On April 23, 2025 Governor Hochul announced that State University of New York (SUNY) Oneonta will be the first school in the SUNY system to purchase Tier 1 Renewable Energy Certificates (REC) from the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority’s (NYSERDA) voluntary sales program. This post interprets the meaning of this announcement.
I am convinced that implementation of the Climate Act net-zero mandates will do more harm than good because the proposed green energy programs are crimes against physics. The energy density of wind and solar energy is too low and the resource intermittency too variable to ever support a reliable electric system relying on those resources. 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. At the same time, the Hochul Administration has delayed reporting mandates in the Climate Act that must document costs and progress. New Yorkers do not know where we stand,
Renewable Energy Credits
According to the Governor’s April 23, 2025 press release, SUNY Oneonta will be the first school in the SUNY system to purchase Tier 1 REC. The press release notes that the REC purchase will enable SUNY Oneonta to “claim 1,000 MWhs of new, local renewable energy in 2025” which will provide “enough locally-sourced clean energy to fully power four, 200-bed residence halls on the SUNY Oneonta campus.”
Renewable Energy Credits (REC) are defined:
A REC is a certificate, created by a tracking system, such as the New York Generation Attribute Tracking System (NYGATS), that represents the attributes of one megawatt hour of electricity generated from a renewable source like solar or wind. These RECs, or certificates, are needed to substantiate environmental claims related to energy use, such as for compliance with a State-mandated renewable compliance program, or for “voluntary” claims such as a climate action pledge.
REC are purchased by a range of entities “to comply with state mandates and to voluntarily support renewable energy development.” The buyers include utilities who are obligated to purchase them, government entities like New York City with commitments to use 100% renewable energy, and private organizations who “voluntarily purchase RECs to meet internal sustainability targets, claim environmental benefits, and demonstrate climate leadership.”
SUNY Oneonta
I imagine that the rationale for the purchase is the sustainability core value in the SUNY Oneonta mission statement. This core value declares that sustainability means “stewarding resources to foster a just community in ecological balance.” This phrase is nothing more than trendy moral posturing that checks the box so that SUNY Oneonta can claim the high ground for environmental protection.
The mission statement is accompanied by this:
Together with the mission, these values now guide SUNY Oneonta’s pursuit of a clear vision:
to become the exemplar residential community, providing relevant educational experiences in and outside of the classroom.
SUNY Oneonta will challenge the status quo, test assumptions, and ask difficult questions about relevancy and impact. The university must understand the needs of today’s learners and tomorrow’s. Our campus and all of the opportunities it can offer should revolve around students and evolve with them. As they trust us to guide them to their goals, we entrust them with the future and the hope of a more just, humane and happier world.
I received my B.S. in meteorology in 1974 at SUNY Oneonta, went on to get a M.S. in meteorology, and started my air pollution meteorologist career in 1976. Half a century of experience has taught me that stewarding resources must include pragmatic tradeoffs between ambition, risks, benefits, and costs. The REC program is part of New York’s Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (Climate Act).
That law epitomizes dogmatic policy driven by emotion and not reason. There is no consideration of any tradeoffs. The status quo in New York is that there is an existential climate crisis that can be solved by eliminating the use of fossil fuels. Somehow, I doubt that SUNY Oneonta has any interest in challenging that paradigm, testing the assumptions that a net-zero transition is possible, or considering the difficult tradeoffs that are inherent in the proposed transition away from fossil fuels.
Furthermore, New York GHG emissions are less than one half of one percent of global emissions and global emissions have been increasing on average by more than one half of one percent per year since 1990. New York cannot solve global warming by itself and the third-world economies that are developing abundant, economical energy using fossil generation to improve their lives. The tradeoff between equitable distribution of energy resources relative to speculative climate change benefits is something that SUNY Oneonta students should consider for the goal of a “more just, humane and happier world.”
Another Shell Game
A shell game is defined as “A fraud or deception perpetrated by shifting conspicuous things to hide something else.” In my opinion the Scoping plan employed shell game tactics to claim that the Climate Act “costs of inaction are more than the costs of action”. The Administration knows how much the Climate Act will cost and is surely aware that public support for green energy initiatives to combat climate change dissipates quickly if the costs are substantial. I believe that affordability is the fundamental reason that the release of required reports on the implementation of the Climate Act have been delayed.
From that perspective the State University voluntary purchase of REC from NYSERDA looks suspicious. If all the SUNY institutions follow suit and purchase REC there will be a dependable funding steam for more NYSERDA renewable development. On the other hand, the primary goal of SUNY is education and not the societal goal of emission reduction, so I do not favor colleges squandering money on support of renewable energy development. I conclude that this is simply an inter-agency transfer of funds prompted by a decision to obscure costs and postpone the inevitable political reckoning when the extraordinary transition costs can no longer be hidden.
Fully Powering Nonsense
The press release continues the charade that renewable energy can “fully power” anything. The fact is that Hochul’s Administration has not shown that the technology necessary to resolve renewable intermittency is available, much less affordable. Without that backup technology, four, 200-bed residence halls on campus will only have electricity when the wind is blowing or the sun is shining. This is an example of selective use of metrics and descriptions that falsely gives the impression that the changeover to green energy is simple.
Conclusion
Renewable Energy Credits exist to subsidize green energy development. As a compliance tool they have value. However, one of the stated values of REC voluntary purchases is that they can be used to “demonstrate climate leadership”. That epitomizes virtue-signaling which I believe has little value as part of the education of SUNY Oneonta students.
Ultimately the SUNY Oneonta purchase of REC has another goal. It hides the cost to consumers by transferring money from one state account to another. A college education is expensive enough today without foisting students and parents with hidden costs that do not provide tangible benefit to their education.
Pragmatic Environmentalist of New York 