NEW YORK -- Entergy Corp.'s Indian Point nuclear power complex north of New York City could close without undermining the state's ability to meet electricity demand, according to a pair of legislative committees in Albany.

An analysis from the Assembly Committee on Energy and the Committee on Corporations, Authorities and Commissions found that the state can do without the 2,000 megawatts produced by Indian Point, which operates on the Hudson River within 40 miles of the city.

The findings were announced on the heels of a joint committee hearing last month that looked into whether Indian Point should close. The hearing was called partly because of fears of a meltdown that could eclipse last year's Fukushima nuclear accident in Japan.

The chairmen of the committees, both Democrats, determined that New York can do without Indian Point as long as it upgrades its transmission system, pursues aggressive energy efficiency policy and completes generation projects already in the planning process.

"The experts testified that New York has the resources to replace these nuclear plants; now the decision makers need the will to make it happen," said Assemblyman James Brennan, chairman of the corporations panel.

The report based its conclusions on testimony submitted at the Jan. 12 hearing in New York City. The report argued that more than 5,000 MW of new electricity could come online by 2016 if transmission and generation upgrades proceed as planned.

To get there, the report suggested a portfolio of approaches, including building new wind sources and ending historic bottlenecks that have limited access to existing power plants. The report also cited testimony from Consolidated Edison, New York City's power supplier, that said demand-side management and conservation in the city could go a long way.

Other ideas floated include more gas-fired power as well as co-locating anaerobic digesters and photovoltaics at wastewater treatment facilities.

In issuing the findings, Assemblyman Kevin Cahill, chairman of the energy committee, took issue with New Orleans-based Entergy for failing to "provide even the most basic information associated with the plant's operation."

"Maybe they thought we would simply walk away," he said. "Instead, Entergy's lack of cooperation will require us to revisit the issue in the very near future."

Jerry Nappi, an Entergy spokesman in New York, said Cahill was referring to proprietary financial information that the company has a right to withhold given the state's competitive wholesale power market. As for the committees' conclusion, Nappi expressed surprise at the suggestion that replacing Indian Point would be so one-sided.

"The majority of folks who spoke [to the committees] spoke of consequences like dirtier air and higher costs and instability to the grid," he said. "Indian Point can be replaced; it's just a question of having an honest discussion about the consequences."

The company has filed an application with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to relicense two reactors at Indian Point, which expire in 2013 and 2015.

New York relies on nuclear energy for about one-third of its electricity. Indian Point is the only nuclear source downstate, within range of New York City's 8 million residents.

An analysis released last year by ConEd found that the city's residents can expect a 6 percent increase in monthly power bills if Indian Point shuts down. New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) opposes relicensing the plant.