To the Editor:
There’s a constant flow of negative letters regarding the proposed Oxford power plant. They hit all the bases, i.e., negative real estate value, threat to aircraft, purging the water supply, environmental impact, etc. Isn’t this old news? All of these anticipated negatives existed when the original power plant project was approved years ago. Let’s discuss this without a personal agenda.
Do we have an energy production problem? Yes. Do we now pay one of the highest energy bills in the country? Yes. Will the location provide the space, water, topography, labor force, etc., to support the project? Yes. Did the state agencies and the EPA sanction this project? Yes.
So, what’s the problem? The negative reaction is personal, emotional, one-dimensional and unsubstantiated. So, what’s the obvious? It will generate jobs both during and after construction. It will reduce the necessity of importing energy from Canada ($1 million per day). The state agencies have already done due diligence and approved it previously. The EPA’s environmental mandates, criteria, operational residual effects, etc., all based on previous natural gas construction sites, which established thresholds, baselines, and parameters, solve the problem and protect the public. This autocratic, bureaucratic federal agency is the “supreme court” of environmental concerns.
If our state and federal agencies sanction this power plant, it’s a done deal. Sit back, relax, do what you always do, hope your electric bill shrinks, etc., because your anxieties have been deemed invalid. Let the siting council and the EPA make a decision that’s an energy solution and benefit to all of us.
Frank Pellegrini
Southbury
Jan. 28, 2015
