My Comments on the New York Affordability Standard

On March 26, 2025, Jessica Waldorf, Chief of Staff and Director of Policy Implementation for the Department of Public Service (DPS) posted a letter responding to a letter from Michael B. Mager Counsel to Multiple Intervenors that had been submitted earlier in March to Chair of the Public Service Commission Rory Christian regarding the affordability standard.       I agreed with the comments submitted by Multiple Intevenors and was disappointed with the DPS response so I submitted a letter to Christian today.  This article summarizes my letter and why I was disappointed by the DPS letter and the overall DPS response to the Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (CLCPA) implementation to date. 

I am convinced that implementation of the Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act) net-zero mandates will do more harm than good if the future electric system relies only on wind, solar, and energy storage because of reliability and affordability risks.  I have followed the Climate Act since it was first proposed, submitted comments on the Climate Act implementation plan, and have written over 500 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 reduction target of a 40% GHG reduction by 2030. 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.”  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. 

PSC Proceeding 22-M-0149

This proceeding is an example of the implementation programs currently underway.  Public Service Commission (PSC) Proceeding 22-M-0149 “Assessing Implementation of and Compliance with the Requirements and Targets of the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act” order for the Proceeding describes all the actions underway as of May 2022. To their credit, the PSC commissioners realized that a proceeding that formally required tracking of progress was needed:

The Commission has quickly taken action related to items within its jurisdiction to help put the State on a path to meet the aggressive CLCPA targets. However, in consideration of the scope of the CLCPA and the extensive work necessary to achieve its mandates, continuous monitoring of the progress made will be crucial to ensure the State remains on track to achieve these objectives. In addition, there are existing policies that will need to be reviewed, and new policies that will need to be developed, to further the enablement of the CLCPA. This proceeding will be the forum for such policy development. By this Order, the Commission institutes this new proceeding to both track and assess the advancements made towards meeting the CLCPA mandates and provide policy guidance, as necessary, for the additional actions needed to help achieve the objectives of the CLCPA.

The primary focus of the Multiple Intervenor letter (“MI Letter”) was on affordability and they noted that the Commission order establishing the Proceeding said: “Since investments required to implement the CLCPA are becoming a significant driver of utility rate increases, it is critical for DPS Staff to provide the Commission and the public with specific cost-based information to understand the impact of these capital investments on ratepayers as part of our core obligation to ensure just and reasonable rates.”

MI Letter

It comes as no surprise to anyone who understands the monumental challenge of an electric system net-zero transition that New York is falling behind on the progress needed to achieve the Climate Act mandates.  Given the complexities of the net-zero transition it is inevitable that Agency staff would be unable to fulfill the reporting annual report mandates. 

After describing the mandate of the Proceeding order, the MI letter goes on to quote the requirement that directs DPS staff to present information on CLCPA costs annually.  The MI Letter shows that DPS is behind schedule:

On July 20, 2023, DPS Staff presented its “First Annual Informational Report on Overall Implementation of the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act” (“First Annual Report”) in compliance with the Commission’s Order in Case 22-M-0149. While Multiple Intervenors could take issue with numerous costs that were excluded from quantification in the First Annual Report, DPS Staff estimated (at page 29) that by the end of 2022, the Commission already had authorized an eye-popping $43.756 billion in CLCPA-related costs.

Unfortunately, however, there has been no second report from DPS Staff providing public information as to CLCPA implementation costs, in clear violation of the Order. Inasmuch as the First Annual Report was filed on July 20, 2023, the second such report was expected sometime in July 2024. On December 17, 2024 – approximately five months past the report’s expected due date – DPS Staff filed a letter in this proceeding informing of a delay. In the letter, Staff states that it “anticipates presenting this report in 2025.” To date, the Commission has taken no action in response to the letter, and the public is left wondering whether a report that was directed to be filed annually – and, therefore, was due in July 2024 – will be filed at any point in 2025.

I welcomed the Multiple Intervenor letter because I hoped that it would prompt a reply addressing affordability issues and the schedule for the required reports.  Unfortunately, the reply letter was unresponsive to these concerns.

DPS Reply Letter

The March 26, 2025 response from Jessica Waldorf of DPS was disappointing because it is condescending, was treated as an obligation, and does not address the cost issues.  It is condescending because Mr. Mager and Multiple Intervenors are aware of the history and where to find the Integration Analysis.  The description of the first draft Clean Energy Standard (CES) Biennial Review opens with the clause “Earlier this year” for a document released last summer which suggests that the text was copied from another document to fulfill the obligation to provide a response.  The typographical error suggests that the response was not considered an opportunity to address the affordability problems raised. 

Even though the DPS response letter did not adequately respond to affordability issues, some of the statements were revealing.  The letter stated that the report does not “disaggregate funding that would have incurred under programs that existed prior to the CLCPA.”  I have been complaining about the implications of this important caveat since my scenarios comment on the draft Scoping Plan because it is part of a shell game in the Integration Analysis designed to hide the costs.  I have shown that most of the results presented in the Integration Analysis spreadsheet were relative to a reference case.  In this type of analysis, the purpose is to consider the impacts of proposed policies relative to a business-as-usual case without those policies.  The Integration Analysis did not include a modeling scenario that excludes all the costs of CLCPA implementation.  Instead, costs presented are relative to a Reference Case that is described as “Business as usual plus implemented policies. 

This is important because the Hochul Administration mantra developed by the New York State Energy Research & Development Authority (NYSERDA) that the “costs of inaction are more than the costs of action” is deliberately misleading.  It relies in part on excluding the costs of the programs that existed before the CLCPA, which is important in this context.  I believe that I represent most New Yorkers when I say I want to know the costs to meet the CLCPA goals like the 100% zero emissions electricity by 2040 and 40% lower GHG emissions by 2030 mandates.  The particular program that gets New York there does not matter.  I want to know the total costs to meet the mandates not just the costs of the unique CLCPA components.  This letter afforded me the opportunity to make this argument in a formal proceeding where it will be more difficult to ignore.

The last substantive paragraph of the DPS response letter stated:

In addition to the First Informational Report, the integration analysis performed for the CLCPA Scoping Plan contains detailed cost information related to the implementation of the CLCPA. The integration analysis can be found on the Climate Act website. Additionally, the next State Energy Plan that is currently under development, will include an update to this prior analysis from the Scoping Plan, and incorporate new information on the potential effects of the policies included in the State Energy Plan on energy costs for consumers.

Integration Analysis Annex 2 provides the “detailed cost information”.  Jim Shultz referred to the Scoping Plan as “a true masterpiece in how to hide what is important under an avalanche of words designed to make people never want to read it.”  The Integration Analysis cost information is in a massive spreadsheet that is the quantitative equivalent to the Scoping Plan avalanche of words.  It may be detailed but it most certainly does not provide an easily accessible compilation for all the energy use and emission reduction strategies proposed that includes assumptions, expected costs, and projected emission reductions.  In particular, the documentation does not provide explicit information to determine what costs are specifically included in the Reference Case or provide sufficient information to “disaggregate funding that would have incurred under programs that existed prior to the CLCPA.”  As a result, it is impossible to parse out the total expected cost to meet Climate Act goals.

Recommendations

I included three recommendations in my letter that addressed my long-standing issues.

My comments explained why I believe the DPS response letter illustrates the broken stakeholder process exemplified by the lack of responsiveness by all the agencies regarding any comments that questioned the narrative espoused by CLCPA proponents.  NYSERDA and other state agencies treat the stakeholder process as an obligation and not an opportunity.  NYSERDA claims that there was “robust public input” during the draft Scoping Plan process that “included 11 public hearings across the State and more than 35,000 written comments” that supposedly were read, summarized, and presented to the Climate Action Council.  The problem is that Agency staff screened the comments for the Climate Action Council and there is no publicly available documentation of their work.  They only presented generalities at meetings and did not address any specific comments. 

My first recommendation argued that NYSERDA and DPS should prepare documentation that lists all the issues raised in submitted comments so that the Climate Action Council, the Energy Planning Board, the Commission, and stakeholders can be assured that all issues raised have been considered.  The documentation should list issues, describe their relevance, explain disposition of comments, and provide the rationale if there is a difference of opinion between the agency and a commenter.  If there is inadequate documentation, then there is no assurance that stakeholder concerns have been considered.

My second recommendation is a personal example of an ignored comments.  I recommended that the PSC define acceptable affordability criteria, publicly track the parameters for the criteria, and be prepared to pause implementation if the criteria are exceeded for the safety valve conditions in Public Service Law in my Draft Scoping Plan comments and in other Proceedings. There has never been a response to my comments describing safety valve conditions for affordability and reliability in New York Public Service Law  § 66-p (4). “Establishment of a renewable energy program” Section 66-p (4) 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”. 

I believe that as part of the Scoping Plan the Climate Action Council should have developed criteria for the PSC to consider affordability and reliability.  That did not happen.  Based on issues observed with the transition it is incumbent upon the Commission to define “safe and adequate electric service” and “significant increase in arrears or service disconnections” as part of this Proceeding.  This is necessary so that there is a clearly defined standard for the temporarily suspending or modifying the provisions of Section 66-p (4).

Finally, I recommended that affordability metrics and reports on costs should include all costs necessary to meet CLCPA mandates including programs implemented before the CLCPA.  This would address the shell game shenanigans used by NYSERDA in the Scoping Plan. Clear documentation that lists all the emission strategies, the expected reductions, implementation schedule and expected costs is necessary.

I also expressed my disappointment that DPS staff appear to be more interested in the political narrative than fulfilling their mission to ensure “affordable, safe, secure, and reliable access” to electric services for New York State’s residential and business consumers.  For example, at the December 18, 2024 New York Assembly Committee on Energy public hearing the author of the letter, Jessica Waldorf, claimed that there are other reasons “to build renewable energy resources in New York that are not just related to emissions.”  Her response claimed reduced price volatility would reduce costs.  I evaluated that claim and found that it does not stand up to scrutiny.  My letter made that point.

Conclusion

I submitted my letter to reiterate several of the issues that I have raised previously regarding the Climate Act implementation process.  I also pointed out that the stakeholder process is broken because impactful issues like those that I described have never been acknowledged much less addressed.  I make no claims that my concerns must be reconciled for the process to be acceptable.  However, I did point out that the differences between the New York Independent System Operator future projections and the Scoping Plan projections have never been reconciled publicly.  It is unacceptable to dismiss differences in the analyses from the organization responsible for electric system reliability.