Denying Consolidated Edison

CONSOLIDATED EDISON will probably deny this, but there is a giant power utility in New York that seems to take pleasure in gratuitously denying reports concerning its activities. Its name is Consolidated Edison.

On Monday, for example, a powerful explosion tore the western wall from a 24-story office building in Manhattan, injuring more than 90 people. Witness after witness told of smelling gas fumes before the explosion, and the city's fire commissioner called it "highly probable" that a weekend buildup of gas caused the blast. Con Ed automatically issued a statement denying that gas, which it provides for the city, was involved.

Last month, many consumers saw their electric bills rise drastically. Tales abounded of $80 electric fees suddenly turning into $300 electric fees--a more-than-300-per-cent increase. Con Ed said it was merely passing along its own increased fuel costs. It appended its statement with a clever argument that because power companies are generating less energy during the "shortage," they should get paid more for what they do. The utility denied that the increases were exorbitant.

Neither of these, however, can match Con Ed's record ten years of denials that its proposed Storm King power plant will, if completed, be one of the biggest white elephants ever to trample the power industry, the environment and the consumer.

The Storm King facility would be a pumped storage plant, functioning as a giant storage battery sitting above the Hudson River. Water from the river, pumped up the mountain, would be stored in a reservoir, then released through generators when electricity is in demand. Of course, it takes a considerable amount of energy to push water uphill--more than can be generated by its flowing back down. So the Storm King plant will use three kilowatts of energy for every two it later produces.

When Con Ed proposed the plant in 1963, the rationale may have made some sense: Generating plants operate more efficiently at full capacity, and at the time most were not being used to their fullest. Extra power would be generated and stored on the mountain until it was needed later.

Two important factors have changed since 1963, however. Consumption of electricity has increased drastically, leaving few plants with the prerogative of generating tremendous amounts of excess power. And, at least according to the oil companies, fuel is in short supply.

Con Ed recently denied that this would make any difference, but had a few short-circuits in its denial. After all, it is difficult to justify a project that will waste one million kilowatts for every two million it produces, particularly in the middle of an "energy crisis." And the excuses must be carefully constructed: It is at least as difficult to explain to consumers why they must pay for fuel to generate millions of kilowatts that no one but the pumps at the foot of the mountain will ever use.

A spokesman explained patiently that Con Ed will get the power for Storm King from "cleaner" (thermal and radiation pollution aside) nuclear generating plants. But most of Con Ed's nuclear plants have not been allowed to operate at full capacity-in fact, some have not been allowed to operate at all. If this situation continues, the spokesman assured, the power would be purchased from other members of the Northeast Power Grid. If fuel oil is to be wasted, the reasoning apparently runs, it won't be ours; if the air is to be polluted, atleast it won't be the air in already-polluted New York.

ASSUMING ONE CAN accept Con Ed's denials that the Storm King plant is conceived entirely on a theory of waste--and that's not easy to do--one can push on to a long series of other disturbing questions. The utility will be more than happy to deny that any of these exist.

When Con Ed originally announced its proposal for the Storm King plant, the cost estimates ranged around $234 million. Now, ten years later, that estimate has risen to $457 million--almost twice the price. Con Ed has denied repeatedly that the facility is any less economical today than it was ten years ago, despite statements from economists and the New York City Environmental Protection Administration to the contrary.

Meanwhile the utility announced Tuesday--while cancelling its first dividend to its stockholders since it began paying them in 1885--that it has asked New York State to buy two of the large new generating plants Con Ed currently has under construction. It also said it was suspending, at least temporarily, a costly modernization program designed to replace old plants with new facilities in anticipation of future savings.

Despite the fact that neither of the plants Con Ed is attempting to sell has cost as much as the Storm King facility will, a company spokesman was eager to deny yesterday that the utility's current financial problems would have any effect on the construction. The utility's difficulty, he said, lay in its immediate cash situation. Con Ed apparently expects this to disappear before payday rolls around for its construction crews.

CONSOLIDATED EDISON spokesmen also enjoy denying that the project will cause any adverse environmental effects. The company will cite upon request a study by the New York State Conservation Department, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries indicating that only 2.5 per cent of the striped bass in the Hudson would be killed by the plant's operation. It does not often cite more recent testimony showing an impact closer to 25 per cent, nor the rumor that the original report misplaced a decimal point.

Nor does the company like to talk about the possibility of rupturing the Catskill Aqueduct--which supplies about 40 per cent of New York City's water--as it blasts its tunnel through the mountain. When it does, its statements are couched in such language as "we have every expectation" that reports denying that such damage could occur are correct. The City of New York is not as confident, and has gone to court to support its view.

Having failed to win its point directly, the city informed the Village of Cornwall-on-Hudson that it would be prohibited from tapping New York City's water supply if it allows Con Ed to use the Cornwall Reservoir for the Storm King plant. Cornwall has sued, and the case is pending. So is a suit brought by environmentalists seeking to reopen Federal Power Commission hearings on licensing procedures on the plant. And so is an appeal of a decision requiring the utility to obtain Army Corps of Engineers permits for some of its construction operations.

The utility denied last month that any of these pending lawsuits would delay its projected construction start, and its denial proved correct: Construction crews arrived at the mountain a few weeks ago, and began clearing the brush before beginning blasting the tunnel. Asked whether the utility has any reservations about starting before the litigation is complete, Con Ed denies that it does; "We have every expectation that we will win," the spokesmen say. And in the event that an adverse decision halts the project? "We have every expectation," the spokesmen repeat, "that we will win." And if not, they seem to imply, Cornwall will be left with a somewhat useless 40-foot-diameter, two-mile-long tunnel to the river.

But Consolidated Edison also denies that putting pressure on the courts, or terminally discouraging environmentalists, was the motive behind its seemingly premature construction start. It also denies that it made no official announcement of the groundbreaking-no press releases, no pictures of smiling executives in hardhats pushing a golden spade into the mountain loam--in order to avoid the adverse publicity it would undoubtedly bring.

It also denies that any motive beyond serving the needs of the people exists for its dogged pursuit of a project that will cost a fortune in the middle of an economic crunch, waste energy in the middle of an energy crisis, and irreparably harm the environment in the middle of a surge of environmental consciousness.

One might speculate that after ten years and $23 million in legal fees, in a case that has established environmental law precedents one after another, Con Ed finds itself in the uncomfortable position of fighting an environmental Vietnam--there is no peace with honor, no way out but to pull out, and that would be too embarrassing for a shaky corporate image to endure. No one has asked, but undoubtedly the utility would deny it.