The development of the New York State Energy Plan is underway but I have been remiss on providing updates. Frankly, there hasn’t been too much to write about until the latest meeting on June 25, 2025. The last meeting had some interesting presentations because there were hints that even the New York State Energy Research & Development Authority (NYSERDA) is beginning to admit that there are issues associated with Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act or CLCPA) enactment.
I am convinced that implementation of the New York 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 540 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.
Energy Plan Overview
According to the New York State Energy Plan website (Accessed 3/16/25):
The State Energy Plan is a comprehensive roadmap to build a clean, resilient, and affordable energy system for all New Yorkers. The Plan provides broad program and policy development direction to guide energy-related decision-making in the public and private sectors within New York State.
On September 9, 2024, the Hochul Administration initiated the State Energy Plan process to update the Plan consistent with the Climate Act. The goal of the planning process is to “map the state’s energy future by showing how the state can ensure adequate supplies of power, reduce demand through new technologies and energy efficiency, preserve the environment, reduce dependence on imported gas and oil, stimulate economic growth, and preserve the individual welfare of New York citizens and energy users.” The major question that must be addressed is whether the Hochul Administration will use the energy planning process as an opportunity to consider the advice of stakeholders in its stakeholder process or will stakeholder involvement just be an obligation with no attempt to meaningfully engage with any comments inconsistent with the narrative.
I have previously published articles about this process. On November 15 New Yorkers for Clean Power (NYCP) sponsored a related webinar titled “Get Charged Up for the New York Energy Plan”. My first post on this webinar described the response to my question does New York need a Climate Act feasibility analysis. I also addressed the presentation by Janet Joseph who was deeply involved in the development of the Scoping Plan noting that she admitted that issues associated with reliability and affordability are real problems. My post on the March 3 meeting explained that I was discouraged because the format and approach is so similar to the Scoping Plan process that I think that NYSERRDA is following the same script. It looks just like the Scoping Plan process where the numbers were tortured to provide the desired analysis then tied up into a pretty package. NYSERDA went through the motions of a stakeholder process but never responded to comments in a meaningful way. I fear this is the plan for this document as well.
June 25, 2025 Board Meeting
The materials for the meeting include the following:
- Meeting Notice [PDF]
- Board Meeting Presentation [PDF]
- Board Meeting Recording Meeting Recording
There were two important agenda items for the meeting
- To discuss analysis conducted for the State Energy Plan.
- To discuss select Energy Plan topic areas.
I have included links to the locations of the video in the following descriptions. Also note that a transcript of the presentations is included at the meeting recording video platform. There is a nice feature for this video. If you scroll down into the transcript you can follow the presentation. All quotes below come from that transcript.
The discussion of the analysis conducted for the State Energy Plan described “two overarching analyses”. The Pathways Analysis and topic plan areas are summarized below.
Pathways Analysis Overview of Energy Modeling
Doreen Harris teed up this presentation. Although this work does a similar assessment of the strategies needed to achieve the Climate Act mandates as the Scoping Plan, the approach is different. For the Scoping Plan the modeling was a top-down approach: “We looked at the emissions requirements in the Climate Act and demonstrated the nature of the changes that would be needed to meet those emissions limits.” After acknowledging challenging headwinds, Harris claimed there has been extraordinary progress and that the Energy Plan modeling builds off progress to date in its bottom up approach:
This analysis uses a bottom up assessment of the various energy supply and delivery systems that will be available to meet forecasted energy needs through 2040, accounting for policies, technology availability, and consumer uptake, and the energy planning law requirements to consider energy affordability, reliability, economic development and jobs, equity, and environmental needs.
For those not attuned to modeling this is simply a different way to cook the books. If the assumptions for affordability, reliability associated with the policies, technological availability, and other aspects that affect the rate of deployment are transparently documented it would be an improvement. However, if the input is treated like a black box and stakeholder input is not appreciated as adding value, then the results will not be credible. There are many ways to make assumptions to get a preferred answer.
Karl Mas who was responsible for much of the Scoping Plan modeling introduced the detailed presentation. His introduction was noteworthy because he admitted that the modeling was uncertain:
I’d first like to acknowledge that, conducting such analysis during a time of uncertainty is challenging, as Chair Harris noted.
And it’s true with all aspects of our economy, the energy system has been impacted by the supply chain disruptions, high interest rates, inflation, and changing federal policy landscape. Yet the work must provide a rigorous economy wide view of how New York will meet the energy needs over the planning horizon while making progress on the state’s policy objectives.
Looking out over fifteen years requires assumptions regarding technology progress and policy achievement. To address uncertainties in both these areas, the analysis takes a realistic yet ambitious approach and explores several potential scenarios to better understand the full spectrum of possible outcomes.
Nick Patane gave the detailed presentation. I will follow up with another post that delves into details about this modeling.
Pathways Analysis Overview of Energy Affordability
The second pathways analysis described energy affordability. Karl Mas also introduced this presentation noting that:
Understanding how our energy planning efforts might impact New Yorkers can be a critical consideration that’s run through our entire plan. This new analysis provides a detailed view into the variation of potential future energy spend by New York households, allowing us to tailor planning considerations to best meet the needs of all New Yorkers.
James Wilcox presented the details. To get a flavor of what was presented consider the household modeling “snapshots”. Clearly there are many ways to interpret household energy consumption today and even more ways to estimate how changes could be made to get future reductions. I cannot over-estimate enough that without comprehensive and transparent documentation of those assumptions the results will not be credible. The Scoping Plan documentation failed to provide the necessary level of documentation. It remains to be seen whether this modeling will do so.
In my opinion, energy affordability is the most important Climate Act consideration. Wilcox admitted there were “overarching affordability challenges”:
However, low and moderate income households are more likely to experience energy affordability challenges. To understand how energy costs impact people, it’s important to look comprehensively at both household energy and also transportation energy spending.
Energy saving measures, such as building envelope efficiency, efficient appliances and equipment, fuel efficient and electric vehicles, and transit use can lower overall household energy costs. Many households pursuing these measures are likely to see net reductions in operating costs due to the combined impacts of a variety of efficiency measures, including electric efficient electrification on household energy and transportation energy spending.
And finally, policy and market solutions that focus on lowering upfront costs and other barriers to adoption for a range of energy efficiency measures have the potential to enable households to realize lower, more affordable operating costs. And this can, in turn, help to alleviate energy insecurity and energy burdens.
In contrast to the first presentation there were multiple questions about this work. I intend to follow up on this topic with another post too.
State Energy Plan Topic Areas
After a break there were six presentations on topic areas:
I will follow up with another post that addresses these too. At this point it seems if I go into detail on any one of these topics then I must cover more and the post will spiral out of control. Stay tuned.
Discussion
I want to make two points on my initial read of this meeting. Energy affordability is important, but it appears that the State is still only paying lip service to the problem.
In the first place, while Jessica Waldorf from the Department of Public Service mentioned that work continues to develop the resources mandated by the Clean Energy Standard, she only acknowledged the existence of the Biennial Review. On December 18, 2024, the New York Assembly Committee on Energy held a public hearing to gather information and asked Waldorf about the status of the Informational Report covering 2023 data that provides cost recoveries, benefits, expected ratepayer impacts and other information. On January 13, 2025 the DPS said that “The Department is currently preparing the Second CLCPA Report and anticipates presenting it to the Commission in 2025”. This is important information that is a year overdue.
There is another worrisome aspect of the modeling. Waldorf stated that “The cost recoveries, benefits, and other information reported here are mainly focused on the direct effects of CLCPA implementation.” As I have noted previously, this focus on direct effects of the CLCPA does not cover all the costs of implementation. For example, my utility company must include programs to meet the CLCPA mandated goals not just the CLCPA mandated programs. The focus on CLCPA programs iexcludes substantive costs. I think NYSERDA is trying to do it again.
Conclusion
Given the myriad effects and unintended consequences of the Climate Act implementation, I think it is incumbent upon the State to be fully upfront with the costs and challenges of the transition. Unfortunately, it has become politicized, and the costs are being covered up. Stay tuned for in-depth analyses of the Energy Plan presentations at this meeting.
Pragmatic Environmentalist of New York 