| Comment | Attachments |
|---|---|
| (Kate Kressmann-Kehoe): I am glad that you are evaluating nuclear. Nuclear is reliable, 24/7/365, and has a small footprint. I have solar panels on my home, but I am very glad that I can draw on nuclear energy when they aren't generating. As a video professional, my work is greatly enhanced by AI technologies, and I want to keep relying on technological advances to increase productivity. We can't add that kind of energy use AND have a stable decarbonized grid without nuclear. My ask of you is this, however -- in our eagerness to get new power on, let us not compromise on safety. For-profit companies correctly look to lower costs. That's their job. The role of government is to enforce that that is not at the expense of safety. Please maintain strict and rigorous oversight of nuclear construction and operation, at every stage of the life-cycle. The Fukishima accident was entirely avoidable. In fact, there was another nuclear plant nearby that was closer to the earthquake's epicenter but did not have problems. The difference was that the other company had a culture of safety, and they made safer choices every step of the way, even if it cost more. I'd like to count on companies to have a good culture, and many do, but, I don't think we can count on that. (For instance the culture at Boeing slipped over time, leading to parts falling off mid-air). Nuclear energy can be dangerous and can be operated safely, just like fire can be dangerous and can also be used safely. Please ensure that we don't go from paranoia to recklessness. | |
| (Mary Ellen Chesbro): Thank you for hosting such a timely summit. It was very informative and I was able to network with a lot of other stakeholders regarding NYS Energy. However, I must take this opportunity to express my disappointment that Oswego County was not contacted directly for this summit. Not only were we not informed directly to attend the event but more importantly we were left out of any discussion panels regarding Nuclear Energy. As you are very aware Oswego County has been dealing with nuclear energy for the past 55 years. One would think that our experience in the planning, the building, and the development of the 3 plants would have been an asset. | |
| (Earl R. Hall, Syrabex): Excellent summit with highly educated professionals! Nuclear energy technology has advanced so much over the past 30 years that we as a state (and region) must take advantage of this amazing renewable energy resource that produces a significant about of energy with a small land footprint. And Oswego county embraces nuclear energy and the industry, creating thousands of job while delivering clean, renewable and most importantly RELIABLE energy. Micron, data centers, manufacturers and rate payers in general need nuclear energy to be included with the other renewable sources, and we need it now!!! | |
| (Dr. Andrew Whitaker) Please find attached my comments on the draft blueprint. I make these comments as a private individual and not as a representative of the University at Buffalo. |
Whittaker comments on Draft blueprint.pdf |
| (Amanda Jones): I'm not a fan of this plan. Nuclear energy is too slow and too dangerous as a climate mitigation strategy. There's just no reason to depend on it when solar and wind energy don't create the kind of highly dangerous and permanent waste nuclear energy does, and there's no danger of failure and meltdown with a solar farm. Battery storage is improving all the time. It's not that I think nuclear energy is never a solution, but I think history has shown it's too dangerous to rely on heavily. | |
| (Michael Mann): Nuclear energy is the most reliable, safest technology with the least impact on the environment of any existing technology. We need to be a leader in using this technology to provide for a better, cleaner, more sustainable future, | |
| (Herschel Specter): This draft grossly underestimates the need for DEFRs. (1) The grid must be designed for extreme events, hot and cold, maintaining present NYISO reliability requirements, not average conditions. This requires far more capacity or storage. Weather extremes are where the maximum pub(2) Figure 1 is wrong. The original Figure 34 in NYSRDA's Appendix G recognized that this analysis only covered one week in winter, depending on batteries to make up the shortfall. However, other winter weeks also have shortfalls, but the batteries would be depleted by then, unless even greater battery capacity is purchased. A full year needs to be analyzed, not just one week. But this one week already requires 25 GW of batteries. What is the cost for a full year's battery capacity? (3) Hydrogen storage and transmission through pipelines don't work. To achieve volumetric energy densities like natural gas, H2 has to be compressed to pressures like 10,000 to 15,000 psi, well beyond the design pressure of present gas lines and probably beyond what salt caverns can withstand, H2 leaks through stainless steel and embrittles this metal. (4) With neither batteries nor hydrogen, renewables can not be our major energy source and must rely on DEFRs .Will these DEFRs be natural gas, as NY uses today, or will we really get serious about climate change and greatly ramp up nuclear? | |
| (Donald Hughes, Sierra Club CNNY): New York State should not be looking towards nuclear energy to meet climate goals. Nuclear power is slow to construct and hugely expensive. The Shoreham power plant bankrupted the Long Island company. Nine Mile point 2 almost bankrupted Niagara-Mohawk. New nuclear plants have proven to be no better. The Blueprint acknowledged these problems. Nuclear power plants take well over a decade to permit construct. New designs will take even longer. The blueprint acknowledges the supply chain problem, worker inexperience, and lack of HALEU fuel for advanced nuclear designs. And furthermore, there's no safe place to put nuclear waste. Every nuclear technology burdens future generations with dangerous radioactive wastes. It is both uneconomical and unethical to follow this path. I urge NYSERDA to invest in proven and affordable technology like conservation, efficiency upgrades, solar, wind and storage to meet climate goals | |
| (Keith Rodan): We ask that the Draft Blueprint include consideration for reuse of the Indian Point reactor campus and its proximity to valuable in-place transmission lines and infrastructure once the decommissioning is completed at the point where onsite residual radiation is brought to acceptable levels, and that spent fuel has been removed to longterm dry cask storage, a process which has been estimated to be carried within 5 years. The site is an ideal location for an advanced reactor design which can imitate as a prototype demonstration project. Dr. Stephen Boyd, a nuclear scientist has a plan NYSERDA may review (contact the author of this comment for information). New York State, and anti nuclear activists, including the governor himself shut down the Indian Point nuclear power plant needlessly, as it turned out, since the plant, like many of its design and age were capable of upgrading and relicensing, which would have continued Indian Point’s ~25% contribution of steady carbon-free electricity to downstate Zone J. Instead, contrary to wishful thinking that solar panels and windmills could replace its output, polluting gas turbine generators are serving New York, while home rates have increased and the CLCPA mandate is violated, exacerbating respiratory ailments associated with carbon/methane-emitting plant exhausts, and adding to global warming. Nuclear NY members, with a wealth of factual information to share, include scientists, engineers, educators and business professionals who can engage in a dialogue with NYSERDA to accelerate development of its Draft Blueprint for Advanced Nuclear Technology. Thank You Keith J. Rodan | |
| (Benjamin Aman, Town of Ontario): October 3, 2024 Doreen M. Harris President and Chief Executive Officer New York State Energy Research and Development Authority 17 Columbia Circle Albany, NY 12203-6399 Re: Town of Ontario Comments on Draft Blueprint for Consideration of Advanced Nuclear Technologies Dear President Harris, I am writing on behalf of Town of Ontario to support the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) for developing the Draft Blueprint for Consideration of Advanced Nuclear Technologies and holding the Future Energy Economy Summit last month to discuss the advancement of new clean technologies, like nuclear generation. These actions help solidify New York's stalwart position of advancing new, innovative solutions to combat climate change. Additionally, we're encouraged by NYSERDA's commitment to help advance the Public Service Commission's (PSC) on-going investigation of potential clean technologies in support of the Climate Leadership Community Protection Act's (CLCPA) 2040 zero-emissions electricity system target. While the Commission has not yet adopted a definition of "zero emissions" we firmly believe existing nuclear generation, and new advanced nuclear technologies, should be characterized as a zeroemissions resource. Preserving New York's existing nuclear facilities should be the highest priority and Town of Ontario strongly supports the state exploring a variety of solutions to build New York's clean energy future including the potential for advanced nuclear technologies. Upstate New York hosts the state's existing nuclear facilities and as discussed at the Summit, panelists discussed co-locating advanced nuclear facilities in places where people are accustomed to them and capable workforces exist, including at existing nuclear power plant sites. As acknowledged in NYSERDA's, Draft Clean Energy Standard Biennial Review, there are challenges to achieving New York's nation-leading decarbonization, renewable energy, and zero emission goals established by the CLCPA. I Since these goals were established, a myriad of issues have hindered new renewable development while at the same time, New York State is experiencing unprecedented economic growth. Nuclear energy's always-on, reliable, base-load power is essential to meeting the state's electrical demand now and in the future. The New York Independent System Operator (NYISO) forecasts a 300 percent surge in electricity demand by 2040 due to the state's electrification efforts and significant high-load economic developments.2 As more intermittent, renewable resources come online, New York's need for Dispatchable Emissions Free Resources (DEFRs) will increase as demand grows and traditional, fossil-fueled dispatchable resources are phased out and the 2040, and 2050 net-zero economywide emissions deadlines approach. 1 Department of Public Service I NYSERDA, Draft Clean Energy Standard Biennial Review, (July 1, 2024) 2 NYISO, 2021-2040 System & Resource Outlook, at 9 (Aug 8, 2022), 99fb4cbf-ed93-f32e-9acfecb6aOcf4841 (nyiso.com) (the "NYISO Outlook Report"). The Climate Action Council's (CAC) Scoping Plan acknowledges the state's existing upstate nuclear power stations' contribution towards grid reliability and achievement of the state's decarbonization goals - New York's upstate nuclear facilities currently produce 46% of the state's carbon-free electricity, approximately 32,000 gigawatt-hours (GWh).3 Further, the Scoping Plan assumes New York's upstate nuclear fleet will be granted license extensions to operate an additional 20 years and recommends the state should evaluate the role of existing and advanced nuclear facilities prior to the scheduled conclusion of the Zero Emissions Credit program in 2029 while recognizing the time required to relicense and refuel these facilities. We need to ensure these facilities have the policy support to remain environmental and economic engines for our region while also considering new policy mechanisms to incentivize new, advanced nuclear technologies. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully, Benjamin Aman Town of Ontario Supervisor 3 Department of Public Service I NYSERDA, Draft Clean Energy Standard Biennial Review, at 9 (July 1, 2024 | |
| (Christine Csizmadia, NEI): See attachment. |
NEI Comments on NYSERDA Roadmap 10.2024.pdf |
| (Evan Sullivan on behalf of Holtec): Comments submitted on behalf of Holtec International |
Holtec Comments on Draft Blueprint.pdf |
| (Lindsay Griffin, Vote Solar): See attachment. |
Nuclear Blueprint Comments.pdf |
| (Tom Ryan, Boilermakers Local 5): See attachment. |
Nuclear Blueprint Letter.docx Boilermakers Local 5 comments.docx |
| (Radmila Miletich, IPPNY): Please see attached comments. |
IPPNY Nuclear Blueprint Comments - 10-4-24.pdf |
| (Michael Donalty, Wayne County Board of Supervisors): Please see attached letter of support. |
Letter of Support _ County of Wayne.pdf |
| (Raymond Kilmer, Oswego County School District): Letter is attached. | |
| (Dr. Raymond Kilmer, Oswego City School District): Letter is attached. |
OCSD Support of NYSERDA's Draft Blueprint.pdf |
| (Herschel Specter): See attached comments and also a file titled LYMAN. Thank you. Herschel Specter |
LYMAN.doc Herschel Spector comments.pdf |
| (John Mannion, NYS Senator): Doreen M. Harris President and Chief Executive Officer New York State Energy Research and Development Authority 17 Columbia Circle Albany, NY 12203-6399 RE: Comments on Draft Blueprint for Consideration of Advanced Nuclear Technologies Dear President Harris, I am writing to express my support to the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) for developing the Draft Blueprint for Consideration of Advanced Nuclear Technologies and for holding the Future Energy Economy Summit last month to discuss the advancement of new renewable technologies, like nuclear generation. These actions help solidify the State’s strong position of advancing new, innovative solutions to combat climate change and provide consumer access to renewable energy. Additionally, I am encouraged by NYSERDA’s commitment to help advance the Public Service Commission’s (PSC) on-going investigation of potential renewable technologies in support of the Climate Leadership Community Protection Act’s (CLCPA) 2040 zero-emissions target. While the PSC has not yet adopted a definition of “zero emissions” we firmly believe existing nuclear generation, and new advanced nuclear technologies, should be characterized as a zero-emissions resource. Preserving the State’s existing nuclear facilities should be the highest priority. As Senator of the 50th Senatorial District, I strongly support the State’s exploration of a variety of solutions to build a renewable energy future, including the potential for advanced nuclear technologies. As acknowledged in NYSERDA's Draft Clean Energy Standard Biennial Review, there are challenges to achieving the State’s nation-leading decarbonization, renewable energy, and zero emission goals established by the CLCPA. Since these goals were established, a myriad of issues have hindered new renewable development while at the same time, New York State is experiencing unprecedented economic growth. Nuclear energy is available, reliable, and is essential to meeting the State’s electrical demand now and in the future. The New York Independent System Operator (NYISO) forecasts a 300 percent surge in electricity demand by 2040 due to the State’s electrification efforts and significant high-load economic developments. As more intermittent, renewable resources come online, consumer and state need for Dispatchable Emissions Free Resources (DEFRs) will increase as demand grows and traditional, fossil-fueled dispatchable resources are phased out and the 2040, and 2050 net-zero economywide emissions deadlines approach. Already, upstate nuclear facilities currently produce 46% of the state’s carbon-free electricity, which is approximately 32,000 gigawatt-hours (GWh). Further, the Scoping Plan assumes the State’s upstate nuclear fleet will be granted license extensions to operate an additional 20 years. Additionally, the Scoping Plan recommends that the State evaluate the role of existing and advanced nuclear facilities prior to the scheduled conclusion of the Zero Emissions Credit program in 2029, while recognizing the time required to relicense and refuel such facilities. We need to ensure nuclear facilities have the policy support to remain environmental and economic engines for our region while also considering new policy mechanisms to incentivize new, advanced nuclear technologies. I commend the NYSERDA’s Draft Blueprint for Consideration of Advanced Nuclear Technologies for acknowledging the value of the upstate nuclear facilities and for providing a strong vision for the state’s zero-emissions future. I appreciate your highest consideration of the impacts that existing and future nuclear energy facilities will have on the state’s renewable energy goals. Sincerely, John W. Mannion New York State Senator 50th Senate District |
24.10.07 final - Nuclear Blueprint.pdf |
| (Andrew Fish, CenterState): See Attached |
Nuclear Support Letter - CenterState CEO.pdf |
| (Pamela Helming, NYS Senator): October 7, 2024 Doreen M. Harris President and Chief Executive Officer New York State Energy Research and Development Authority 17 Columbia Circle Albany, NY 12203-6399 Re: Comments on Draft Blueprint for Consideration of Advanced Nuclear Technologies Dear President Harris, I am writing to support the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority’s (NYSERDA) development of the Draft Blueprint for Consideration of Advanced Nuclear Technologies and continued discussion of new clean energy technologies, including nuclear generation. Preserving New York’s existing nuclear facilities should be the highest priority and I support the state exploring a variety of solutions to build New York’s clean energy future. This includes the potential for advanced nuclear technologies. Constellation’s R.E. Ginna Clean Energy Center, which hosts a nuclear reactor located in my Senate district, has been an incredible asset and valued partner for our local communities. It has provided good paying jobs, supported local agencies and organizations, hosted community events, and driven economic growth. The R.E. Ginna Clean Energy Center has been such a great success that the Wayne County Board of Supervisors unanimously passed a resolution this year in support of its continued operation and have even called for the opening of additional nuclear reactors in the county. Constellation’s contributions to Wayne County and the surrounding area are just one example of how New York’s nuclear energy industry can positively contribute to our communities and New York’s long-term energy goals. As acknowledged in NYSERDA's Draft Clean Energy Standard Biennial Review, there are challenges to achieving New York’s energy goals. Since these goals were established, a myriad of issues have hindered new renewable development while at the same time, New York State is experiencing unprecedented economic growth. Nuclear energy’s always-on, reliable, base-load power is essential to meeting the state’s electrical demand now and in the future. The New York Independent System Operator (NYISO) forecasts a 300 percent surge in electricity demand by 2040 due to the state’s electrification efforts and significant high-load economic developments. New York’s need for Dispatchable Emissions Free Resources (DEFRs) will only increase as energy demand grows, traditional, fossil-fueled dispatchable resources are phased out, and the 2040, and 2050 net-zero economywide emissions deadlines approach. The Climate Action Council’s (CAC) Scoping Plan acknowledges the state’s existing upstate nuclear power stations’ contribution towards grid reliability and achievement of the state’s decarbonization goals. New York’s upstate nuclear facilities currently produce 46% of the state’s carbon-free electricity, approximately 32,000 gigawatt-hours (GWh). Further, the Scoping Plan assumes New York’s upstate nuclear fleet will be granted license extensions to operate an additional 20 years and recommends that the state evaluate the role of existing and advanced nuclear facilities prior to the scheduled conclusion of the Zero Emissions Credit program in 2029. We must ensure that these license extensions are issued, and that New York makes long-term commitments to nuclear power to allow the upstate nuclear fleet to remain environmental and economic engines for our region. The potential for advanced nuclear technologies is an exciting opportunity for our state, and it is clear that nuclear energy should play a significant part in meeting the state's aggressive energy goals. However, I urge contributors to the final version of the Blueprint and other nuclear power plans to provide further details and clarification regarding the state’s intentions, if any, to expand the current nuclear fleet. We need to ensure these facilities have the policy support to remain environmental and economic engines for our region while also considering new policy mechanisms to incentivize new, advanced nuclear technologies. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Pamela A. Helming Senator, 54th District |
Helming Nuclear Blueprint Letter.pdf |
| (Raymond Vaughan): See attached 3-page comment letter. |
Raymond Vaughan comments Oct 8 2024.pdf |
| (John Carlson, Clean Air Task Force): Please see attached file. |
NYSERDA’s Nuclear Blueprint Comments.pdf |
| (Judith Greenwald, Nuclear Innovation Alliance): The Nuclear Innovation Alliance commends NYSERDA for its efforts to recognize the benefits and areas of concern for advanced nuclear energy deployment specific to New York State. NIA believes the draft Blueprint is a good first step in starting the conversation about how advanced nuclear energy can help New York meet its ambitious energy and climate goals. Upon review of the draft Blueprint, we have identified sections that can be improved, clarified, or omitted. We are submitting summary recommendations as well as a markup of the draft Blueprint. |
Final - NIA Blueprint Markup 10-09 (1).docx |
| (Robert Duffy, Greater Rochester Chamber of Commerce): See attached |
Nuclear Blueprint Organization_October 2024.pdf |
| (Mary Crosby): As a property owner in Schuyler and Chemung counties I have been frustrated by NY's "just say no" policy to energy development. As noted in your recent study about nuclear power, the supposedly "green" options of wind and solar, are not without their own opponents. Personally, I support individual landowners pursuing energy independence through either wind or solar. However, at grid level production or as a micro-grid alternative I do believe that both have environmental drawbacks and should be scrutinized. The primary problem that is being addressed by considering nuclear alternatives, is the simple FACT that wind and solar have low availability, particularly when acutely needed. They are the antithesis of "reliable base load." Batteries, until some major breakthroughs occur, are an expensive back-up, both monetarily and environmentally. Wind and solar have been given massive subsidies and tax breaks and are distorting our supposedly "free market" economy. Their widespread adoption as the media endlessly repeats, is only due to these economic interventions. I have no objection to short term subsidies to reduce risk in trying something new. We have learned that neither wind nor solar is "prime time ready." Until there are breakthroughs in both recycling of used solar and wind components AND battery breakthroughs that reduce their production and recycling environmental costs we need reliable base load. Younger generations who did not grow up equating nuclear power with total nuclear war, have a much more realistic concept of the risk that nuclear power poses. Life is not without risk. Nuclear power has well addressed risks and the technologies proposed have sought to further reduce or eliminate some of the risks previously believed to be inherent in nuclear energy. I have a home in Kemmerer, Wyoming which is the site of TerraPower's Natrium nuclear project. I'm more concerned about Yellowstone being a "mega volcano" than I am about the nuclear plant. In all honesty, the mega volcano doesn't concern me! If New York continues on this ridiculous reliance on wind and solar you will either eventually have a catastrophe which kills residents, probably through loss of power in cold weather, although excessive heat could be an issue for NYC; or you will actually have increased CO2 to the atmosphere as the "clean power generators" turn on their diesel generator back-ups! Meanwhile, your economy will continue to be depressed because of your industry unfriendly attitude. You wonder why you lose residents? You really shouldn't need to wonder! New York was an empire builder once, consider embracing a strategy that includes nuclear to provide reliable, affordable electricity. Also consider using it to power industrial areas in ways that reduce reliance on an overstretched grid. I know this isn't a simple matter despite my flippant attitude. There are many complex and conflicting regulations in place. Please try to take a high level view of what makes sense for residents and businesses (we need business/industry to support good jobs for residents). We are well into the 21st century and we've a century's worth of rules that have evolved. Do we need an overhaul? Best wishes and please set aside preconceived notions of what nuclear power represents and search for a reliable source of energy that is affordable. Thanks, Mary | |
| (Michael McFadden, Fort Drum Regional Liaison Organization): The expansion of Nuclear energy in the state of New York is clearly the best clean energy option to ensure the State and my local region continue to meet the needs of not only the current infrastructure, but any future infrastructure requirements. The building of Modular Nuclear Reactors or Small Modular Reactors (SMR) is a viable way to not only provide clean energy to our citizens, but provide that energy in a responsible and efficient manner. An SMR option allows for a more dispersed form of energy that greatly reduces the amount of post production pollution and creates a significantly smaller footprint. The ability to expand businesses and future jobs is necessary to reduce the State's shrinking population. Risk vs Reward is clearly a win with an SMR as well. Expanding Nuclear energy to the portfolio of wind and solar that already exist in our State is a win for everyone. | |
| (Ron Duprey): I am writing to express my strong support for the inclusion and expansion of nuclear power in New York State’s energy strategy. As the state continues to make strides toward a cleaner, more sustainable future, nuclear energy must play a central role in maintaining a reliable, steady power supply while promoting economic growth. In particular, I want to highlight the crucial importance of nuclear power for fostering the development of data centers and advancing key industries such as artificial intelligence (AI), technology hubs, and semiconductor manufacturing. The future of our economy will increasingly flow through data centers, which require enormous amounts of reliable energy to operate. Without a stable and abundant power source like nuclear energy, attracting these energy-intensive industries to New York will be a challenge. Nuclear power provides a consistent, carbon-free energy supply that is critical for data centers, AI development, and advanced manufacturing. By embracing nuclear energy, New York will be better positioned to become a hub for cutting-edge industries, bolstering the state's reputation as a leader in the technology sector. Furthermore, as New York pursues its ambitious clean energy goals, it is important to acknowledge that renewable sources such as wind and solar, while essential to our long-term strategy, do not yet provide the reliable baseline power that a modern, industrialized economy needs. Wind and solar are intermittent sources that depend on weather conditions, and while battery storage technology continues to improve, it is not yet sufficient to handle the large-scale power needs of industrial operations. Nuclear power, on the other hand, offers consistent, around-the-clock energy with zero emissions. It is a proven, safe, and scalable solution to the challenge of maintaining grid reliability while reducing our carbon footprint. I have seen firsthand the positive impact that nuclear energy can have on a community. The James A. Fitzpatrick Nuclear Power Plant has been a significant employer in the region, providing well-paying jobs and economic stability for decades. Many of my friends and neighbors have built their careers in the nuclear industry, contributing to a strong local economy. Importantly, the plant has operated safely for years, with no major incidents, demonstrating the reliability and safety of modern nuclear power plants. This experience underscores the potential benefits of expanding nuclear power across the state, not just for the energy grid but for the economic health of local communities as well. In terms of safety, New York has a strong track record in the operation of nuclear facilities. The state’s existing plants, including those in Oswego, have demonstrated that nuclear energy can be managed safely with proper oversight and regulation. The concerns that some individuals raise about nuclear power are understandable but largely based on outdated perceptions. Today’s nuclear technology is far more advanced, with enhanced safety measures, improved reactor designs, and better waste management techniques. Additionally, nuclear power produces far less waste than other forms of energy generation, and there are ongoing efforts to further improve the efficiency of waste disposal and recycling. By expanding nuclear power in New York, we can also help make the state more attractive to businesses and manufacturers that prioritize access to clean, reliable energy. Many companies are increasingly conscious of their environmental impact and are looking to locate in areas where they can power their operations sustainably. A strong nuclear power infrastructure would not only help meet these needs but also create a pro-business environment that attracts investment, boosts job creation, and fuels economic growth across multiple sectors. The expansion of New York's semiconductor industry, supported by the state's designation as a tech hub, is a prime example of the opportunities that nuclear power can unlock. These high-tech industries are energy-intensive and require uninterrupted power to maintain their operations and growth. The global competitiveness of our semiconductor manufacturing sector depends on our ability to offer clean, reliable power, and nuclear energy provides exactly that. As New York strives to lead the nation in clean energy initiatives, we must recognize that nuclear energy is not a competitor to renewables but a necessary complement. It is the only current technology capable of providing the scale of energy we need while simultaneously supporting our environmental goals. By investing in the future of nuclear energy, we are ensuring that New York remains at the forefront of technological innovation, economic prosperity, and environmental stewardship. | |
| (Bob Cohen, Citizen Action NY): See uploaded file. |
Citizen Action Comments to NYSERDA on Draft Blueprint for Consideration of Advanced Nuclear Technologies 10 24 (final).pdf |
| (Nivo Rovedo): I oppose the proposal to seek out nuclear energy as a power source for NYS at this point in time. For the near future, we should concentrate state resources on the power solutions we know work: wind and solar. Nuclear energy is too expensive and too late to help reduce global warming within a time frame that will help save us from the climate catastrophe we are in. Our resources should go toward expanding the deployment of wind and solar as the clean, renewable, and cost effective solutions. I do not oppose research into nuclear energy as a distant future solution, just as I support fusion research. But these technologies are not ready to help us in this climate crisis. Our resources and our hopes must be with wind and solar. Do not be distracted from out goals by promises of nuclear power. | |
| (John Sardina): It is my position that if New York is serious about addressing climate change, providing ample reliable electricity essential for a growing economy, and protecting the integrity of rural land and nature, then it needs to join the 21st century by investing in dependable, compact, carbon-free nuclear power. | |
| (Scott Gray, NYS Assembly member): Attached pdf |
ANE Comments.pdf |
| (MW Monahan): I am writing to express my strong support for nuclear energy, especially as New York considers options for advanced nuclear technologies in its energy mix. It is essential to highlight that nuclear energy provides a reliable, carbon-free source of power that can meet our growing electricity needs while reducing greenhouse gas emissions more effectively and sustainably than offshore wind (OSW) and solar energy. The current trajectory of OSW in Europe should serve as a cautionary example for New York. European nations are beginning to transition away from offshore wind due to the rising costs, logistical challenges, and increasing public opposition. Instead, many are refocusing their energy strategies on nuclear power, which offers more consistent energy production without the intermittent nature of wind and solar. Notably, major tech companies like Google and Microsoft are now turning to nuclear energy to power their AI and data centers. These companies recognize that renewable energy sources, particularly offshore wind, cannot meet the demand for continuous, reliable electricity. New York residents should not be forced into reliance on expensive, intermittent offshore wind projects when nuclear can deliver dependable power without the need for hazardous and expensive battery storage systems. Offshore wind is highly unreliable, and supplementing it with large-scale battery storage introduces significant safety and environmental risks. The push for offshore wind has already led to skyrocketing electricity rates, and projections suggest that rates could triple or even quadruple. Meanwhile, nuclear energy, especially advanced modular reactors, offers the potential for stable, affordable electricity that can be deployed quickly and efficiently, conserving land and preserving environmental integrity. During Governor Hochul’s recent Future Economic Energy Summit, there was mention of New York considering nuclear power, a crucial step in ensuring the state remains competitive. The Draft Blueprint for Advanced Nuclear Technologies outlines the benefits of small modular reactors (SMRs), including low land use, modular construction, and the creation of high-paying jobs across the state. Moreover, nuclear energy's minimal land requirements—using only about 1% of the land that solar farms need for equivalent capacity—make it a superior option for New York’s energy future, conserving valuable farmland and natural habitats. If New York is serious about addressing climate change, protecting our environment, and providing reliable power to its residents, it must join other forward-thinking nations in transitioning to nuclear energy. Offshore wind, solar, and battery storage alone cannot meet our energy needs without compromising the affordability and reliability of our grid. Advanced nuclear technologies offer a compact, carbon-free solution that aligns with the state's goals of economic development, energy independence, and environmental stewardship. In conclusion, I urge the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) and Governor Hochul to prioritize nuclear energy in their energy planning and policy development. It is time for New York to move beyond the failed strategies of offshore wind and solar, and embrace nuclear power as the future of clean, dependable, and sustainable energy. | |
| (CM Monahan): As a concerned resident of New York, I would like to voice my strong support for advanced nuclear energy technologies as a more practical, reliable, and sustainable solution compared to offshore wind (OSW) and solar power projects. New York faces an urgent need to provide consistent, cost-effective, and clean energy. Unfortunately, the current focus on OSW, while well-intentioned, has proven to be financially burdensome and unreliable, a sentiment increasingly reflected across Europe, where several nations are shifting away from OSW and investing in nuclear energy. Nuclear energy is the only proven, large-scale carbon-free power source capable of consistently delivering energy to meet growing demand without the unpredictability of wind and solar. Major technology companies like Google and Microsoft are now choosing nuclear to power their data centers, underscoring its reliability and safety. Meanwhile, New York residents are being pushed towards paying for the skyrocketing costs of offshore wind projects, with electricity rates expected to triple or even quadruple. This burden is unfair to ratepayers, especially when better, more efficient alternatives are available. The safety risks associated with battery storage systems required to support OSW and solar power cannot be ignored. Battery storage introduces fire hazards and other significant environmental concerns, which are wholly unnecessary when nuclear can deliver stable and continuous power without these risks. New York should not place such hazardous infrastructure on its residents when advanced nuclear technologies offer safer, long-term solutions. Governor Hochul’s announcement at the Future Economic Energy Summit in Syracuse that nuclear power should be considered for New York’s future was a welcome acknowledgment of this shift. The "Draft Blueprint for Advanced Nuclear Technologies" outlines how advanced reactors, such as small modular reactors (SMRs), could bring enormous benefits to our state. These technologies are highly efficient, require far less land compared to solar farms, and can create thousands of high-paying jobs while securing our energy future. It's clear that if New York is serious about tackling climate change, growing our economy, and reducing carbon emissions, the state must turn to nuclear power. Offshore wind and solar, while part of the energy solution, cannot meet our power demands alone and come with significant economic and environmental costs. Nuclear, by contrast, offers a dependable, carbon-free solution that can work alongside renewables to ensure a balanced, resilient, and affordable energy grid for all New Yorkers. I strongly urge New York policymakers to shift focus from unreliable, expensive OSW and solar projects and instead invest in advanced nuclear technologies. This will ensure that New York remains a leader in clean energy innovation while protecting its residents from excessive energy costs and preserving our natural resources. | |
| (Mike Massoud): If New York is serious about addressing climate change, providing ample reliable electricity essential for a growing economy, and protecting the integrity of rural land and nature, then it needs to join the 21st century by investing in dependable, compact, carbon-free nuclear power. | |
| (Barbara Massoud): I strongly support implementing nuclear energy in New Yorks State energy plan. This presents the cleanest reliable energy making our tax dollars most efficiently used to meet our clean energy objectives. Research on green energy technologies of wind and solar have been shown to poorly meet our energy objectives and are wasteful use of our tax dollars. New York needs nuclear energy to achieve a clean, cost effective reliable energy grid. | |
| (Barb Massoud): For New York state is serious about addressing climate change, providing ample reliable electricity essential for a growing economy, and protecting the integrity of rural land and nature, then it needs to join the 21st century by investing in dependable, compact, carbon-free nuclear power. | |
| (Michael Dee): Wake up NYS. Now that the politicians are done gaming Nuclear Power, it is time to get realistic. Nuclear is the only way to the future that we have right now. Nuclear should be front and center of ALL installations. We must immediately put a halt to Wind and Solar, which are definitely NOT sustainable economically because of the short lifespans and huge land requirements. Instead, NYS should make plans to re-fit old coal/gas/petro plants using Small Modular Nuclear as the heat engines to drive existing turbomachinery for power generation. This keeps the grid well distributed, which is a major security objective. This also limits Transmission and Distribution costs. But the most important thing is this: Stop treating Nuclear as "DEFR". To do so demonstrates a total lack of understanding of the economics. Nuclear likes to run constantly to provide BASELOAD. It would be the height of technological ignorance to utilize Nuclear as DEFR. If you use Nuclear for baseload (and not as DEFR), then you do not need any other backup (other than for redundancy to meet reliability). If you use Nuclear as DEFR, then taxpayers/ratepayers are forced to pay for two separate systems that must be built, operated, and maintained 100% of the time. Treating Nuclear as DEFR is an insult to the intelligence of NYS citizens. | |
| (Jeff Schumann): I am writing to express strong opposition to new nuclear reactors in NY as discussed in the Draft Blueprint for Advanced Nuclear Technologies, referred to as the Blueprint, released at the economic summit in Oct. To begin with, the title of the Draft Blueprint for Advanced Nuclear Technologies is misleading. The focus of the proposal is on advanced nuclear reactors. The Blueprint implies that nuclear reactors can be used to reach the renewable energy goals of the CLCPA. This is not true. Nuclear power is not considered a renewable energy source per the CLCPA and, therefore, cannot be used to meet the renewable energy goals of the CLCPA. While in theory, nuclear reactors could be used to help attain the emission goals of the CLCPA, realistically it would not be until mid-2030 at the earliest before advanced nuclear reactors could be brought online in NY. Far too late to help meet these emission goals. NY needs to focus on proven renewable energy technology that works now and should not waste resources, time, and money chasing solutions which are dubious in nature and will not support the goals of the CLCPA. And let us not forget the “elephant in the room” when it comes to nuclear reactors. There is not a safe or effective way to dispose of the spent fuel radioactive waste created. Instead, local communities will be left with the problem. Indian Point being an example. Additionally, there are considerable safety issues associated with all of these, especially if the NRC is given the power to accelerate deployment of these reactors without stringent oversight. Such needed oversight would delay deployment. The Draft Blueprint discusses three types of nuclear reactors: Large Scale, Small Modular, and Micro-Reactors. Large Scale Reactors Except for Gen III+, all large scale advanced reactor technologies mentioned in the Blueprint are decades away from becoming operational. Regarding Gen III+ There are two operational in Georgia, Vogtle Unit 3 and Unit 4. Both units took 15 years to build and cost $36.8 billion, more than twice the projected timeline and cost. Note that Georgia rate payers are on the hook for paying for these units. Not something we would want to saddle NY rate payers with. Small Modular Nuclear Reactors SMNR reactors are still in the design/theoretical stage. The NRC has licensed only one SMNR to date, NuScales small modular reactor, in Feb 2023. It was canceled in Nov 2023 because it was not financially viable. SMNR requires HLEU fuel that must be enriched to near 20%, which is just short of what can be used for nuclear weapons. SMNRs are not economical. They are estimated to be 2 to 3 times greater in MW cost than renewables sources. SMNRs produce more radioactive waste per unit of energy than conventional reactors. This will just keep adding to the burden of where to put the waste, especially if they are allowed to proliferate. Micro-reactors As with SMNRs, Micro-reactors, are still in the design/theoretical stage. Security is a major issue with micro-reactors. Since they, in theory, can be trucked or railed to where needed, there are significant questions on how to protect and secure them. And, again, they are unlikely to be economically feasible. | |
| (Kelly Ann Foster): Please support and look to advance this energy generation alternative. It’s reliable. Produces endless electricity at a fraction of the price of offshore wind. And it’s safer then endless residential battery storage facilities . | |
| (Amber Sisson, GE Vernova): See attachment. |
Final - GEV Response - NYSERDA Draft Blueprint Advanced Nuclear.pdf |
| (Randy Wolken, MACNY): Attached |
MACNY and Manufacturers Alliance Comments.pdf |
| (Scott Gray, NYS Assembly member): PDF Attached |
ANE Comments.pdf |
| (Charles Newell): It is about time for NY to realize that wind turbines do very little to assist the carbon free project. The wind projects are nothing more than a big windfall for large corporations and financial businesses. Just look at the scientific facts and not the wind lobby claims. Small nuclear plants along with hydro could support the energy needs of the state much better. Please consider revamping the energy plan from wind for a more logistical approach to energy. The high taxes we pay in NY should be addressed in a more sensible solution. Charles Newell | |
| (Carmine Marranzino): Westchester. Please explore Nuclear energy. | |
| Please see attached file. If there is trouble downloading the file, please let me know. Thank you. Fred Harrison |
Harrison.pdf |
| (Tom Eisinger): Industrial wind turbines and solar panels historically have not, can not, and will not solve our future energy needs. If New York is serious about addressing climate change, providing ample reliable electricity essential for a growing economy, and protecting the integrity of rural land and nature, then it needs to join the 21st century by investing in dependable, compact, carbon-free nuclear power. Nuclear power and hydroelectric power are without a doubt are the proven, clean reliable means by which we can achieve our electricity needs for the future. Investing any more money into wind and solar would not be fiscally responsible. Please do your homework and join other states in investing in clean, reliable nuclear power. | |
| (Joanne Eisinger): The inclusion of nuclear power as a source of dependable, carbon-free energy/electricity is essential for New York State going forward. The look ahead reveals that there will be decades of increased technology and subsequent energy/electricity needs to support it. Nuclear power has a long history in New York State of providing reliable, clean energy within a geographically small footprint. Advancement in nuclear energy technology continues in all aspects of development, it is far from stagnant or unable to have progress. New York State would be out of the competition for new businesses to relocate here such as manufacturing, technology, and the service sector (banking, hotels, restaurants, etc.). if it cannot provide consistent, on demand energy of reasonable cost to potential businesses. For many years now, New York State has emphasized the true beauty of the state in various marketing ads through the Department of Tourism, etc. Management of this beautiful land with proven, dependable, economical, energy sources is paramount to maintaining the environment and decreasing the use of other polluting fuels that have documented local and global effects. Nuclear power can help New York State remain a state of destination both for businesses, residents, and tourists. | |
| (Dennis Fitzgerald): Attachment details a comparison of Nuclear with wind and solar. If NY is serious about green energy it stop all efforts to use wind and solar and start focusing on nuclear. |
A Comparison of Existing Nuclear with Wind and Solar Energy.pdf |
| (Sheila Salvatore): New York State is to be commended for working to address our growing energy needs and my attendance at the recent NYS Energy Summit in Syracuse, NY, was enlightening. I very much appreciate Governor Hochul’s interest in a realistic path forward to power the Empire State. I have spent over 15 years as a community activist for NYS energy. It is clear industrial wind turbines and solar panels are not able to supply the energy our dynamic state requires. We must put our time, effort and financial backing into what has proven to be our best and most RELIABLE green energy - nuclear. At the energy summit I was most intrigued to learn of the remarkable work by Exodys Energy - headquartered right here in NYS - that recycles nuclear waste into more energy! Now is a wonderful opportunity for New York State to become energy independent and responsible for the minuscule waste nuclear energy produces - just a soda can’s worth for the entire life use per person - that can now be reused for more energy! Comparing that with the hundreds of thousands of acres required for industrial wind turbines and solar panels - most all of which are made in China, the complete ruination of farm fields and forests, the total destruction of towns and villages, and thousands of glass panels, turbine blades and yards of concrete that can’t be recycled and must be buried in landfills - the choice is very clear. Please count me in support of New York State making the responsible investment in nuclear for a secure energy future for us taxpayers. | |
| (Dennis Fitzgerald): New York has to start treating nuclear energy as the major source of electrical energy for the future. | |
| (Stephan Edel, NY Renews coalition): Please See attachment On behalf of the NY Renews coalition, we thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Blueprint for Consideration of Advanced Nuclear Technologies. NY Renews, a multi-sector coalition of over 380 organizations, founded following the People’s Climate March, brings together organizations from across New York State to build sustained action for climate, jobs and justice. The NY Renews coalition championed the Climate and Community Protection Act (CCPA) to mandate a transition to a just and renewable economy in New York State, which ultimately became the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA or the Climate Act). Summary The Draft Blueprint neglects to incorporate key factors associated with nuclear and meeting CLCPA mandates in New York State, including the following: 1. A robust accounting of the impacts of nuclear on Indigenous Nations, as made clear in the Red Paper "Nuclear Reactors Are Not Green" by the Onondaga Nation, the Haudenosaunee Environmental Task Force, and the American Indian Law Alliance; 2. The recommendations on nuclear made by the Climate Justice Working Group and advanced in the Scoping Plan; 3. A review of the economic impacts of nuclear on New York ratepayers in comparison to the lower cost of renewable energy sources like utility-scale solar and wind; 4. A meaningful consideration of New York State's progress toward CLCPA mandates through key policies like Cap, Trade, & Invest and the Build Public Renewables Act, and whether New York State is doing all it can to implement these policies to their greatest effect before considering nuclear, including whether alternatives like accelerating the development of renewable energy generation and battery storage are feasible; 5. Addressing the failure of many state agencies, including those with the most funding (i.e., the Departments of Health, Transportation, Education, and Economic Development), to follow the CLCPA's whole-of-government approach and analyzing the impact of state agency decisions on greenhouse gas emissions, pollution, and Disadvantaged Communities; 6. A failure to adequately consider the impact of nuclear energy on section 7(3) of the CLCPA, which prohibits state agencies from “disproportionately burdening” Disadvantaged Communities in permitting decisions and in other contexts. |
NY Renews Nuclear Blueprint Comment - Final Nov6 2024.pdf |
| (Randy Rucinski, National Fuel): National Fuel Gas Distribution Corporation’s Comments on the Draft Blueprint for Consideration of Advanced Nuclear Technologies National Fuel Gas Distribution Corporation (“National Fuel” or “Company”) provides natural gas utility services through a local distribution system located in western New York and northwestern Pennsylvania. Its New York service territory spans several counties and includes the cities of Buffalo, Niagara Falls, Batavia and Jamestown. The Company's New York customer base consists of over 540,000 customers among a population of more than 1.6 million people in western New York. In September, Governor Hochul convened the Future Energy Economy Summit in Syracuse, attended by energy experts from across the state, to spur much-needed discussion around two undeniable truths: the demand for energy in New York is rising, and exploring innovative energy technologies is crucial for meeting that demand. Governor Hochul has also recently expressed support for an “all of the above” energy strategy, recognizing the need to supplement renewable energy sources with other low- and no-carbon energy options to achieve the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act’s (“Climate Act”) emissions reduction requirements. For several years now, an “all of the above” approach is precisely what National Fuel has advocated for as well. National Fuel believes an “all options” pathway that doubles down on energy efficiency and embraces a broad range of solutions is the optimal path forward because it can meet the state’s emissions reduction goals while safeguarding energy affordability and reliability. National Fuel’s “all of the above” pathway includes priorities and initiatives such as weatherization and energy efficiency, hybrid heating, and the use of low- and no-carbon fuels such as renewable natural gas and hydrogen, provided through a modernized, weather-resistant delivery network. At the Future Energy Economy Summit, a Draft Blueprint for Consideration of Advanced Nuclear Technologies (“Blueprint”) was issued in furtherance of a discussion regarding a potentially expanded role for nuclear energy in New York. In light of recent reports confirming the challenges associated with meeting the Climate Act’s emissions reduction requirements, National Fuel believes that a careful examination of advanced nuclear technology options is appropriate, including issues raised in the Blueprint such as “technological readiness and systemic challenges and issues” and “costs and cost risks.” Evaluating advanced nuclear technologies as a possible emissions reduction solution for the state is consistent with the critical “all of the above” energy strategy espoused by the Governor and advocated for by National Fuel, and the Company supports the Blueprint’s objective “to create a platform for additional analysis and stakeholder input on these options that moves New York forward toward its energy, economic, climate and equity goals.” This kind of thorough analysis will be necessary as the state seeks an appropriate balance of energy initiatives that will address the unique needs of its diverse regions while maintaining safe, reliable and affordable energy for its residents and businesses. |
NFGDC Comments Draft Blueprint (November 6, 2024).pdf |
| (Dr. Raymond Vaughan): Please see my second (additional) comment letter submitted herewith. |
Raymond Vaughan - additional comments Nov7 .pdf |
| (Dennis Higgins): Please see attached. |
Comments on the draft blueprint.pdf |
| (Ryan Madden, Long Island Progressive Coalition): Full comments attached. |
LIPC Draft Nuclear Blueprint Comment.pdf |
| (Henry Moss): Following extensive review of the evidence, I see no other choice for reaching Climate Change goals except by adding nuclear to the mix. That would include maintaining or reactivating current reactors as well as adding modern modular SMRs that can be built rapidly, connected to the grid, and deployed near sites that need electricity such as large data processing centers. Without nuclear, it appears that we'll need extensive natural gas input for quite a long time.The safety record of existing reactors is fine and SMRs promise to be even better. | |
| (Joseph Hally, Central Hudson Gas & Electric): VIA ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION November 7, 2024 Doreen Harris President and Chief Executive Officer New York State Energy Research and Development Authority RE: Central Hudson Gas & Electric Comments on the Draft Blueprint for Consideration of Advanced Nuclear Technologies Dear Ms. Harris, Central Hudson Gas & Electric is a transmission and distribution utility serving approximately 400,000 electricity and natural gas customers within New York’s Hudson Valley. Our company recognizes the need to take meaningful actions to reduce carbon emissions and protect the environment. We believe that consideration should be given to all emissions reductions solutions that contribute to reliably meeting New York’s energy needs 24/7 and achieving the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act targets at the lowest-possible costs. Within this context, Central Hudson supports the State’s review of advanced nuclear technologies as potential options to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the electricity generation sector. Respectfully Submitted, Joseph Hally Vice President of Regulatory Affairs Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation 284 South Ave, Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 |
2024.11.7 CHGE Comments on NYSERDA Nuclear Blueprint.pdf |
| (Susan Shapiro, LEAF): Please find comments attached as a PDF |
LEAF NYSERDA comments 11.7:24.pdf |
| (Michael McLean): Hello, I would like to commend NYSERDA on their effort to summarize the current state of advanced nuclear energy. I am a nuclear energy advocate who would like for more reactors (preferably proven technology like the AP1000) to be built in America to stabilize our grid and prevent climate change. There is incomplete information in this draft report that needs to be improved before a final draft is released. Section 4.3 says 'Uranium mining occurs in open pit mines that expose miners and nearby communities to elevated levels of radiation and other toxic chemicals used in the initial steps of fuel processing.' In fact, most uranium in America is mined using in-situ recovery, a minimally-invasive technique with little environmental impact. The NRC has more information here. https://www.nrc.gov/materials/uranium-recovery/extraction-methods/isl-recovery-facilities.html | |
| (Heather Hoff, Mothers for Nuclear): Mothers for Nuclear commends the State of New York for taking proactive steps in developing a draft nuclear blueprint. The initiation of this document signals a recognition of the critical role that nuclear energy can play in achieving a clean energy future and addressing climate change. We appreciate NYSERDA’s commitment to exploring solutions and promoting reliable energy sources for the state. As a grassroots organization of mothers, women, community members, and nuclear professionals, we advocate for clean, sustainable, and reliable energy solutions that protect both the environment and the health of our families, and we would like to offer constructive feedback on a couple aspects of the draft document. The current focus of the draft centers on small modular reactors (SMRs). While SMRs are a promising technology, we believe that reducing emissions is an urgent matter and that we should not limit our scope of solutions to technologies that are small in scale and still under development. Even before the recent boom in artificial intelligence and data centers, much of our electricity is still powered by natural gas and other fossil fuels. We have a monumental task ahead of us and need to bring massive amounts of clean energy on line to even hold our ground. While the Vogtle nuclear plant obviously experienced some challenges, we can learn from these and roll out existing nuclear technology at scale right now. And as several of us work at existing nuclear plants, we can attest to the ability of the nuclear industry to implement operating experience from around the country and world in the drive for excellence. Both large and small reactors can contribute to a diverse and resilient energy portfolio, something we need more focus on given the increasing occurrence of severe weather events. We encourage NYSERDA to broaden its scope to include a comprehensive assessment of all nuclear technologies, including and perhaps even emphasizing the potential of large-scale nuclear reactors. The transition to a clean energy economy must be equitable, ensuring that all communities, especially those most vulnerable to climate change, benefit from the solutions we pursue. Nuclear energy can provide valuable economic opportunities, such as high-paying, stable jobs and the long-term investment necessary for maintaining a resilient energy infrastructure. As the Nuclear Blueprint moves forward, we urge NYSERDA to ensure that policies supporting nuclear energy are inclusive and support economic and educational opportunities for workers and communities across the state, particularly those in regions that rely on the energy sector for employment. Moreover, we are committed to ensuring that the communities most impacted by climate change, including low-income neighborhoods and communities of color, are not left behind in New York’s energy transition. By prioritizing nuclear energy, New York has the opportunity to create a just and equitable transition—one that benefits everyone, including the most vulnerable. Finally, we are concerned about the blueprint’s inclusion of perspectives from several anti-nuclear sources, which has led to misinformation within the report. Many of these examples are addressed within the response document that we are submitting jointly with Nuclear New York and New York Energy & Climate Advocates. We urge consideration of those suggestions. We believe that engaging a wider range of stakeholders—including both experts and advocates in the nuclear field—will result in a more balanced and accurate portrayal of nuclear energy's benefits and challenges. Nuclear energy is a critical piece of the clean energy puzzle—providing reliable, carbon-free electricity while supporting public health, economic opportunity, and climate goals. We urge NYSERDA to refine the blueprint by incorporating a holistic view of nuclear energy, ensuring that it reflects the full potential of this vital resource for New York's energy landscape. Thank you for your efforts, and we look forward to seeing how this blueprint evolves. |
20241104 MfN Response to NYSERDA Draft New Nuclear Blueprint.pdf |
| (Anshul Gupta, New Yorkers for Clean Power): Please see the uploaded PDF file. |
NYCP Blueprint Response.pdf |
| (Tea Törmänen, WePlanet): WePlanet has started to operate in the US recently and New York is one of the states we work in. Our statement is attached. |
Nuclear for New York_WePlanet.pdf |
| (James Sweeney, NYISO): Please see comments attached. |
20241108_NYISOCmmnts_DraftBlueprintNuclear.pdf |
| (Blair Horner, NYPIRG): Please see attached file. |
NYPIRG Comments 11.8.24.pdf |
| (Stephen Helmin, Stop Energy Sprawl): Please see attached comments from Stop Energy Sprawl in support of the draft Blueprint for Consideration of Advanced Nuclear Technologies. |
Stop Energy Sprawl comments on Blueprint.pdf |
| (Alexandria Bocco, NYPA): Please find in the attached file NYPA's comments on the Draft Blueprint for Consideration of Advanced Nuclear Technologies. Thank you. |
NYPA Comments on NYSERDA Draft Blueprint 11.08.24.pdf |
| (Philip Palmesano, NYS Assembly member): Please see comments from Assemblyman Philip A. Palmesano attached. |
NYSERDA.pdf |
| (Shawn Whites, Constellation): See attached file. |
Constellation Comments_NYSERDA Blueprint for Advanced Nuclear.pdf |
| (Roger Caiazza): See attached |
Caiazza Comments 2024 11 08.pdf |
| File attached. |
Barbara Warren & William Chinitz.pdf |
| (Philip Hult, Generation Atomic): See attached PDF of our response. |
NYSERDA Draft Study - GenA Response 08Nov24.pdf |
| (Andra Leimanis, AGREE-NY): Uploaded file: Comments from 226 Organizations on NYSERDA’s Advanced SMR Draft Blueprint |
Comments from 226 Organizations on NYSERDA's Advanced SMR Draft Blueprint.pdf |
| (Jonathan Knauth, No Big Wind): No Big Wind is a Central New York-based citizen’s group seeking to protect our rural and suburban communities from the unwise and detrimental impacts of industrial wind energy growth. I am commenting as a technical advisor to this group, which includes constituents in the Town of Litchfield, NY where I am a Councilmember. The civic group's focus is on industrial wind turbines and is driven not only by the desire to preserve the health and character of our communities and homes, but also out of recognition that wind turbines are not a reliable or stable form of power generation due to the nature of the wind resource. Like wind, the nature of the solar resource is similarly unreliable, intermittent and requires great amounts of land for what is in the end an inadequate resource. While these resources are in theory renewable, this is only true in the sense that the “fuel” is unending, however the physical structures, turbine blades, solar panels and other parts of these systems fail and require regular replacement. The manufacturing, transportation, construction and repair of these systems is carbon and greenhouse gas intensive. In our experience, the benefits of industrial wind and solar are always overestimated, while the impacts are underestimated. With respect to reliability, Figure 1 of the draft blueprint shows this intermittency rather well, though much of the volatility is masked by the timescale of seasons and days rather than hours and minutes. Nonetheless, it is instructive of the nature of the problem which is that wind and solar have both predictable (day/night, winter/summer) and unpredictable (sun/clouds, gusts/lulls) variations such that they can’t reliably meet the load demand. The load demand is increasing due to planned or mandated electrification of transportation and heating, the growth of AI data centers, chip plants and more. In the case of chip plants in particular, a power intermittency of nanoseconds is a serious problem when features are measured in nanometers. To illustrate this problem, we note that Wolfspeed, a power transistor manufacturer located in Marcy, NY, chose that site in part because of the transmission infrastructure located there. That plant has six independent power inputs, and can run on any one of them, however still fearing a brief loss of power, it has additional natural gas-powered on site generation plants. This level of power supply security is necessary to operate a chip plant, and if this is to be a growth vector for NY’s industrial base, anything which contributes to power intermittency is to be discouraged (wind, solar), and that which meaningfully contributes to base power reliability (nuclear, hydro) is to be encouraged. While in theory, battery power could contribute to reliability, it can only do so for short durations and at great expense. Data centers require baseload power, and like any energy intensive industry, they require inexpensive power or they will simply develop elsewhere. Recognizing the shortcomings of both wind and solar, we support baseload power generation (as opposed to battery storage which isn’t a generation method) and the only viable low carbon options are hydro and nuclear power. It is no surprise that when Indian Point was closed, NYS went from 61% carbon neutral power to 50% overnight. We need nuclear power and are excited for advanced nuclear power development as a means to meet our growing electric power needs, industrial development objectives, all while preserving the health and character of our rural and suburban communities from energy sprawl. One particularly desirable aspect of such technology is discussed at section 2.3 in that existing transmission infrastructure could be utilized if located at the sites of existing fossil fuel power plants. We have recently been alarmed by the expansion of eminent domain powers to transmission lines within the sprawling wind and solar facilities which threaten our communities. In light of the foregoing, we support the draft blueprint for advanced nuclear development. | |
| (Dietmar Detering, Nuclear NY): Please see the attached joint comments from Nuclear New York, Mothers for Nuclear, and New York Energy & Climate Advocates on the draft Blueprint for Consideration of Advanced Nuclear Technologies. The address associated with this online filing is for Nuclear New York. Addresses for all three organizations are included in the attached document. |
NNY-MFN-NYECA comments on draft Nuclear Blueprint.pdf |
| (Charlie Feuerman, Columbia University NiCE club): Submitted as PDF--- thank you!! |
NiCE comments on NY nuclear blueprint.pdf |
| (Keith Schue, New York Energy and Climate Advocates): Please see the attached additional comments from New York Energy & Climate Advocates on the draft Blueprint for Consideration of Advanced Nuclear Technologies. These comments are in addition to comments from New York Energy & Climate Advocates that have been submitted jointly with Nuclear New York and Mothers for Nuclear. |
NYECA additional comments on Nuclear Blueprint 11-8-24.pdf |
| (Lee Butler): The blueprint for nuclear technologies should demonstrate more urgency in developing and deploying this important technology. The tasks listed are appropriate and where possible tasks should occur concurrently. We can begin addressing siting, safety issues, and waste management while still in the process of selecting a specific reactor. SMR's should get a hard look. Their small footprint allows the possibility of siting at closed coal plants, or even gas fired plants. Generating equipment and connections to the grid may already be in place. Additionally, they appear to be a good technology for power hungry industries like the Micron facility in Central NY. The blueprint should also feature allying with the NRC and the federal government on funding, easing siting restrictions, and streamlining regulatory burdens. Can the blueprint include a study of existing facilities. Can their lifespan be further extended? Can Indian Point be re-started as is Three Mile Island? Finally, the effort to create a positive view of nuclear energy can start now. One selling point is nuclear's ability to dovetail with, and support, renewable energy as nuclear power can modulate more easily than other power generation. This feature allows for a smoother transition than traditional power plants when renewable production diminishes or increases. More nuclear could easily mean reduced energy storage needs. | |
| (Addie Jenne, NYS Association of Electrical Workers - Construction): Please see attached |
Comments - Draft Blueprint.pdf |
| (Ginger Schroder, Cattaraugus County Legislator): New York State has not made meaningful progress towards CLCPA goals. This is well documented in credible public agency reports. The State’s irrational pursuit of excessive wind and solar energy generation has led to disastrous environmental consequences, public unrest, and only increased its reliance on fossil fuels. Continued investment in wind and solar to the exclusion of reliable baseload, load-following and dispatchable low-carbon sources (such as nuclear, hydropower, geo-thermal) will not change this trend. An all-renewables electrical grid is inherently unstable, cannot provide reliable power and will substantially increase the cost of power for both taxpayers and ratepayers. We must invest and build out nuclear now, and it is finally refreshing to see a report form NYS that actually focuses on this clean and reliable energy source. Developing nuclear power is substantially less expensive than developing wind and solar power. Renewables require large system costs to reliably serve electricity demand (including DEFR). This requirement flows directly from renewables’ unreliability. Nuclear power does not require such system costs. This makes nuclear power less expensive than using wind, solar, battery storage, gas-fired backup power, and substantial transmission upgrades. In addition, nuclear does not require load balancing using battery or alternative emissions-free technologies. When the fact that renewables last only 30 years and must be repowered one or more times during that period, while nuclear reactors are permitted for 40 years and can be renewed for another 40 years, the cost difference between renewables and nuclear widens even further. While the upfront capital costs of a nuclear plant are high, once the capital costs are paid, the only costs are fuel and operating expenses. As a result, nuclear provides reliable service at a substantially lower cost than wind, solar, and battery storage. Nuclear plants’ small footprint, compared to large scale renewables, has a far less damaging effect on the State’s natural resources and environment. One only need consider the impact of a single blade failure in Nantucket, to understand the significant adverse impacts that such projects can have on the environment. It is time to shift New York's energy goals from renewables to nuclear power. Nuclear is needed to reach the zero-emissions capacity needed to meet the CLCPA emissions goals. | |
| (Ken Pokalsky, Business Council of NYS): See attached |
Comments on Draft Nuclear Blueprint 110824.pdf |
| The following 385 people submitted the attached comments: Karen Weiderpass Jason Kulczyk Emily Skydel Alex Beauchamp Frank Franco Lewis Gersten Mary Finneran Molly Kluba Ariana Storniolo Adam Flint Donald Hughes Susan Van Dolsen Lori Siemian Miriam Varian Phillip Hope Noella Schum Peter Cutul Lori-ann Kohler Margaret Murray Jeremy Carpenter Jackie Stolfi Joanne Corey Kallyn Krash Lana McMakin Janet Muir Gregory Spock Kirsten Hopkins Chris Pizzolorusso Betsy Kennedy Denise Brown Jackie Stolfi Lara Frater Mark Deka Claire Fishman Holly Cohen Joe Lowenbraun Barbara Hertel Jean Scanlon Deborah Hoffmann Jackie Stolfi Lance Jacobs Cecilia Carey Matthew Kogut Dennis Knaack Stasha Fleshman Ina Gabler Melissa Barnard Beth Jacobs Stephanie Cuellar Debra Marzigliano Helene Herman Jenny Walker Ilse Murdock Jackie Stolfi Patti Packer Kaitlin Fitch Jack Simel Jessica Thompson Amy Cherry Steven Lee Doug hydro laura cohen Daria Gregg Carl Burks Jeremy Feldman Arleen Johnson Paige Harrison RN BSN OCN Marcel Barrick Anastasiya Bougades Matthew Boguske Dale Drakeford Rosemarie Pace Aileen McEvoy Susan Rothman John Papandrea Florence Morris Elaine Peters Suzanne Wallin George Twichell N B Mary Bell N. Refes Kathryn Woodruff Sheleeza Deen Javier Rivera Nanette Gilligan steven goldman Jaclyn Dangelo Iris Arno Linda Novenski Vina Colley Zahra Martinez Meredith Kent-Berman Kimberly Badger Peter Coleman Barbara Bilicki Lawrence Rosin Janet Hoover Stephanie Basile Judy Allen Daniel Tainow Sonia Romero Villanueva Joan Flynn Grace Cosentino Judith Ackerman WENDY DEGIGLIO Denise Shapiro Cristina Fiorillo Naomi Zurcher Kate Gill Susan Van Dolsen Catherine Knight Claire Webster Deborah Price Jesse Dubinsky Christa Brown Erin Howard Jennifer Valentine Sharon Nolting Elaine Livingston Ellen Ross Kathy Levine Rhoda E Kleiman JOHN LaForge Robert Minnick Jo-Ann Ficker-Camacho Karen Walker Joanne Werick Robin Spiegelman Sherry Horowitz Joanna Roberts Kristen Johnson Mary McDonough Ellen Leaf Dumas Mohamed Bouraima Kathy Haverkamp Jacqueline Birnbaum Jennifer Fendya Rena P Sharon Pataky cletus stein Martha D Perlmutter Robin Blakesley Paul Kalka Tania Cornish Linda Allen Rachel Youens Suzanne Schaem MG D Gsf Frank Dale Tomlinson Tomlinson Adam Schwartz Caitlin Walsh Karen Doody Barbara Rosen X Harris Sara Gothelf-Bloom Cara Scarmack Eugene Hamond Caroline Zane Laurie Greenberg Lani Bauer Thomas Giblin Sandra Mattson Yvonne Purcell Kanwaldeep Sekhon Amy Benesch Eric Wessman Julia Wilson Denise M Brown Peter Suchmann Kara Huberman Anthony Costantino Pamela Reichen Susan Greenfield Christina Kramer Bill Rosenthal Teresa Beutel Dara Murray Michael Madden James Schaad Fern Tishman Robert Darling Helena Devaris Vandana S Jill Nicholas Bonnie Lichak Walter Elyon Kirsten Andersen Moira Ashleigh Janet Moser Banjo Ettinger Nora Gaines Michele Ledesky Andrea Zinn Phyllis Perna Elaine Sperbeck Jacalyn Dinhofer Helene Stoller Debi Holt Alyson Shotz Harvey Weiss Colleen Scotch Stephan Roundtree Wendi Cohen Carolina G Elisabeth Jakab Chris Durante L. Kathi Pitts Mary Bautista James Gray Kallyn Krash Marlena Lange Nancy Prowell William Roberson Christine Schmitthenner Deborah Porder Charlene Cooper Stan Janzick Sally Jane Gellert Frank Brice Mary Collins Mary Smith Jackie Stolfi Anastasia Connor JOANN CARMODY Adriana Betancourt Sharon Burdo Ko Tanaka Michele Temple Coleen Gowans Nydia Leaf Fred Koster Leslie Bender Ariane Fulk Daniel Ash Jackie Wazny Dennis Fassman Sue Hammond Judy Fletcher Donald W. Henderson, Ph.D. Won Ng Monica Rangne Janet Reohr Jerry Rivers Eva Melas Pamylle Greinke Mark Hochman Christina Di Marco Angela Wiiki Vincent Colletti Andrew Serafin gianluca delvecchio Susan Arroyo Julia Marsh Maritsa Poros Sharon Longyear Joy Rosengarten Eric Greenberg Renee Toback Bobby Vaughn Jr. Marcy Gordon Ilana Cantrell Marilyn Kaggen Heidi Maseduca Elaine Coleman Alice Slater Marty Kellerman Nancy Dotlo William Brisson Helena Tapper Dawn C Rita Jaskowitz Donna Noyes Lenora Young Franco De Nicola Pascal Akesson Barbara Grosh Tatyana Yevsin Kathryn Schneider Eva Curatolo dale cohen Catherine Sullivan Mike Heidenberg Peter Budka Lynn Caporale Marie Weinstein Cindy Hwang Dominic Gambaiani Reynolds Aultman Oluwaseun Eleyinafe Meryl Nadel Carolyn C Pierson Jim Taft Thomas Cash Thomas Kirk Cory Hall judith dumitru Megan Bean Jeffery Young Susan Castelli-Hill Susan Smith Joyce Ann Kent Thomas Moulton Rebecca Wilk Carmen Rodriguez jacquelyn drechsler Yvonne Kravitz Debra Richlin Mary Jo Butler Susan Bahary Susan Ehrhardt Anne Heaney Alec Thorp Julie Parisi Dawn Petry Alix Keast matthew young Sally Bowden Nivo Rovedo Mike Schade Elizabeth Mellen Dragana Lisonek Shelby Herman Christine Ezra Margaret Human Daureen Matera Neal Madnick Harriet Cohen Randi Wintamute Joyce McDonald Susan Sarabasha Catherine Wright Nancy Mellon Barbara Mastorgi Steven Lowenthal Benjamin Martin Meagan Fastuca Panagioti Tsolkas Evelyn Malone James Cooper Al Krause brenda lee Martha Yoshida E.S. Schloss Nancy Vann Matthew Eager Adam Stein David Shore Cathy Rowan Donalee Peden Wesley Nan Faessler Elise Lieberman Kathe Sandstrom Jason Rosenfeld Laura Silverman Mo Kafka Tito Alvarez Isabelle Lenchewski Mary Baker jo roehrig obie hunt Alyssa Sequoia Michele V Katharine Abel Manna Jo Greene Jennifer Alden Jamilah Elder V Mathrani Robert Lombardi Karen Batt amanda alcamo Bret Windhauser Sheila Out Sean Radigan Andrea Taylor Arthur Schurr Daniel Passaro Richard Gibbons eric bare Briar Winters Aaron Fumarola William Wurtz Perry Harris Doris Bacon |
Comment letter -385 submissions.pdf |
| The following 320 people submitted the attached comments: Caitlin Chang Valdi Weiderpass Susan Shapiro Amy Rosmarin Anthony Costantino Judith Zingher Kate Bartholomew alice slater Tracy Frisch Gale Pisha Susanne Farrington Jill Greenberg Caitlin Walsh Jeff Schumann Don Hughes Inese Leimanis Kristen Murphy Jason Dragseth Eric Brodie Nivo Rovedo Carol McLoughlin Alissa Frame Joanne Boger Felice Farrell Mary Lester Susan Green Arden Neubauer Bob Jones Vesa Kaakkuriniemi Alissa Frame Margaret Cohee Inyang Bassey Cynthia Fredrick Evan Lawrence Serena Labrecque Stephen Ballou Linda Ng Sister Joan Agro Nadine Godwin DAmato damato Linda Seaver Ann Finneran Frances Csikos Patricia Brescia-Cantine Jennifer Marinilli Martha Gifford Alrun Steinrueck Elizabeth Vanduyne Sharon Nolting Jordan Shapiro Andrea O'Shea Jen Horowitz Susan Farmer Eric Brodie Maura Hurley Carol Vericker Marcia Bowne Isaac Mattoo Patti Packer Anne Bucher Mary Bautista Regina Carragher Eric Newman Michael Laird Elizabeth Gundlach Alex Kowtun Marcelo Rojas Aubrae Lamparella Malissa Young Dawn Kenyon Peggy Moran David Rosenfeld Corinna Komenda Gerald Anthony Vera DePalma Scott Beall Jacqueline Stewart Kate Lenthall Jennifer Geer Prudence Carlson Mary De Spirt Holly Cohen Kay Olan Dianora Niccolini Manuel Rodriguez Cesar Raposo Anne Nelson Jenny Walker Leslie Mankes Madeleine Glick K Raymond Derinda Nilsson Nilsson Matthew Gordon Edward Rengers Louise Umberto Randi Wintamute N. Elijah Sivin Karen E. Lund Michael Prince Christy Cook Roy BERBERICH GLORIA-JEAN BERBERICH Robin Spiegelman Michael Vickner Suzanne Schaem Shaun Knutsen Xoxenia Harris Kathi Kinne Karen Thomas Rosemarie Pace Theo Hyatt Merle Molofsky Daniel Wellington Sheila Out Jill Nicholas Barry Zuckerman Hal Smith Daniel Grassi Donald Yanulavich Sandra Truman Frank Frank Bernadette Belcastro Mary Anne Tokar Carol Mcloughlin Paulette Freundorfer Steve Redler jl keith Stephen Hopkns Sofia Milionis Diane Colman Joan Caputo Marie Young Michelle Bauer Daniel Ward Karen Charman Michele Smith Monika Buffamonti Joy E. Goldberg Lynne Teplin Lisa Stimpson Claire Regan Jane Young Nora Walker Jill Grundfest steven nasta Katherine Delarosa Lawrence Kegeles Mimi Rosenfeld Katharine Tussing Maureen Loveday Chelsea Gude Jim Gahn Dale Drakeford Thadeus Dziekonski Damon Bishop Kurt Krumperman Angel Garcia Raven Dorantes Cindy Kramer Donna Robin Lippman S. Norris Rose Wilson Janis Smith Jane Bloom David Thomas Kara Huberman Josephine Hudson Phillip Hope Laura Sirota Anne Bozza Karen Greenspan John Leahy Elizabeth Mohony John Prybylski DR HARRY AND PATRICIA C SCHWARZLANDER John Kastner Priscilla Tucker Katherine Abel Sharon Nanos Steven Finkelstein Susan Starker Stephan Kolbert eric bares David Friedman Elaine Shuster Richard and Joyce Gilbert Ileana Salazar Lindsay Meiman Wayne Schober Diane Gaertner Charlene Greynolds Betsy Fagin John Papandrea Carol Hinkelman Lee` Come Barbara Vitale Paula West-Mejia Michelle Rogers Liz Maxwell Beth Jane Freeman Dean Paterson Scott Sherman Laura Haight Linda Agoston Rehana Huq Dale Musselman Darlene Molina Ana Plaktina Ken Baer Andrew Weisman Ben Martin carl tyndall Jennifer Alden Kristen Van Hooreweghe Molly Lindley Edmund Haffmans Marie Garescher David Stein Linda Radin Dr. Michelle Wenderlich Ann Clearwater Michele Temple Charles Ruas M. Carroll Naya Castinado Nivo Rovedo Christopher Giordano Elaine Denton Jane Fasullo Louise Pillai Paul Lipton Linda Kasperek David Middleton Monte A. Devendittis Kris Gilbert Sarah Shapiro Ron Przybycien Rita Jaskowitz Al Krause Terry Gordon Helena Tapper C Ezra Ted Neumann Calvin Mendelsohn Lisa Gutheil Karine Gordineer Claudia Re Elaine Phoenix Maureen Heilman Dale Mcinerney Joslyn Pine Jonathan Memmert Anastasia Connor Lynda Schneekloth Tamar Schwartz Susan Ford Joseph Pfister Deborah Coble Thomas Grube Kathleen Mccarthy Jan Winig Daniel Roberts Patricia Gorman Mary Hinton Eric Lehman Richard Riedel Marilyn Hacker Leslie Mlawski Sonja Noring Amy Salce Eric Frumin Robert Puca Tonya Michel Donna Coughlin Doris Stafford Meghan Garvey Malachy Cleary Alex Zackrone Regi Mueller John Seakwood Carol Reilly Victoria Oltarsh Delma West Dona Wesley Donald W. Henderson, Ph.D. Francesca Heller Craig Shankles Ronald Sonnenberg Robert Kolodny Kevin Shinnick Cliff Aronson Isadora Wilkenfeld Scott Apicella William Stover Ross Marshall Jennifer Connell Emma Freeman Michael Gelfer Gregory Msrks Kathleen Corby Lauren Tartaglia Henry H Westmoreland Amy Kotler Caren Flashner Leslie Angle david ashcroft Joyce Mcdonald Ismet Kipchak Kristen Murray Priscilla Balch Claudia Leff Matthew Orr Deb Halliday Joseph Lawson Suzanne Smeaton Sue Maxam Nora Gaines Karen Robbins Jane Zimmerman Kenon Lattimore |
Comment Letter - 320 submissions.pdf |
| The following 137 people submitted the attached comments: Jennifer Lahey John Sullivan Tina Volz-Bongar Edward J Berry alice slater Chuck Ogg Ellen Elchlepp Jennifer Glanzberg Donna OMalley Maryann Roby Walter Terrell Arnold Lau Bob Cohen Marilyn Elie Mary M Kalinowski Kate Skolnick Masiel Smith Judith E. Klein Chris Durante Maggie Kogan Tailisha Gonzalez Sarah Reed Laurel Tumarkin Joanna Smith Sara Gronim susan bloom Jill Nicholas Kathryn Schneider Lori Saslow Jodie Leidecker Felicity Faulkner Naomi Zurcher Sally Bowden Mark Hollinrake Mary Lester Phillip Hope Clifton Smith Lori Krane CATHY CRONIN Michael Madden Wes Ernsberger Diane Gaertner Sam B Jay Blackman Beth Darlington Judith Coppola Louis Esposito Susan Ford JoAnne Metzler Rose Marie Wilson Greta Schiller Sharon Longyear Joe Quirk Judy Fletcher A.L. Steiner Stephen Kent Nancy Vann Sharon Nolting James Newberry Mary Bautista jacquelyn drechsler Taffy Williams Jacalyn Dinhofer Richard Feldman Freya Goldstein Walter Terrell eleanor arons William Sarovec Cheryl Carnahan Peter Coleman Michael Zamm Edward Butler Marcy Gordon John Berman M.J. Kribs Clifford Provost Nick Fig Paula Neville Coleen Gowans Jack David Marcus Angela Manno Andrew Kurzweil Franco De Nicola Kathy Levine Amy Russell Daniela Cristan Jan Emerson jacquelyn drechsler Peter Mitchell Michael Van Riper Daniel OBrien Rosemarie Pace David Vassar Keith Tse Vicki Fox Kerry Burkhardt Ruth Falcon Daryl Denning Linda Voith Jeffrey Akard Alix Keast Steven Belfield Elizabeth Kelley Connie Allison Esther Weaver Nick Macdonald Pamylle Greinke joel Lobenthal Linda Abbott Moraima Suarez Suzannah Glidden Dale Saltzman Nancy Schniedewind Carol Hinkelman Francisco Velez Lisa Sanetra maryellen fernbacker Luis Vega Joyce McDonald Hope Carr Maureen Heilman James Pfitzner Timothy Judson Marie Garescher Laura Silverman William Wurtz Christa Brown Mo Kafka Margaret Human Gail Lebeck THERESA ROUCOULET alice slater Eric Wessman Julie Parisi Janet Moser Claudia Leff Harold Hodes |
Comment Letter - 137 submissions.pdf |
| The following 228 people submitted the attached comments: Marcel Duruisseau Manna Jo Greene Maria Luciani lopez Gabriella Kirikian Kayla Miller Phillip Hope Willow Parchment Alex Naase Michael Brady B Luka Rebecca Berlant Ken Gale Tracy Frisch Kelley Scanlon Pamela Kane Michael Madden CATHY CRONIN Avery Taylor Zoe Jensen de Pedro Meryl Pinque mtnsbluegreen Margaret Human Laura Dickey Rebecca Nimmons Ann Dorsey Fawn King Solomon Blecher Christal Gordon Beth Darlington Donald J. Shaw Douglas C Smyth Carrie Swank virginia liebowitz Rachel Clayton AJ Cho Alexander Betser Linda Myers Fern Tishman Rachel Wolf KEVIN O'ROURKE Linda Fighera Eric Pash Eric Pash Harold Watson Ray Derrickson Rose Marie Wilson Cynthia Liss Ryan Baka Jill Nicholas Brian Brown William Wurtz Brian Brown Martha Gorak JL Angell Benjamin Martin Meredith Faltin Ryan Baka Justin Philipps Robert Banov Jim Malone Jim Malone I. Engle Cody Goin JoAnne Metzler Sharon Paltin Ethan Fox Nick Byrne Nick Byrne Diane Gaertner Karen Miller Jodie Leidecker Christine Koehler Tia Triplett Sharon Longyear Nancy Schulman AJ Ruther Scout Hutchinson Julia Marsh Shawnee Shenandoah ma.duruisseau Julieann Murphy Adam Flint Roggie Dee mikeseanbrady Carolyn Denning Amanda Jones David Caligiuri Masiel Smith A.C. McGarry Barbara Mastorgi AJ Cho Hugh KELEHER Cody Goin lilyoolily kristen narkiewicz Justin Philipps Beth Darlington JOANN RUIZ Leslie Lawrence Linda Heath Judith Turner Patricia Blochowiak Norman Coppola CLARE DONOHUE Whitney Metz Cynthia Fredrick Amy Cherry Nydia Leaf John Sonin Jesse Phillips-Fein TIA TRIPLETT Iris Meltzer Michael Gorr Rev. Dr. Majadi Baruti Greta Schiller Sharon Paltin Elizabeth Seltzer Shelley Conture Stephen D. Hopkins Erich Winkler Rebecca Berlant Alva Chinn Courtney Stefano dawn kenyon Benjamin Martin dawn kenyon Matthew Eager Marcy Gordon Laurence Kirby Julie Parisi Rick Olanoff Jonathan Keller Pamylle Greinke Meryl Pinque Coleen Gowans Judith Ackerman Obie Hunt Ashley Ouellette Cheryl Speer Patrice Wallace Enid Cardinal [email protected] AJ Cho Bruce Rosen Doug Couchon laura dickey Karen Jacques Helen Greer Ann Dorsey Cynthia Liss CATHY CRONIN Sasha Silverstein El P. John Rath Brenda Lehman Jana Mariposa Niernberger Muhar C Baka Kirsten Hopkins Steven Andrychowski Myrna Sak Jennifer Geiger Mary Krieger JL Angell Diana Saxon Manna Jo Greene Pamela Kane Harold Watson Jim Malone Flo Fender Marty Van Lenten Becker Linda Fighera Charlotte Gillespie Rita O'Sullivan Martha Booz Janet S Matthews Wendy Fast Wes Ernsberger Gerritt and Elizabeth Baker-Smith Ken Gibb Harry Knapp elizabeth lee Diane Gaertner Rachel Wolf B. R. Lemonik Anna Endreny Mary Bautista Seemin Qayum Elizabeth Enright Beth Darlington Heath Post Iris Arno Linda Bescript Karen Cotterell Felicity Faulkner Dominique Edmondson Rose Marie Wilson Joan Sitomer Amanda Gordon Christine Caredda Nancy D'Angelo Sharon Gillespie Linda Myers Mike Ferguson Blaise Dupuy Justin Philipps Mary Gutierrez Maxx Hill Jill Nicholas Janice Bailey Daniel polley Cody Goin Sharon Longyear Ronald Ringler Nathan Rizzo Florence Carnahan Jackie Stolfi Doris Ashbrook Briar Winters Melissa Heithaus Soledad Haren AJ Ruther Patty Buchanan elaichi michael kane Billii Roberti Terry Buck Leslie Lawrence Tracy Kinne |
Comment Letter - 228 submissions.pdf |
| (J Tasse): See attachment. |
J Tasse Comments.pdf |
| (Peter Scavullo): See attachment. |
Pete Scavullo Comments.pdf |
| (Scott Simmonson): See attachment. |
Scott Simmonson comment markup.pdf |
| See attachment. |
Harry Darling comments.pdf |
| (William Hamm): See attachment. |
Bill Hamm comments.pdf |
| (Diane D'Arrigo): See attachment. |
Diane DArrigo comments.pdf |
| (Valdi Wiederpass): See attachment. |
Valdi Weiderpass.pdf |
| (Ellen Weininger): See attachment. |
Grassroots Environmental Education.pdf |
| (Tim Judson, NIRS-AGREE): See attachment. |
Tim Judson comments NIRS-AGREE.pdf |
| (Caitlin Ferrante, Sierra Club): See attachment. |
Sierra Club Atlantic Chapter.pdf |
| (Jody MacDonald): See attachment. |
Jody MacDonald comments.pdf |
| (Kyber Sen): See attachment. |
Khyber Sen comments.pdf |
| (George Kauffman): See attachment. |
George Kaufman comments.pdf |
| (Cristina Arnold): See attachment. |
Cristina Arnold comments.pdf |
| (Louisa Anderson): See attachment. |
Louisa Anderson comments.pdf |
| (Ellen Fauerbach): See attachment. |
Ellen Fauerbach comments.pdf |
| (Minerva Archer): See attachment. |
Minerva Archer comments.pdf |
| COUNCIL ON INTELLIGENT ENERGY and CONSERVATION POLICY (CIECP) and PROMOTING HEALTH AND SUSTAINABLE ENERGY (PHASE). See attachment. |
CIECP and PHASE comments.pdf |
| (Robb Rosenthal): See attachment. |
Robb Rosenthal comments.pdf |
| (Matthew Grady): See attachment. |
Matthew Grandy comments.pdf |
| (Paul Pribis): See attachment. |
Paul Pribis comments.pdf |
| (Joseph Canovas, New York State AFL-CIO and the New York State Building and Construction Trades Council): See attached. |
NYSAFLCIO NYSBCTC Joint Comments.pdf |
| (IBEW Local 1049): See attachment. |
IBEW Local 1049.pdf |
| (Glen Casey, IBEW Utility Labor Council of NYS): See attachment. |
IBEW Utility Labor Council NYS.pdf |
| (Dr. Matthew Moynihan, Fusion Consultants): See attachment. |
Dr. Matthew Moynihan - Fusion Consultants comments.pdf |
| (Tiffano Latino-Gerlock, Manufacturers Association of Central New York and The Manufacturers Alliance): See attached. |
MACNY and Manufacturers Alliance Comments.pdf |
| (Donna Runner, Mexico Academy and Central School District): See attachment. |
Mexico Academy and Central School District.pdf |
| (Jacquelyn Drechsler): See attachment. |
Drechsler and DeCrescenzo.pdf |
| (Raymond Vaughan): See Oct 8 attachment. |
Raymond Vaughan comments Oct 8 2024.pdf |
| (Nuclear Matters): Nuclear Matters submitted the attached comments on behalf of the following 85 people - Thomas Abelgore Kathleen Allocca Paul Ames Christopher Andrus Lara Ashley Christopher Ault Jesus Baldo Bert Barnes Jeremy Bennett Michael Bishop Ethan Bodnaruk Christopher Brancato Michael Briggs Michael Brooks Debra Caltabiano Keith Caltabiano Danielle Camp Samantha Carey Joseph Christmas Jessica Clark Richard Coffman Adrienne Crouch Thomas Crouch Heather Davis Donald Dean Alexander Dion Erik Durkish Jonathan Duval Mikaela Elkins Richard Everett Beverley Falzone Flo Fender Kevin Fowler Elizabeth Friedman Christopher Grapes Harrison Greeney Donald Hebbard Annette Herron Pascal Hervet Genevieve HERVET Catherine Higgins-Asmus John Hill Robert Hilton Ryan Hirschey Caroline Holshouser Maria Hudson Jon Jaquin Christina Kramer Richard Lafond Jodi Larkin Susan Lee Michelle Leo Mary Maikish Da Marsden James Melville Richard Moorman Sue Murray Garrick Olson Joshua Palmer Michael Peutl Jessica Piper Timothy Purce William Resch Raylene Richardson Jessica Robbins Colin Sabie Harvey Sellers Debbie Slott Terrence Smith Robert Smith Barry Solomon David Steiger David Sullivan Shawn Telesford Jeremy Titus Joyce Upcraft Gwen Vant Mark Vivenzio Erin Vosbury Khaing Wai Evan Weber Laura Wills Anna Wilson Lester Wilson Laura Woodward |
Nuclear Matters Letter Oct 4.pdf |
| (Nuclear Matters): Nuclear Matters submitted the attached comments on behalf of the following 164 people: Louis Mettey Sharyl Snowden Erik Erb Wendy Schneider Mark Ganczewski Frank Clavelli Todd Kehley Matthew Weiner Candice Clavelli BRYAN HERGER Thomas Curry Franklin Orienter David Bliek Ronald Phibbs James Sherwood Joseph Benzing HENRY HILLYARD Michael Falanga Alexander Billy Robert Schimenz Daniel Conlan Thomas Marotta Paula Marotta Paul Pitcher Roy Corieri Vincent Coulehan Charles Manro Paul Tol Gregory Steiner Adriene Smith David Mason istiak ahmed Scott Edwards Scott Edwards Mason Thomas Tyler Kota Matthew Alarcon David Smith Jacquelyn LeBerth John Fitzpatrick Daren Blankenship Gregory Raggi Edward Learn William Greer Peter Ritzmann Terri Chinelli Kellen Chapman John Ponzi Andrew Witherell Amy O'Neil Randall Ezzo Gabriel Kiever Michael Bethune John Giovenco Kevin Irving Jason Nance Jeff DeMong Mandy Miller Richard Lafond Thomas DuBois Patti Ponzi Megan O'Connor Sam Cali Gary becker Todd Terpening Kevin King Jill Cali Jo-el Horn Morgan Cazzolli Rebecca Titus Nicole Rowe Austin O'Connor Matt Teifke Christopher Bradford Shawn Baldwin Donald Bricker Adam Brasher George Pownall Ryan Roehrman Kevin Jones Anthony Yablonski Charles Merkley Christopher Joyce Barry Burdo Arough Madera Michael Freeth Robert Brenon Ryan Terpening Josh Burkhalter Allyson becker Alan Jones Thomas Baxter Alexander Wilczak Karen Baker Michael Vanwie Todd Sterling Anthony Pafumi Michelle Gates Matthew Bellomo Darren Rupert Scott Vickery Melanie Gigliotti David Crofoot Blaine Wills Victoria Gilkey Austin Haskins Scott Broadwell James Larrabee Blair Barker Dominic Scanlon Iva Calkins Erin Harrell Sean Riga Dylan Schaible Benjamin Turnbull Lois Lane-Gray Daniel Connors Jonah Sharp Bernard Landers Penny Landers Alexander Gleasman Evan Thomas Michael Garcia David Kazyaka Thomas Tanguay Kevin Hines Gregory Goodrich Eric Dawson Tammy Onge Joel Morey Kalista Kimball Benjamin Berner Matthew Rossi Colleen Hare Terri Proud Jeremy Kerling Ryan Gigliotti Marsha Fiorita Elbert Hare Claire Miller Ronnie Goodnough Daphne Baldwin-Tully Paul Murray Gregory Sullivan Douglas Roik Jill Lyon Rebecca Schneider Stephen Copeland John Esberg Kevin Mattessich Jolene Allen Matthew Cummins Sheri McCarthy Brandon Dempsey Joel Smithers Sarah Dempseu David Wilcox Joseph Benzing Ryan Bracht Pasquale Bartolini Patrick Walsh Peter Orphanos Ronald Mancini Malcolm Biggins |
Nuclear Matters Letter Nov 8.pdf Nuclear Matters Form Letter Nov 8.pdf |