Thursday, October 1, 2026
The E.F. Barrett Power Station in Island Park is under consideration for a significant upgrade as National Grid weighs whether to modernize the facility’s aging infrastructure — an overhaul that officials argue could lower costs and improve efficiency while sparking renewed debate over the region’s energy future.
The plant — also known as the Island Park Energy Center — sits at the heart of the Island Park, Barnum Island and Oceanside communities, where its presence has long shaped both the skyline and the local tax base. Owned and operated by National Grid, and under contract with the Long Island Power Authority, the facility is among the largest generators on Long Island.
National Grid is in the early stages of evaluating whether to “repower” the Island Park site, along with plants in Northport and Port Jefferson. The concept would replace decades-old steam turbine units with newer combined-cycle technology that generates electricity more efficiently and with lower emissions.
Company officials said the shift reflects a changing energy landscape in New York, where delays in renewable energy projects and a broader “all-of-the-above” strategy have restored interest in maintaining and upgrading fossil fuel infrastructure.
“We’ve been looking at it from a high level and see that it makes a lot of sense because there are quite a few benefits,” Will Hazelip, president of National Grid Ventures, said of the plant’s proposed facelift.
For Island Park residents, the proposal revives a long-discussed but previously shelved idea. The plant’s main steam turbine units date back to 1956 and 1963, when the former Long Island Lightning Company built the facility.
In 1998, the plant became part of KeySpan Energy before being acquired by National Grid in 2007, while LIPA assumed control of transmission and delivery of electrical service to customers on Long Island and the Rockaways.
A similar repowering proposal was studied in 2017, when LIPA and PSEG Long Island determined that while the upgrades were technically feasible and environmentally beneficial, they were not economically justified at the time. Long Island’s energy demand had plateaued, and officials anticipated a surge in renewable energy sources that would reduce reliance on fossil fuel plants.
Since then, conditions have shifted. Several large-scale renewable projects — particularly offshore wind developments — have stalled or been withdrawn, prompting state leaders to slow the retirement of gas-fired plants. That shift has again opened the door to reconsidering upgrades at facilities like Barrett.
Under the current concept, repowering would involve installing modern combined-cycle units that burn less fuel and use less water for cooling. National Grid said early modeling suggests the upgrades could produce more electricity at a lower cost, potentially reducing wholesale power prices and improving grid reliability across Long Island.
For a community like Island Park, where the plant has long been both an economic anchor and a source of concern, the implications are significant.
Local officials have historically paid close attention to decisions involving the Barrett facility, particularly when it comes to tax revenue. In 2019, LIPA reached a settlement with Nassau County that reduced the plant’s tax payments, raising concerns in both Island Park and Oceanside school districts about potential losses in revenue and higher taxes for residents.
Some experts said that repowering could help stabilize or even enhance the plant’s value to the local tax base.
Michael Kaufman, vice chairman of the Suffolk County Planning Commission, called the concept “an excellent idea,” noting that officials “should have done it 15 years ago. It’s an advantage in efficiency, in lower fuel costs and in energy security on the Island.”
But not everyone is convinced.
Environmental advocates have argued that investing in upgraded gas-fired plants could lock the region into decades of fossil fuel dependence at a time when New York has set ambitious climate goals, including a target of zero-emission electric grid by 2040.
Peter Gollon, a former LIPA trustee and environmental advocate, warned that repowering could tie the authority to volatile natural gas markets and delay the transition to renewable energy.
“You force yourself into a 20-year plan of relying on fossil fuel plants, which is what I think the gas company wants,” he said, urging further independent study before moving forward.
LIPA officials said they are continuing to evaluate all available options to meet future energy needs, including both supply-side upgrades and demand-side measures.
“Any future actions will be informed by detailed analysis, stakeholder engagement and a clear focus on affordability and value for ratepayers,” LIPA said in a statement when informed of National Grid’s plans.
The authority’s broader financial outlook also underscores those priorities. LIPA’s proposed 2026 budget emphasizes cost control, grid reliability and clean energy investment, while projecting modest savings for customers. That context could play a role in determining whether large-scale capital projects like repowering move forward.
National Grid emphasized that the effort to repower remains in its early stages. The company is analyzing costs, potential designs and whether existing infrastructure at sites like Barrett would be retired or temporarily retained during any transition.
“We’ve got to keep the existing generation around,” Hazelip said. “We have to be able to build new generation without retiring the existing.”
