyoming NY 56.6 Indeck-Olean Ltd Partnership Indeck Olean Energy Center Cattaraugus NY 90.6 Indeck-Oswego Ltd Partnership Indeck Oswego Energy Center Oswego NY 57.4 Indeck-Yerkes Ltd Partnership Indeck Yerkes Energy Center Erie NY 59.9 Indeck Operations Inc NRG Ilion LP Herkimer NY 60.8 International Paper Co-HudsonR International Paper Hudson River Mill Saratoga NY 38.4 International Steel Group Inc Lackawanna Facility Erie NY 25 IPC-Ticonderoga Ticonderoga Mill Essex NY 42.1 IPP Energy LLC Binghamton Cogen Broome NY 47.7 Islip Resource Recovery Agency MacArthur Waste to Energy Facility Suffolk NY 12.5 Jamaica Bay Peaking Facility LLC Jamaica Bay Peaking Queens NY 60 Jamestown City of S A Carlson Chautauqua NY 101 KeySpan-Ravenswood Inc Ravenswood Queens NY 2625 KeySpan Generation LLC West Babylon Suffolk NY 52.4 KeySpan Generation LLC Glenwood Nassau NY 460 KeySpan Generation LLC Wading River Suffolk NY 238.5 KeySpan Generation LLC South Hampton Suffolk NY 11.5 KeySpan Generation LLC Far Rockaway Queens NY 100 KeySpan Generation LLC Southold Suffolk NY 14 KeySpan Generation LLC Northport Suffolk NY 1564 KeySpan Generation LLC Shoreham Suffolk NY 71.5 KeySpan Generation LLC E F Barrett Nassau NY 687.2 KeySpan Generation LLC Glenwood Gas Nassau NY 16 KeySpan Generation LLC Holtsville Suffolk NY 567 KeySpan Generation LLC Port Jefferson Suffolk NY 590 KeySpan Generation LLC East Hampton Suffolk NY 27.3 KeySpan Generation LLC Montauk Suffolk NY 6 KIAC Partners Kennedy International Airport Cogen Queens NY 121.2 Lachute Hydro Co Inc Lachute Hydro Lower Essex NY 3.8 Lachute Hydro Co Inc Lachute Hydro Upper Essex NY 5.2 Laidlaw Energy Group Inc. Laidlaw Energy and Environmental Cattaraugus NY 5.8 Landfill Generating Partners Orange County New York Orange NY 3.3 LFG Energy Inc LFG Energy Erie NY 5.6 Little Falls Hydroelec Assoc Little Falls Hydro Herkimer NY 13 Lockport Energy Associates LP Lockport Energy Associates LP Niagara NY 221.3 Lockport Merchant Assoc LLC Lockport Merchant Facility Niagara NY 0 Lower Saranac Hydro Partner LP Lower Saranac Hydroelectric Facility Clinton NY 6.7 Lutheran Medical Center Lutheran Medical Center Kings NY 1.6 Lyonsdale Biomass Lyonsdale Biomass LLC Lewis NY 21.1 Madison Windpower LLC Madison Windpower LLC Madison NY 11.5 Medford Energy LLC Medford Power Project Suffolk NY 0 Middle Falls Ltd Partnership Middle Falls Hydro Washington NY 2.2 Minnesota Methane LLC Albany Landfill Gas Utilization Project Albany NY 1.8 A – 162 Mirant New York Inc Shoemaker Orange NY 41.9 Mirant New York Inc Lovett Rockland NY 449.1 Mirant New York Inc Hillburn Rockland NY 46.5 Mirant New York Inc Mongaup Sullivan NY 4 Mirant New York Inc Bowline Point Rockland NY 1110 Mirant New York Inc Grahamsville Sullivan NY 18 Mirant New York Inc Rio Sullivan NY 10 Mirant New York Inc Swinging Bridge 1 Sullivan NY 5 Mirant New York Inc Swinging Bridge 2 Sullivan NY 7 Model City Energy LLC Model City Energy Facility Niagara NY 5.6 Montenay Dutchess LLC Dutchess County Resource Recovery Agency Dutchess NY 9.2 Mt Ida Associates Mt Ida Hydroelectric Rennselear NY 3 New York Methodist Hospital New York Methodist Hospital Kings NY 1.8 New York State Electric and Gas Corp Cadyville Clinton NY 5.5 New York State Electric and Gas Corp Kent Falls Clinton NY 12.4 New York State Electric and Gas Corp Auburn State Street Cayuga NY 7 New York State Electric and Gas Corp Upper Mechanicville Saratoga NY 16.4 New York State Electric and Gas Corp High Falls Clinton NY 15 New York State Electric and Gas Corp Keuka Steuben NY 2 New York State Electric and Gas Corp Harris Lake Essex NY 1.7 New York State Electric and Gas Corp Rainbow Falls Clinton NY 2.6 New York State Electric and Gas Corp Mill C Clinton NY 6 New York University New York University Central Plant New York NY 8 New York Zoological Society Bronx Zoo Bronx NY 3.6 Newport Hydro Associates Newport Hydro Herkimer NY 1.7 NewsTech New York Inc Deferiet New York Jefferson NY 8.1 Niagara Mohawk Power Corp Mechanicville Saratoga NY 5.2 Nine Mile Point Nuclear Sta LLC Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station Oswego NY 1901.1 Nissequoque Cogen Partners Stony Brook Cogen Plant Suffolk NY 47 North American Energy Services Fortistar North Tonawanda Niagara NY 55.3 North Shore Towers Apts Inc North Shore Towers Queens NY 8.8 Northbrook New York LLC Glen Park Hydroelectric Project Jefferson NY 32.6 Northern Electric Power Co LP Hudson Falls Hydroelectric Project Saratoga NY 44 NRG Arthur Kill Operations Inc Arthur Kill Generating Station Richmond NY 931.7 NRG Astoria Gas Turbine Operations Inc Astoria Gas Turbines Queens NY 762 NRG Huntley Operations Inc C R Huntley Generating Station Erie NY 816 NRG Oswego Harbor Power Operations Inc Oswego Harbor Power Oswego NY 1895.6 NYSD Ltd Partnership New York State Dam Hydro Saratoga NY 11.4 A – 163 Oneida County Industl Dev Agcy Sterling Power Plant Oneida NY 65.3 Onondaga Cogeneration LP Onondaga Cogeneration Onondaga NY 105.8 Orion Power Holding of New York Narrows Gas Turbines Generating Kings NY 352 Orion Power Holding of New York Gowanus Gas Turbines Generating Kings NY 640 Oswego City of High Dam Oswego NY 11.9 Oswego County Oswego County Energy Recovery Oswego NY 3.6 Oswego Hydro Partners LP Phoenix Hydro Project Oswego NY 3.4 Palmer Hydroelectric Curtis Palmer Hydroelectric Saratoga NY 59 PE Bay Shore LLC Entenmanns Energy Center Suffolk NY 5.2 Pinelawn Power LLC Pinelawn Power LLC Suffolk NY 0 Power Authority of State of NY Blenheim Gilboa Schoharie NY 1000 Power Authority of State of NY Lewiston Niagara Niagara NY 240 Power Authority of State of NY Joseph J. Seymour Power Project Kings NY 94 Power Authority of State of NY Robert Moses Niagara Niagara NY 2429.1 Power Authority of State of NY 500MW CC Queens NY 0 Power Authority of State of NY Harlem River Yard Bronx NY 94 Power Authority of State of NY Crescent Albany NY 11.6 Power Authority of State of NY Vernon Boulevard Queens NY 94 Power Authority of State of NY Robert Moses Power Dam St Lawrence NY 912 Power Authority of State of NY Charles Poletti Queens NY 883 Power Authority of State of NY North 1st Kings NY 47 Power Authority of State of NY Jarvis (Hinckley) Oneida NY 9 Power Authority of State of NY Hell Gate Bronx NY 94 Power Authority of State of NY Brentwood Suffolk NY 47 Power Authority of State of NY Kensico Westchester NY 3 Power Authority of State of NY Pouch Richmond NY 47 Power Authority of State of NY Vischer Ferry Saratoga NY 11.6 Power Authority of State of NY Ashokan Ulster NY 4.6 Power Authority of State of NY Richard M Flynn Suffolk NY 164 Power City Partners LP Massena Power Plant St. Lawrence NY 101.8 PPL Edgewood Energy LLC PPL Edgewood Energy LLC Suffolk NY 100 PPL Shoreham Energy LLC PPL Shoreham Energy LLC Suffolk NY 100 Project Orange Associates LP Project Orange Associates LP Onondaga NY 98 PSEG Power Development LLC North Bellport Energy Center Suffolk NY 0 A – 164 PSEG Power New York Inc PSEG Albany Generating Station Albany NY 400 PSEG Power New York Inc Bethlehem Energy Center Albany NY 0 Ramapo Energy Ltd Partnership Ramapo Energy LP Rockland NY 0 Raquette Hydro Power Ltd Unionville Hydro Project 2499 NY St Lawrence NY 3 Raquette Hydro Power Ltd Hewittville Hydroelectric ST Lawrence NY 3 Rensselaer Plant Holdco LLC Rensselaer Cogen Rensselaer NY 103.7 Ridgewood Power Management LLC Coca Cola Bottling of New York Westcherster NY 2.1 Ridgewood Power Management LLC Union Falls Clinton NY 2.6 Riverbay Corp Riverbay Bronx NY 6 Rochester Gas and Electric Corp Rochester 2 Monroe NY 6.5 Rochester Gas and Electric Corp Rochester 5 Monroe NY 43.6 Rochester Gas and Electric Corp Wiscoy 170 Allegany NY 1 Rochester Gas and Electric Corp Rochester 7 Monroe NY 252.6 Rochester Gas and Electric Corp Rochester 3 Monroe NY 19 Rochester Gas and Electric Corp Rochester 9 Monroe NY 19 Rochester Gas and Electric Corp Rochester 26 Monroe NY 3 Rochester Gas and Electric Corp Allegany Cogen Allegany NY 67 Rockville Centre Village of Charles P Keller Nassau NY 33.8 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant LLC R. E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Wayne NY 517.1 Saranac Power Partners LP Saranac Facility Clinton NY 285.6 Selkirk Cogen Partners LP Selkirk Cogen Partners LP Albany NY 357.6 Seneca Energy II Ontario LFGTE Ontario NY 3.2 Seneca Energy II Seneca Energy Seneca NY 11.2 Seneca Power Partners LP Batavia Power Plant Genesee NY 67.3 Sissonville Ltd Partnership Sissonville Hydro St Lawrence NY 3 Sithe/Independence LLC Sithe Independence Station Oswego NY 1254 South Glens Falls Energy LLC South Glens Falls Energy LLC Saratoga NY 59.7 South Glens Falls LP South Glens Falls Hydroelectric Saratoga NY 13.8 South Oak Hospital South Oaks Hospital Suffolk NY 1.2 St John's Riverside Hospital St Johns Riverside Hospital Westchester NY 1.2 St Mary's Hospital St Marys Hospital Brooklyn NY 1.2 Starrett City Inc Starrett City Cogen Facility Kings NY 18 Stillwater Associates Stillwater Reservoir Hydro Herkimer NY 1.8 Stillwater Hydro Partners LP Stillwater Hydro Electric Project Saratoga NY 3.4 Sunset Energy Fleet LLC Sunset Energy Fleet Kings NY 0 Tannery Island Power Corp Tannery Island Power Jefferson NY 1.5 Trafalgar Power Inc Herkimer Herkimer NY 2 Trafalgar Power Inc Forestport Madison NY 3.4 Trafalgar Power Inc Ogdensburg St Lawrence NY 3.5 A – 165 TransCanada Power TransCanada Power Castleton Rensselaer NY 72 Trigen-Nassau Energy Corp Trigen Nassau Energy Nassau NY 55 Trigen-Syracuse Energy Corp Trigen Syracuse Energy Onondaga NY 101.1 Triton Power Co Chateaugay High Falls Hydro Franklin NY 1.7 Tug Hill Energy Inc Kings Falls Hydroelectric Lewis NY 1.6 U S Gypsum Co US Gypsum Oakfield Genesee NY 5.8 United Supply Corp Warrior Montgomery NY 0 Valley Falls Associates Valley Falls Hydroelectric Facility Rensselaer NY 2.5 Warbasse Cogen Warbasse Cogen Facility Kings NY 37.7 Warrensburg Hydro Power LP Warrensburg Hydroelectric Warren NY 2.9 Watchtower Bible and Tract Soc-NY Watchtower Educational Center Putnam NY 2.1 Watertown City of Watertown Jefferson NY 8.1 Watervliet City of Normanskill Hydro Project Albany NY 1.2 Wawayanda Energy Center LLC Wawayanda Energy Center Orange NY 0 West Delaware Hydro Associates West Delaware Tunnel Plant Sullivan NY 7.5 West End Dam Associates West End Dam Hydroelectric Project Jefferson NY 4.4 Wheelabrator Environmental Systems Wheelabrator Hudson Falls Washington NY 14.4 Wheelabrator Westchester LP Wheelabrator Westchester Westchester NY 74.5 WPS Power Developement CH Resources Syracuse Onondaga NY 102.7 WPS Power Developement WPS Power Niagara Niagara NY 56 WPS Power Developement CH Resources Beaver Falls Lewis NY 107.8 Wyeth-Averst Lederle Lederle Laboratories Rockland NY 23.4 Zapco Energy Tactics Corp Smithtown Energy Partners LP Suffolk NY 1.4 Zapco Energy Tactics Corp Brookhaven Facility Suffolk NY 5.2 Zapco Energy Tactics Corp Onondaga Energy Partners LP Onondaga NY 1.4 Zapco Energy Tactics Corp Oyster Bay Energy Partners LP Nassau NY 1.4 Zapco Energy Tactics Corp Oceanside Energy Nassau NY 4.2 Zilkha Renewable Energy LLC Maple Ridge Wind Farm Lewis NY 0 Privacy/Security | Copyright | Careers@ThinkJobs.com | Engineering Job Search Agent | Contact Info | Site Map | Help Alabama Engineering Jobs | Alaska Engineering Jobs | Arizona Engineering Jobs | Arkansas Engineering Jobs | California Engineering Jobs | Colorado Engineering Jobs | Connecticut Engineering Jobs | Delaware Engineering Jobs | Florida Engineering Jobs | Georgia Engineering Jobs | Hawaii Engineering Jobs | Idaho Engineering Jobs | Illinois Engineering Jobs | Indiana Engineering Jobs | Iowa Engineering Jobs | Kansas Engineering Jobs | Kentucky Engineering Jobs | Louisiana Engineering Jobs | Maine Engineering Jobs | Maryland Engineering Jobs | Massachusetts Engineering Jobs | Michigan Engineering Jobs | Minnesota Engineering Jobs | Mississippi Engineering Jobs | Missouri Engineering Jobs | Montana Engineering Jobs | Nebraska Engineering Jobs | Nevada Engineering Jobs | New Hampshire Engineering Jobs | New Jersey Engineering Jobs | New Mexico Engineering Jobs | New York Engineering Jobs | North Carolina Engineering Jobs | North Dakota Engineering Jobs | Ohio Engineering Jobs | Oklahoma Engineering Jobs | Oregon Engineering Jobs | Pennsylvania Engineering Jobs | Rhode Island Engineering Jobs | South Carolina Engineering Jobs | South Dakota Engineering Jobs | Tennessee Engineering Jobs | Texas Engineering Jobs | Utah Engineering Jobs | Vermont Engineering Jobs | Virginia Engineering Jobs | Washington Engineering Jobs | West Virginia Engineering Jobs | Wisconsin Engineering Jobs | Wyoming Engineering Jobs A – 166 ASTO R IA PO RT FO L IO HOME Astoria FUEL TYPE(S): LOW SULPHUR NO 6 FUEL OIL / NATURAL GAS OPERATIONAL DATE: 1962 GENERATING UNITS: 5 MARKET: NYISO ZONEJ Astoria Generating Station is a 959 MW fuel oil and natural gas plant located in Astoria, in the Queens borough of New York City bounded by the East River and Luyster Creek. It consists of five generating units (Units 2, 3, 4, 5 and GT1) Unit 4 was placed in mothball status in 2012. Units 2, 3, 5 and GT1 have an aggregate average capacity rating of 957 MW. Astoria’s dispatch level is intermediate. The plant is part of a larger complex that is comprised of approximately 300 acres, most of which is used for various utility purposes including power generation, indoor storage, oil storage, liquefied natural gas storage, vehicle storage and servicing and office space. CONTENTS OVERVIEW PORTFOLIO Astoria Gowanus Narrows Covert Crete Lincoln Rolling Hills PROJECTS THE EASTERNGEN TEAM NEWS ROOM CONTACT US © Copyright 2016, Eastern Generation LLC, All Rights Reserved Astoria Gowanus Narrows Covert Crete Lincoln Rolling Hills A – 167 Ravenswood Generating Station Facility Highlights Configuration: 21 units employing steam turbine, combined cycle and combustion turbine technology: • Units 10, 20 and 30 Gas/oil-fired boiler • Unit 40 Dual fuel capable combined cycle unit • 17 Dual fuel capable combustion turbines Location: Long Island City, Queens, New York, USA In-Service Date: • Unit 10 February 1963 • Unit 20 May 1963 • Unit 30 June 1965 • Unit 40 May 2004 Capacity: 2,480 MW Fuel: Natural gas, fuel oil and kerosene Owner: TransCanada Operator: TransCanada Customers: New York Independent System Operator and ConEdison of New York Ravenswood Generating Station (Ravenswood), located in Queens, NY, is a 2,480 megawatt (MW) power plant that consists of multiple units employing steam turbine, combined cycle and combustion turbine technology. The plant uses advanced technology and controls to minimize impact on the air and water. To reduce nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions, Units 10, 20 and 30 have all been retrofitted with Close Coupled Over Air Fired systems. Unit 40 controls aimed at reducing the unit’s environmental impact include a dry low NOx combustion system, selective catalytic reduction and a multi-cell air cooled condenser. The 2004 Combined Cycle Journal Award for Power Plant Efficiency and Environmentally Friendly Design was awarded to Unit 40 in recognition of these environmental controls. Ravenswood has the capacity to serve approximately 21 per cent of New York City’s peak load. A – 168 Table 2: Population, Land Area, and Population Density by County, New York State - 2006 County 2006 PopulationEstimate 2000 Census Population 2000 Land Area Square Miles 2006 Population Density1 New York State New York State 19,306,183 18,976,457 47213.79 408.91 New York City New York City 8,214,426 8,008,278 303.31 27082.54 Bronx 1,361,473 1,332,650 42.03 32395.16 Kings 2,508,820 2,465,326 70.61 35532.65 New York 1,611,581 1,537,195 22.96 70179.35 Queens 2,255,175 2,229,379 109.24 20645.13 Richmond 477,377 443,728 58.48 8163.27 Rest of State Rest of State 11,091,757 10,968,179 46910.48 236.45 Albany 297,556 294,565 523.45 568.46 Allegany 50,267 49,927 1030.22 48.79 Broome 196,269 200,536 706.82 277.68 Cattaraugus 81,534 83,955 1309.85 62.25 Cayuga 81,243 81,963 693.18 117.20 Chautauqua 135,357 139,750 1062.05 127.45 Chemung 88,641 91,070 408.17 217.17 Chenango 51,787 51,401 894.36 57.90 Clinton 82,166 79,894 1038.95 79.09 Columbia 62,955 63,094 635.73 99.03 Cortland 48,483 48,599 499.65 97.03 Delaware 46,977 48,055 1446.37 32.48 Dutchess 295,146 280,150 801.59 368.20 Erie 921,390 950,265 1044.21 882.38 Essex 38,649 38,851 1796.80 21.51 Franklin 50,968 51,134 1631.49 31.24 A – 169 People in Poor Neighborhoods Breathe More Hazardous Particles Tiny particles of air pollution contain more hazardous ingredients in nonwhite and lowincome communities than in affluent white ones, a new study shows Tiny particles of air pollution contain more hazardous ingredients in nonwhite and lowincome communities than in affluent white ones, a new study shows. The greater the concentration of Hispanics, Asians, African Americans or poor residents in an area, the more likely that potentially dangerous compounds such as vanadium, nitrates and zinc are in the mix of fine particles they breathe. Latinos had the highest exposures to the largest number of these ingredients, while whites generally had the lowest. The findings of the Yale University research add to evidence of a widening racial and economic gap when it comes to air pollution. Communities of color and those with low education and high poverty and unemployment face greater health risks even if their air quality meets federal health standards, according to the article published online in the scientific journal Environmental Health Perspectives. Los Angeles, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, St. Louis and Fresno are among the metropolitan areas with unhealthful levels of fine particles and large concentrations of poor minorities. More than 50 counties could exceed a new tighter health standard for particulates proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency. Communities of color and those with low education and high poverty and unemployment may face greater health risks even if their air quality meets federal health standards.A pervasive air pollutant, the fine particulate matter known as PM2.5 is a mixture of emissions from diesel engines, power plants, refineries and other sources of combustion. Often called soot, the microscopic particles penetrate deep into the lungs. The new study is the first to reveal major racial and economic differences in exposures to specific particle ingredients, some of which are linked to asthma, cardiovascular problems and cancer. Credit: mmewuji/Flickr A – 170 “Numerous studies indicate that some particles are more harmful than others,” said lead author Michelle Bell, a professor of environmental health at Yale’s School of Forestry and Environmental Studies. The particles people breathe include a variety of metals and chemicals, depending on their source. For instance, people living near refineries are exposed to more nickel and vanadium, while those near coalfired power plants breathe particles with higher sulfate content. Neighborhoods along busy roads have more nitrates from vehicle exhaust. One such community is Boyle Heights, in East Los Angeles. It is more than 90 percent Hispanic and one of the poorest parts of the city. Boyle Heights is “surrounded by freeways,” said Susan Nakamura, planning manager for the region’s South Coast Air Quality Management District, “and a lot of those freeways are used for shipping commercial goods.” Four major rail yards emit diesel exhaust nearby, and the area is home to “multiple auto body shops and chromeplaters in close proximity to neighborhoods,” she said. She is especially concerned about the particulate sources near schools. A nationwide look Bell and colleague Keita Ebisu examined exposures to 14 components of particulates in 215 Census tracts from 2000 2006. The components, including sulfate, a powerful respiratory irritant, and nickel, a possible carcinogen, were chosen because they had been associated with health impacts or accounted for a substantial amount of particulates overall. Census tracts with a greater proportion of Hispanics had significantly higher levels of 11 substances. Included is more than 1.5 times the whites’ exposure to nickel, nitrate, silicon, vanadium – all linked in some studies to hospitalizations or deaths from cardiovascular and lung disease – and aluminum, which is associated with low birth weights. Communities with larger Asian populations had higher levels of seven components. Asians registered far greater exposures than whites to nickel, nitrate and vanadium. And areas where more African Americans lived showed significant elevations in four compounds, including sulfate and zinc. People with less than a highschool education, unemployed or living in poverty had more exposure to several components, including silicon and zinc. Also, children and teenagers were more likely than adults to breathe most of the substances. The demographic differences raise important policy questions, said Rachel MorelloFrosch, an associate professor at the University of California, Berkeley, who studies the health risks of air pollution but was not involved in the Yale study. Census tracts with a larger proportion of Hispanics had significantly higher levels of 11 substances, including more than 1.5 times the whites' exposures to nickel, nitrate, silicon, vanadium and aluminum.She said targeted monitoring A – 171 may be needed in problem areas. “Then regulatory agencies may want to assess how they can encourage emissions reductions from sources that are having localized impacts,” MorelloFrosch said. It’s a common scenario in cities nationwide: Due to high housing costs and historical discrimination, lowincome and minority neighborhoods are clustered around industrial sites, truck routes, ports and other air pollution hotspots. In the South Bronx, a largely Hispanic and AfricanAmerican district of New York City, nearly four in 10 live in poverty. Heavy traffic and a jumble of small industries taint the air with a load of fine particles that frequently exceeds the federal health limit. Asthma rates are as much as four times higher in the Bronx than the national rates, said Dr. Norman Edelman, chief medical officer for the American Lung Association. “They live near highways, they live near where trucks spew diesel,” Edelman said. “That’s the least desirable housing… much different than a nice, leafy suburb.” And just south of Pittsburgh, a slice of the Monongahela River Valley known as LibertyClairton tops the EPA charts with the nation’s worst fine particle pollution outside of California. Clairton, a mill town, is “home to the [U.S. Steel] Clairton Coke Works, which is the largest cokemaking facility in the nation,” said Rachel Filippini, executive director of the environmental organization Group Against Smog and Pollution. “The process of making coke is a pretty dirty one with lots of particulates and air toxics.” Tom Hoffman, Western Pennsylvania director of the environmental group Clean Water Action, said childhood asthma is rampant in Clairton, but a lot of families in the hardscrabble town don’t have medical coverage. In some homes, the whole family shares a single inhaler, he said. Particulates are complicated The health effects of fine particle pollution are welldocumented: Studies worldwide have shown that on days when fine particle concentrations increase in a community, more people die from heart attacks and respiratory problems. But far less is known about whether specific types of particles translate to greater rates of illness or death. “Some of these particles are not only composed of different things, but there are different gases and other things that adhere to them on the outside. So they’re complicated in a whole range of ways,” said Janice Nolen, author of the American Lung Association’s annual State of the Air Report. Studies on the components are limited and have given varying results. But some associations are clear. Sulfate, for instance, can trigger asthma attacks, while vanadium irritates lungs, and nitrate causes inflammation that may lead to heart attacks or strokes. Within cities, some studies have found cardiovascular deaths rise with certain particles, including nitrate, zinc, nickel, carbon, selenium and silicon. More human research and animal experiments are needed to understand which components are the most harmful and A – 172 why, said Marie Lynn Miranda, dean of University of Michigan’s School of Natural Resources and Environment and director of the Children’s Environmental Health Initiative. "They live near highways, they live near where trucks spew diesel. That's the least desirable housing ... much different than a nice, leafy suburb." Dr. Norman Edelman, American Lung Association, speaking of Hispanics and African Americans in the South Bronx“The notion of trying to figure out what are the different components and are there specific things in the PM2.5 that cause more of a problem… would have implications for how you regulate health effects,” Miranda said. The EPA earlier this year proposed a more stringent health standard for fine particulate exposures that will force new regulations in some cities. Its final decision is expected in December. But the agency says too little is known about the specific ingredients of the particles to set individual limits for them. “While different chemical components of PM may have different effects on health, the available scientific evidence to date supports setting standards that provide protection against exposures to PM from all sources,” the EPA said in a statement to EHN. More racial disparities The Yale study is part of a growing body of research on racial and social disparities in air quality. African Americans are considerably more likely to live in areas with the worst levels of particulates and ozone, the main ingredient of smog, according to a nationwide study by Miranda and colleagues. Hispanics and lowincome residents also are overrepresented in counties with high fine particle pollution. Also, cancer risks from air toxics such as benzene and formaldehyde are greatest in the nation’s highly segregated metropolitan areas, according to research by UC Berkeley’s MorelloFrosch and Bill Jesdale. The risks increase with degree of segregation in all racial and ethnic groups, but are strongest for Hispanics, they found. “Our question was: Are places that are more unequal disproportionately exposing communities of color more than other groups?” MorelloFrosch said. “The answer to that is ‘yes.’ Cities that are more segregated, you see higher pollution burdens for residents of color.” As for why Hispanics seem to be facing some of the greatest air quality disparities, MorelloFrosch speculated that it may partly reflect the “L.A. Effect.” “Because you have a lot of Latinos living in one of the largest and most polluted cities in the United States,” she said, “you might expect that contributing to the high population burdens of pollution.” "Are places that are more unequal disproportionately exposing communities of color more than other groups? The answer to that is 'yes'."Rachel MorelloFrosch, University of California, BerkeleyMany questions about the effects of unequal exposures remain. Stress from social and economic conditions seems to exacerbate the effects of pollution, according to some recent research. In other words, the same amount of pollution may harm poor people more than affluent people, or segregated minorities more than whites. A – 173 “So if I’m exposed to air pollution but I otherwise live in a pretty nice neighborhood, I don’t have a very stressful life… how does that differ from, I’m exposed to air pollution and I live in a cruddy house in a cruddy neighborhood and I have a very stressful life?” Miranda asked. “How do the social factors in my life affect my resiliency to environmental exposure?” This article originally ran at Environmental Health News, a news source published by Environmental Health Sciences, a nonprofit media company. A – 174 Control of fossil-fuel particulate black carbon and organic matter, possibly the most effective method of slowing global warming Mark Z. Jacobson Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA Received 9 October 2001; revised 5 February 2002; accepted 12 April 2002; published 15 October 2002. [1] Under the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, no control of black carbon (BC) was considered. Here, it is found, through simulations in which 12 identifiable effects of aerosol particles on climate are treated, that any emission reduction of fossil-fuel (f.f.) particulate BC plus associated organic matter (OM) may slow global warming more than may any emission reduction of CO2 or CH4 for a specific period. When all f.f. BC + OM and anthropogenic CO2 and CH4 emissions are eliminated together, the period is 25–100 years. It is also estimated that historical net global warming can be attributed roughly to greenhouse gas plus f.f. BC + OMwarming minus substantial cooling by other particles. Eliminating all f.f. BC + OM could eliminate 20–45% of net warming (8–18% of total warming before cooling is subtracted out) within 3–5 years if no other change occurred. Reducing CO2 emissions by a third would have the same effect, but after 50–200 years. Finally, diesel cars emitting continuously under the most recent U.S. and E.U. particulate standards (0.08 g/mi; 0.05 g/km) may warm climate per distance driven over the next 100+ years more than equivalent gasoline cars. Thus, fuel and carbon tax laws that favor diesel appear to promote global warming. Toughening vehicle particulate emission standards by a factor of 8 (0.01 g/ mi; 0.006 g/km) does not change this conclusion, although it shortens the period over which diesel cars warm to 13–54 years. Although control of BC + OM can slow warming, control of greenhouse gases is necessary to stop warming. Reducing BC + OM will not only slow global warming but also improve human health. INDEX TERMS: 0305 Atmospheric Composition and Structure: Aerosols and particles (0345, 4801); 0320 Atmospheric Composition and Structure: Cloud physics and chemistry; 0345 Atmospheric Composition and Structure: Pollution—urban and regional (0305); 1620 Global Change: Climate dynamics (3309) Citation: Jacobson, M. Z., Control of fossil-fuel particulate black carbon and organic matter, possibly the most effective method of slowing global warming, J. Geophys. Res., 107(D19), 4410, doi:10.1029/2001JD001376, 2002. 1. Introduction [2] To date, several studies have advocated non-CO2 greenhouse-gas emission controls in conjunction with CO2 emission controls as a method of slowing global warming [e.g., Hayhoe et al., 1999; Hansen et al., 2000; Smith et al., 2000; IPCC, 2001]. With respect to partic- ulates, early global radiative studies of black carbon (BC) treated it as either externally mixed or well mixed internally [e.g., Haywood et al., 1997]. Jacobson [2000] argued that treating BC as well mixed internally was not physical and treating it as externally mixed was not representative of the real mixing state of BC. It was hypothesized that a more representative optical treatment of BC might be that of a core surrounded by shell. Under that assumption, the global direct forcing of fossil fuel plus biomass-burning BC was 0.5 W/m2, implying that BC control might slow global warming to some degree. This implication was subse- quently supported by Hansen et al. [2000] and Smith et al. [2000]. An unstudied issue, though, was the actual mixing state of BC. Jacobson [2001a] performed simula- tions of the evolution of the global scale mixing state and direct forcing of BC. It was found that both appeared to approach those of an internal mixture with a core rather than those of an external mixture, supporting the contention that BC has a strong direct forcing and its control might slow global warming. [3] Among constituents causing warming, anthropogenic CO2, BC, and CH4 may have the greatest direct forcing, although other gases and particles also contribute to global warming. Other warming gases include tropospheric O3 (whose production also leads to the formation of particulate nitrate and secondary organics, which enhance cooling), halocarbons, and N2O. Other warming particle components include iron, aluminum, ammonium, polycyclic aromatics, and nitrated aromatics [Jacobson, 2001b]. To date, one study has examined the short-term climate response to size-resolved aerosols containing BC as a core on the urban scale [Jacobson, 1997a, 1997b], but no study has compared the effects over time of reducing BC, CO2, and CH4 emissions on the global scale. [4] To estimate the relative global-scale climate benefits of BC, CO2, and CH4 emission controls, time-dependent JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 107, NO. D19, 4410, doi:10.1029/2001JD001376, 2002 Copyright 2002 by the American Geophysical Union. 0148-0227/02/2001JD001376$09.00 ACH 16 - 1 A – 175 SO2 was greater than that due to f.f. BC + OM, because f.f. SO2, spread further in the Northern Hemisphere than did f.f. BC + OM (e.g., Figure 3 versus Figure 2). As such, f.f. SO2 affected clouds over a greater global area than did f.f. BC + OM. The total (direct plus other) forcing resulting from the SO2 simulations was negative, indicating that the forcing due to the ‘‘indirect effects’’, if they could be isolated, must also have been negative. 7. Comparison of Diesel Versus Gasoline [86] Two practical strategies to reduce BC + OM are to improve particle traps for diesel vehicles and to replace diesel with gasoline. A modern diesel direct injection (DDI) engine obtains 25–35% better mileage than an equivalent port fuel injection (PFI) gasoline engine, but much of this gain is offset, since diesel releases 18.1% more CO2 per unit volume than does gasoline [Wang, 1999]. Although light- duty diesel engines release less CO2 than do PFI gasoline engines, they release up to 0.08 g particulates/mi (0.05 g/ km) under current U.S. and E.U. emission standards. Most particulate emissions are BC + OM [Shauer et al., 1999; Lighty et al., 2000]. New PFI engines produce 25 to >200 times less particulate mass per distance driven than new DDI engines [Maricq et al., 1999b]. [87] If a new PFI gasoline engine obtains 25 mpg (10.6 km/l), it releases about 95.4 g C/mi (59.4 g C/km) as CO2 (with gasoline density of 737 g/l and carbon content of 85.5%) [Wang, 1999]. An equivalent DDI engine with 30% better mileage obtains 32.5 mpg (13.8 km/l), releasing 86.7 g C/mi (54.0 g C/km) as CO2 (assuming diesel density of 856 g/l and carbon content of 87.0%) [Wang, 1999]. Thus, the DDI engine releases 8.7 g C/mi (9.1%) less CO2-C than does the PFI engine but 0.08 g C/mi more BC + OM, giving a ratio of CO2-C saved to BC + OM produced of 109:1. Figure 14 shows that, for a diesel vehicle to cool climate over 1 year, the ratio of CO2-C saved to BC + OM produced must exceed 5000–21,000:1, which is possible only if BC + OM emissions are reduced to 0.0004–0.0017 g/mi. For diesel to cool over 100 years, the ratio must exceed 220– 500:1, which is possible only if BC + OM emissions are reduced to 0.02–0.04 g/mi. In sum, if the calculations here are correct, light-duty diesel cars meeting today’s particulate standards and used daily will warm climate during the next 100+ years more than will gasoline cars. [88] By 2005, E.U. particulate emission standards for light-duty vehicles will decrease to 0.025 g/km (0.04 g/ mi). If all cars emitted at this limit, diesel would still warm climate more than would gasoline over a 100 year period (Figure 14). By 2004, California will implement Low Emission Vehicle (LEV) II standards for particulates of 0.01 g/mi (0.006 g/km) [the United States will implement a Tier II standard of up to 0.02 g/mi (0.012 g/km)]. If the tough California standards could be implemented world- wide, diesel would still warm climate more than would gasoline over a period of 13–54 years (Figure 14). [89] In the United States and Europe, 99% of heavy-duty trucks and buses run on diesel. In the United States, <0.1% of light-duty vehicles run on diesel; in Europe, >25% run on diesel [Cohen and Nikula, 1999] (32.3% of new European cars in 2000 were diesel). Despite few U.S. diesel passenger vehicles, diesel consumption rates from all ground trans- portation sources (road, rail, inland waterways) in the United States are about 75–80% of those in Europe [International Energy Agency, 1999]. Table 4 shows that excise tax laws in all E.U. countries except the U.K. favor diesel, inadvertently promoting global warming. Some countries, (e.g., Finland, the Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden) also levy carbon taxes based on the carbon content of fuels. These taxes also favor diesel, since diesel releases less carbon per mile than does gasoline, but we calculate that the small release of BC + OM by diesel warms climate over 100 years than does the extra CO2 released by gasoline. 8. Conclusion [90] Global model calculation in which 12 identifiable effects of aerosol particles on climate were accounted for were run. Results suggest that any emission reduction of f.f. BC + OM will slow global warming more than will any emission reduction of CO2 or CH4 for a specific period. When all f.f. BC + OM and anthropogenic CO2 and CH4 emissions are eliminated together, that period is 25–100 years. Historical net global warming can be attributed roughly to greenhouse gas plus f.f. BC + OM warming minus cooling due to other anthropogenic particles. Elim- inating all f.f. BC + OM could eliminate 20–45% of such net warming (8–18% of total warming before cooling is 10 100 1000 104 2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100 R at io o f C O 2 -C m as s em is si o n r ed u ct io n re q u ir ed p er m as s o f f. f. B C + O M e m it te d fo r d ie se l to c o o l cl im at e Year CO 2 lifetime 200 yr CO 2 lifetime 50 yr Ratio with 0.08 g/mi (0.05 g/km) standard Ratio with 0.01 g/mi (0.006 g/km) standard Ratio with 0.04 g/mi (0.025 g/km) standard Figure 14. Ratio of CO2-C mass emission reduction required per mass of f.f. BC + OM emitted for diesel to cool climate. The curves were obtained by dividing the f.f. BC + OM temperature curve in Figure 1 by each CO2 temperature curve [CO2 (50 years) and CO2 (200 years)] then multiplying the result by the current yearly emission rate of CO2 (8100 Tg C/yr) and dividing by that of BC and associated OM from f.f. (5.1 Tg/yr BC + 10.1 Tg/yr OM). The figure shows that a yearly 1 Tg/yr decrease in f.f. BC + OM emissions will cool climate by 5000–21,000 times more than will a 1 Tg/yr decrease in CO2-C emissions during 1 year. After 100 years of continuous 1 Tg/yr decreases in both, the resulting ratio of f.f. BC + OM to CO2-C cooling is 220– 500:1. Also shown (straight lines) are the ratios of CO2-C saved to f.f. BC + OM emitted for a modern diesel vehicle emitting 0.08, 0.04, and 0.01 g/mi BC+OM. The intersection of each of these straight lines with the two curves indicates the period of time during which diesel vehicles enhance global warming more than do gasoline vehicles under the given emission standard. In the case of the 0.08 and 0.04 g/mi standards, the period of time is >100 years. ACH 16 - 18 JACOBSON: EFFECTIVE METHOD OF SLOWING GLOBAL WARMING A – 176 Questions? Email Ramon Cruz at Environmental Defense at LivingCities@environmentaldefense.org ! "# $ #%& ' () #* + ! ! " #$% & '( " "# $ #%& ) " & * ' + , - . / " ) 0 112 " 3 " 1% "# , - & 4 + . / " " 5 $ 5 6 " ' 3 " $% & * ' 12% 1 , 5 ) 7 5 - & 8 " #% #. / • ) & # " +-6 • 7 & 9 $ • $ : . / " • 7 ./ " • ' 1 ./ " " ;4 ! /012, • 1 • <$7 " • $== • : 3 & " > , - " $:: ? @ A – 177 A – 178 A – 179 New York University Review of Law and Social Change 2007 Article *273 THE ASTHMA CRISIS IN LOW-INCOME COMMUNITIES OF COLOR: USING THE LAW AS A TOOL FOR PROMOTING PUBLIC HEALTH Alina Das [FNa1] Copyright © 2007 New York University Review of Law and Social Change; Alina Das In an age of progressive medicine and medical technology, an epidemic has been growing in American cities. While the causes of the disease are largely unknown, its prevalence and severity vary dramatically by race and socio-economic status. The impact of the disease captured the attention of national and local public health officials in the mid-1990s and elicited large-scale government and private action. However, few public health initiatives confronted the racial and socioeconomic disparities. Nearly a decade after the epidemic reached the public eye, community organizers and lawyers began to develop litigation and organizing strategies to respond to these underlying racial and socioeconomic concerns. The epidemic is asthma. [FN1] Approximately 30.2 million Americans have been diagnosed with asthma in their lifetimes. [FN2] African Americans and Puerto Ricans have significantly higher rates of asthma prevalence, [FN3] hospitalization, [FN4] and mortality [FN5] than whites and non-black, non-Puerto Rican, Latino groups. [FN6] In general, low-income communities of color as a whole have higher rates of asthma than other communities. [FN7] These rates can be extreme. In Central Harlem, a predominately African American and immigrant neighborhood in New York City, as *274 many as one in four children have asthma. [FN8] In Roxbury, a predominantly African American and Latino neighborhood in Boston, the asthma hospitalization rate is 5.5 times the average for the state of Massachusetts. [FN9] These low-income communities of color face an asthma crisis. While the underlying causes of asthma are unknown, the prevalence and severity of asthma has been connected to both indoor and outdoor pollutants and poor health care and treatment. [FN10] The problems that plague low- income communities of color--substandard housing, environmental hazards, inadequate health care access, and the insufficient wages and lack of job opportunities that leave families with low household incomes--all contribute to the prevalence and severity of asthma. [FN11] Substandard housing is marked by poor indoor air quality, with mold, mildew, dust, and cockroaches all likely triggers for asthma attacks. [FN12] The presence of a waste transfer station or bus depot in a neighborhood creates outdoor air pollutants, which also may trigger attacks. [FN13] Limited access to health care and resources can also contribute to asthma severity by making proper treatment difficult to maintain. [FN14] There are viable responses to the socioeconomic and environmental conditions that perpetuate the asthma epidemic. Public health practitioners-- who focus on the health needs of whole communities rather than of individuals-- have long been in the business of coordinating the treatment and prevention of diseases like asthma. Legal service organizations and attorneys have established practices for combating substandard housing, © 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. A – 180 environmental injustice, and poverty. Unfortunately, even years after the asthma crisis first gained national *275 attention, collaboration between the two groups is limited. Although public health practitioners have embraced public education as a tool for community empowerment, legal advocacy--which may provide the key link between public awareness and successful action for communities facing a health crisis like asthma--is largely missing from public health strategies. In New York City, community groups, public health practitioners, and legal service organizations have joined together to create innovative programs that incorporate legal strategies to combat the disparate rates of disease in low-income communities of color. [FN15] While these programs are still few and far between, they constitute models that should be expanded, replicated, and recognized in nationally-coordinated strategies to combat diseases like asthma. As a start, public health practitioners and planners, along with attorneys who provide legal services, need a better understanding of how communities and their advocates can use the law to challenge the racial and socioeconomic disparities in health outcomes. In this Article, I explore the role that legal advocacy can play in combating high asthma rates in low-income communities of color. In Part I, I examine the epidemic of asthma in these communities and describe how asthma prevalence varies by race. I then argue that this variation is due to conditions plaguing highly racially-segregated, low-income residential areas. In Part II, I examine the public health response to asthma and its underlying racial and socioeconomic disparities. I argue that the current national public health strategy fails to incorporate adequate tools for challenging the issues of race and poverty that contribute to the asthma crisis. I then describe how two local initiatives in New York City have created a collaborative framework through which community advocates, public health practitioners, and attorneys use legal strategies to assist families and communities facing asthma. In Part III, I examine these legal strategies in detail. I identify the four areas of the law that hold the most promise for communities seeking to challenge the conditions that exacerbate asthma in their neighborhoods: housing, government benefits, environmental justice, and disability rights. Using examples of fictional families in New York City, I look at how families with asthmatic children can use the law in each area to combat the problems associated with severe asthma in their communities. I also discuss the limitations on the efficacy of litigation in this context and the importance of collaboration amongst practitioners of various disciplines. Asthma is a public health problem affected significantly by racial and socio-economic injustice. The law provides some tools by which community actors can address these underlying problems. By collaborating to integrate legal strategies into the public health response to asthma, communities along with public health practitioners and lawyers can combat the racial and socioeconomic inequities underlying the asthma crisis in low- income communities of color. *276 I. Asthma and Low-Income Communities of Color A. National Asthma Statistics and the Impact on Low-Income Communities of Color Asthma is a "chronic inflammatory disorder of the airways that can result in recurrent episodes of wheezing, breathlessness, chest tightness, and nighttime or early morning coughing." [FN16] Over twenty-two million people are afflicted with the disease in the United States. [FN17] This group includes over six million children, making asthma the most common chronic illness among children. [FN18] Considered an "epidemic" by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), asthma kills over five thousand people in this country each year. [FN19] In addition to the lives affected by asthma, the economic costs of the disease are staggering. The annual health care cost of asthma in the United States is estimated to be over eleven billion dollars, with lost productivity costs estimated at nearly five billion dollars. [FN20] Asthma's prevalence and the resulting incidence of attacks, hospitalization, and morbidity vary dramatically by race. African Americans have an asthma prevalence rate approximately 36% higher than whites [FN21] and an asthma attack rate approximately 40% higher than whites. [FN22] African Americans' hospitalization rate for asthma is over three times greater than that of whites. [FN23] Moreover, African Americans are twice as likely to die from asthma than whites. [FN24] While prevalence rates reported for Latinos tend to be lower than other groups © 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. A – 181 (including non-Latino whites), Puerto Ricans tend to have higher rates of asthma prevalence and mortality than all other groups (including non-Latino African Americans). [FN25] In addition to differences in prevalence and attack rates, *277 the quality of medical care for asthma varies by race, with fewer African Americans receiving proper medication, adequate information on the triggers of asthma, and specialist care than white asthmatics with similar insurance status, age, education, and employment status. [FN26] The racial variation found in asthma-related statistics nationwide can be found on a neighborhood level as well. In many metropolitan areas, residents of inner-city neighborhoods of color have higher rates of severe asthma than residents of other city neighborhoods. [FN27] While data is not available at the neighborhood level throughout the United States, certain cities have identified these disparities. For example, in New York City, people in the South Bronx, East and Central Harlem, and Central Brooklyn--all predominately low-income neighborhoods of color-- have much higher asthma rates than people in other city neighborhoods. [FN28] In Chicago, children in Humboldt Park, West Town, Roseland, and North Lawndale--neighborhoods with high percentages of African American and/or Puerto Rican residents [FN29]--have higher rates of asthma than children in other neighborhoods. [FN30] In Boston, the predominately African American neighborhoods of Dorchester and Roxbury also have disproportionately high asthma rates--more than five times the state average. [FN31] This data shows that low- income communities of color throughout America are facing an asthma crisis. *278 B. Causes and Exacerbations of Asthma for Low-Income Communities of Color The reason why low-income people of color face higher rates of asthma may seem simple. Poverty has negative implications for health, affecting nutrition, growth, and access to health care and medication. [FN32] Poverty is also linked to increased hospitalization rates for asthma [FN33] and is correlated with race. [FN34] While highly correlated, however, race and poverty independently contribute to higher rates of asthma. [FN35] When comparing rates of asthma within the same income group, race remains a factor in explaining increased asthma prevalence among children in urban areas. [FN36] Several explanations have been posited for why, in general, race predicts health outcomes even after socioeconomic status is taken *279 into account. [FN37] Individual characteristics correlated with race or masked by socioeconomic status--such as education level; workplace hazards; purchasing power; exposures to childhood, social, and economic adversity; and stress related to discrimination--may independently impact health. [FN38] In the context of asthma, however, the strongest explanation of differences in health outcomes is the effect of residential racial segregation. Studies have linked high rates of segregation directly to major health indicators for African Americans. [FN39] For example, African Americans living in segregated neighborhoods suffer from lower birth weight and higher rates of infant mortality and overall mortality, on average, than people living outside those neighborhoods. [FN40] One reason for these differences is that the segregation of people of color into residential areas creates and compounds social and health risks, including the likelihood of living in poor indoor and outdoor environments: Differential exposure to risks in the physical environment may also contribute to racial differences in health. The quality of housing is generally poorer in highly segregated areas, especially those inhabited by ethnic minorities. Crowding, sub-standard housing, elevated noise levels, decreased ability to regulate temperature and humidity, as well as elevated exposure to noxious pollutants and allergens (including lead, smog, particulates, and dust mites) are all common in poor, segregated communities. [FN41] *280 In addition, segregation contributes to other aforementioned potential causes of bad health, such as lower educational attainment, lack of economic opportunities, and general community disinvestment. [FN42] Notably, African Americans and Puerto Ricans--the racial/ethnic groups with the highest asthma rates--are also the most highly residentially-segregated racial/ethnic groups in the United States. [FN43] The effects of segregation are likely to contribute to the prevalence of asthma among these low-income communities of color. An examination of factors that exacerbate or trigger asthma also provides evidence that segregation increases the severity of asthma. While little is known about what causes the initial development of asthma in people previously without the disease, much is known about the triggers of existing asthma. [FN44] These triggers include "respiratory infections, house dust mites, cockroaches, animal dander, mold, pollen, cold air, exercise, stress, tobacco smoke and indoor and outdoor air pollutants." [FN45] As a consequence, treatment of asthma should include not only medication and monitoring of other wellness factors like proper nutrition and rest, but also reduced exposure to these triggers. [FN46] Yet these triggers are the very conditions that are pervasive in racially- © 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. A – 182 segregated residential areas. The connection to asthma is clear: "residing near hazardous waste sites, residential exposure to air pollution, and deteriorated housing conditions are related to increased respiratory and other health problems in both adults and children." [FN47] In sum, many of the conditions that highly-segregated low-income communities of color face--particularly poor indoor and outdoor environmental conditions, barriers to health insurance, lack of jobs with flexible medical leave, *281 poorly-equipped schools, and scarce financial and nutritional resources--all exacerbate or contribute to the severity of asthma. II. The Public Health Response to Asthma in Low-Income Communities of Color A. The National Public Health Strategy If racial segregation and its effects (substandard housing, environmental injustices, and lack of financial resources) exacerbate asthma, then the public health response to asthma must address these problems in order to reduce the prevalence and severity of asthma in low-income communities of color. Public health officials have acknowledged the connections between asthma prevalence and race. However, there is no national plan of action to combat the environmental, housing-related, and financial barriers to health. Federal agencies addressing health issues at the national planning level have widely acknowledged the problem. These agencies have developed programs aimed at researching the causes, treatment, and prevention of asthma in the population at large, and have even given special attention to the needs of low-income communities of color. For example, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI), which facilitates the coordination of federal programs related to asthma, names as one of its five goals to "[d]evelop and evaluate community-based interventions to address the asthma problem, particularly in high-risk communities." [FN48] Similarly, DHHS, in its strategic plan to reduce asthma nationwide, includes as one of its four priorities to "[e]liminate the disproportionate health burden of asthma in minority populations and those living in poverty." [FN49] In order to accomplish these goals, these agencies co-ordinate the distribution of funds to support research, direct services, and public education programs to reduce asthma prevalence and improve asthma care in low-income communities of color. [FN50] While the goals and actions of these federal agencies are laudable, they do not directly tackle the aforementioned factors that contribute to the high prevalence *282 and severity of asthma in low-income communities of color. As the Pew Environmental Health Commission has concluded, the federal public health plan for combating asthma has "failed to adequately fund intervention research studies to address environmental conditions that are known or suspected to trigger asthma attacks." [FN51] For example, only eight percent of National Institute of Health asthma funds have gone to any prevention studies, while the majority of funds have gone to pathophysiology and treatment. [FN52] Little funding goes to measures that empower individuals, families, and communities to change the conditions in their homes and neighborhoods that trigger their asthma. Even public education measures-- which inform individuals of the dangers of indoor household hazards or other environmental asthma triggers--fail to take the next step of giving those individuals the tools by which they can actively address the problem. Treatment research and public education are important parts of the effort to alleviate high asthma rates. However, for an individual, family, or community in this situation, the national public health response may seem like a distant source of relief. The current public health approach may raise awareness of environmental triggers among residents of highly segregated communities, but it does not enhance community members' ability to obtain repairs in their apartments or to remove power plants or waste transfer stations from their neighborhoods. On a national level, legal advocacy remains a largely unexplored avenue for combating the disparities related to asthma. B.Local Asthma Initiatives in Low-Income Communities of Color While there are few examples of incorporating law into public health strategies on the national level, many organizations have recognized the value of these efforts in local public health initiatives. [FN53] For example, doctors at Boston Medical Center, in Boston, Massachusetts, have formally incorporated lawyers into their clinical treatment teams through the Family Advocacy Program (FAP). [FN54] When a doctor or social worker believes © 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. A – 183 Air pollution stunting children's lungs, study finds A sixyear study finds children living in highly polluted parts of cities have up to 10 per cent less lung capacity than normal, with warnings the damage could be permanent Photo: Andreas Rentz/Getty Images By Laura Donnelly, Health Editor 11:00AM GMT 25 Oct 2015 High levels of air pollution are stunting the growth of children’s lungs, a major study has found. Eight and nineyearolds living in cities with high levels of fumes from diesel cars have up to 10 per cent les lung capacity than normal, the research suggests. Over six years, researchers examined the lung function of 2,400 children at 25 schools across east London, and found a direct correlation between air pollutant exposure and reduced lung growth. Such children have an increased risk of disease such as asthma and bronchitis and, and the prospect of a permanent reduction in lung capacity. A – 184 "The data shows that traffic pollution stops children’s lungs growing properly" Ian Mudway, a respiratory toxicologist at King’s College London The tests checked the volume of air each child could breathe, as well as levels of inflammation in their lungs, with urine tests to check for heavy metals, which are produced by vehicles. Overall, those living in areas with high levels of particulates and nitrogen dioxide had up to 10 per cent reduced lung capacity the study led by Prof Chris Griffiths, principal investigator at the Medical Research Council and Asthma UK Centre in Allergic Mechanisms of Asthma. Parts of eastern England are forecast to be warmer than Greece and Turkey as the mercury rises ahead of the weekend Photo: Jeff Moore “The data shows that traffic pollution stops children’s lungs growing properly,” Ian Mudway, a respiratory toxicologist at King’s College London told the Sunday Times. “The evidence suggests that by 89 years old, children from the most polluted areas have 5 to 10 per cent less lung capacity and they may never get that back.” The study was designed to assess the impact of London’s Low Emission Zone (LEZ) which since 2008 has discouraged larger diesel vehicles such as lorries from entering the capital. A – 185 The research found the measure had made no difference. “It is very disappointing that the LEZ, which was specifically designed as a major public health intervention, has so far brought about no change,” said Prof Griffiths. “This raises questions over the government’s current consultation on air quality, which is based around the idea of creating similar low emission zones in up to 30 other polluted urban areas. There appears to be no evidence that these low emission zones can reduce pollution or improve health.” Other studies have shown diesel pollutants causing lung inflammation, researchers said, with tests showing black carbon from diesel exhaust emissions inside children’s lung cells. Earlier this year research suggested that air pollution could increase the risk of brain damage and small strokes which are linked to dementia. Capital crime: there are as many as 4,300 deaths a year from air pollution in London alone Photo: ALAMY Environmental groups say diesel cars could be phased out as part of Government efforts to address pollution. A – 186 Climate Change Is In the Air As temperatures and carbon levels rise, even breathing has become a challenge. Here’s what you can do to help clear the air. December 31, 2015 Molly M. Ginty In the spring, tree pollen falls so thick that people write messages in the green fuzz on their car windows. In the fall, ragweed sprouts not just along roads and in fields, but in gardens, street plantings, and sidewalk cracks. Such is the new reality of Jackson, Mississippi, the city deemed spring 2015’s Allergy Capital of the United States by the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America. “Over the past decade, climate change has made my patients’ wheezing and sneezing steadily worse,” says Dr. Gailen Marshall, an allergist in Jackson. Temperatures are the hottest ever on record, he explains, which makes pollen season longer. And as cold fronts move south in the fall, they dump pollen from northern states down on the town as well. “Existing patients rush to visit me,” he says. “And new ones flood through my door.” Jackson’s situation might be an extreme example (hence its snazzy title), but it’s far from unique. “Rising Alkimon/iStock A – 187 temperatures and heattrapping carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are affecting air quality all over the United States, in countless ways that are not good for us,” says Kim Knowlton, a senior scientist with NRDC’s Health program. Not only are those higher temperatures boosting production of plant allergens, she says, but they’re leading to smog, mold outbreaks, and wildfires as well. These changes pose health hazards to us all—but especially to the 26 million Americans with asthma and the 45 million with seasonal allergies, says Knowlton. “Unless we take preventive measures, these shifts will compromise our quality of life, our work productivity, and our safety and health.” So what exactly is happening as the planet warms, and how can you protect yourself? Let’s take a look. Proliferating pollen Temperatures and carbon dioxide levels are breaking record highs, and this is causing plants to produce more of the pollen that triggers rashes, respiratory problems, and other ailments in people with asthma and allergies. The autumn season for ragweed pollen—to which more people are allergic than all other pollens combined—is now almost a month longer than it was 20 years ago, reports a 2011 study from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the prevalence of asthma is up 28 percent since 2001, while rates of polleninduced allergic rhinitis (also known as hay fever) have also been steadily rising. Thickening smog Sunlight combined with air pollution—and with naturally occurring ozone gas that drifts down from holes in the atmosphere—creates the toxic cocktail known as groundlevel smog. And it’s no longer just major metropolises that are afflicted. “Areas downwind of cities—suburban communities and rural regions, too—are seeing higher smog levels than ever before,” says Knowlton. The American Lung Association reports that now nearly half of U.S. residents live in areas that often have unhealthy ozone levels or other types of pollution. Smog can trigger breathing and cardiovascular problems among allergy and asthma sufferers, but for anyone, the EPA says, breathing ozone is akin to “getting a sunburn on your lungs.” Blooming mold “Climate change is creating not only more storms, but storms like Hurricane Sandy that are of greater intensity,” says Knowlton. “As a result, buildings damaged by these events are harboring more moisture, and thus more mold.” Rising sea levels, increased humidity, and greater river and coastal flooding—all combined with spiking temperatures —are also spurring more mold. And that mold can grow “on virtually any substance,” according to the EPA, including wood, paper, carpet, and food. The consequence? Wheezing, rashes, eye irritation, and even fevers among those who are especially sensitive to it. Blazing wildfires Rising temperatures in dry areas are making conditions even drier—and sparking dangerous wildfires like those that engulfed a record nine million acres of California, Idaho, Oregon, Washington, and other Western states in 2015. A – 188 Because smoke and fine debris from fires can travel downwind, it’s not only people living near the blazes who are affected. For example, when scientists studied the broadranging effects of wildfires that struck Quebec in 2002, they discovered the fires were linked to a 30fold spike in fineparticle concentrations in Baltimore, a whopping 700 miles away. What to do about it To breathe easier, experts recommend the following: If you exercise outside, do it in the morning, when both ozone levels and pollen counts tend to be lower. Stay at least 50 feet from auto exhaust and heavily trafficked roads when jogging or walking; if you can, hit forest trails and walking paths instead. A – 189 NRDC: Our Children At Risk Chapter 4 AIR POLLUTION INTRODUCTION Clean air is a delicate balance of nitrogen and oxygen, with small amounts of argon, carbon dioxide, neon, helium, and other gases. Unfortunately, pollutants are altering this mixture by adding myriad ingredients which alone and in concert pose health risks to everyone who breathes the air, particularly children. In fact, children represent the largest subgroup of the population susceptible to the effects of air pollution. Over the last ten years, a considerable number of scientific studies have reported adverse health effects associated with air pollution. The effects have ranged from respiratory symptoms and illness, impaired lung function, hospitalization for respiratory and cardiac disease to increases in mortality. A recent study estimated that approximately 64,000 people in the United States die prematurely from heart and lung disease every year due to particulate air pollution more people than die each year in car accidents. Among children, air pollutants are associated with increased acute respiratory illness, increased incidence of respiratory symptoms and infections, episodes of longer duration, and lowered lung function. Asthma, the most common chronic disorder of childhood, is on the rise in the United States and in other industrialized nations. During the 1980s, the prevalence of childhood asthma increased nearly 40 percent. Many different factors have been associated with asthma, including genetic makeup, environmental tobacco smoke, dust mites, cockroach allergens, and air pollution, both indoor and outdoor. Several studies have linked ozone and particulate air pollution with exacerbations of asthma in children afflicted with the disease. Due to their greater respiratory rates, children breathe a proportionately greater volume of air than adults. As a result, children inhale more pollutants per pound of body weight. They also spend more time engaged in vigorous activity than adults. In addition, because of young children's height and play habits (crawling, rolling) they are more likely to be exposed to pollutants or aerosols that are heavier than air and tend to concentrate in their breathing zone near ground level. Children's physiological vulnerability to air pollution arises from their narrower airways and the fact that their lungs are still developing. Irritation caused by air pollutants that would produce only a slight response in an adult can result in potentially significant obstruction in the airways of a young child. The harm caused by air pollutants has been recognized by medical scientists, government officials, and [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] A – 190 the public for some time. Historic air pollution disasters Meuse Valley, Belgium in 1930, Donora, Pennsylvania in 1948, and London, England in 1952 in which large numbers of people fell ill and died, have been clearly associated with high concentrations of particulate and sulfur dioxide pollution. Such acute air pollution episodes have killed children because of their heightened susceptibility to the damage that can be done by air pollutants. Existing stationary sources of air pollution include coal combustion for power production, oil refineries, and industrial manufacturing facilities. Additional sources of air pollution have emerged; today automobiles are a major polluter of the air: Americans drive some 150 million private cars and nearly 50 million buses and trucks. The exhaust from these vehicles contains nitrogen oxides, and other ozone precursors, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide all deleterious to health, even in small quantities. Also of importance in vehicle exhaust are toxic organic compounds including formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and benzene. And, even though new cars start out far cleaner than the cars of decades ago, we drive them far more and they fail to remain clean as they age. To protect citizens, the federal government began setting standards for ambient air quality as early as the 1950s. In 1970, Congress passed the Clean Air Act, the first major national law for air pollution control throughout the United States. This Act, amended in 1977 and 1990, requires the EPA to establish national health standards for ambient air pollutants and to assure that states adopt effective programs for attaining these standards. The most successful parts of the Act, such as the acid rain program, the ozone depletion program, and the introduction of emission standards for automobiles and the reformulation of fuels, established very specific federal standards. Yet these standards are not enough. In 1995, about 127 million Americans half of the nation's population lived in regions with air quality that did not meet federal standards for certain pollutants. Based on U.S. Census Bureau estimates of the population by age group, 18 million children under the age of ten lived in these "nonattainment" areas. The health risks from air pollution are greatest in these regions, and those at greatest risk include children. Citizens must seek additional remedies to assure the health of their families in the face of increasing air pollution threats. Toward that end, this chapter describes scientific research on the health effects of air pollutants on children, suggested measures that concerned parents and others can take, and model programs of local solutions that have worked throughout the nation, as well as government reforms that should be supported. Children: The Most Vulnerable Among Us The nation has failed to protect its most precious citizens its children from the adverse health effects of air pollution. Emission reduction efforts and federal air quality standards have been insufficient to shield children from potentially serious health damage. Ozone and particulate matter are of special concern. In June 1993, the Committee on Environmental Hazards of the American Academy of Pediatrics stated that the federal standard for ozone in effect at that time contained "little or no margin of [7] [8] [9] [12] [13] [14] A – 191 safety for children engaged in active outdoor activity." In July 1997, the EPA revised both the ozone and particulate matter air quality standards in order to protect children and other members of the population. The American Lung Association estimated that 27 million children under the age of 13 reside in areas with ozone levels above EPA's revised standard, and that two million children with asthma, or half of the pediatric asthma population under the age of eighteen, lived in these areas. HAZARDS OF AIR POLLUTION Cellular Damage Even shortterm exposure to low levels of pollutants can damage lungs at the cellular level. For instance: Sulfuric acid compounds can interfere with the lungs' mucociliary clearance system, and ozone at levels below the pre1997 federal ozone standards may hinder the immune system's ability to defend against infection. Ozone exposure at levels below the pre1997 federal standards contributes to persistent inflammation of airways, sometimes days after exposure ceases. Exposure to acidic aerosols may aggravate the effect. Sulfur dioxide can induce bronchial constriction in asthmatics. Even shortterm ozone exposure increases lung cell permeability, which may hinder the body's ability to regulate the movement of gases and liquids between the lungs and the bloodstream. This effect potentially facilitates the body's uptake of inhaled substances and may promote enhanced allergic sensitization. Reduced Lung Function Lungs must inhale and exhale an adequate volume of air to remove carbon dioxide and replenish oxygen to maintain health, but studies show that even brief exposure to pollutants can result in impairment of lung function. These effects are generally temporary, but they are still of great importance, for two reasons. Chief among these is that the impairment of lung function may be a sign of invisible, subclinical damage inside the lungs, such as inflammation produced deep in the lungs from ozone, as discussed above. Though the impairment of lung function generally disappears after exposure, it may mask continuing cellular damage. Secondly, people whose lung function is already compromised may be unable to tolerate additional impairments caused by air pollution, however modest or temporary they might be. The medical literature shows that ozone, sulfur dioxide and sulphate aerosols, and airborne particulate matter affect lung function, and that chronic exposure to air pollutants can impair lung function permanently. Respiratory Illness and Asthma Breathing polluted air increases a person's chances for respiratory illness. Epidemiological studies show a significant correlation between exposure to air pollution and the frequency of respiratory symptoms [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] A – 192 ranging from cough symptoms to hospital admission. Currently affecting at least 6 percent of American children, asthma is the number one cause of absenteeism for school children. During the 1980s, asthma incidence among children increased by nearly 40 percent. One study estimated the total costs both direct and indirect related to asthma in the young and old in 1990 to be $6.2 billion. Asthmatics suffer recurrent attacks of breathing distress caused by temporary inflammation and constriction of the airways. In many cases, asthma is caused by an allergic response that develops as a result of the airways becoming sensitized to one or several substances. Common air pollutants, especially ozone, sulfur dioxide and particulate matter, present a challenge to asthmatics. A considerable body of scientific evidence links increases in levels of these pollutants to worsening of asthma (increased emergency room visits, increased medication use, increased hospitalization, and increased symptoms.) Some of the investigations reveal asthma exacerbations occurring at pollutant levels at or below the pre1997 federal air pollution standards. In one case, hospital emergency visits rose by 37 percent on days when ozone reached hourly concentrations of 0.11 parts per million (ppm), which is below the pre1997 federal standard. Higher Mortality Rates Research on mortality rates in heavily polluted areas reveals statistically significant links between high levels of air pollutants and increased numbers of deaths, primarily among the elderly. Particulates show the clearest link, and elevated death rates have been found even at particulate concentrations that are well below the pre1997 federal health standards; death rates start to inch upward when particulates reach levels below the pre1997 federal standard. In December 1993, Harvard researchers published the results of a sixteenyearlong community health study that tracked the health of 8,000 adults in six U.S. cities with differing levels of air pollution. After adjusting for age and smoking, researchers found that residents of the most polluted city had a 26 percent higher mortality rate than those living in the least polluted city. This translated into a one to twoyear shorter lifespan for residents of the most polluted cities. Another major study corroborated these findings. The study correlated American Cancer Society data on the health of 1.2 million adults with air pollution data in 151 U.S. metropolitan areas. The study found that people living in the most polluted area had a 17 percent greater risk of mortality than people living in the least polluted city. LongTerm Effects of Chronic Exposure A variety of animal studies suggest that longterm exposure to air pollution damages lung cells. In one animal study, researchers found that lowlevel ozone exposure resulted in the progression of lung injury into structural changes. Acute inflammation in the animals' lungs evolved into chronic inflammation, with healing by a process known as fibrosis, or scarring that stiffens the lung and may make it less capable of efficient gas exchange. [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] A – 193 Corresponding evidence from epidemiological research includes one study of humans who were exposed to elevated ozone levels over several days. Lung function loss persisted for a week after exposure, which suggested to researchers that cell death and inflammatory reactions were involved, not just reflex airway constriction. Chronic exposure to air pollutants may reduce lung capacity. The most comprehensive study was performed on populations living in two different parts of the Los Angeles Basin. People living in the more polluted area had substantially worse lung function than when they were initially tested, and they showed a significantly more rapid deterioration of lung function over time. Chronic exposure to a mixture of air pollutants, as shown in this study, results in less rapid growth of lung function in children and a greater rate of deterioration in adulthood. In addition, a lifetime of exposure to air pollution may lead to premature aging of the lungs. The aging process in the lungs, which occurs naturally throughout adulthood, is marked by increased deposits of scar tissue, and it may render the lung tissue less elastic and less efficient in delivering oxygen to the blood. Ozone is strongly implicated in the premature aging of lungs. For instance, research on laboratory animals shows that common ozone exposure can lead to a variety of changes in lung tissue, including changes in the structure of the cells that line the smallest airways, such as death of the ciliated cells that are critical in the lung's defense system against particles and bacteria, reduced ability to remove foreign material, inflammation, biochemical changes that suggest damage to tissues and greater permeability of the air sacs, and stiffening of the lung due to the formation of scar tissue. An autopsy study performed on 107 young accident victims (fourteen to twentyfive years of age) in Southern California, most of them lifelong residents, showed evidence of lung disease. Though few had outward signs of breathing disorders when alive, the lungs of 104 of them showed early signs of chronic lung disease, including lowlevel bronchitis, chronic interstitial pneumonia, and an unprecedented rate of severe chronic inflammation of the respiratory bronchioles. While the results of this study are not definitive since the subjects were not screened for the use of tobacco or marijuana, one of the researchers commented that the subjects "had lungs of older people," saying that, "air pollution is highly suspect for a substantial contributory role." Special Vulnerability of Children During the last decade, hundreds of published reports have documented the effects of air pollutants on children, who are more susceptible than adults to the adverse effects of air pollution. Children's greater sensitivity is a function of both greater exposure to air pollutants and unique physiological susceptibility. Greater Exposure and Susceptibility Children breathe more air relative to their body weight and lung surface area than do adults; consequently, they also receive proportionately higher doses of air pollutants. Children spend more time outdoors, often during midday and afternoons when pollutant levels are generally highest. [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] A – 194 Children are three times more active than adults while outdoors, significantly increasing their oxygen demand and consequently raising their breathing rates. Young children generally spend more time low to the ground by virtue of both their shorter stature and the nature of their typical physical activity. Children, therefore, experience greater exposure to pollutants emitted close to the ground, such as automobile exhaust and highdensity pollutants brought downward by gravity. In addition, when the sources of air pollutants such as automobiles are close to playgrounds and other areas where children play, children and infants in strollers may be heavily exposed. Children often fail to recognize the significance of respiratory symptoms such as coughing, wheezing, and shortness of breath, and they frequently fail to move indoors or curtail exercise during air pollution episodes. Children tend to breathe more through the mouth than through the nose due to their increased physical exertion, thus reducing the effectiveness of one level of filtration. In addition, young children's small noses are easily blocked by congestion, constriction, or other illnesses. Children's airways have small diameters. Environmental irritants capable of obstructing air passages are more likely to do so in children than in adults. Early in life, children have far fewer alveoli than adults, creating less "reserve volume" from which to draw oxygen. They also have relatively less reserve surface area in their lungs available for times of stress or increased metabolic demand. In adults, air moves from one alveolus to another through holes in the alveoli and channels between the small airways and the alveoli, allowing air to be distributed deeply throughout the lung, circumventing obstructed areas. Infants and young children have few such pathways that provide for this restorative air drift. Children at greatest risk from the effects of air pollution include: children with sensitized respiratory systems, such as allergic or asthmatic children, children who live near industrial pollution sources, areas of heavy traffic, or in homes with cigarette smokers, and children who lack adequate medical attention, nourishment, or sanitary living conditions. Adverse Health Effects in Children Data gathered by a researcher from a variety of recent studies reveals that air pollutants are associated with a wide variety of adverse health effects in children, including: increased death rates in very severe pollution episodes and increased mortality risks for those living in highly polluted areas, increased risk of acute respiratory illness, aggravation of asthma, increased respiratory symptoms, and increased sickness rates (as indicated by kindergarten and school absences), and decreases in lung function. Increased Mortality Risk [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] A – 195 The most serious effect of air pollution is death. Although the elderly are at greater mortality risk from air pollution, children are also susceptible. In the London air pollution episode in December 1952, mortality in children increased. A new study has found an association in the United States between particulate pollution and an increased risk of infant mortality. A recent report from S‹o Paulo, Brazil, indicated that death in children under the age of five due to respiratory diseases from 1990 to 1991 was positively associated with air pollution levels of nitrogen oxides. In the Czech Republic, the risk of respiratory mortality among infants increased in relation to worsening air pollution (particulates, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen dioxide) after adjusting for socioeconomic factors. Researchers in Taiwan, China found a higher rate of infant mortality from sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) at times of elevated particulate air pollution as measured by reduced visibility. Increased Acute Respiratory Illness Several studies indicate that air pollution is associated with increased acute respiratory illness, as measured by hospital admissions and other indices. Two epidemiological studies, conducted in central Utah, on the relationship between hospital admissions for respiratory illness and ambient air pollution found that admissions were strongly correlated with particulate levels, and that the correlation was especially pronounced in preschoolaged children. In one study, bronchitis and asthma admissions for preschool children were twice as frequent when the local pollution source (steel mill) was operating than when it was shut down. Another study in the same region also indicated that hospital admission for respiratory illness is strongly associated with particulate air pollution and that the association is stronger for children than adults. During months with peak particulate pollution levels, average hospital admissions for respiratory illness in children nearly tripled, whereas for adults comparable hospital admissions increased by 44 percent. Similarly, researchers found that summertime hospital admissions in Ontario for children are associated with increases in ambient ozone and sulfate levels. Other researchers report that over a sixyear period, respiratory admissions were closely associated with ozone levels at 168 hospitals in Ontario. They also showed that 15 percent of summer hospital admissions for infants were associated with air pollution, as compared with 4 percent of such admissions for elderly patients. Studies of hospital admissions in Toronto suggested that increases in ozone, sulfates, aerosol hydrogen ion levels, and particulate air pollution with a diameter of 10 microns or less (PM10) can all be directly correlated to increases in hospital admissions. In a diary study of 625 Swiss children between birth and five years of age, respiratory symptoms were associated with particulate concentrations, while the duration of symptoms was associated with levels of nitrogen oxide. These symptoms included coughing, upper respiratory episodes, and breathing difficulty. Another study compared the frequency of upper respiratory infections in Finnish children residing in a polluted city with that in children living in two less polluted cities. The researchers found a significant association between the occurrence of upper respiratory infections and living in an airpolluted area. [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] A – 196 The finding was consistent in both the fourteen to eighteenmontholds and sixyearolds when comparing the polluted city with the reference cities and when comparing the more and less polluted areas within the polluted city. A study in East Germany found that levels of sulfur dioxide, particulate matter and nitrogen oxides were associated with an increased risk of developing upper respiratory infections in nine to elevenyearolds. Increased Respiratory Symptoms Elevated levels of various air pollutants have been linked with an increased incidence of respiratory symptoms in children. In an ongoing study comparing air pollution in six U.S. cities and the respiratory health of individuals living in those cities, the frequencies of coughs, bronchitis, and lower respiratory illnesses in preadolescent children were significantly associated with increased levels of particulates and acidic fine particles. Illness and symptom rates were higher by approximately a factor of two in the community with the highest air pollution concentrations compared to the community with the lowest concentrations. A followup study reported that rates of chronic cough, bronchitis, and chest illness during one school year were positively associated with particulate pollution. Another study in these six cities also found a significant association between particulate pollution and the incidence of coughing and other lower respiratory symptoms. One study suggested that though all children are at risk for increased respiratory symptoms due to particulate pollution, children with preexisting respiratory conditions (wheezing, asthma) are at greater risk. Decreased Lung Function To maintain a normal rate of gas exchange the removal of carbon dioxide and replenishment of oxygen the lungs must be able to inhale and exhale an adequate volume of air. In determining how well a person's lungs function, researchers take measurements of the lungs at rest, the volume of air that can be inhaled and exhaled, and the time it takes to exhale. Numerous studies have showed that even brief exposure to air pollutants can impair lung function. One study in Utah Valley indicated that elevated particulate levels were associated with a decline in lung function among elementary schoolage children as measured by peak expiratory flow (the maximum rate at which air is exhaled from a maximum inhalation). Another study examined the health effects of exposure to acidic air pollution among children in twentyfour communities in the United States and Canada and found that acidic air pollution is associated with reductions in pulmonary function, as measured by forced vital capacity (the volume of air forcibly exhaled from a deep inhalation) and forced expiratory volume (the volume of air exhaled over a specific period of time from a maximum inhalation). Much of the evidence that air pollution reduces lung function in children focuses on summertime exposure to acidic particles or acid aerosols. Reductions in pulmonary function in children have also been linked to ozone exposure. One study found a significant decline in forced expiratory volume after ozone exposure, a change that appeared to persist for sixteen to twenty hours. [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] A – 197 Exacerbation of Asthma Approximately 4.8 million children in the United States under the age of 18 have asthma, the most common chronic illness among children. The incidence of the disease is on the rise, increasing nearly 40 percent among U.S. children between 1981 and 1988. Other countries are also observing rising rates of asthma. Blacks, Hispanics, and people living in urban areas appear to be at greatest risk for the disease. Asthma is a complex disease associated with many factors including genetics, allergies (cockroaches and dust mites), mildew, molds, and the environment. Asthma is a condition of the airways characterized by chronic inflammation and episodic limitation of the flow of air into and out of the lungs. Symptoms of the disease include coughing, tightness in the chest, shortness of breath, and wheezing. Exacerbations of asthma have been linked with exposure to ambient air pollutants, indoor air pollutants, as well as allergens. Based on increased hospital admissions, increased hospital emergency room visits, and increased medication use, ambient air pollution is associated with aggravation of asthma. In a recent study of children at an asthma summer camp, ozone air pollution was significantly correlated with an increase in the use of asthma medication and the worsening of other asthma symptoms. The children were 40 percent more likely to suffer asthma attacks on high pollution summer days. In another study, researchers reported a 37 percent increase in hospital emergency visits for childhood asthma after periods of maximum ozone pollution levels. A study in Mexico City showed an association between increased levels of particulate matter and ozone and a worsening of respiratory symptoms among mildly asthmatic children. Hospital admissions among children with asthma in Toronto were higher after days with elevated ozone levels. Children of Color While dirty air is a threat to all Americans, communities of color often suffer disproportionately from air pollution. This is also true of lowincome communities. Such communities have historically been used as dumping grounds for the toxic byproducts of industrial society. Several studies have demonstrated that proportionately more landfills, power plants, toxic waste sites, bus depots and rail yards, sewage treatment plants, and industrial facilities are sited in them. In a landmark report prepared by the United Church of Christ's Commission for Racial Justice, investigators discovered that three of the five largest hazardous waste landfills in the United States are in Black or Latino neighborhoods and that the mean percentage of people of color in areas with toxic waste sites is twice that of areas without toxic waste sites. An update to this report found that, in 1993, the percentage of people of color remains three times higher in areas with the highest concentration of commercial hazardous waste facilities than areas without commercial hazardous waste facilities. The health risks from air pollution are likely to be more serious for children who are already exposed to toxic chemicals, because they live or attend school near landfills, toxic waste sites, bus depots and rail yards, industrial plants, or similar facilities. Because of lowquality housing, overcrowding, and lack of air conditioning, children in lowincome communities may also spend more time outdoors on smoggy [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83] A – 198 summer days. (In the absence of air conditioning, indoor concentrations of ozone can approach 80 percent of outdoor levels. ) In addition, children in lowincome families are less likely to receive sufficient health care. Scientists at the Argonne National Laboratory have found that minority population subgroups experience greater exposure to substandard outdoor air quality. In particular, their research indicates that minorities live in greater concentrations both in areas with aboveaverage numbers of air polluting facilities and in air quality nonattainment areas. For instance, 52 percent of all whites live in counties with high ozone concentrations. For AfricanAmericans the figure is 62 percent, and for Hispanics it is 71 percent. Population group distributions were found to be similar for carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, lead, and particulate matter, with higher percentages of AfricanAmericans and Hispanics than whites residing in counties with excessive levels of these pollutants. Moreover, 57 percent of all whites, 65 percent of AfricanAmericans, and 80 percent of Hispanics live in counties that failed to meet at least one of the EPA's ambient air quality standards. Five percent of whites, 10 percent of AfricanAmericans, and 15 percent of Hispanics live in counties that exceed standards for four air quality standards. To compound the greater likelihood that children of color reside in the areas of worst air pollution, Black and Hispanic children are potentially more susceptible to air pollution due to their increased rates of asthma. Black and Hispanic children have a higher incidence of asthma than white children. Black children are more likely to have asthma than white children. Moreover, Black children aged five to fourteen years are four times more likely than whites to die from asthma, and AfricanAmericans under the age of twentyfour are 3.4 times more likely to be hospitalized for asthma. Children of Hispanic (mainly Puerto Rican) mothers have a rate of asthma two and a half times higher than whites and more than one and a half times higher than Blacks. Within the HispanicAmerican population, the highest prevalence of asthma among children was in Puerto Ricans (11.2 percent), followed by Cuban Americans (5.2 percent), and MexicanAmericans (2.7 percent). By comparison, the asthma incidence in nonHispanic Blacks is 5.9 percent and in nonHispanic whites it is 3.3 percent. AIR POLLUTION THREATS TO FETUSES Exposures to carcinogens in ambient air can cause genetic damage that can be passed on to future generations. Findings reported by Columbia University researchers indicate that carcinogens in ambient air can be transferred transplacentally from the mother to the fetus. In fact, genetic damage to the fetus was found to be higher than damage to mothers, indicating the increased sensitivity of the developing fetus to the effects of carcinogenic exposures. Children in the study had decreased birthweight, length, and head circumference. MAJOR OUTDOOR AIR POLLUTANTS Below are summaries of the chief potential health impacts of major outdoor air pollutants. It is important to keep in mind that little clinical research has been done to determine the health effects of air pollutants in combination, and this fact is reflected in a common flaw in federal and state air pollution programs that [85] [86] [87] [88] [89] [90] [84] A – 199 EXPERIMENTAL STUDIES Particulate Air Pollution Induces Progression of Atherosclerosis Tatsushi Suwa, MD, PHD,* James C. Hogg, MD, PHD,* Kevin B. Quinlan, BSC,* Akira Ohgami, MD, PHD,* Renaud Vincent, PHD,† Stephan F. van Eeden, MD, PHD* Vancouver, British Columbia and Ottawa, Ontario, Canada OBJECTIVES We sought to determine the effect of exposure to air pollution particulate matter 10 m (PM10) on the progression of atherosclerosis in rabbits. BACKGROUND Epidemiologic studies have associated exposure to ambient PM10 with increased cardiovas- cular morbidity and mortality. We have previously shown that PM10 exposure induces a systemic inflammatory response that includes marrow stimulation, and we hypothesized that this response accelerates atherosclerosis. METHODS Watanabe heritable hyperlipidemic rabbits were exposed to PM10 (n 10) or vehicle (n 6) for four weeks, and bone marrow stimulation was measured. Quantitative histologic methods were used to determine the morphologic features of the atherosclerotic lesions. RESULTS Exposure to PM10 caused an increase in circulating polymorphonuclear leukocytes (PMN) band cell counts (day 15: 24.6 3.0 vs. 11.5 2.7 107/l [PM10 vs. vehicle], p 0.01) and an increase in the size of the bone marrow mitotic pool of PMNs. Exposure to PM10 also caused progression of atherosclerotic lesions toward a more advanced phenotype. The volume fraction (vol/vol) of the coronary atherosclerotic lesions was increased by PM10 exposure (33.3 4.6% vs. 19.5 3.1% [PM10 vs. vehicle], p 0.05). The vol/vol of atherosclerotic lesions correlated with the number of alveolar macrophages that phagocytosed PM10 (coronary arteries: r 0.53, p 0.05; aorta: r 0.51, p 0.05). Exposure to PM10 also caused an increase in plaque cell turnover and extracellular lipid pools in coronary and aortic lesions, as well as in the total amount of lipids in aortic lesions. CONCLUSIONS Progression of atherosclerosis and increased vulnerability to plaque rupture may underlie the relationship between particulate air pollution and excess cardiovascular death. (J Am Coll Cardiol 2002;39:935–42) © 2002 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation Epidemiologic studies have shown an important relation- ship between excess cardiovascular morbidity and mortality after exposure to particulate air pollution, especially partic- ulate matter 10 m (PM10) (1). A comparison of six U.S. cities with different levels of pollution (2) found an increased risk of cardiovascular events from pollution of the atmo- sphere with fine particles, even after adjustment for the other major cardiovascular risk factors. Calculations based on mortality statistics suggest that the effect of increasing See page 943 fine particulate pollution by 10 g/m3 above the minimally accepted value increases total mortality by 1.8% (2) and cardiovascular mortality by 1.4% (1). Schimmel and Green- burg (3) compared daily excess pollution deaths in New York City and reported that 36.2% of total excess deaths were caused by coronary artery disease, 8.1% by hyperten- sion and 11.2% by other circulatory diseases, and Peters et al. (4) showed that elevated concentrations of fine particles in the air transiently elevated the risk of acute myocardial infarction. Atherogenesis is initiated in the vascular intima, and involves the infiltration of inflammatory leukocytes, accu- mulation of macrophages and foam cells, proliferation of smooth muscle cells, accumulation of extracellular matrix and lipids, disruption of the endothelial surface, hemorrhage into the plaque and thrombus formation (5). The inflam- matory nature of atherosclerotic plaques is well established (6), and endothelial activation and interaction with leuko- cytes are early events (7). It is now recognized that the acute coronary syndrome is precipitated by the composition and vulnerability of plaques to rupture, rather than by plaque volume or associated vessel stenosis (8). Lipid-rich plaques are more dangerous than collagen-rich plaques, because they are more unstable, rupture-prone and highly thrombogenic after disruption (8,9). Infiltration of inflammatory cells into the plaque cap separating the lipid core from the lumen has also been associated with plaque disruption (8). Work from our laboratory (10,11) suggests that there is a systemic response to the inhalation of fine atmospheric particles, initiated by cytokines generated by lung cells that phagocytose particles deposited on the lung surface. These From the *McDonald Research Laboratory and iCAPTURE Centre, University of British Columbia, St. Paul’s Hospital, Vancouver, British Columbia; and †Environ- mental Health Directorate, Health Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. This study was supported by grant no. 4219 from the Canadian Institute of Health Research and by the Toxic Substance Research Initiative. Dr. van Eeden is a recipient of a Career Investigators Award from the American Lung Association. Manuscript received June 25, 2001; revised manuscript received December 3, 2001, accepted January 2, 2002. Journal of the American College of Cardiology Vol. 39, No. 6, 2002 © 2002 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation ISSN 0735-1097/02/$22.00 Published by Elsevier Science Inc. PII S0735-1097(02)01715-1 Downloaded From: https://content.onlinejacc.org/ on 05/17/2016 A – 200 vol/vol of atherosclerotic lesions in the aortic wall (1.63 0.33 vs. 0.61 0.20 102, p 0.05) (Fig. 5). DISCUSSION This study shows that repeated exposure to urban air particulates (i.e., PM10) caused a systemic inflammatory response, including bone marrow stimulation, and was associated with progression of the atherosclerotic process in the coronary arteries and aorta. The extent of the athero- sclerotic process at both of these sites correlated with the extent of PM10 phagocytosed by alveolar macrophages in the lung. These results support the hypothesis that exposure to PM10 causes vascular changes, and we speculate that these changes contribute to the increase in cardiovascular morbidity and mortality associated with exposure to partic- ulate air pollution (1,2). Systemic inflammatory response after PM10 exposure. Seaton et al. (23) proposed the hypothesis that inhalation of fine particles provoke a low-grade inflammatory response in the lung and changes in blood coagulability that increase cardiovascular mortality. The concept that particles depos- ited in the lung can lead to a systemic or acute-phase response has been supported by previous experiments (24), where supernatants from alveolar macrophages fed fine particles in vitro caused marrow stimulation, and more recently by experiments (11) showing that instillation of PM10 into the lungs of rabbits stimulated the release of cells from the bone marrow. Tan et al. (25) showed that this was relevant to humans by demonstrating leukocytosis and increased circulating band cells in military recruits intensely exposed to the forest fires of Southeast Asia in the summer of 1997. The evidence that inflammation is an integral component of atherogenesis (6) suggests that the systemic response induced by exposure to PM10 might accelerate the atherosclerotic process and contribute to the cardiovascular morbidity and mortality associated with exposure to partic- ulate matter air pollution. Exposure to PM10. The method of exposure we used in this study was developed in preliminary experiments that showed that 20% of the dose deposited above the larynx was aspirated into the lung, and that 4% of this dose reached the alveolar surface. The alveolar surface area of a 3.2-kg rabbit is 7.0 m2, and the alveolar exposure was 2.9 ng/cm2 for each dose, or 23.2 ng/cm2 over the experi- mental period. This is less than the estimated human exposure of 35.1 ng/cm2 that results from 90 days of exposure at the average concentration in six U.S. cities (2). Atherosclerosis in the coronary arteries and aorta. Our qualitative analysis of the atherosclerotic process showed that PM10 exposure was associated with progression to more advanced phenotypes of coronary lesions (more type III, IV and V lesions and a higher atherosclerotic score in the LMCA), with quantitative evidence of increased plaque size (Fig. 4A). This was supported by the qualitative histologic observations showing more extensive atherosclerosis in the aorta, a quantitative increase in the vol/vol of the lesion taken up by extracellular lipids, total lipids stained by oil red O and increased cell turnover. Other investigators (8) have shown that similar changes in human atherosclerotic plaques indicate lesions that are more vulnerable to rupture, with hemorrhage into the plaque, thrombotic occlusion of the artery and development of an acute coronary syndrome (26). Cytokines and atherosclerotic lesions. Human alveolar macrophages exposed to PM10 in vitro produce tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-alpha) in a dose-dependent manner, as well as several other cytokines, including inter- leukin (IL)-1-beta, IL-6 and granulocyte-macrophage col- ony–stimulating factor (27). Bronchial epithelial cells ex- posed to PM10 produce IL-8 and TNF-alpha (28). Tumor necrosis factor-alpha and IL-1-beta are known to upregu- late the secretion of monocyte chemoattractant protein-1 (MCP-1) to endothelial cells (29) and promote the accu- mulation of monocytes and T lymphocytes in atheroscle- Table 1. Phenotypic Characteristics of Atherosclerotic Lesions Group n Mononuclear Cells Foam Cells Smooth Muscle Cells Extracellular Matrix Extracellular Large Lipids Others Coronary arteries PM10 9 2.3 0.3 6.1 0.6 4.2 0.5* 22.7 2.4* 1.1 0.2* 0.2 0.1 Control 5 2.6 0.6 5.3 0.9 2.0 0.2 11.0 1.3 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.0 Aorta PM10 9 1.4 0.4 10.0 2.7 6.3 1.7 13.6 3.7 3.1 1.1† 0.2 0.1 Control 6 0.4 0.1 4.1 1.3 5.0 2.0 7.2 2.0 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.1 *p 0.01; †p 0.05. Data are presented as the mean value SE (%) of each component present in the lesions. Others include fibrous connective tissue and artifacts. PM10 particulate matter 10 m. Figure 5. The volume fraction (vol/vol) of 5-bromo-2-deoxyuridine (BrdU)-positive atherosclerotic nuclei in the vessel, corrected for the amount of atherosclerotic (AS) lesions. The particulate matter 10 m (PM10) group showed a higher vol/vol of BrdU-positive atherosclerotic nuclei in the coronary arteries and aorta. *p 0.01 and †p 0.05, compared with control group. 941JACC Vol. 39, No. 6, 2002 Suwa et al. March 20, 2002:935–42 Air Pollution Promotes Atherosclerosis Downloaded From: https://content.onlinejacc.org/ on 05/17/2016 A – 201 rotic lesions. In addition, TNF-alpha activates arterial endothelium to increase L-selectin–dependent monocyte adhesion, which is a key pathogenic event in atherosclero- genesis (30). Interleukin-6 activates the hematopoietic sys- tem to release leukocytes and platelets into the circulation (31) and stimulates the production of acute-phase proteins, such as fibrinogen and C-reactive protein (32). Schratz- berger et al. (33) showed that the interaction between PMNs and the endothelium causes the release of function- ally active MCP-1, which assists in the recruitment of both monocytes and T lymphocytes into atherosclerotic lesions. We postulate that the leukocytosis (34), high levels of C-reactive protein (35) and fibrinogen (34,35) that have been implicated in the pathogenesis of atherosclerosis and induction of acute coronary events can be initiated by cytokines released by alveolar macrophages when they phagocytose atmospheric particulates deposited in the lung. Acknowledgments The authors thank Dean English, Jennifer Hards and Kenny Lee for their technical support. Reprint requests and correspondence: Dr. Stephan F. van Eeden, McDonald Research Laboratory, University of British Columbia, St. Paul’s Hospital, 1081 Burrard Street, Vancouver, BC, Canada V6Z1Y6. E-mail: svaneeden@mrl.ubc.ca. REFERENCES 1. Committee of the Environmental and Occupational Health Assembly of the American Thoracic Society. Health effects of outdoor air pollution. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1996;153:3–50. 2. Dockery DW, Pope ACd, Xu X, et al. An association between air pollution and mortality in six U.S. cities. N Engl J Med 1993;329:1753–9. 3. Schimmel H, Greenburg L. A study of the relation of pollution to mortality New York City, 1963–68. J Air Pollut Control Assoc 1972;22:607–16. 4. Peters A, Dockery DW, Muller JE, Mittleman MA. Increased particulate air pollution and triggering of myocardial infarction. Circulation 2001;103:2810–5. 5. Stary HC, Chandler AB, Dinsmore RE, et al. A definition of advanced types of atherosclerotic lesions and a histological classifica- tion of atherosclerosis: a report from the Committee on Vascular Lesions of the Council on Arteriosclerosis, American Heart Associa- tion. Circulation 1995;92:1355–74. 6. Ross R. Atherosclerosis—an inflammatory disease. N Engl J Med 1999;340:115–26. 7. Scalia R, Appel JZ 3rd, Lefer AM. Leukocyte–endothelium interac- tion during the early stages of hypercholesterolemia in the rabbit: role of P-selectin, ICAM-1, and VCAM-1. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol 1998;18:1093–100. 8. Falk E, Shah PK, Fuster V. Coronary plaque disruption. Circulation 1995;92:657–71. 9. Fernandez-Ortiz A, Badimon JJ, Falk E, et al. Characterization of the relative thrombogenicity of atherosclerotic plaque components: impli- cations for consequences of plaque rupture. J Am Coll Cardiol 1994;23:1562–9. 10. Terashima T, Wiggs B, English D, Hogg JC, van Eeden SF. Phagocytosis of small carbon particles (PM10) by alveolar macrophages stimulates the release of polymorphonuclear leukocytes from bone marrow. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1997;155:1441–7. 11. Mukae H, Vincent R, English D, Hards J, Hogg JC, van Eeden SF. The effect of repeated exposure to particulate air pollution (PM10) on the bone marrow. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2001;163:201–9. 12. Watanabe Y. Serial inbreeding of rabbits with hereditary hyperlipid- emia (WHHL rabbit). Atherosclerosis 1980;36:261–8. 13. Vincent R, Bjarnason SG, Adamson IY, et al. Acute pulmonary toxicity of urban particulate matter and ozone. Am J Pathol 1997;151: 1563–70. 14. Watanabe Y, Ito T, Shiomi M. The effect of selective breeding on the development of coronary atherosclerosis in WHHL rabbits: an animal model for familial hypercholesterolemia. Atherosclerosis 1985;56:71–9. 15. Terashima T, Wiggs B, English D, Hogg JC, van Eeden SF. Polymorphonuclear leukocyte transit times in bone marrow during streptococcal pneumonia. Am J Physiol 1996;271:L587–92. 16. Bicknell S, van Eeden S, Hayashi S, Hards J, English D, Hogg JC. A non-radioisotopic method for tracing neutrophils in vivo using 5- bromo-2-deoxyuridine. Am J Respir Cell Mol Biol 1994;10:16–23. 17. Cordell JL, Falini B, Erber WN, et al. Immunoenzymatic labeling of monoclonal antibodies using immune complexes of alkaline phospha- tase and monoclonal anti-alkaline phosphatase (APAAP complexes). J Histochem Cytochem 1984;32:219–29. 18. Gratzner HG. Monoclonal antibody to 5-bromo- and 5-iodode- oxyuridine: a new reagent for detection of DNA replication. Science 1982;218:474–5. 19. Sato Y, van Eeden SF, English D, Hogg JC. Pulmonary sequestration of polymorphonuclear leukocytes released from the bone marrow in bacteremic infection. Am J Physiol 1998;275:L255–61. 20. Stary HC, Chandler AB, Glagov S, et al. Special report: a definition of initial, fatty streak, and intermediate lesions of atherosclerosis: a report from the Committee on Vascular Lesions of the Council on Arterioscle- rosis, American Heart Association. Circulation 1994;89:2462–78. 21. Gundersen HJ, Jensen EB. The efficiency of systematic sampling in stereology and its prediction. J Microsc 1987;147:229–63. 22. Terashima T, Wiggs B, English D, Hogg JC, van Eeden SF. The effect of cigarette smoking on the bone marrow. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1997;155:1021–6. 23. Seaton A, MacNee W, Donaldson K, Godden D. Particulate air pollution and acute health effects. Lancet 1995;345:176–8. 24. Mukae H, Hogg JC, English D, Vincent R, van Eeden SF. Phago- cytosis of particulate air pollutants by human alveolar macrophages stimulates the bone marrow. Am J Physiol Lung Cell Mol Physiol 2000;279:L924–31. 25. Tan WC, Qiu D, Liam BL, et al. The human bone marrow response to acute air pollution caused by forest fires. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2000;161:1213–7. 26. Libby P. Molecular bases of the acute coronary syndromes. Circulation 1995;91:2844–50. 27. van Eeden SF, Tan WC, Suwa T, et al. Cytokines involved in the systemic inflammatory response induced by exposure to particulate matter air pollutants (PM10). Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2001;164:826–30. 28. Fujii T, Hayashi S, Hogg JC, Vincent R, van Eeden SF. Particulate matter induces cytokine expression in human bronchial epithelial cells. Am J Respir Cell Mol Biol 2001;25:265–71. 29. Rollins BJ, Yoshimura T, Leonard EJ, Pober JS. Cytokine-activated human endothelial cells synthesize and secrete a monocyte chemoat- tractant, MCP-1/JE. Am J Pathol 1990;136:1229–33. 30. Giuffre L, Cordey AS, Monai N, Tardy Y, Schapira M, Spertini O. Monocyte adhesion to activated aortic endothelium: role of L-selectin and heparan sulfate proteoglycans. J Cell Biol 1997;136:945–56. 31. Suwa T, Hogg JC, English D, van Eeden SF. Interleukin-6 induces demargination of intravascular neutrophils and shortens their transit in marrow. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol 2000;279:H2954–60. 32. Geiger T, Andus T, Klapproth J, Hirano T, Kishimoto T, Heinrich PC. Induction of rat acute-phase proteins by interleukin-6 in vivo. Eur J Immunol 1988;18:717–21. 33. Schratzberger P, Dunzendorfer S, Reinisch N, Kahler CM, Herold M, Wiedermann CJ. Release of chemoattractants for human monocytes from endothelial cells by interaction with neutrophils. Cardiovasc Res 1998;38:516–21. 34. Kullo IJ, Gau GT, Tajik AJ. Novel risk factors for atherosclerosis. Mayo Clin Proc 2000;75:369–80. 35. Heinrich J, Schulte H, Schonfeld R, Kohler E, Assmann G. Associ- ation of variables of coagulation, fibrinolysis and acute-phase with atherosclerosis in coronary and peripheral arteries and those arteries supplying the brain. Thromb Haemost 1995;73:374–9. 942 Suwa et al. JACC Vol. 39, No. 6, 2002 Air Pollution Promotes Atherosclerosis March 20, 2002:935–42 Downloaded From: https://content.onlinejacc.org/ on 05/17/2016 A – 202 EDITORIAL COMMENT Air Pollution as a Cause of Heart Disease Time for Action* Stanton A. Glantz, PHD, FACC San Francisco, California The environmental controls that have been developed over the last quarter century have, for the most part, been designed to reduce respiratory disease and cancer. In con- trast, public health measures designed to reduce heart disease have concentrated on individual risk factors (1). Over the last decade, however, there has been growing epidemiological evidence that elevated levels of air pollu- tion, particularly increased levels of fine particulates (smaller than 10 m in diameter, PM10 or 2.5 m, PM2.5), are associated with increased hospitalization (2) and mortality from cardiovascular disease (3–5). See page 935 The study by Suwa et al. (6) in this issue of the Journal provides important experimental evidence to support the conclusion that these epidemiological results are reflecting real effects of particulate pollution directly on the cardio- vascular system. The investigators present convincing exper- imental evidence that particulate air pollution induces pro- gression of atherosclerosis. They exposed rabbits to small particles (most 3 m) collected from outdoor air in Ottawa, Canada by intrapharyngeal installation twice a week for four weeks, then measured responses in the lung, bone marrow, coronary arteries and aorta. The delivered dose at the level of the alveolar surface, estimated to be 23.2 ng/cm2, was less than the estimated human exposure of 35.1 ng/cm2 based on average pollution levels in six U.S. cities (3). Compared to a control group, the rabbits exposed to the particles from the air pollution experienced a systemic inflammatory response that included bone marrow stimula- tion and progression of atherosclerotic lesions in the coro- nary arteries and aorta. The extent of the atherosclerotic effects correlated with the extent of particulates phagocy- tosed by alveolar macrophages in the lung. The rabbits exposed to particulates had more advanced phenotypes of coronary lesions and increased plaque size. There was histological evidence of more extensive atherosclerosis in the aorta, an increase in the volume fraction of the lesions made up of lipids, and increased cell turnover. Plaques with these characteristics are more likely to rupture and trigger a coronary event than collagenous plaques (7,8). The results reported by Suwa et al. (6) are consistent with human studies that found elevated levels of C-reactive protein, a marker of systemic inflammation, in people during times of increased particulate air pollution (9,10). During increased levels of particulate air pollution, individ- uals experience elevated levels of plasma viscosity (11) and other changes in blood chemistry, suggesting that the adhesive properties of red blood cells are increased (10). These changes would predict an increased risk of a coronary event during periods of heightened air pollution. Further support that these changes are due to the effects of air pollution comes from studies of the effects of second- hand tobacco smoke, which is, after all, indoor air pollution. Even short-term exposure to secondhand smoke increases platelet activation (12,13). Secondhand smoke also pro- motes atherosclerosis (14–16). This effect does not depend on the nicotine in the smoke (17), further implicating general products of combustion of organic matter, similar to those products observed in outdoor air pollution. The fact that exposure to the secondhand smoke of just one cigarette a day accelerated the atherosclerotic process (15) also suggests that low doses of air pollutants can have important effects on the coronary circulation. Other organic pollutants, 7,12-dimethylbenz(a)anthracene (18) and 1,3-butadiene (19), are atherogenic in experimental animals exposed via inhalation. Although the precise mechanisms by which exposure to particulates affects the autonomic nervous system are un- clear, there is strong and consistent evidence that increases in the level of particulate air pollution are associated with reduced heart rate variability (20,21) and increases in heart rate (22) and blood pressure (23,24). Decreased heart rate variability predicts a higher risk of cardiac death or arrhyth- mic events after acute myocardial infarction (MI), presum- ably reflecting the adverse effects of increased sympathetic tone (25,26). In addition to epidemiological evidence that increased air pollution produces these effects, similar changes were observed in a quasi-experimental study of boilermakers, which found that significant reductions in heart rate variability were associated with just a few hours of occupational exposure to increased particulate levels (27). Likewise, an experimental study of the effects of secondhand smoke on heart rate variability showed an average 12% reduction in heart rate variability after just 2 h of exposure in an airport smoking lounge (28). A study of 100 patients with implanted cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) observed a higher rate of discharges within two days of periods of elevated air pollution (NO, CO, fine carbon, and fine particulates), indicating an increased incidence of poten- tially life-threatening arrythmias (29). Secondhand smoke exposures produce rapid (in 30 min in human studies) deterioration in endothelial function in experimental animals (30) and humans (31–33). Second- *Editorials published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology reflect the views of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of JACC or the American College of Cardiology. From the University of California, San Francisco, California. Preparation of this editorial was supported by the Richard and Rhoda Goldman Fund. Journal of the American College of Cardiology Vol. 39, No. 6, 2002 © 2002 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation ISSN 0735-1097/02/$22.00 Published by Elsevier Science Inc. PII S0735-1097(02)01709-6 Downloaded From: https://content.onlinejacc.org/ on 05/17/2016 A – 203 hand smoke also increases infarct size in experimental animals (16), an effect that can be partially blocked by administering L-arginine, which helps restore endothelial function (34). To date, there have not been studies of the effects of air pollution on endothelial function, but it is likely that some of the effects observed in the epidemiological studies are due to the influence of air pollution on endo- thelial function. This is a question worthy of future research. Finally, increases in air pollution are associated with increased risk of MI (29,35). A study in Boston reported that these effects occur quickly; the odds of an MI were significantly increased (odds ratio [OR] 1.48, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.09–2.02) with an incr]ease in airborne particulate concentrations of 25 g/m3 during the 2-h period before the onset of the MI and an OR of 1.69 (95% CI, 1.13–2.34) for an increase of 20 g/m3 in the 24 h before event onset (29). All these effects indicate that air pollution has an impact on heart disease. Some of these effects may occur over time, as with acceleration of the progression of atherosclerosis, or very quickly, as with an increase in the risk of an arrhythmia or MI by acute inflammatory responses, altering platelet function, or, perhaps, endothelial function. These effects may be independent of, or synergistic with, alterations in autonomic tone as reflected in increases in heart rate and reductions in heart rate variability. In any event, it is clear that these risks are real and substantial. Indeed, of the estimated 53,000 deaths due to secondhand smoke, 37,000 are attributed to cardiovascular disease compared with only 3,000 attributed to lung cancer (12). (Other estimates put the cardiovascular death estimate as high as 62,000 [36].) If outdoor air pollution exhibits a similar pattern of risks, the toll due to heart disease could be much larger—and more immediate—than the burden of cancer and lung disease that has been used to develop current air pollution standards. It is time for organizations concerned with heart health, including the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association, as well as traditional environ- mental organizations and environmental regulators, to con- sider seriously the cardiovascular effects of air pollution when developing and implementing standards to clear the air and protect public health. Reprint requests and correspondence: Dr. Stanton A. Glantz, Professor of Medicine, Box 0130, University of California, San Francisco, California 94143. E-mail: glantz@medicine.ucsf.edu. REFERENCES 1. Glantz SA. Heart disease and the environment. J Am Coll Cardiol 1993;21:1473–4. 2. Poloniecki JD, Atkinson RW, de Leon AP, Anderson HR. Daily time series for cardiovascular hospital admissions and previous day’s air pollution in London, UK. Occup Environ Med 1997;54:535–40. 3. Dockery DW, Pope CA, 3rd, Xu X, et al. An association between air pollution and mortality in six U.S. cities. N Engl J Med 1993;329: 1753–9. 4. Pope CA, 3rd, Thun MJ, Namboodiri MM, et al. Particulate air pollution as a predictor of mortality in a prospective study of U.S. adults. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1995;151 3:669–74. 5. Samet JM, Dominici F, Curriero FC, Coursac I, Zeger SL. Fine particulate air pollution and mortality in 20 U.S. cities, 1987–1994. N Engl J Med 2000;343:1742–9. 6. Suwa T, Hogg JC, Quinlan KB, Ohgami A, Vincent R, van Eeden SF. Particulate air pollution induces progression of atherosclerosis. J Am Coll Cardiol 2002;39:935–42. 7. Falk E, Shah PK, Fuster V. Coronary plaque disruption. Circulation 1995;92:657–71. 8. Libby P. Molecular bases of the acute coronary syndromes. Circulation 1995;91:2844–50. 9. Peters A, Frohlich M, Doring A, et al. Particulate air pollution is associated with an acute phase response in men; results from the MONICA-Augsburg Study. Eur Heart J 2001;22:1198–204. 10. Seaton A, Soutar A, Crawford V, et al. Particulate air pollution and the blood. Thorax 1999;54:1027–32. 11. Peters A, Doring A, Wichmann HE, Koenig W. Increased plasma viscosity during an air pollution episode: a link to mortality? Lancet 1997;349:1582–7. 12. Glantz SA, Parmley WW. Passive smoking and heart disease. Epide- miology, physiology, and biochemistry. Circulation 1991;83:1–12. 13. Glantz SA, Parmley WW. Passive smoking and heart disease. Mech- anisms and risk. JAMA 1995;273:1047–53. 14. Penn A, Snyder CA. Inhalation of sidestream cigarette smoke accel- erates development of arteriosclerotic plaques. Circulation 1993;88: 1820–5. 15. Penn A, Chen LC, Snyder CA. Inhalation of steady-state sidestream smoke from one cigarette promotes atherosclerotic plaque develop- ment. Circulation 1994:1363–7. 16. Zhu B-Q, Sun Y-P, Sievers RE, Glantz SA, Parmley WW, Wolfe CL. Exposure to environmental tobacco smoke increases myocardial infarct size in rats. Circulation 1994;889:1282–90. 17. Sun YP, Zhu BQ, Browne AE, et al. Nicotine does not influence arterial lipid deposits in rabbits exposed to second-hand smoke. Circulation 2001;104:810–4. 18. Penn A, Batastini G, Soloman J, Burns F, Albert R. Dose-dependent size increases of aortic lesions following chronic exposure to 7,12- dimethylbenz(a)anthracene. Cancer Res 1981;41:588–92. 19. Penn A, Snyder C. 1,3 Butadiene, a vapor phase component of environmental tobacco smoke, accelerates atherosclerotic plaque de- velopment. Circulation 1996;93:552–7. 20. Pope CA, 3rd, Verrier RL, Lovett EG, et al. Heart rate variability associated with particulate air pollution. Am Heart J 1999;138:890–9. 21. Gold DR, Litonjua A, Schwartz J, et al. Ambient pollution and heart rate variability. Circulation 2000;101:1267–73. 22. Peters A, Perz S, Doring A, Stieber J, Koenig W, Wichmann HE. Increases in heart rate during an air pollution episode. Am J Epidemiol 1999;150:1094–8. 23. Ibald-Mulli A, Stieber J, Wichmann HE, Koenig W, Peters A. Effects of air pollution on blood pressure: a population-based approach. Am J Public Health 2001;91:571–7. 24. Linn WS, Gong H, Jr. Air pollution, weather stress, and blood pressure. Am J Public Health 2001;91:1345–6. 25. Singh N, Mironov D, Armstrong PW, Ross AM, Langer A, GUSTO ECG Substudy/nvestigators. Heart rate variability assessment early after acute myocardial infarction. Pathophysiological and prognostic correlates. Global Utilization of Streptokinase and TPA for Occluded Arteries. Circulation 1996;93:1388–95. 26. Kleiger RE, Miller JP, Bigger JT, Jr., Moss AJ. Decreased heart rate variability and its association with increased mortality after acute myocardial infarction. Am J Cardiol 1987;59:256–62. 27. Magari SR, Hauser R, Schwartz J, Williams PL, Smith TJ, Christiani DC. Association of heart rate variability with occupational and environmental exposure to particulate air pollution. Circulation 2001; 104:986–91. 28. Pope CA, 3rd, Eatough DJ, Gold DR, et al. Acute exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and heart rate variability. Environ Health Perspect 2001;109:711–6. 29. Peters A, Dockery DW, Muller JE, Mittleman MA. Increased particulate air pollution and the triggering of myocardial infarction. Circulation 2001;103:2810–5. 944 Glantz JACC Vol. 39, No. 6, 2002 Editorial Comment March 20, 2002:943–5 Downloaded From: https://content.onlinejacc.org/ on 05/17/2016 A – 204 Asthma and Air Pollution En Español Far too many Americans about 25 million people are intimately acquainted with the symptoms of an asthma attack. When asthma strikes, your airways become constricted and swollen, filling with mucus. Your chest feels tight you may cough or wheeze and you just can't seem to catch your breath. In severe cases, asthma attacks can be deadly. They kill more than 3,000 people every year in the United States. Asthma is a chronic, sometimes debilitating condition that has no cure. It keeps kids out of school (for a total of more than 10 million lost school days each year, according to the Centers for Disease Control) and sidelines them from physical activity. Employers lose 14 million work days every year when asthma keeps adults out of the workplace. The disease is also responsible for nearly 2 million emergency room visits a year. Understanding what might trigger an asthma attack helps asthma sufferers keep their disease in check. Sometimes it's as simple as avoiding dust, tobacco smoke or cockroach droppings. But what if the air outside your home is filled with asthma triggers? In recent years, scientists have shown that air pollution from cars, factories and power plants is a major cause of asthma attacks. And more than 131 million Americans over 40 percent of the nation's population live in areas with bad air. Roughly 30 percent of childhood asthma is due to environmental exposures, costing the nation $2 billion per year. Studies also suggest that air pollution may contribute to the development of asthma in previously healthy people. In fact, one recent Los Angeles study found that eight percent of childhood asthma cases are a result of living close (within 250 feet) to major roadways. Air Pollutants that Trigger Asthma Particulate Matter: This term refers to a wide range of pollutants dust, soot, fly ash, diesel exhaust particles, wood smoke and sulfate aerosols which are suspended as tiny particles in the air. Some of these fine particles can become lodged in the lungs and could trigger asthma attacks. Studies have shown that the number of hospitalizations for asthma increases when levels of particulate matter in the air rise. Coalfired power plants, factories, and diesel vehicles are A – 205 major sources of particulate pollution. Around 81 million people live in areas that fail to meet national air quality standards for particulate matter. Ground Level Ozone: A toxic component of smog, ozone triggers asthma attacks and makes existing asthma worse. It may also lead to the development of asthma in children. Ozone is typically produced when pollution from cars and trucks or industrial smokestacks reacts with oxygen and sunlight. Ground level ozone is a serious problem in cities with lots of traffic, such as Los Angeles, Houston and New York City. In 2013, according to the American Lung Association, nearly four in 10 people in the United States (38 percent) lived in areas with unhealthful levels of ozone. Sulfur Dioxide (SO2 ): A respiratory irritant associated with the onset of asthma attacks, sulfur dioxide is produced when coal and crude oil are burned. Coalfired power plants, particularly older plants that burn coal without SO2 pollution controls, are the worst SO2 polluters. 8.1 million Americans lives within 3 miles of a coalfired power plant. Oil refineries and diesel engines that burn highsulfur fuel also release large amounts of SO2 into the air. Nitrogen Oxide (NOx): A gas emitted from tailpipes and power plants, nitrogen oxide contributes to the formation of groundlevel ozone and smog. It also reacts with other air pollutants to form small particles that can cause breathing difficulties, especially in people with asthma. Exposure to high levels of nitrogen dioxide early in life could increase risk of developing asthma. Watching Out for Bad Air Days If you have asthma, your doctor can help you design a plan to control and prevent asthma attacks. Limiting your exposure to air pollution can be an important part of that plan. The EPA keeps tabs on local air quality across the country through its daily Air Quality Index, which measures levels of five major air pollutants. Avoiding Air Pollution Hotspots Completely avoiding air pollution is impossible, but you can take steps to reduce your family's exposure to air pollution and reduce the health risks. When walking or exercising outdoors, choose a route that avoids major streets or highways where possible. Take your children to playgrounds that are not next to major highways. Further, take any steps you can to ensure that new schools and housing developments are not placed near busy roadways, ports, rail yards or other industrial areas where the risk of diesel exposure increases, and likewise, that new roadways, ports, rail yards, and other industrial areas are not located near schools and homes. If A – 206 you live in an area with very high air pollution, consider installing air filters inside your home (see pages 42 through 45 of our Clean Cargo guide for more information on Community Mitigation measures). EPA's Air Quality Index Air Quality Index (AQI) Values Levels of Health Concern Colors When the AQI is in this range: ...air quality conditions are: ...as symbolized by this color: 0 to 50 Good Green 51 to 100 Moderate Yellow 151 to 200 Unhealthy forSensitive Groups Orange 151 to 200 Unhealthy Red 201 to 300 Very Unhealthy Purple 301 to 500 Hazardous Maroon Check the EPA website or your local television, newspaper or radio weather reports for daily updates on air quality. On bad air days, signified by orange and red colors on the index, children and people with respiratory diseases should limit their time outdoors. Purple and maroon indicate extreme levels of pollution even healthy adults should try to stay inside. Time to Clear the Air Although air quality has improved in many areas of the country over the past few decades, air pollution still poses a health risk for millions of Americans. Adopting stricter national air quality standards for particulate matter and ozone would help clear the air by giving states a stronger tool to force polluters to clean up. Preserving and strengthening the current regulations for cleaner power plants, cars and trucks will also go a long way towards reducing air pollution. Ultimately, we need to transition away from fossil fuels to a clean economy that replaces dirty diesel, sooty coal and toxic oil with alternative fuels and renewable power. A – 207 Enhancement of Local Air Pollution by Urban CO2 Domes M A R K Z . J A C O B S O N * Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305-4020 Received October 3, 2009. Revised manuscript received December 21, 2009. Accepted March 2, 2010. Data suggest that domes of high CO2 levels form over cities. Despite our knowledge of these domes for over a decade, no study has contemplated their effects on air pollution or health. In fact, all air pollution regulations worldwide assume arbitrarily thatsuchdomeshavenolocalhealth impact,andcarbon policy proposals, such as “cap and trade”, implicitly assume that CO2 impacts are the same regardless of where emissions occur. Here, it is found through data-evaluated numerical modeling with telescoping domains from the globe to the U.S., California, and Los Angeles, that local CO2 emissions in isolation may increase local ozone and particulate matter. Although health impacts of such changes are uncertain, they are of concern, and it is estimated that that local CO2 emissions may increase premature mortality by 50-100 and 300-1000/ yr in California and the U.S., respectively. As such, reducing locally emitted CO2 may reduce local air pollution mortality even if CO2 in adjacent regions is not controlled. If correct, this result contradicts the basis for air pollution regulations worldwide, none of which considers controlling local CO2 based on its local health impacts. It also suggests that a “cap and trade” policy should consider the location of CO2 emissions, as the underlying assumption of the policy is incorrect. Introduction Although CO2 is generally well-mixed in the atmosphere, data indicate that its mixing ratios are higher in urban than in background air, resulting in urban CO2 domes (1–6). Measurements in Phoenix, for example, indicate that peak and mean CO2 in the city center were 75% and 38-43% higher, respectively, than in surrounding rural areas (2). Recent studies have examined the impact of global greenhouse gases on air pollution (7–13). Whereas one study used a 1-D model to estimate the temperature profile impact of a CO2 dome (3), no study has isolated the impact of locally emitted CO2 on air pollution or health. One reason is that model simulations of such an effect require treatment of meteo- rological feedbacks to gas, aerosol, and cloud changes, and few models include such feedbacks in detail. Second, local CO2 emissions are close to the ground, where the temperature contrast between the Earth’s surface and the lowest CO2 layers is small. However, studies have not considered that CO2 domes result in CO2 gradients high above the surface. If locally emitted CO2 increases local air pollution, then cities, counties, states, and small countries can reduce air pollution health problems by reducing their own CO2 emissions, regardless of whether other air pollutants are reduced locally or whether other locations reduce CO2. Methodology and Evaluation For this study, the nested global-through-urban 3-D model, GATOR-GCMOM (13–17) was used to examine the effects of locally emitted CO2 on local climate and air pollution. A nested model is one that telescopes from a large scale to more finely resolved domains. The model and its feedbacks are described in the Supporting Information. Example CO2 feedbacks treated include those to heating rates thus temperatures, which affect (a) local temperature and pressure gradients, stability, wind speeds, cloudiness, and gas/particle transport, (b) water evaporation rates, (c) the relative humidity and particle swelling, and (d) temperature-dependent natural emissions, air chemistry, and particle microphysics. Changes in CO2 also affect (e) photosynthesis and respiration rates, (f) dissolution and evaporation rates of CO2 into the ocean, (g) weathering rates, (h) ocean pH and chemical composition, (i) sea spray pH and composition, and (j) rainwater pH and composi- tion. Changes in sea spray composition, in turn, affect sea spray radiative properties, thus heating rates. The model was nested from the globe (resolution 4°SN×5°WE) to the U.S. (0.5°×0.75°), California (0.20°×0.15°), and Los Angeles (0.045°×0.05°). The global domain included 47 sigma-pressure layers up to 0.22 hPa (∼60 km), with high resolution (15 layers) in the bottom 1 km. The nested regional domains included 35 layers exactly matching the global layers up to 65 hPa (∼18 km). The model was initialized with 1-degree global reanalysis data (18) but run without data assimilation or model spinup. Three original pairs of baseline and sensitivity simulations were run: one pair nested from the globe to California for one year (2006), one pair nested from the globe to California to Los Angeles for two sets of three months (Feb-Apr, Aug- Oct, 2006), and one pair nested from the globe to the U.S. for two sets of three months (Jan-Mar, Jul-Sep, 2006). The seasonal periods were selected to obtain roughly winter/ summer results that could be averaged to estimate annual values. A second 1-year (2007) simulation pair was run for California to test interannual variability. In each sensitivity simulation, only anthropogenic CO2 emissions (emCO2) were removed from the finest domain. Initial ambient CO2 was the same in all domains of both simulations, and emCO2 was the same in the parent domains of both. As such, all resulting differences were due solely to initial changes in locally emitted (in the finest domain) CO2. The model and comparisons with data have been de- scribed in over 50 papers, including recently (13–17). Figure 1 further compares modeled O3, PM10, and CH3CHO from August 1-7 of the baseline (with emCO2) and sensitivity (no emCO2) simulations from the Los Angeles domain with data. The comparisons indicate good agreement for ozone in particular. Since emCO2 was the only variable that differed initially between simulations, it was the initiating causal factor in the increases in O3, PM10, and CH3CHO seen in Figure 1. Although ozone was predicted slightly better in the no-emCO2 case than in the emCO2 case during some hours, modeled ozone in the emCO2 case matched peaks better by about 0.5% averaged over comparisons with all data shown and not shown. Results Figure 2a,b shows the modeled contribution of California’s CO2 emissions to surface and column CO2, respectively, averaged over a year. The CO2 domes over Los Angeles, the San Francisco Bay Area, Sacramento (38.58 N, 121.49 W), * Corresponding author phone: (650)723-6836; e-mail: jacobson@stanford.edu. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2010, 44, 2497–2502 10.1021/es903018m 2010 American Chemical Society VOL. 44, NO. 7, 2010 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY 9 2497 Published on Web 03/10/2010 A – 208 Asthma and Ethnic Minorities: Socioeconomic Status and Beyond Erick Forno, MD1,3,4 and Juan C. Celedón, MD DrPH1,2,4,* 1Channing Laboratory, Dept. of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, MA 2Division of Pulmonary/Critical Care Medicine, Dept. of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, MA 3Division of Respiratory Diseases, Dept. of Pediatrics, Children’s Hospital, Boston, MA 4Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA Abstract Purpose of review—We aim to discuss current insights into our understanding of the mechanisms by which socioeconomic status (SES) influences the prevalence and severity of asthma in ethnic minorities. In addition, we review potential risk factors for ethnic disparities in asthma that are not mediated by SES. Recent findings—Exposures and factors correlated with ethnicity through SES (e.g. indoor and outdoor air quality, smoke exposure, and access to healthcare) are likely to explain a significant proportion of the observed ethnic differences in asthma morbidity. However, other factors correlated with ethnicity (e.g., genetic variation) can impact ethnic disparities in asthma independently of and/or interacting with SES-related factors. Summary—SES is a rough marker of a variety of environmental/behavioral exposures and a very important determinant of differences in asthma prevalence and severity among ethnic minorities in the U.S. However, SES is unlikely to be the sole explanation for ethnic disparities in asthma, which may also be due to differences in genetic variation and gene-by-environment interactions among ethnic groups. Keywords Childhood asthma; asthma epidemiology; socioeconomic status; ethnicity; race; minorities Introduction Asthma, a global public health problem [1], affects over 6.8 million children and adolescents in the U.S.[2]. There is profound variability in the prevalence and morbidity of asthma among ethnic groups [3]. Ethnicity is strongly correlated with socioeconomic status (SES) in the U.S., where members of certain ethnic groups (e.g., African Americans, Puerto Ricans) are disproportionately represented among the poor. Because poverty has been associated with increased asthma morbidity, it has been postulated that SES is solely responsible for ethnic differences in asthma and asthma morbidity. The effect of SES on illnesses such as asthma is likely *Corresponding Author: Juan C. Celedón, M.D. Dr.P.H., Channing Laboratory, 181 Longwood Ave, 4th Floor, Boston, MA 02115, Phone: 617-525-0964; Fax: 617-525-0958, E-mail: juan.celedon@channing.harvard.edu. NIH Public Access Author Manuscript Curr Opin Allergy Clin Immunol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2014 February 11. Published in final edited form as: Curr Opin Allergy Clin Immunol. 2009 April ; 9(2): 154–160. N IH -PA Author M anuscript N IH -PA Author M anuscript N IH -PA Author M anuscript A – 209 mediated through pathways including environmental exposures, access to health care, stress, and psychological/cultural factors [4]. However, ethnicity is also correlated with racial ancestry, which may influence asthma disparities through differences in the frequency of disease-susceptibility alleles. The purpose of this article is to review current evidence to support the role of SES and other factors as potential explanations for ethnic-related differences in asthma, and to suggest potential future directions for research in this field. Asthma and Asthma Morbidity in Ethnic Minorities The prevalence, morbidity, and severity of asthma are higher in children who belong to certain ethnic minorities [5, 6], and/or whose households report indicators consistent with low SES [7**, 8]. Although the overall prevalence of current childhood asthma in the U.S. is 8.7%, it varies widely by ethnicity, ranging from 4–5% in Asian Indians and Chinese to 19% for Puerto Ricans, with non-Hispanic whites and other minorities ranking in the middle [2, 3, 9*, 10*] (Table 1). Similarly, the rate of current asthma in children from families below the federal poverty threshold is higher (11.1%) than in families above it (7.7–8.5%)(10). Asthma severity is higher in certain ethnic groups such as Puerto Ricans and African Americans [11]. African Americans have more ER visits, hospitalizations, and higher mortality rates from asthma than whites [3]. In contrast to the low mortality rates from asthma among Mexican-Americans (0.3 per 100,000), mortality among Hispanics in New York City, which has a large proportion of Puerto Ricans, is approximately 1.3 per 100,000 [12**]. We will review the main mechanisms and potential factors underlying the association between socioeconomic status, ethnicity and asthma. Environmental exposures Many environmental factors influence the pathogenesis and severity of asthma: Indoor allergens Compared to rural areas and suburbs, indoor allergen levels are higher in urban households in low-income areas and in those hosting multiple families [13*, 14]. Inner-city households have higher levels of indoor allergens such as cockroach, which are associated with increased asthma morbidity. Differences in allergic sensitization among ethnic groups are more pronounced in inner-city environments. Using data from inner-city children in the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES III), Stevenson et al. found that Mexican Americans were three times more likely and that African Americans were four times more likely to be sensitized to cockroach than whites (after adjustment for age, gender, and indicators of SES factors)[14]. Children with asthma who live in the inner city also tend to have more ER visits for asthma than their counterparts from rural regions [15]. Residence in inner-city areas partly explains the high levels of exposure of certain ethnic minorities to high levels of indoor allergens [5]. Two studies of asthmatic children in the U.S. Northeast showed that Hispanic and African-American ethnicity are associated with reduced exposure to high levels of dust mite allergen but increased exposure to cockroach allergen, even after accounting for indicators of SES [16, 17]. Potential explanations for the observed association between ethnicity and indoor allergen exposure include residual confounding by housing characteristics and/or behavioral differences among ethnic groups. Although a nationwide survey showed no association between ethnicity and dust mite Forno and Celedón Page 2 Curr Opin Allergy Clin Immunol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2014 February 11. N IH -PA Author M anuscript N IH -PA Author M anuscript N IH -PA Author M anuscript A – 210 allergen levels in the beds of U.S. homes, it was limited by small sample size and thus had inadequate statistical power [18]. Ethnicity has been associated with patterns of allergic sensitization (atopy) in children with and without asthma. African-American and Puerto Rican children (with and without asthma) are more likely to be sensitized to cockroach and dust mite than white children [14]. Since African Americans have been shown to be exposed to relatively low levels of dust mite allergen, this finding suggests ethnic differences in susceptibility to sensitization to specific allergens. Although most children with asthma are atopic, a significant proportion of atopic children do not have asthma. This dissociation between atopy and asthma varies by ethnicity. For example, Mexican Americans have a similar prevalence of atopy but a lower prevalence of asthma than Puerto Ricans. Determinants of ethnic differences in susceptibility to asthma in atopic children have been largely unexplored. Cigarette Smoking Approximately 20% of U.S. adults smoke [19] with significant variation by SES: smoking prevalence is ~46% in people with a General Education Development (GED) diploma, 22% for those with a college education, and ~7% for persons with a graduate degree. Smoking is also more prevalent among subjects living below the federal poverty level (31%). Smoking rates vary widely among ethnic groups, with American Indians and Alaska Natives having the highest rates at ~32%, and Asians the lowest at 10%. Despite marked differences in asthma prevalence and morbidity, African Americans and whites have the same rates of cigarette smoking (approximately 22–23%). Among 12- to 17-year-olds participating in a survey from 1999 to 2001, reported smoking rates were 28% for American Indians / Alaska Natives, 16% for whites, 11% for Hispanics, and 7% for non-Hispanic blacks [20]. Pre- and post-natal exposures to cigarette smoking are associated with asthma and asthma morbidity in childhood [21*]. In utero smoke exposure varies widely among ethnic minorities: 20% in American Indians, 16% in whites, 10% in Puerto Ricans and non- Hispanic blacks, 5% in Japanese, 3% Mexicans, and 1.5% in Central / South Americans [22]. In utero smoke exposure also varies by insurance type and education status [23]. During childhood, the prevalence of tobacco smoke exposure and levels of salivary cotinine are higher in children with asthma symptoms and doctor-diagnosed asthma, with a more pronounced difference in children from lower SES [24*]. Smoke exposure increases asthma morbidity; conversely, smoke-free laws have been associated with fewer asthma ER visits both in children and in adults [25*]. Smoking behavior among adults varies with ethnicity and SES, with members of certain ethnic groups (e.g., Puerto Ricans) smoking more often and/or more heavily than members of other groups (e.g, Mexicans). Thus, differences in parental smoking could account for part of the observed ethnic disparities in childhood asthma. However, few studies have tried to assess the effects of smoking on ethnic differences in asthma. In a study of over nine thousand people, Beckett et al. found that an association between Hispanic origin (mainly Puerto Rican) and increased risk of asthma was not influenced by passive exposure to smoking at home [26]. Air pollution Outdoor pollutants can trigger asthma exacerbations and may play a role in asthma pathogenesis. Non-whites are more likely to live in areas with elevated levels of air pollutants, including particulates, carbon monoxide, ozone and sulfur dioxide [27, 28**]. A Forno and Celedón Page 3 Curr Opin Allergy Clin Immunol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2014 February 11. N IH -PA Author M anuscript N IH -PA Author M anuscript N IH -PA Author M anuscript A – 211 study in New York City showed higher rates of asthma exacerbations and hospitalizations in children from highly polluted areas such as the Bronx, which also has a high percentage of residents from minority populations [29]. Nitrogen oxide and diesel exhaust particles (DEP), markers of traffic-related air pollution, have also been associated with increased asthma symptoms [30**]. Recent data suggest that the effect of DEP may be modified by genetic polymorphisms: in a cohort of children in Cincinnati, high DEP exposure was associated with increased risk of wheezing only in carriers of allele Val(105) in the gene for glutathione s-transferase π (GSTP1)[31]. Access to healthcare Access to healthcare is determined by several factors, which in turn influence asthma morbidity. Household income and insurance status In a study of over 100,000 children (the National Survey of Children’s Health), Flores et al. found marked differences between ethnic groups with regard to full-time employment rates, household income, and insurance coverage and type [32**]. In that study, the prevalence of asthma was higher in ethnic groups with relatively low employment rates, income, and insurance coverage (Figure 1). In New York City, asthma “hotspots” correspond to areas with higher concentrations of ethnic minorities, low-income households, and public housing [33]. Lack of adequate health insurance has a negative impact on asthma management by imposing barriers to appropriate diagnosis and treatment [28]. Recent advances in both long- term and acute asthma management may exacerbate such inequality, as they would only be accessible to those with adequate insurance. It should be noted, however, that lack of access to healthcare is unlikely to be the sole explanation for ethnic differences in asthma outcomes. For example, Puerto Ricans (who are U.S. citizens) have greater morbidity from asthma than Mexican immigrants in spite of easier access to healthcare. Stress and comorbidities Exposure to stress/violence and co-existing illnesses such as obesity and depression may partly explain the ethnic differences in asthma that are mediated by SES. Exposure to stress and violence Long-term maternal stress in early life has been associated with increased risk of childhood asthma, independently of other factors such as low SES [34*]. Cohen et al. recently reported that physical or sexual abuse was associated with current asthma morbidity in a cross- sectional study of Puerto Rican children [35**]. Family structure also plays a role, with children living with a single mother at higher risk for inadequate management of and increased morbidity from asthma [36*]. Together with results from other recent studies [37*,38*,39], these findings suggest that exposure to stress and violence (which is more common in ethnic minorities) influences the pathogenesis and morbidity of asthma in childhood. Obesity Obesity has been associated with asthma in different populations [40, 41*]. Among asthmatics in the Childhood Asthma Management Program (CAMP), the proportion of Forno and Celedón Page 4 Curr Opin Allergy Clin Immunol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2014 February 11. N IH -PA Author M anuscript N IH -PA Author M anuscript N IH -PA Author M anuscript A – 212 Reprints This copy is for your personal, noncommercial use only. You can order presentationready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers here or use the "Reprints" tool that appears next to any article. Visit www.nytreprints.com for samples and additional information. Order a reprint of this article now. August 29, 2007 For Minority Kids, No Room to Breathe By ALIYAH BARUCHIN Among Americans with asthma, minority children are in by far the worst situation. The numbers are striking: in the United States, 20 percent of Puerto Rican children, or one in five, have asthma. Among African American youngsters, the rate is 13 percent, compared with the national childhood average of 8 percent. In addition, since 1999 asthmarelated mortality rates have dropped for Americans as a whole, but not for minority children. According to the National Center for Health Statistics, AfricanAmerican and Puerto Rican children are six times as likely as white children to die of asthma. In minority children, “the prevalence of asthma is about 40 percent higher, but the difference in the adverse outcomes is three times, four times higher for hospitalizations,” said Dr. Lara Akinbami, a researcher at the center who tracks childhood asthma. “Given that we have the tools to prevent those things, that does reach the level of a public health crisis.” Several factors contribute to the disparity. Socioeconomic status is certainly central, particularly in terms of environment. Children in poor innercity communities are disproportionately exposed to both indoor and outdoor allergens — cockroaches, mice, mold, dust, cigarette smoke, automobile exhaust, soot — that can trigger breathing problems. “If you look at innercity children, they’re sensitized to more allergens and exposed to more allergens at higher levels in their homes, allergens that it’s difficult for them to avoid,” said Dr. Andrew Liu of the National Jewish Medical and Research Center in Denver. Dr. Liu is part of the InnerCity Asthma Consortium, a federally sponsored research initiative at 10 medical A – 213 centers nationwide that looks at the severity of asthma in cities and is testing treatments to block the allergic response. Chronic lack of access to outpatient health care and the poorer quality of care in innercity neighborhoods is another crucial factor. Successful asthma care depends on regular medical maintenance, and poor urban children have less reliable access to doctors’ offices and clinics, more often relying on emergency room visits for treatment. More generally, keeping up with treatment can be daunting for anyone. “Asthma is a very highmaintenance disease,” Dr. Akinbami said. “You can really control it and live without symptoms, but it’s a lot of work. And if you have a lot of other challenges, it’s much harder to really get organized and motivated to do the things that are necessary.” Patterns of medication use may differ as well. Innercity children with asthma tend to overuse fastacting rescue medications like albuterol at the expense of longacting steroids like Flovent or Pulmicort, mainstays of asthma control. Language and other social barriers often prevent doctors from accurately assessing how asthma patients are using their medicines at home. Genetic factors may also play a role. AfricanAmericans are more likely to have a genetic characteristic that makes them more vulnerable to the adverse effects of overusing rescue medications. And even after controlling for socioeconomic factors, AfricanAmerican children tend to have higher levels of allergies, which are related to asthma in about 85 percent of cases, than white children. Among Puerto Rican children, the incidence of asthma is equally high both in mainland cities and on the island of Puerto Rico, pointing to a possible genetic predisposition to developing the disease. But at the moment, genetics is secondary to the pressing need for quality care. Several citybased or regional asthma intervention programs have had significant success in raising awareness among parents and doctors, reducing exposure to allergens in homes and schools, and improving care for children. From 1997 to 2001 during New York City’s Childhood Asthma Initiative — which ran the memorable “I have asthma, but asthma doesn’t have me” A – 214 advertising campaign — the rate of childhood hospitalizations for asthma in the city decreased by more than a third. The rates of emergency room visits and hospital stays have decreased sharply in central Connecticut, which has the Easy Breathing program to teach practitioners how to more accurately identify asthma in children and meet National Institutes of Health guidelines for care. At the end of the day, what makes the statistics about minority children and asthma remarkable is that there is actually no mystery to asthma management. Successful intervention programs are straightforward, fact based and, in theory, easily replicated. “Even though we don’t know how to prevent asthma, we really do know how to control the symptoms,” Dr. Akinbami said. “These programs can make a difference, and change the outcomes for these children.” Publish date: 8/30/07 A – 215 ASTHMA FACTS SECOND EDITION N Y C H e a l t h May 2003 NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND MENTAL HYGIENE A – 216 A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S 2 Asthma Facts, Second Edition was prepared by Renu Garg, Adam Karpati, Jessica Leighton, Mary Perrin and Mona Shah of the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. Editorial review was also provided by New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene staff including Gregory Carmichael, Louise Cohen, Jim Cone, Lorna E. Davis, Andrew Goodman, Daniel Kass and Thomas Matte. Barbara Tanis was responsible for the design and layout. Copyright©2003 New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. Suggested Citation: Garg R, Karpati A, Leighton J, Perrin M, Shah M. Asthma Facts, Second Edition. New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, May 2003. This publication is also available at www.nyc.gov/health. For additional copies of Asthma Facts, Second Edition, or for more information about the New York City Childhood Asthma Initiative, please call 3-1-1. A – 217 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 New York City South Beach-Tottenville Willowbrook Stapleton-St. George Port Richmond Staten Island Rockaway Southeast Queens Jamaica Southwest Queens Fresh Meadows Ridgewood-Forest Hils Bayside-Little Neck Flushing-Clearview West Queens Long Island City-Astoria Queens Lower Manhattan Union Square-Lower East Side Greenwich Village-Soho Gramercy Park-Murray Hill Chelsea-Clinton Upper East Side Upper West Side East Harlem Central Harlem-Morningside Hts. Washington Heights-Inwood Manhattan Coney Island-Sheepshead Bay Bensonhurst-Bay Ridge Canarsie-Flatlands East Flatbush-Flatbush Borough Park Sunset Park East New York Bedford Stuyvesant-Crown Heights Downtown-Heights-Slope Williamsburg-Bushwick Greenpoint Brooklyn Hunts Point-Mott Haven High Bridge-Morrisania Crotona-Tremont Pelham-Throgs Neck Fordham-Bronx Park Northeast Bronx Kingsbridge-Riverdale Bronx 9.16 15.31 4.77 7.79 9.01 8.75 9.54 11.02 10.00 5.45 2.08 9.89 4.87 9.91 8.79 3.21 1.31 7.01 3.96 1.04 2.12 6.91 4.91 12.68 17.18 3.53 1.75 7.16 3.47 1.69 4.44 3.79 4.76 4.66 4.41 3.53 1.90 3.82 4.71 4.21 6.74 4.77 7.54 2.52 3.76 3.77 1.62 1.55 6.61 10.02 15.45 12.60 16.16 18.53 22.49 8.10 3.91 12.73 8.38 13.66 12.13 6.98 2.47 10.00 5.89 2.31 3.63 12.19 9.14 20.65 29.26 6.26 3.96 13.97 6.41 2.98 9.15 (3.71 in 1997) 6.32 6.23 6.84 (3.31 in 1997) (1.32 in 1997) (3.69 in 1997) 6.70 4.84 9.32 6.66 7.99 5.89 3.66 2.85 4.92 2.28 RATE PER 1,000 POPULATION 1997 2000 Bronx -40.2 Brooklyn -32.7 Manhattan -43.3 Queens -24.7 Staten Island -31.1 Percent Change in Rates from 1997 to 2000: 6.06 9.43 *Based on United Hospital Fund (UHF) neighborhood definitions as indicated in Table 5; refer to Appendix for further explanation. FIGURE 16 Asthma Hospitalization Rates by Neighborhood*, Children Aged 0-14, New York City, 1997 and 2000 16 CHAPTER 1: HOSPITALIZATIONS The tremendous disparity in asthma hospitalizations by neighborhood observed in 1997 has continued in 2000. However, between 1997 and 2000 asthma hospitalization rates decreased among children aged 0-14 years citywide in all NYC boroughs: by 40% in the Bronx; 33% in Brooklyn; 43% in Manhattan; 25% in Queens; and by 31% in Staten Island. In the Bronx, the Hunts Point-Mott Haven community – a low-income neighborhood where the DOHMH implemented a major childhood asthma initiative in 1998 – had the largest decrease in rates (56%). However, the Bronx continues to have the highest rates overall. Additionally, despite the dramatic decrease of 41% in East Harlem in Manhattan, this low-income neighborhood, also home to the DOHMH Childhood Asthma Initiative, continues to have the highest rate of childhood asthma among NYC neighborhoods. Major decreases in asthma hospitalization rates also occurred in other NYC low-income neighborhoods having high asthma hospitalization rates: 41% in Crotona-Tremont; 42% in Fordham-Bronx Park; 41% in High Bridge-Morrisania; 28% in Bedford Stuyvesant-Crown Heights; 28% in East New York; and 39% in Central Harlem-Morningside Heights (Table 5). Rates for each ZIP Code area in NYC are presented in the map on the following page and illustrate the variation in rates throughout the City (Table 6). A – 218 Home » Health Professionals » Resources » Lung » National Asthma Control Initiative (NACI) » Discover » Reducing Asthma Disparities DISCOVER NACI Reducing Disparities Guideline Priorities NACI IN ACTION AUDIENCES ASTHMA INFO NEWS & EVENTS Reducing Asthma Disparities Gaps in the implementation of clinical practice guidelines for asthma contribute to the ongoing problem of asthmarelated health disparities among atrisk groups. Closing this disparity gap is a major emphasis of the Guidelines Implementation Panel (GIP) Report , which offers recommendations and strategies for addressing asthma disparities across six priority messages derived from the Expert Panel Report 3—Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Management of Asthma (EPR3). Regardless of age, race, ethnicity, gender, class, income, or personal history, advances in asthma treatment mean that asthma control is achievable for nearly all persons with asthma, but only if clinicians and patients join together to follow the asthma guidelines. Disparities in the Burden of Asthma Not all things are equal when it comes to the burden of asthma. Consider these quick facts:(Sources appear at bottom of page) The rates of hospitalizations and deaths due to asthma are both 3 times higher among African Americans than among whites. [1,2] Puerto Ricans have the highest rates of asthma attacks and deaths due to asthma. [1] Children have 2 times the rate of emergency department visits and hospitalizations for asthma as adults. [1] Compared to white children, asthma prevalence is higher in children who are Puerto Rican (2.4 times), African American (1.6 times), and American Indian/Alaska Native (1.3 times). [3] Women account for nearly twothirds of all deaths due to asthma in the United States. [2] The percentage of people with asthma taking daily medicine to control asthma is lower among Hispanics (23.2%) and African Americans (25.1%) than among Whites (35.1%). [4] Asthma is more common and more severe among children; women; lowincome, innercity residents; and African American and Puerto Rican communities. In general, these disadvantaged and atrisk populations experience aboveaverage rates of emergency department visits, hospitalizations, and deaths that are much higher than differences in asthma prevalence would suggest. The reasons for these disparities are complex, but cannot be attributed to genetic differences alone. Economic, social, and cultural factors—ranging from lack of access to quality health care to differences in health beliefs between patients and their doctors—add to the greater asthma burden among these groups. Individuals within disadvantaged populations also may face substandard housing and work conditions that place them at greater risk for frequent and prolonged exposure to environmental allergens and irritants that worsen asthma. Bridging the Disparity Gap Despite their higher burden of disease, access to medical care for asthma and the quality of care provided is often lower among minority and socioeconomically disadvantaged populations. Disparities in the burden and care of asthma suggest that culturally competent clinical and educational approaches, such as those identified in the GIP Report , are needed to implement the EPR3 asthma guidelines in highrisk groups and to improve access to quality asthma care. Examples of such approaches include the Physician Asthma Care Education (PACE) Program and multipronged strategies for addressing exposure to environmental factors that worsen asthma at home, school, or work. Bridging this disparity gap is a challenge. It will require innovative and sustained efforts at multiple levels to translate, tailor, and deliver effective asthma care to diverse populations in line with the recommendations of the EPR3 guidelines and its companion GIP Report. All stakeholders involved in controlling asthma have a role to play in reducing asthmarelated health disparities. We encourage you to get involved in the NACI National Champions Program and help people in your community breathe easier. Sources: 1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Asthma prevalence, health care use and mortality: United States, 200305. 2. Heron MP, Hoyert DL, Murphy SL, Xu JQ, Kochanek KD, TejadaVera B. Deaths: Final Data for 2006. National vital Accessible Search Form NHLBI Entire Site A – 219 Air Pollution Linked to Obesity FEB 23, 2016 04:01 PM ET // BY PATRICK J. KIGER You already know that air pollution is bad for your lungs, heart and sinuses. But as new research reveals, it may also be responsible for your expanding waistline. In a study published in the Journal of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology, scientists reported that lab rats who breathed Beijing’s highly polluted air for three to eight weeks gained significantly more weight than a control group, and developed a slew of other obesity‐related health problems as well. Beijing, which is surrounded by mountains that help to trap emissions from its factories, automobiles and the coal‐fired boilers that many homes still have, is notorious for its dirty air. Between 2008 and 2015, the Chinese capital averaged a daily Air Quality Index of 100, four times above the healthy limit. In December, the pollution grew so severe that officials called Beijing’s first‐ever 72‐hour pollution alert, in which vehicle traffic was restricted. NEWS: How Bad Can Chinese Air Pollution Get? Previous research already points to the chronic smog as a major public health problem. A 2014 study by Harvard researchers, for example, found that the high exposure to particulates significantly reduced lung function in the city’s 22 million residents. But the new study, which was led by Duke University professor of global and environmental health Junfeng “Jim” Zhang, indicates that long‐term exposure to polluted air may also cause metabolic and inflammatory changes that lead to obesity. At 8 weeks old, female and male rats who lived in a chamber filled with polluted Beijing air were 10 percent and 18 percent heavier, respectively, than those exposed to clean air. The negative physical changes were more pronounced at 8 weeks than at 3 weeks, which suggests that longer‐term exposure is necessary to lead to weight problems. NEWS: Master Switch in Obesity May Be Turned Off Beijing often has days with unhealthy levels of pollution. KENTARO IEMOTO, SA 2.0 VIA WIKIMEDIA COMMONS VIEW RELATED GALLERY » ‹ › A – 220 “If translated and verified in humans, these findings will support the urgent need to reduce air pollution, given the growing burden of obesity in today’s highly polluted world,” Zhang said in a press release. A 2013 study concluded that obesity is a rising problem for young adults in China, affecting about 11 percent of the population between ages 20 and 39. Even so, the Chinese aren’t gaining as much weight as Americans. More than a third of U.S. adults are dangerously overweight, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. A – 221 Your source for the latest research news Date: Source: Summary: Asthma Linked To Depressive Disorders, Study Suggests November 7, 2007 University of Washington Young people with asthma are about twice as likely to suffer from depressive and anxiety disorders than are children without asthma, according to a new study. Previous research had suggested a possible link in young people between asthma and some mental health problems, but this study is the first showing such a strong connection. FULL STORY Young people with asthma are about twice as likely to suffer from depressive and anxiety disorders than are children without asthma, according to a study by a research team in Seattle. Previous research had suggested a possible link in young people between asthma and some mental health problems, such as panic disorder, but this study is the first showing such a strong connection between the respiratory condition and depressive and anxiety disorders. The study was conducted by researchers at the University of Washington School of Medicine, Group Health Cooperative, and Seattle Children's Hospital Research Institute. The researchers interviewed more than 1,300 youths, ages 11 to 17, who were enrolled in the Group Health Cooperative health maintenance organization. Of the participants, 781 had been diagnosed with or treated for asthma, and the rest were randomly selected youths with no history of asthma. About 16 percent of the young people with asthma had depressive or anxiety disorders, the researchers found, compared to about 9 percent of youth without asthma. When controlling for other possible variables, youth with asthma were about 1.9 times as likely to have such depressive or anxiety disorders. Researchers tested for several depressive and anxiety disorders, including depression, a mood disorder called dysthymia, panic disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, separation anxiety, social phobia, and agoraphobia. These disorders are somewhat common in youth, and are associated with high risk for school problems, early pregnancy, adverse health behaviors like smoking or lack of exercise, and suicide. Young people with depressive and anxiety disorders often find it harder to manage their asthma and describe more impaired physical functioning because of the combination of asthma and a depressive or anxiety disorder, the researchers said. Youth with asthma and one of the disorders are also more likely to smoke, making their asthma more difficult to treat. A – 222 Cite This Page: University of Washington. "Asthma Linked To Depressive Disorders, Study Suggests." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 7 November 2007. . "Physicians treating young people with asthma should realize that those children are at a greater risk of depressive and anxiety disorders, and should try to educate patients and their families about this increased risk," said Dr. Wayne Katon, professor and vicechair of psychiatry at the UW School of Medicine, and corresponding author of the study. "The primary care system is correctly identifying only about 40 percent of the cases in which children with asthma also have a psychiatric disorder. We should improve our screening for these disorders, and develop effective treatment programs for affected patients that address both asthma and the depressive or anxiety disorder." In addition to exploring the link between asthma and depressive and anxiety disorders, researchers found other variables that further increase the risk of such disorders. Female respondents were at a greater risk of depressive and anxiety disorders, as were youth living in a singleparent household, those who had been diagnosed with asthma more recently, and those with more impairment in asthmarelated physical health. The findings appear in the November issue of the Journal of Adolescent Health. The research team also included Dr. Paula Lozano of the UW Department of Pediatrics, Group Health Cooperative, and Children's Hospital and Regional Medical Center; Dr. Joan Russo of the UW Department of Psychiatry; Dr. Elizabeth McCauley of the UW Department of Psychiatry and Seattle Children's Hospital Research Institute; Dr. Laura Richardson of the UW Department of Pediatrics and Children's Hospital and Regional Medical Center; and Dr. Terry Bush of Group Health Cooperative. Story Source: The above post is reprinted from materials provided by University of Washington. Note: Materials may be edited for content and length. MLA APA Chicago A – 223