Note – This post was revised to clarify my recommendation that the Climate Action Council should propose affordability and reliability criteria to explain the Council should work with the PSC and NYISO for consideration in a stakeholder process similar to the development of the Scoping Plan on 8/21/24.
The Business Council of New York (BCNY) recently shared a set of concerns and recommendations — supported by a diverse group of business and labor interests — addressing the state’s climate change response efforts, driven by mandates in the Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act). This post describes the concerns and recommendations in the BCNY statement and proposes a path forward for review of the Climate Act.
I have followed the Climate Act since it was first proposed, submitted comments on the Climate Act implementation plan, and have written over 450 articles about New York’s net-zero transition. The opinions expressed in this article do not reflect the position of any of my previous employers or any other organization have been associated with, these comments are mine alone.
Overview
The Climate Act established a New York “Net Zero” target (85% reduction in GHG emissions and 15% offset of emissions) by 2050. It includes an interim 2030 reduction target of a 40% reduction by 2030. Two targets address the electric sector: 70% of the electricity come from renewable energy by 2030 and a requirement that all electricity generated be “zero-emissions” resources by 2040. The Climate Action Council (CAC) was responsible for preparing the Scoping Plan that outlined how to “achieve the State’s bold clean energy and climate agenda.” The Integration Analysis prepared by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) and its consultants quantifies the impact of the electrification strategies. That material was used to develop the Draft Scoping Plan outline of strategies. After a year-long review, the Scoping Plan was finalized at the end of 2022. Since then, the State has been trying to implement the Scoping Plan recommendations through regulations, proceedings, and legislation.
Recently three reports have come out that raise specific concerns about Climate Act implementation: schedule ambition, costs to implement, and electric system reliability risks.
The New York State Comptroller Office released an audit of the NYSERDA and PSC implementation efforts for the Climate Act titled Climate Act Goals – Planning, Procurements, and Progress Tracking (“Comptroller Report”). The audit found that: “The costs of transitioning to renewable energy are not known, nor have they been reasonably estimated”.
The Public Service Commission (PSC) recently released the Clean Energy Standard Biennial Review Report (“Biennial Report”) that compares the renewable energy deployment progress relative to the Climate Act goal to obtain 70% of New York’s electricity from renewable sources by 2030 (the 70% goal). It found that 2030 goal will likely not be achieved until 2033.
The New York Independent System Operator (NYISO) 2023-2042 System & Resource Outlook (“Resource Outlook”) described issues that threaten reliability and resilience of the current and future electric system. The report described current and future challenges for the electric system. The findings suggest that there will be significant reliability risks for the Climate Act transition.
Business Council of New York Statement
BCNY released their statement because it represents concerns expressed by various impacted businesses across New York about “the achievability of key Climate Act mandates and what that means for the future reliability and cost of the state’s energy system.” The statement calls for the “state to identify and make necessary mid-course corrections based on updated information and significant economic and market changes.” The statement argues that “These steps are essential to avoid significant unintended impacts on the well-being of New Yorkers and on the state’s economic competitiveness.” They note that “Importantly, we believe that New York can continue to be a leader in state-level climate policy, but it needs to take a workable, affordable approach to meeting its energy and emission goals.”
The statement notes that the Climate Act implementation process has not provided a “comprehensive, publicly accessible assessment of implementation costs, the comparative costs of policy alternative programs, and the impact of new policies on residential and business energy consumers.” This echoes the Comptroller Audit finding of inadequate cost information.
The statement also describes concerns about “the practical achievability of key CLCPA provisions and the consequences of basing major policy decisions on unworkable statutory mandates”. The Biennial Report notes that one of the statutory mandates will likely not be achieved.
The statement takes pains to note that they are not opposed to many of the proposed control strategies. However, “the state needs to ensure that its push toward emission reductions and the electrification of major sectors are technically and economically achievable.” This is one of the findings of the Resource Outlook.
The statement argues that “implementation challenges call for a reassessment of the underlying statutory mandates.” It notes that they want to work with the Administration, state legislators, and other climate stakeholders to address the issues raised. However, a specific path forward is not proposed. I propose such a path forward below.
Recommendation for Climate Act Review
Although it has received little notice, there is a provision for renewable energy programs that should be the foundation of the recommended reassessment. The Biennial Report refers to New York Public Service Law § 66-p (4). “Establishment of a renewable energy program” that states: “The commission may temporarily suspend or modify the obligations under such program provided that the commission, after conducting a hearing as provided in section twenty of this chapter, makes a finding that the program impedes the provision of safe and adequate electric service; the program is likely to impair existing obligations and agreements; and/or that there is a significant increase in arrears or service disconnections that the commission determines is related to the program”.
The essential first step for reassessment consideration is definition of the safety valve criteria in §66-p (4). What are the criteria for unsafe and inadequate electric service, impairment of existing obligations and agreements, and unacceptable increase in arrear or service disconnections? In my opinion, the Climate Action Council with the PSC and NYISO should propose suitable criteria for consideration in a stakeholder process similar to the development of the Scoping Plan.
The next step would be to provide the data necessary to determine the criteria for unsafe and inadequate electric service, impairment of existing obligations and agreements, and unacceptable increase in arrears or service disconnections. Given this legal provision it is appropriate that the information be tracked somewhere. The BCNY statement recommended an “accessible and understandable “dashboard” of the state’s climate change efforts, including a comprehensive accounting of direct state spending and state “directed” spending, the source of funds and their use, and the impact of these expenditures on achieving GHG emission reduction and renewable energy production goals.” The §66-p (4) criteria parameters should be included in the dashboard.
Conclusion
The three agency reports raise legitimate reasons to be concerned about the mandates and schedule of the Climate Act. The BCNY statement echoes those concerns and recommends a review and consideration of mid-course corrections. There is a legal provision to “temporarily suspend or modify the obligations” of a renewable energy program that defines criteria consistent with the concerns raised by the BCNY, the PSC Biennial Report, the Comptroller Report audit of Climate Act implementation, and the NYISO Resource Outlook. If the §66-p (4) criteria are explicitly defined and compared to observed data, it would form the basis for a pragmatic review of the Climate Act.
Pragmatic Environmentalist of New York 