The New York State Department of Public Service and NYSERDA released the Draft 2026 Clean Energy Standard Biennial Review (Report) on July 1, 2026. This is the third biennial review since the Clean Energy Standard was established in 2016. Having submitted comments on the 2024 draft and the related Affordability Standard proceeding, I reviewed this latest document to see whether the Commission has responded to the fundamental concerns raised in previous comment cycles. The short answer is that the report documents worsening conditions but stops short of the structural reforms that have been repeatedly called for.
I am convinced that implementation of the 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 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 acknowledge the use of Perplexity AI to generate summaries and references included in this document.
Overview
The Report includes a comprehensive summary of the clean energy policy and regulatory background in the first chapter that I recommend if you are interested in comprehensive background information. The Introduction also describes the requirements for the Report:
Public Service Law section 66-p requires that the Public Service Commission (PSC or Commission) issues a review for notice and comment that considers “(a) progress in meeting the overall targets for deployment of renewable energy systems and zero emission sources, including factors that will or are likely to frustrate progress toward the targets; (b) distribution of systems by size and load zone; and (c) annual funding commitments and expenditures.” This Report serves to inform the Commission’s review. It summarizes the progress made toward the renewable energy and zero emission goals since the establishment of New York State’s Clean Energy Standard (CES) as set in Public Service Law section 66-p, assesses what remains to be done to achieve those goals, and invites comments from stakeholders and the public on these or any other matters raised in this Report. As part of the assessment, this Report also addresses how changes in federal energy and trade policy have impacted State progress, including forecasted deployment of additional offshore wind resources. This Report also identifies available clean energy solutions that can be incorporated within reliability planning processes to meet State reliability needs, particularly in New York City, per directive from the Commission in the Order Adopting Clean Energy Standard Biennial Review as Final and Making Other Findings (2025 CES Biennial Review Order) and the Order Withdrawing Public Policy Transmission Need.
2024 Biennial Review
In my prior comments on the 2024 CES Biennial Review and the Affordability Standard proceeding, I raised fundamental concerns.
- The 2024 review acknowledged the 70% by 2030 goal was unlikely to be met but offered no realistic revised schedule.
- The state has no credible plan to ensure reliable electricity generation given new large loads and electrification goals. The transition to a weather-dependent grid introduces significant reliability risks, particularly the correlated intermittency of wind and solar across New York.
- New York State Energy Research & Development Authority (NYSERDA) modeling obscures true incremental costs and fails to disaggregate CLCPA-related costs from pre-existing programs.
- I have long argued that the State needs to formally define the safety valve criteria — what constitutes a “significant increase in arrears” or threat to “safe and adequate electric service” that would warrant suspending or modifying programs.
- I also believe that the stakeholder process used in the last version was broken because impactful issues were never acknowledged or addressed.
My initial impression is that this edition of New York Agency rhetoric does not align well with reality or my previous concerns;
The 70% by 2030 Goal Is Even Further Out of Reach, but…..
The 2024 Biennial Review already acknowledged that the 70% renewable energy by 2030 target was unlikely to be met, projecting 41% renewable coverage. The 2026 draft revises the 2030 load forecast upward again — from 164,915 GWh to 171,050 GWh — driven largely by large loads (data centers, manufacturing) that were not anticipated when the CES was created. With attrition applied, currently operational and contracted renewables are now projected to deliver only 40% of the 2030 load forecast, down from 41% in the 2024 review and 45% in the original 2020 CES Order.
The report acknowledges that large loads are adding approximately 21.4 TWh of demand that was not envisioned when the CES was established. Yet it does not propose a realistic revised schedule or a feasibility-based reassessment of the timeline. The 70% target remains legally mandated but functionally unachievable on the current trajectory.
When I said this report does not align with reality I was thinking of this issue. The original statutory requirement for a 40% statewide GHG reduction by 2030 is effectively displaced by a new mandate to achieve a 60% reduction by 2040, “to the maximum extent feasible and cost effective,” using 1990 as the baseline. The 2026 Enacted Budget (Part VV of the TED bill) made several significant amendments to the CLCPA, including: replacing the 40% by 2030 GHG reduction target with a 60% by 2040 target, changing the GHG accounting methodology from a 20-year GWP to a 100-year GWP, excluding biogenic CO2 and out-of-state fossil fuel extraction emissions from the state inventory, extending the DEC regulatory deadline to December 31, 2028, and changing the Climate Action Council plan update cycle from every five years to every six years.
The 2026 Draft Biennial Review, dated July 1, 2026 — after the budget was enacted — makes no mention of any of these statutory changes. The report continues to reference the original CLCPA targets (70% renewables by 2030, 9 GW offshore wind by 2035, zero emissions by 2040) without acknowledging that the 2030 interim target has been formally replaced by a 2040 target. This is a significant omission. The budget bill’s relaxation of the 2030 interim target fundamentally changes the regulatory landscape that the Biennial Review is supposed to assess. By continuing to frame the analysis around the original 2030 deadline and the original GHG accounting methodology, the report is evaluating progress against a standard that no longer exists in statute.
This is particularly striking given that the report was prepared and filed after the budget was enacted. The omission suggests either a deliberate decision to avoid acknowledging the statutory relaxation, or a failure to integrate the most recent legislative changes into the review. Either way, it undermines the credibility of the review as an honest assessment of the state’s clean energy progress.
Reliability Concerns Are Acknowledged — But Not Resolved
The 2026 draft includes a new Section 6 on Reliability Concerns, which is a step forward from the 2024 version. It acknowledges that the NYISO’s Q3 2025 STAR Report identified generator deactivation reliability needs as early as summer 2026 in New York City and Long Island. It also notes the Commission’s December 2025 order opening a proceeding to address NYC reliability needs.
However, the report does not address the fundamental reliability risk of a grid increasingly dependent on weather-dependent resources. It does not address the correlated intermittency of wind and solar across the state, nor does it propose robust criteria for what constitutes “safe and adequate electric service” under the statute. The reliability concern is acknowledged but not resolved.
Affordability and Cost Transparency Remain Absent
The affordability and cost transparency issues raised in the Affordability Standard proceeding remain entirely unaddressed in this document. The draft explicitly defers forward-looking cost estimates to the separate DPS Annual CLCPA Report. It contains no affordability metrics, no discussion of arrears or service disconnections, and no connection between CES program costs and ratepayer impacts.
The core affordability concerns — that CLCPA implementation is a significant driver of rate increases, that the Reference Case modeling obscures true incremental costs, and that the state has failed to provide comprehensive cost accounting — remain unaddressed.
Safety Valve Criteria Still Undefined
The safety valve mechanism under New York Public Service Law § 66-p allows the PSC to delay Climate Act targets when safety and affordability concerns arise. The definition of “safe and adequate electric service” and what constitutes a “significant increase in arrears” remain undefined. The 2025 Biennial Review Order did not define these criteria, and the 2026 draft does not advance this issue.
This is a critical gap. Without defined criteria, the safety valve is effectively a theoretical option that cannot be triggered in practice. Ratepayers are left with no clear mechanism to pause or modify programs when they demonstrably harm consumers.
Load Growth and Interconnection Challenges Worsen
The draft documents a significant upward revision in load forecasts. NYISO’s 2030 load forecast increased by 16 TWh (10%) between 2020 and 2026, and the 2040 baseline forecast increased by more than 23 TWh (13%). The interconnection process continues to be a bottleneck, with the NYISO’s new Cluster Study Process expected to take approximately two years to complete for each cluster.
The report acknowledges that the interconnection process has been a major factor in project delays, with many projects experiencing three- to four-year timelines. The new Cluster Study enhancements are described as incremental improvements rather than fundamental reforms.
The Stakeholder Process Remains Broken
The draft invites comments from stakeholders and the public, but it does not demonstrate any systematic response to prior comments. The fundamental concern that impactful issues are never acknowledged or addressed in the regulatory process remains unchanged.
Positive Developments
The report does document some positive developments, including the extension of the Zero Emission Credit (ZEC) program through 2049, the approval of the Offshore Wind Implementation Plan, and the establishment of the Nuclear Reliability Backbone proceeding. These are meaningful steps, but they do not address the fundamental feasibility and affordability concerns.
Conclusion
The 2026 Draft CES Biennial Review is a thorough documentation of the state of New York’s clean energy transition, but it does not address the fundamental structural issues that have been raised in prior comment cycles. The report documents a transition that is falling further behind schedule, facing increasing reliability risks, and imposing significant costs on ratepayers — but it does not propose the structural changes necessary to address these problems. Moreover, the failure to include the Budget Bill revisions to the Climate Act undermines the credibility of the review as an honest assessment of the state’s clean energy progress.
The Commission has an opportunity to address these concerns in the final order. The questions raised in prior comments remain open:
- What is the realistic timeline for achieving the 70% renewable energy goal?
- What are the criteria for invoking the §66-p safety valve?
- What is the comprehensive cost of the transition, and how will it be allocated?
- How will the state ensure reliability during the transition?
These questions deserve answers before the Commission adopts the final order.
Pragmatic Environmentalist of New York 