On April 28, 2025, a problem at a photovoltaic plant in Spain triggered a blackout over the Iberian Peninsula. I believe that this event should be considered in the New York Draft State Energy Plan.
I am convinced that implementation of the New York 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 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.
Background
The 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).
The Draft State Energy Plan is being updated for the first time since the Climate Act was promulgated. According to the New York State Energy Plan website: “The State Energy Plan is a comprehensive roadmap to build a clean, resilient, and affordable energy system for all New Yorkers.” I have provided more background information and a list of previous articles on my Energy Plan page. Because of the importance of this process on the future energy system of New York I am following it closely and have been developing comments.
Blackout
The authors of the Climate Act had a very superficial knowledge of the electric system. The presumption in the academic energy studies that guided the Climate Act is that generation and load are sufficient aspects of the electric system for projecting electric system changes. They believe that if there is enough generation, no matter the source or where it is located, to balance the load then the system will work. Meredith Angiwn authored an entire book Shorting the Grid – The Hidden Fragility of Our Electric Grid devoted to the unacknowledged difficulties associated with wind, solar, and energy storage resources shortcomings related to maintaining voltage and overall system reliability not considered in the Climate Act. The Spanish blackout should be a wakeup call to New York politicians that the technical experts at the New York Independent System Operator and New York State Reliability Council should be fully integrated into the Energy Plan process. They are trying to resolve the myriad technical issues associated with integrating wind, solar, and energy storage into the grid and I am uncomfortable that the NYSERDA Draft Energy Plan addresses all their concerns.
Two recent posts at the Watt-Logic blog describe the blackout this spring on the Iberian peninsula that affected Spain, Portugal, and France that I think needs to be considered in the Draft Energy Plan. The first article looked at the physics of power grids and the general behavior of both synchronous generation (gas, hydro and nuclear) and inverter-based generation (wind, solar and batteries). Watt-Logic gives an overview explanation of the “importance of voltage control and reactive power” that were the root cause of the Spanish blackout. In short, the existing system depends upon synchronous generators that convert mechanical energy (spinning turbines) into electrical energy, producing alternating current that matches the frequency of the electric grid. These generators inherently provide important electric grid functions that are difficult to replicate with inverter-based resources like wind, solar, and energy storage. The problem is that not only do inverter-based resources not perform many of these functions, but they can also de-stabilize the grid in certain, poorly understood circumstances.
The second post addressed what we know about the Iberian blackout. Watt-Logic explains that the blackout “demonstrated the importance of voltage control and reactive power, and how a weak grid, with poor controls, was brought down by a single faulty solar inverter.” The basis of the blog post was a “concise but informative report produced by Red Eléctrica de España (“REE”), the Spanish Transmission System Operator (“TSO”), which is more accessible than the much longer government report (available only in Spanish – rough English translation here).”
Watt-Logic lists the key messages from the REE report:
- The blackout was triggered by a PV inverter–induced voltage oscillation
- Inappropriate disconnections of wind and solar generation, and widespread failure of reactive power support, escalated the disturbance
- REE relied on static controls and failed to deploy dynamic response assets
- Grid code non-compliance was widespread among renewables, conventional generators, and even REE itself (via non-compliant transformers)
- The collapse exposes systemic risks in low-inertia grids with high levels of inverter-based resources (“IBRs”) and inadequate voltage control
- It is notable that, despite confident denials from some renewables advocates in the immediate aftermath, it was in fact a malfunctioning solar installation that triggered the voltage oscillation initiating the collapse. Wind and solar generators failed to meet fault ride-through obligations, and both inverter-based and conventional generators failed to provide the required reactive power support. Crucially, conventional generators did not trip prematurely – they remained online until system conditions breached their design tolerances.
If you want more information about this event then I recommend reading the post. For the purposes of this article, there are no references in the Draft Energy Plan to the blackout. That is understandable given that the blackout occurred a couple of months prior to the release of the document. On the other hand, the consequences of this event have serious implications to New York’s 2040 zero-emissions mandate.
Solar Costs
The second reason that the Spanish blackout should be considered in the Draft Energy Plan is because of the cost implications. Most of the public still believes the charlatans who claim that solar is the cheapest form of energy. A recent Doomberg blog explains that after the blackout in Spain earlier this year “the true cost of solar can no longer be hidden from the public.”
The Doomberg post describes the blackout and the attempts by Spanish authorities to deflect blame away from the possibility that the problem was due to the solar facilities. Their post goes on: “As the results of the investigation became undeniable, responsibility was pinned not on solar but on the grid operators who had failed to make the necessary investments to handle the rapid influx of green electricity.” They stated that:
Last week, an expansive article in Bloomberg Green—confessionally titled “The Fix For Solar Blackouts Is Already Here”—captured this sentiment. It lamented that the penetration of solar and wind has outpaced the buildout of stabilization technologies such as synchronous condensers and grid-forming inverters. In other words, the renewables worked as designed, but the infrastructure to integrate them safely at such high percentages of supply lagged far behind:
“The result is huge spending on new wind and solar capacity, but not enough on grids. The 27 members of the European Union and the UK invest on average $0.7 in grids for every dollar spent on renewables, according to BloombergNEF. Spain ranks the lowest, with only $0.3 spent for every dollar.
Blackouts are causing political backlash against renewables that politicians cannot afford right now. ‘Here’s the problem: Investments in the right infrastructure are not keeping up,’ said António Guterres, head of the United Nations, in a July speech. ‘That ratio should be one to one.’”
When you hear someone claim that solar is cheaper than natural gas, tell them that the head of the United Nations says that for every dollar spent on solar capacity, another dollar must be spent on transmission upgrades to prevent blackouts. Then point out that because of night, another dollar must be spent on energy storage.
Doomberg sums it up:
In reality, while the marginal cost of sunlight is zero, the true system cost of integrating solar into a modern grid includes the heavy and ongoing capital expenditures needed for transmission, stabilization, balancing services, and energy storage. Without those, the electricity produced cannot be delivered reliably, making it far less “cheap” than advocates claim.
Discussion
This post provides more reasons why solar is not the solution that many believe it to be. It is time that New York politicians insist that the technical experts at the New York Independent System Operator and New York State Reliability Council be fully integrated into the Energy Plan process. The experts responsible for providing reliable electricity are working to resolve the myriad technical issues associated with integrating wind, solar, and energy storage into the grid. I am uncomfortable that the NYSERDA Draft Energy Plan addresses all their concerns.
The Draft State Energy Plan is being updated for the first time since 2017. While the mandate for the Energy Plan calls for more frequent updates there is no need to rush this update. This is the first update since the Climate Act was promulgated in 2019, so it is more important that this edition get it right than to meet an arbitrary deadline. Therefore, the fact that this consequential event is not addressed in the Draft is an important reason to delay the deadline for comments on the draft.
In my opinion, addressing this event and the changes to Federal support for renewable deployment are important enough that there should be a second draft prepared for comment. The NYSERDA response to the extremely uncertain current situation could result in a significantly different energy plan. New Yorkers should have the opportunity to address a draft that addresses these issues.
Conclusion
The Spanish Blackout has important implications for New York’s electric energy plan. The issues raised here should be addressed and resolved before the Energy Plan is finalized.
Pragmatic Environmentalist of New York 