Ratepayers would be zapped more than $800 million to keep New York juiced up if Gov. Cuomo succeeds in closing the controversial Indian Point nukes, two big players in the electricity business said.
Figuring that Con Ed’s three million Westchester and New York City customers use about half of Indian Point’s output, the proposals would cost each ratepayer around $130, spread over a number of years.
But that might be only the beginning of the costs.
The $800 million plan Con Ed and the New York Power Authority filed with the state Public Service Commission says the state should also seek proposals for other unspecified transmission and generating projects.
Until the bids come in, the costs of those “incremental” projects won’t be known.
Con Ed and NYPA say their plan should be enough to replace the twin nuclear plants in northern Westchester County by 2016.
In the filing, Con Ed and NYPA proposed two projects to boost transmission from upstate power plants.
One is the $76 million replacement of 22 miles of high voltage wires on a transmission line that runs from Oneida County south to Sullivan County.
The other is construction of a $123 million second line next to an existing Con Ed line in Orange and Rockland counties.
A third transmission project is a $312 million worth of improvements to lines providing power to Staten Island and Brooklyn.
Con Ed and NYPA also suggest allotting $300 million in various energy conservation programs.
Entergy, which owns the Indian Point nukes, says the planning by Con Ed and NYPA is “prudent,” but will come to naught.
One federal Indian Point license expires in September, the other in December 2015. Entergy expects the battle over renewing licenses could drag on long past their expiration dates.
“We think Indian Point will be operating well past 2016 on its current license,” said Entergy spokesman Jim Steets.
But Indian Point opponents say the Con Ed/NYPA proposal is a strong counterpoint to those who say the state can’t do without the nukes.
“This debate over Indian Point has been answered,” said Phillip Musegaas of the environmental group Riverkeeper. “We can replace it in time, and there are a number of ways to do it.”
bsanderson@nypost.com