The New York State Energy Research & Development Authority (NYSERDA ) recently announced the completion of its Zero by 40 Technoeconomic Assessment (Zero by 40 Report). The report directly addresses what I think is the biggest reliability risk of the Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act) net-zero electric system transition. I previously summarized the report and described the technologies evaluated in a second article. This post describes the implications of the report findings relative to the future of the Climate Act.
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 600 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.
I acknowledge the use of Perplexity AI to generate a summary of the report used to outline this commentary and to provide references included in this document.
Overview
The current focus of Climate Act implementation is on meeting the interim reduction target of a 40% GHG reduction by 2030 and the all electricity must be generated by “zero-emissions” resources by 2040 mandate. My previous post provides more background.
The Public Service Commission (PSC) initiated a process to “identify technologies that can close the gap between the capabilities of existing renewable energy technologies and future system reliability needs, and more broadly identify the actions needed to pursue attainment of the Zero Emission by 2040 Target.” This class of technologies has been dubbed Dispatchable Emissions-Free Resources (DEFR). The Zero by 40 Report responds to that order.
An overview of Climate Act compliance must also consider Public Service Law (PSL) § 66-P (Renewable Energy Program). That law establishes the 70% by 2030 renewable energy mandate and zero-emissions by 2040 target under the Climate Act. It establishes which technologies qualify as “renewable energy systems”. Those technologies include solar thermal, photovoltaics, onshore and offshore wind, hydroelectric, geothermal electric, geothermal ground source heat, tidal energy, wave energy, ocean thermal, and hydrogen fuel cells (excluding fossil fuel-based generation).
There is one other Climate Act consideration. On Oct. 24, 2025, the New York Albany County Supreme Court issued a decision on litigation against the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC). The judge ordered DEC to issue final regulations establishing economy-wide greenhouse gas emission (GHG) limits on or before Feb. 6, 2026, or go to the Legislature and get the Climate Act modified. At the time of this writing, the Hochul Administration has not indicated how it will respond.
Zero by 2040 Technoeconomic Assessment
I admit that I was not familiar with the term “technoeconomic”. When I looked it up, I found that there is another similar term “techno-economic analysis”. The difference is relevant. Technoeconomic assessment is an adjective that describes an analysis that includes both technical and economic factors. A techno-economic analysis is a formal process that compares the technical and economic performance that informs decision making. This report is a technoeconomic assessment but what we need is a techno-economic analysis.
The Zero by 40 Report is like the Scoping Plan and Draft Energy Plan because they all address technical and economic factors but do not include a feasibility analysis supporting a particular proposed pathway. None of these reports provide comprehensive, technology-specific cost estimates that would allow direct comparison of technologies to each other and to conventional alternatives. There are also technological considerations that are noted but not resolved in all three reports. A techno-economic analysis would provide the details necessary to determine feasibility of a future system meeting the legal mandates of PSL 66-P.
DEFR Definition
The Zero by 40 Report expands the situations where DEFR technology will be needed to close the gap between available resources and load projections in the zero-emission electric system. Prior to this report, DEFR requirements focused on extended periods during coldest and hottest weather events where there will be insufficient generation from renewable energy systems. This addressed the inconvenient fact that observed peak loads occurred during periods of low renewable resource availability. The additional DEFR concerns noted in the report reflect increased acknowledgment that there is more to a zero-emissions electric system than the technologies listed in PSL 66-P.
In this report the DEFR technologies were classified into three categories:
- Low-capacity factor resources that can be deployed during periods of high demand and low renewable generation, offering reliability, fast-ramping capabilities, and no duration limitations, assuming fuel availability, but are not operated as baseload units due to plant economics.
- High-capacity factor resources operate the majority of the year and can provide reliable baseload power, including power during challenging events, but are less suitable for fast ramping or frequent starts and stops.
- Gap-rightsizing resources can help balance supply and demand to adjust the capacity gap. While they do not generate electricity directly, they enhance the utilization of other clean resources.
The original DEFR concern focused only on the peaking hours. The Zero by 40 Report explains that high-capacity factor DEFR is best suited to operate most of the year providing reliable baseload power. The report notes that these technologies can provide power during challenging events, but these resources are “less suitable for fast ramping or frequent starts and stops.” This means that to provide the required backup for the PSL 66-P renewable energy systems this category of DEFR will not be used as designed. When resources are used inefficiently it necessarily means higher costs.
Timing Considerations
An important implication is the lack of urgency with this process. The report states that “electric system modeling will be needed to understand the least-cost mix of resources and each of their potential unique contributions, which falls outside the scope of this study.” The PSC order that directed NYSERDA to address this problem was initiated in May 2023. The Department of Public Service (DPS) convened a two-day technical conference on December 11, 2023, but other than the process that defined “zero emissions” and now the release of this report nothing else happened in this proceeding related to DEFR.
The PSC, New York Independent System Operator and independent analysts all agree that DEFRs are needed. Before we can determine how to implement the Climate Act electric system consistent with PSL 66-P renewable energy resources it is necessary to determine if it is feasible. Every day the plan for DEFR backup is delayed the costs associated with what may be a false solution increase. If there is no viable DEFR solution, then the PSL 66-P renewable energy resources approach cannot be implemented.
There is another timing consideration. The conclusions in the Zero by 40 Report describe actions that can facilitate the readiness of DEFR to achieve the scale needed for 2040. Those actions include:
- Pursue a diverse set of resources to minimize the risk of overreliance on individual technologies
- Start early to increase the likelihood of readiness by 2040.
- Invest in grid-enhancing technologies early to minimize the need for backstop resources.
- Invest in innovation to enhance resource viability
- Develop strategies across industries for unlocking key resources with infrastructure hurdles.
- Engage early with technology developers, end users, and other stakeholders.
- Conduct grid modeling to understand tradeoffs of relying on different resources.
- Conduct a regular reassessment of options and remain flexible as new technology options come online.
In my opinion, there is very little reason to expect that the required DEFR support will be available in 2040. It is not necessary to spend a lot of time referencing quotes in the Zero by 40 Report supporting that position because these recommended actions support that conclusion. References to early action and the need for innovation are all you need to know that the report implicitly admits the schedule is in doubt. Importantly, if there are delays addressing these recommendations then successful DEFR deployment needed to achieve the 2040 mandate is impossible.
Feasibility
The Zero by 40 Report is proof that DEFR technologies are needed to make the PSL 66-P renewable resource electric energy system viable during extended periods of low wind and solar resource availability. Clearly a feasibility analysis is needed to determine if acceptable DEFR technologies are possible. However, before one can begin, definitions for affordability, reliability risk, and environmental impact boundary conditions need to be established because acceptability standards determine “feasibility”.
The New York Albany County Supreme Court decision requires the DEC to issue final regulations establishing economy-wide greenhouse gas emission (GHG) limits on or before Feb. 6, 2026, or go to the Legislature and get the Climate Act modified. Given all the evidence suggesting that the 2030 GHG emission target cannot be met, establishing regulations that cannot be achieved is inappropriate. If DEC goes to the Legislature, then both the schedule and the aspirations of the Act should be reassessed based on what has happened since the Climate Act was enacted. The Zero by 40 Report supports changing the aspirations of the Act.
If there is a reassessment of the Climate Act, then the Legislature should establish definitions for affordability, reliability risk, and environmental impact boundary conditions, mandate a feasibility analysis, and require that implementation only proceed if feasibility relative to the constraints is proven. Once implementation begins, status relative to those metrics should be assessed regularly and if the boundary conditions are exceeded, then implementation should be halted.
Discussion
There is a lot of useful information in this report. I did not address the specifics issues associated with the DEFR technologies evaluated. The conclusions in the report support my position that DEFR technologies are not ready to support the PSL 66-P renewable energy resources mandated by politicians.
Importantly, there is still no plan to propose a specific resource mix based on feasibility. The Zero by 40 Report calls for electric system modeling to “understand the least-cost mix of resources and each of their potential unique contributions” but does not admit that the DEFR technologies might fail a comprehensive feasibility assessment based on affordability, reliability risks, and environmental impacts.
Even if feasible DEFR technologies are found, the Climate Act schedule needs to be re-assessed. This report calls for additional work, but there is no urgency by the PSC to offer a plan to get there. The Order that initiated this report was filed 28 months ago in May 2023. If it takes another 28 months before the recommendations to take early action are evaluated, defined, and implemented that could too late to ensure these resources are available when needed.
Conclusion
This report provides multiple reasons that New York State needs to pause Climate Act implementation. Future action should only proceed if reliability requirements are ensured and this report identifies issues that may make that impossible.
Pragmatic Environmentalist of New York 