I believe that it is necessary to reconsider the New York Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act) net zero transition because the reality is that there are so many issues coming up with the schedule and ambition of the Climate Act that it is obvious that we need to pause implementation and figure out how best to amend the law. Grid Inertia support is another example illustrating reliability and affordability concerns.
I am convinced that implementation of the Climate Act net-zero mandates will do more harm than good because the energy density of wind and solar energy is too low and the resource intermittency too variable to ever support a reliable electric system relying on those resources. I have followed the Climate Act since it was first proposed, submitted comments on the Climate Act implementation plan, and have written over 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.
I am currently overwhelmed with blog posts that I want to write, regulatory submittals I should submit, and it is spring so my life outside of this blog demands time too. As a result, I unapologetically acknowledge the use of Perplexity AI to produce this post because it would not have been written were it not for its support. I edited the output, checked references and added my own references.
Grid Inertia Past
I started working for Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation (NMPC) in 1981. At the time it was a vertically integrated utility responsible for generating, transmitting, and distributing electricity. The importance of reliability was an all-encompassing driver at the company. Since then, much has changed and, in my opinion, not for the better. NMPC proudly described their generation mix of coal, oil, nuclear, and hydro as resilient and reliable.
The emphasis on reliability took many forms but there was an explicit mandate to support the ancillary gird services needed to keep the lights on. Grid inertia is one example ancillary service that helps keep the power system frequency stable by using the stored kinetic energy in large rotating machines, such as synchronous generators or synchronous condensers, that are physically spinning in sync with the grid. When there is a sudden mismatch between supply and demand—like a generator trip—this rotating mass resists the change in speed, slowing the rate at which grid frequency deviates and buying operators time to respond.
When NMPC was responsible for providing electricity to consumers the system was built around large rotating machines synchronized with all the other generators in New York and beyond. NMPC owned and operated many hydro-electric units that provided additional grid inertia support. For example, the hydro plants on the Black River could provide grid inertia and did so for 70 years until sold about 30 years ago when New York politicians demanded a de-regulated electric system. At that time NMPC had to sell all their generating plants and got out of the power management business.
Grid Inertia Present
In today’s electric system the New York System Operator (NYISO) runs the system: “NYISO-administered markets send price signals designed to attract and retain investment in the types of flexible, firm, cleaner, dispatchable resources essential for efficiently maintaining system adequacy into the future.” The design of the market establishes price signals necessary to provide the services needed keep the lights on. However, The Climate Act is shutting down traditional plants faster than we can replace all the resources they provided so the grid loses the resilience that NMPC provided. Eventually, NYISO system operators will need to procure inertia explicitly as an ancillary service, either from remaining synchronous machines or from technologies that can emulate inertial response.
NYISO does not have a standalone “inertia” market today. Instead, synchronous generators, synchronous condensers, and certain non‑generator devices can be paid when this resource is needed. This is insufficient in my opinion. As evidence the current owner of NMPC, National Grid is building synchronous condensers because they must think they are necessary for reliability.
In June 2024, GE Vernova announced that it would build two turnkey synchronous condenser sites for National Grid at the Coffeen and Taylorville 115 kV substations. Each site will include three synchronous condenser units and associated transformers, with the stated purpose of improving grid stability as the resource mix shifts under New York’s Climate Act decarbonization policies.
Market Failure
I think the construction of the these plants represents market failure. The Coffeen St substation used to serve the Black River hydro plants. Now these plants are paid only when they produce power. I have heard from NMPC retirees that said it t was hard to believe that you can contract for power and and not contract for the inertial support and other ancillary services. He said It would take less than 24 hours to bring this back to how it was run before if there was a suitable market.
New York already had synchronous resources that historically supplied many of the services necessary to support the electric system. New York is not simply adapting to a new grid. It is paying to replace a reliability function that legacy hydro plants once provided. That should raise a basic question for both the Public Service Commission and NYISO: why are customers paying for new synchronous condensers instead of first determining whether existing hydro facilities could be contracted or compensated to provide comparable system-strength services?
The fact that there is a market gap matters. If the only straightforward compensation mechanism is for dedicated voltage support equipment, then utilities and regulators will naturally gravitate toward building new rate-based infrastructure. Existing hydro resources may be physically capable of helping, but unless there is a contract or explicit market design to value those services, they will be overlooked. The losers are New York ratepayers.
Discussion
This is why the Coffeen and Taylorville projects are more than a local transmission story. They are evidence that the Climate Act is driving a second layer of costs that is rarely acknowledged in public debates. New York is not just paying for renewable generation. It is also paying for replacement grid services that were once provided by conventional and hydroelectric units as part of ordinary operations.
That fact alone should change how New Yorkers think about the claimed cost of the energy transition. Wind and solar developers may claim that their projects are cheap, but that comparison often ignores the system cost of all the additional equipment needed to keep the grid operating reliably once conventional generators are retired or used less often. The Coffeen and Taylorville projects are a clear example of those hidden costs now being imposed on upstate ratepayers. The observed increases in recent utility rate cases are not caused exclusively by the Climate Act but there is no question that buried costs like this are exacerbating costs at the time there is an affordability crisis.
Before more synchronous condenser projects are approved, state regulators should require a transparent comparison of alternatives. That analysis should evaluate whether existing hydro units, especially those historically operated by Niagara Mohawk, could be returned to ancillary support service through contracts, tariff changes, or operating modifications. If that can be done at lower cost, then building new synchronous condensers should be the last resort, not the default option.
Conclusion
The larger lesson is straightforward. The Climate Act does not merely require more wind, solar, and batteries. It also requires an electric system strong enough to survive with fewer conventional synchronous machines. When policymakers ignore that reality, ratepayers end up paying twice: once for the new intermittent resources, and again for the equipment needed to compensate for what those resources do not provide. Implementation of the Climate Act Renewable Energy Program needs to be paused to address this hidden affordability burden.
Pragmatic Environmentalist of New York 