Climate Action Council Member Letter to the PSC

Two members of the Climate Action Council, Donna DeCarolis and Dennis Elsenbeck, recently submitted a letter to Rory Christian, Chair & Chief Executive Officer of the New Yok State Public Service Commission (PSC) that deserves mention.  The letter notes that “there are more than sufficient circumstances to warrant the PSC commencing” a hearing process to “consider modification and extension of New York Renewable Energy Program timelines.”.  I have been referencing the legislation mandating a hearing process if certain circumstances are exceeded since early 2022 so I want to publicize this letter.

I am convinced that implementation of the New York Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act or CLCPA) 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 550 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. 

Net-Zero Aspirations

The Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act) established a New York “Net Zero” target (85% reduction in GHG emissions and 15% offset of emissions) by 2050 and has two electric sector targets: 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 Scoping Plan that outlined how to “achieve the State’s bold clean energy and climate agenda” was based on an Integration Analysis prepared by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA). 

Letter

The subject line of the letter is “Modification of Statewide Electric Generation Renewable Energy System Requirements Pursuant to New York Public Service Law § 66-p “  The introductory paragraph lays out their position. 

We are writing in our capacity as members of the state’s Climate Action Council to respectfully request that the Public Service Commission (“Commission”) invoke its authority, granted pursuant to the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (“Climate Act”), to hold a hearing to evaluate whether to modify certain renewable energy obligations of the Climate Act. Specifically, as you know, the Climate Act added a new section 66-p to the New York Public Service Law (“PSL”) that requires the Commission to establish a program to ensure that: (a) a minimum of 70% of the statewide electric generation in 2030 is generated by renewable energy systems; and (b) by the year 2040 the statewide electrical demand system will be zero emissions (“Renewable Energy Program” or “Program”).  The Commission is empowered by statute to temporarily suspend or modify these obligations if, after conducting an appropriate hearing, it finds that the Program impedes the provision of safe and adequate electric service. As noted below, there are more than sufficient circumstances to warrant the Commission commencing the referenced hearing process to consider modification and extension of Renewable Energy Program timelines.

The letter goes on to document the circumstances that they believe warrant a hearing.  At the top of the list is the Draft Clean Energy Standard Biennial Review prepared by Department of Public Service Staff and the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (“NYSERDA”).  They note that the Commission recognizes “the substantial efforts that have been made to deploy renewable energy systems and zero emission sources to meet the Renewable Energy Program targets”.  Despite the progress through 2022, they explain “the Biennial Review Order details the numerous factors, including inflation, transmission constraints, shifting federal energy and trade policies and interconnection and siting challenges that have adversely impacted renewable development and the state’s trajectory towards achieving the Program’s 2030 target.”  They quote the Biennial Review that “concludes that a delay in achieving the 70% goal may be unavoidable.”

The second circumstance noted is the recently released Draft New York State Energy Plan that “further affirms that current renewable deployment trajectories are insufficient to meet statutory targets, and that external constraints continue to impede progress.”  They include this quote: “Consistent with the findings of the CES biennial review, the [Draft Energy Plan’s] modeling shows achievement of a 70% renewable grid in 2033.” However, the letter points out that the Draft Energy Plan goes on to “acknowledge that the anticipated buildout of renewables could be limited by external factors and the 70% target by 2030 may not be met until much later in the decade.”  They also note that { The Commission’s recent decision to withdraw its Public Policy Transmission Need determination for a major offshore wind transmission project that would have delivered up to 8 GW of renewable electricity to New York City by 2033 is just one of many examples underscoring the fragility of current renewable deployment timelines and further supports the need for the Commission to exercise its authority under PSL 66-p (4).”

The letter makes the following important point:

While these obstacles to renewable energy deployment and greater emissions reductions in the state are deeply concerning, their implications with respect to the provision of safe and adequate electric service should be viewed as nothing short of alarming. The challenges with bringing sufficient renewable energy on-line in a timely manner, while simultaneously decommissioning existing and effective energy sources in order to hit Program targets, could have devastating repercussions for the state and its residents.

The CAC members go on to reference the 2025 Power Trends Annual Grid and Markets Report (“Power Trends Report” or “Report”) recently issued by the New York Independent System Operator (“NYISO”). They believe that it is reasonable to “conclude that the Renewable Energy Program’s current obligations could impede the provision of safe and adequate electric service.”  The problem noted in the Power Trends Report is the warning that “reliability margins across New York continue to decline as fossil-based generation retires and new supply resources fail to keep pace with anticipated dramatic demand growth.”   They explain that the NYISO’s warning is critical, because “[s]trong reliability margins enable the grid to meet peak demand and respond to sudden disturbances and avoid outages. As these margins narrow, consumers face greater risks of outages if the resources needed for reliability are forced out of service or are not maintained because of policy mandates or failures associated with aging equipment.”

The letter explains that “acknowledging the challenges to renewable deployment thoroughly described by the Commission in it Biennial Review Order and underlying Biennial Review”, the NYISO states in its own Report that:

A change as monumental as decarbonizing our electric system can be challenging and unpredictable. For instance, to achieve the mandates of the state’s Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act, new, emission-free generating technologies must replace retiring fossil fuel-based generation. However, these new technologies are not yet available on a commercial scale.

The letter quotes the Draft Energy Plan to support their recommendation for considering multiple energy options. Electric sector results in particular state that “[m]eeting growing loads and peaks while working towards achieving 2040 emissions constraints and maintaining reliability requires a significant buildout of a diverse set of resources” and the preservation of existing resources including the natural gas system which “[i]n all scenarios … remains an important energy delivery system.”   They go on:

The NYISO’s determination that pursuit of “every plausible option” is necessary to ensure energy reliability includes the continued use of reliable, dispatchable energy systems like the natural gas system, as well as the ongoing pursuit of traditional renewable resources (hydro, solar, wind) and more concentrated efforts relative to nuclear power (e.g., the state’s recently announced New York Power Authority Advanced Nuclear Project) and hydrogen (e.g., NYSERDA’s Hydrogen Assessment). Providing support for bridge technologies (e.g., fuel cells, linear generators, etc.) is essential to help address market demand in the near term while the state pursues longer-term options. The NYISO notes that “repowering of existing, older fossil fuel plants … is especially important to consider as we rely more on an aging generation fleet.” This repowering likely will not occur absent prompt action by the Commission to extend Program timeframes to obviate the risk for developers that the plants will be forced to retire before they can recover their investments.

The letter acknowledges that activists will argue “that this diverse mix of existing and new energy sources could delay achievement of the state’s energy goals, it is clear from recent analyses by the NYISO and others that it is necessary to ensure the provision of safe and adequate electric service while the state takes the time it needs to responsibly advance progress toward its Renewable Energy Program goals.”  They state that these circumstances were addressed by the Legislature “when it included the safeguard in the Climate Act that would allow the Commission to suspend or modify Renewable Energy Program targets. They argue that “Now is the time for the Commission to exercise its authority under PSL § 66-p (4) to conduct a hearing to consider modification and extension of these targets.”  They conclude:

 To act otherwise would be contrary to the legislature’s intent and inconsistent with the Commission’s “paramount objective of ensuring reliable and affordable electric service and protection of ratepayers.”

Finally, in addition to the urgent need for a hearing to evaluate extending the Renewable Energy Program timeframes, the letter urges “the legislature to act with haste to extend the statutorily-required 2030 GHG limits consistent with the state’s Draft Energy Plan findings”.  This is necessary because the greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions reduction requirements of 40% by 2030 included in the Climate Act are similarly late.

Conclusion

Given that many of the arguments in the letter are similar to those that I have been trying to make for several years, I am very much encouraged that powerful voices have come out advocating a similar approach.  I am cautiously optimistic that their letter will at least be acknowledged.  I am not sure what the resolution will be but the authors are on the side of reality and pragmatic energy policy.  It is inevitable that the schedule and ambition of the Climate Act will be modified simply because implementation in PSL 66-p is impossible without endangering reliable and affordable electric service.