New York Public Service Law (PSL) § 66-p establishes a renewable energy program for the Climate Act and includes a safety valve provision. Yesterday I provided a status update that provides extensive background information. In this post I describe the Independent Intervenor filing on April 16, 2026 that explained why the PSL 66-P stakeholder process must be changed from what was used in the Scoping Plan and the State Energy Plan.
I am convinced that implementation of the 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 nearly 650 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
New York Public Service Law (PSL) § 66-p establishes a renewable energy program for the Climate Act. It provides that the Commission “may temporarily suspend or modify the obligations under such program provided that the commission, after conducting a hearing as provided in section twenty of this chapter, makes a finding that the program impedes the provision of safe and adequate electric service; the program is likely to impair existing obligations and agreements; and/or that there is a significant increase in arrears or service disconnections that the commission determines is related to the program”. This safety valve was included because even the lawmakers realized that it may not be possible to transition the electric system to “zero-emissions” by relying on renewable energy. New York State never followed up with a feasibility study proving that it could be done, never pointed to another jurisdiction that implemented such a system successfully, and has not provided clear and comprehensive cost estimates.
I have joined Richard Ellenbogen, Constantine Kontogiannis, and Francis Menton (“Independent Intervenors”) submitting comments in a few Public Service Commission proceedings. I am a retired utility meteorologist, with extensive electric energy and environmental regulatory analysis experience. Ellenbogen is an electrical engineer who is President of Allied Converters where he has pioneered how “green” manufacturing can work. Constantine Kontogiannis is an engineer who has decades of experience providing energy consulting services. Menton is a retired lawyer and now writes articles on his Manhattan Contrarian blog that analyze New York’s energy transition. We have no financial interest in the Climate Act have received no funding from any outside interests, and have invested thousands of hours of our time in our efforts to explain why physics, engineering and economics prevent a Renewable Energy Program that powers a safe, adequate, and affordable electric system in New York State.
The Problem
At one time or other all the Independent Intervenors have submitted comments in proceedings that were ignored. That prompted us to make this filing recommendation for a stakeholder process that meaningfully assures New Yorkers that all technical issues have been addressed.
New York’s Climate Act Scoping Plan and the 2025 State Energy Plan were both sold as products of robust “stakeholder engagement.” My experience participating in both processes suggests something very different: carefully choreographed exercises designed to check the stakeholder box without ever putting core assumptions, modeling, or policy direction at risk.
The Climate Act Scoping Plan was supposed to be built on a transparent public process that clarified feasibility, affordability, and reliability concerns. Instead, the stakeholder phase functioned more as a one‑way comment intake system with no meaningful response‑to‑comments record and no evidence that critical technical input affected the final product.
The 2025 Draft State Energy Plan was billed as a “comprehensive roadmap” developed with extensive stakeholder input. The actual process closely mirrored the Scoping Plan experience: scripted hearings, limited opportunities for real dialogue, no systematic response to comments, and no acknowledgment of stakeholder concerns reflected by revisions in the Plan. I submitted formal comments on the stakeholder process that explained how the lack of any commitment to a response‑to‑comments document strip the process of credibility. As an example of a material problem that the State ignored, consider the Draft Energy Plan Air Quality Health Benefits Analysis Shortcomings article that showed flaws in the analytical methods and assumptions that were treated as obstacles rather than inputs to improve the Plan.
Our experience with comments in the Scoping Plan and Energy plan show a consistent pattern that we attempted to address in this filing:
- Stakeholder engagement is emphasized in the marketing materials but minimized in the actual decision‑making.
- Critical technical comments on feasibility, modeling, costs, and health benefits analysis are accepted but not addressed transparently.
- Final documents move forward as if consensus exists, when in fact substantial unresolved issues were raised in the record.
Stakeholder Process Comments
On April 17, we submitted comments arguing that the PSC must establish a revised stakeholder process for any PSL § 66-p(4) hearing that is designed to develop a usable factual record on the statutory standards in the law. The requested process should replace prior stakeholder approaches for the Climate Act Scoping Plan and the New York State Energy Plan that relied primarily on broad public participation without a structured mechanism to identify, test, and resolve disputed technical issues bearing on reliability, system adequacy, affordability-related arrears, and consistency with existing obligations.
Specifically, we stated that the Commission should order the following process steps:
- A notice opening an initial comment period that gives all stakeholders a meaningful opportunity to identify issues relevant to the statutory findings required by PSL § 66-p(4).
- At the conclusion of the comment period, Commission Staff should prepare an issue list that categorizes and prioritizes the comments received into major technical subjects, including reliability, resource adequacy, transmission readiness, contract and compliance obligations, arrears and disconnections, and definitions of safe, adequate, and affordable service.
- The documentation should identify opposing positions on each material issue so that participants and Staff can see where there is consensus, where there is factual disagreement, and where methodological disagreements require focused review.
- The schedule must provide sufficient time for written comments, reply comments, and preparation of supporting technical materials so that the record is not limited to conclusory assertions.
- One or more technical conferences should be convened at which both sides of disputed issues are presented in a structured manner, with sufficient time for questions from Staff and stakeholders.
- A dedicated conference session addressing the meaning of “safe,” “adequate,” and “affordable” service should also be included, because those terms are central to the Commission’s statutory findings and need common definitions before competing analyses can be compared.
- A post-conference report prepared by Staff that summarizes the issues raised, the competing positions presented, the areas of agreement and disagreement, and explains how those discussions inform the Commission’s determination under PSL § 66-p(4).
- This information would enable the Commission to determine if it is necessary to temporarily suspend or modify obligations under the Renewable Energy Program.
Basis for the Petition
PSL § 66-p(4) does not authorize a policy-only exercise; it requires the Commission to conduct a hearing and make findings on whether the renewable energy program impedes safe and adequate electric service, is likely to impair existing obligations and agreements, or is related to significant increases in arrears or service disconnections. Those subjects turn on technical evidence, analytical assumptions, and transparent evaluation of conflicting claims, so the stakeholder process must be designed to identify and test those issues rather than obscure them.
New York State’s prior stakeholder processes in related planning exercises did not provide an adequate mechanism to acknowledge and resolve technical objections raised in comments. As a result, parties could submit technical concerns, but there was no reliable process to classify disputed issues, identify contrary positions, and explain how unresolved disagreements affected the final conclusions.
A revised process is also consistent with the statute’s structure. Section 66-p(2) requires the Commission to consider impacts on safe and adequate electric service under reasonably foreseeable conditions when establishing the renewable energy program, and Section 66-p(4) provides a hearing mechanism to suspend or modify obligations if the program later impedes safe and adequate service or triggers other statutory concerns.
Because both provisions depend on technically supportable judgments, the Commission should adopt a stakeholder framework that is structured enough to support findings pursuant to Public Service Law § 20, the statutory standard for Commission hearings, including contested matters and proceedings where the Commission is required to make findings on the record under Section 20 hearing standards and eventual Commission action.
Proposed Process Elements
We recommended the following process components.
Open Comment Period
The first step should be an open comment period that allows any stakeholder to identify issues relevant to the PSL § 66-p(4) standards. That period should be long enough to permit submission of technical analyses, not merely summary statements, because the statutory questions involve complex electric system and affordability matters.
Staff Issue List and Prioritization
After the initial comments, Staff should prepare a public issue list that groups submissions into discrete categories and ranks them by their significance to the statutory findings. This step would focus the proceeding on the issues that matter most to whether the renewable energy program is compatible with safe and adequate electric service and related legal obligations.
Opposing Positions
For each major issue, the process should identify the principal opposing positions and the key factual or methodological disputes separating them. Doing so would prevent a one-sided workshop format and would ensure that the record clearly distinguishes contested assertions from uncontested facts.
Technical Conferences
The Commission should convene technical conferences devoted to the prioritized issues, with balanced presentation of opposing analyses and active questioning by Staff. This format would better align the proceedings with the statute’s hearing purpose by creating an organized record on disputed technical issues instead of a generalized policy conversation.
Definitions Session
A separate session should address the definitions of safe, adequate, and affordable service. Without agreed or at least clearly stated definitions, parties may use those terms inconsistently, making it difficult for the Commission to determine whether the statutory thresholds in PSL § 66-p(4) have been met.
Staff Report
At the close of the technical conferences, Staff should issue a report that documents the issues discussed, the competing positions, the evidence relied upon, and the way those discussions bear on the statutory findings the Commission must make. That report would improve transparency and help ensure that final Commission determinations are traceable to the actual record developed in the proceedings.
Rationale
The proposed process is necessary because technical comments are useful only if the proceeding has a structure that can evaluate them and explain their effect on the ultimate decision. A revised process that classifies issues, identifies competing positions, allows time for technical support, and produces a documented record would materially improve the Commission’s ability to decide whether the renewable energy program impedes safe and adequate electric service within the meaning of PSL § 66-p(4).
The process would also provide a fairer and more credible framework for all participants. Supporters and critics of the renewable energy program would each have an opportunity to present their best technical case, respond to contrary analyses, and create a record that the Commission can use for findings that are legally and factually defensible.
Proposed Ordering Clauses
Our filing requested that the Commission issue an order:
Establishing a revised stakeholder process for any PSL § 66-p(4) hearing consistent with the process elements described above.
Directing Department of Public Service Staff to develop and publish a categorized and prioritized issue list based on stakeholder comments.
Requiring the identification of opposing positions on disputed technical issues material to the statutory standards in PSL § 66-p(4).
Scheduling technical conferences with adequate time for written submissions, replies, and conference presentations.
Including a dedicated session on the definitions of safe, adequate, and affordable electric service for purposes of the hearing record.
Requiring a post-conference Staff report that explains how the record developed through the stakeholder process informs the Commission’s determination whether the renewable energy program should be suspended or modified under PSL § 66-p(4).
Conclusion
New York’s climate and energy policy choices are too consequential to be based on engagement promises. Genuine stakeholder processes require open discussion of trade offs, clear documentation of how comments are handled, and a willingness to adjust course when the evidence points in a different direction. If a PSL 66-P hearing follows the approaches used in the Scoping Plan and Energy Plan, then all the arguments for a hearing will have been in vain.
Pragmatic Environmentalist of New York 