On August 5 Governor Hochul announced a Future Energy Economy Summit that will “gather feedback on strategies to accelerate renewable energy deployment and explore the potential role of next generation clean energy technologies”. I described my initial thoughts on the summit and possible outcomes earlier. This post provides a pre-meeting update.
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 I 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 must come from renewable energy by 2030 and all electricity must be generated by “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.
Purpose
As I have noted previously there are many reasons why an assessment of the future energy economy is needed. Three recent reports top the list. The Public Service Commission (PSC) Clean Energy Standard Biennial Review Report found that the 70% renewable energy goal will likely not be achieved until at least 2033. The New York State Comptroller Office Climate Act Goals – Planning, Procurements, and Progress Tracking audit found that the PSC and NYSERDA implementation plans did not comprise all essential components, including “assessing risks to meeting goals and projecting costs.” The New York Independent System Operator (NYISO) 2023-2042 System & Resource Outlook described issues that threaten reliability and resilience of the current and future electric system. The Department of Public Service Proceeding 15-E-0302 may also be influencing the Governor and precipitating the need for the summit. The Business Council of New York has cited those reports and gave other reasons why it is needed. As a result, the governor said the state’s climate goals are something she “would love to meet, but also the cost has gone up so much. I now have to step back and say, ‘What is the cost on the typical New York family?’ Just like I did with congestion pricing.”
Never forget that the Climate Act has always been mostly about politics and much less about rational energy policy. I do not think that there is any question that this Summit is intended in part to gauge the reaction of favored political constituencies. I have seen several notices from activist organizations calling for people to rally at the event against “false solutions” which I believe boils down to anything other than wind, solar, and energy storage. With nuclear being at the top of the worst example of a false solution.
In my opinion, the State must confront the possibility that the safety valve criteria in New York Public Service Law § 66-p (4) for unsafe and inadequate electric service, impairment of existing obligations and agreements, and unacceptable increase in arrear or service disconnections will be exceeded. I recently recommended that those criteria be specified so that there are quantifiable targets. I hope that there are discussions that can further that requirement during the summit.
The other missing piece to date is the implementation plan for the transition. The Scoping Plan is no more than a outline list of different strategies that someone has calculated will produce the emission reductions necessary and the energy required for New York State to meet the Climate Act mandates. There is insufficient documentation to meaningfully critique the outline, and the Hochul Administration failed to respond to technical comments on the draft before it approved the Final draft. A feasibility analysis has not been produced and must be included for a credible transition plan. Better still would be a small-scale net-zero demonstration for an isolated jurisdiction that proves that an electric system can rely on intermittent wind and solar resources as the primary source of generation. I hope that there will be discussion of this concept at the Summit.
Attendance
There is still no indication who will be on the panels. In my original post I mentioned that I was worried that this would just be another dog and pony show. I cannot comment on this until I know who is on the panels.
Public participation has been restrictred The meeting announcement mentioned that there was limited seating capacity for the event but at the same time it listed statements from eight different agencies. I fail to see a connection between the Department of Health and Department of Labor with respect to energy policy. If they send representatives, then fewer affected stakeholders or members of the public can attend. I heard from several people who were waitlisted and asked a politician for help but did not get invited. Contrary to my expectations, I managed to get invited.
Summit Agenda
On August 7 when I wrote the first summary of the Summit, I included the following list of sessions that had been posted:
- Welcome Remarks and Morning Keynote
- State of Technology
- Status of Next Generation Energy Technologies
- Luncheon Keynote
- Insights from Large Consumers of Electricity
- Global Perspectives: Representatives from other states and nations who are pursuing advanced nuclear installations.
- New Nuclear Blueprint: Vet Draft Blueprint as framework for New Nuclear Master Plan
- Wrap up and Next Steps
The agenda for the meeting on September 2 has changed. The original first session “State of Technology” has been changed to “Accelerating Renewable Energy Deployment in New York State”. The original first session “State of Technology” did not seem to be all that much different from the second session “Status of Next Generation Energy Technologies” so this makes sense. However, the title “accelerating renewable energy deployment” suggests that no one is willing to conceded that building as much renewable energy as possible as fast as possible without a plan or feasibility analysis might not be a good idea.
At the PSC Zero Emissions by 2040 Technical Conference last December there were sessions devoted to pandering to real “false solutions” for a future economy. Technology shills and activists subscribe to a dream that with enough energy conservation and “smart planning” the myriad problems identified by the organizations responsible for grid reliability can be ignored. I fear that the Status of Next Generation Energy Technologies panel will include the same proposals without anyone on the panel providing contrary feedback. It is long past time for the Hochul Administration to support the concerns expressed by the PSC, NYISO and other organizations with reliability responsibilities and stop pretending that some of the cockamamie schemes suggested by irresponsible entities can provide meaningful future support.
The opening and luncheon keynote speakers will likely set the tone for the meeting. One hour is set aside for the welcome and keynote presentations. If that is nothing more than bragging about the “success” so far and excuses for the findings of the negative assessments, then I will have little hope for any meaningful results. The same holds for the luncheon speaker.
One of the issues raised by the analyses to date is that loads will increase due to electrification of everything and new “Large Consumers of Electricity”. The huge, proposed Micron chip fabrication plant is the prime example. What are the odds that representatives from those facilities will tell the truth that unless there is demonstrated path to success or an alternative backup plan that it would be madness to invest billions of dollars because there is no assurance of reliable, affordable electricity.
The last two sessions address nuclear energy projects. In my opinion, this is the primary driver of this Summit. The only jurisdictions that have significantly reduced their GHG emissions from the electric sector without relying on hydro or geo-thermal resources used nuclear. However, nuclear is unacceptable to many of the activists who are the strongest supporters of the Climate Act. I have seen several pleas for people to come to rally against the false solutions. The meeting was held in Syracuse and that just happens to be the closest city to three operating nuclear reactors. I will be shocked if there aren’t visible signs of support from staff at those facilities.
Conclusion
There are some encouraging signs that people are catching on that no matter how you feel about doing something about climate change the reality is that New York’s plan is deeply flawed. I am convinced that the plan will do more harm than good. The Energy Summit could be the start of a correction process that might reduce the inevitable increased risks to reliability, extraordinary price increases, and significant environmental impacts if there is no course correction. On the other hand, it could be another story from Macbeth “A tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing”.
Stay tuned for an update later this week.
Pragmatic Environmentalist of New York 