Author: rogercaiazza

I am a meteorologist (BS and MS degrees), was certified as a consulting meteorologist and have worked in the air quality industry for over 40 years. I author two blogs. Environmental staff in any industry have to be pragmatic balancing risks and benefits and (https://pragmaticenvironmentalistofnewyork.blog/) reflects that outlook. The second blog addresses the New York State Reforming the Energy Vision initiative (https://reformingtheenergyvisioninconvenienttruths.wordpress.com). Any of my comments on the web or posts on my blogs are my opinion only. In no way do they reflect the position of any of my past employers or any company I was associated with.

Observations about the Con Ed Rate Case

Over the last six months I have been working with several colleagues to intervene in New York rate cases in an attempt to get someone to listen to us regarding the futility of the Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act) net-zero transition.  In our current effort we intervened in the Consolidated Edison of New York (Con Ed) rate case.  Francis Menton recently described our latest objection that provides an overview of this effort.  This article reproduces Richard Ellenbogen’s long and detailed explanation of why the system is broken.

Richard Ellenbogen has been speaking to NY State policy makers and regulators since 2019 regarding the deficiencies inherent in NY State Energy policy.  He has a proven record implementing carbon reduction programs at his own manufacturing business in Westchester County where it has reduced its electric utility load by 80% while reducing its carbon footprint by 30% – 40% below that of the downstate system.  I have previously published other articles by Ellenbogen including a summary description of his issues with the Climate Act.

The following is a lightly edited copy of an email Ellenbogen sent on 15 December 2025.

Overview

I have just spent the past six months as a party to the Con Ed rate case (25-E-0072 and 25-G-0073) as part of a group called the Independent Intervenors that also includes Roger Caiazza and Francis Menton.  It is six months of my life that I will never get back.

I say that because the system is fatally flawed and skewed against the rate payer and towards special interests.  The DPS (Department of Public Services) is supposed to protect the interests of the rate payer but from what I saw, their primary goal was expediency and trying to avoid angering special interest groups to avoid political blowback.

Four months during the middle of the rate case is done in forced confidentiality.  All the parties get into a “room” in forced secrecy to negotiate except no one was negotiating on behalf of the rate payers despite claims to the contrary.  I compare this period to an incident that occurred when I was nine and playing ball inside the house.  I chipped a glass lampshade.  To keep from having to explain what happened, I turned the chipped part towards the wall and hoped that my mother wouldn’t see it.  That is no different than what occurred during this rate case.  Just as I did with the lampshade, they are hiding things from the rate payers and hoping that they won’t notice except the ramifications of this are far more impactful than a broken lamp.  They are deluding themselves because just as I told state officials regarding the Climate Act almost seven years ago, the political pork serving no engineering purpose built into this case is going to negatively impact the ratepayers of both NY City and Westchester.  It is tangentially related to the Real Estate Board of New York (REBNY) analysis which I will address later in this document.  It highlights only one negative aspect of the hearings and state and city policy but the impact on city residents will be crippling.

The result of the negotiations is called the Joint Proposal (JP) and parties either accept it or reject it and those objections can be resolved at a Post Settlement Hearing which occurred on Wednesday December 3.  The Joint Proposal runs 379 pages.

Our Objections

We chose to object to the settlement and were offered the opportunity to question witnesses from DPS and Con Ed.  Part of me thinks that if I had been a better litigator, I might have accomplished more during the hearing but part of me realizes that the sole purpose of the accepting parties was to object to every document that we submitted.   References to the documents are included.  I take no issue with the judges as they did their jobs according to the limits of court procedure, however the reality of the process does not work in the ratepayer’s favor for several reasons.  I only took issue with two statements made by the judges, but I bit my tongue to avoid drawing their ire.  I will elaborate on those two incidents below.  

First, despite the judges being there, the hearing is controlled by attorneys and staff that clearly have absolutely no understanding about how the utility system works.  I learned that in 2008 when I beat up Con Ed’s lawyers during a tariff hearing before the DPS. Things have not improved over the past 17 years.  Their sole purpose in these hearings, along with NY City’s Lawyers, EDF’s (Environmental Defense Fund) lawyers, and DPS lawyers,  was to try to disallow anything that might contradict the accepted JP.  The attorneys may understand the law but they don’t understand energy distribution systems, nor do they apparently care to.  Further, using the term, “Environmental Defense”, anywhere near this rate case is an oxymoron.  This JP is an affront to the environment along with being an affront to ratepayers.  The impact of math and physics on energy systems, the acknowledgement of which was so lacking in this settlement process, dictated that.

Second, we were allowed to ask questions of the DPS and Con Ed staff, but I quickly learned that all they had to say was that they were unfamiliar with any document that we presented and then they didn’t have to answer any questions about the document. Several of these were state documents published by the New York Independent System Operator (NYISO) and New York State Energy Research & Development Authority (NYSERDA) that we would hope that people responsible for the utility system would be aware of.  Their ignorance or willful ignorance of critical aspects of utility system operations and published reports don’t bode well and goes a long way to explaining the rapidly rising utility rates and impending energy shortages that the NYISO has stated will impact the downstate region within the next few years.  This highlights one issue that I had with a judge’s statement where he said, “Staff can’t be expected to know everything.”  Except they are being paid to know things.  Why was it that three unpaid volunteers knew more about what was wrong with this than people that are being paid to run the system?

Third, Con Ed staff could not pass Electrical Engineering 101, which is a problem for a company that is operating the electric utility system for nine million people.  That was highlighted by a judge’s statement after we asked about Local Law 97.  The judge stated that (paraphrased) “Local Law 97 is the law and it wasn’t a matter for discussion.”  I almost stood up and said, “But there is a higher law, and it can’t be negotiated with.”  But I didn’t feel that would have had any effect despite being true.  The problem with all of NY State energy policy is that it defies the physics and math of “Natural Law” and those don’t care about the Climate Act, Local Law 97, or this Joint Proposal.  These people seem to believe that if they state their positions loudly enough and shut down dissent, they will prevail.  As I said to Roger Caiazza on the phone the other day, we will eventually prevail because physical law says that we have to.  It’s only a question of how much damage will be done by these laws and to NY residents in the process.  NY State is learning that firsthand as they have now realized that their precious Climate Act is driving up utility rates to a level where it is breaking the backs of rate payers and that they can’t hit their emission targets.    That is something that was obvious seven years ago and they were told that this would happen.

As Roger Caiazza noted recently, the State Energy Plan analysis of total monthly energy costs expects the cost of capital to install replacement appliances and vehicles that can meet the Climate Act zero-emissions mandate is nearly $600 a month more than replacement with conventional household appliances and vehicles even after the savings of more efficient equipment are factored in.  Beyond the high rates, the state’s renewable percentage relative to load is projected to drop by 2% over the next 5 years.  A document that we tried to present during the December 3 hearing clearly showing that, based upon an analysis of a state report, was objected to by the attorneys in the room and was disallowed as irrelevant.

Our issues with state policy in general and this rate case in particular can be explained by the following analogy.  As you may or may not remember from high school physics, the acceleration due to earth’s gravity is 9.8 meters/second2.   Imagine if Boeing or Airbus arbitrarily declared that the acceleration due to gravity was not 9.8 meters/second2 but was instead 47% lower than that at 5.2 meters/second2   and then invested hundreds of millions of dollars designing planes to that standard.  It would allow them to build planes with smaller engines, reducing their costs, and also declare that their planes had a much longer range reducing fuel costs for the airlines.  However, if they ever built a plane to those specifications and tried to fly it, it would drop like a stone because as I mentioned previously, the laws of physics are not negotiable.  Additionally, all the money spent engineering, developing, and building the planes to the false metric would be wasted.   NY City has essentially done the same thing to the generation metrics in its Local Law 97 as was shown in the prior analogy and the system is going to drop like a stone if they try to implement it.  The Con Ed JP is working to support this policy that defies natural law and ratepayers are going to suffer as a result, left holding the bag with enormous amounts of money being wasted on a futile effort.

Our position in this case was simple.  Don’t spend money on unnecessary electrical equipment that won’t help the ratepayer during the three year period covered by this case.  That seemed to be too difficult of a concept for DPS staff, Con Ed staff, and all of the lawyers in the room to comprehend.  Keep in mind that if parties to the case push their pet projects, even though the math says that they won’t work, if those projects are in the JP, then Con Ed gets to build more stuff and make their percentage profit on it.  There is about $838 million worth of construction projects (New Business Capital) in the JP.  We wanted to present a fully accurate figure of how much of that is related to unnecessary projects to support building electrification in support of Local Law 97 that the state has now started to roll back elsewhere because the process will be crippling to rate payers.  However, Con Ed stated that they couldn’t break out those figures although NY State was able to do that for the state system.  By our estimate, about one third of that $838 million could be eliminated, or about $270 million – $300 million.  However, removing that would reduce Con Ed’s profits by $27 – $30 million and NY City would lose the property taxes imposed on that $270 million – $300 million of infrastructure.  For those in Westchester that think that this doesn’t impact them, electrification costs across the entire Con Ed system are distributed proportionally across all Con Ed ratepayers.  So even though no one in Westchester voted for the City Council that passed Local Law 97, residents of Westchester will be paying for both the additional electrification and the NY City taxes applied to it.  About 250 years ago, a bunch of tea was thrown into a harbor regarding a similar situation.

Beyond replacing aging infrastructure, there is one project in particular that would greatly improve the downstate energy system and that is to replace 75% of the train cars in the NY City Subway system that don’t currently have regenerative braking systems.  Calculations indicate that peak system load could be reduced by 500 Megawatts of peak load and thousands of Gigawatt-hours of energy use annually simply by buying new train cars.  That would also greatly decrease emissions and reduce car maintenance.   However, we were told that this was outside the scope of the rates case even though it is the fastest, simplest, and least expensive way to harden the downstate energy system.  It would also help to reduce transit costs.

Objection Rationale Facts

The balance of this email will include a detailed discussion of why the JP is not in the interests of the rate payers using documents and math that we tried to introduce during the hearing, but which were objected to, or the staff plead ignorance so we couldn’t question them on it.  Understanding the documents requires nothing more than a knowledge of simple arithmetic and the following facts. 

  • A BTU is a British Thermal Unit.  A KBtu is 1000 BTU’s.  A Therm (Unit of gas billing done by the utility) is 100,000 BTU’s or 100 KBTU’s.
  •        A Kilowatt-Hour (KWh) equates to the energy used by a load of 1000 watts for one hour or alternatively that of a 100 watt light bulb for 10 hours.  The utility bills for KWh used during a one month period.
  •        There are 29.3 KWh in a Therm (100,000 BTU).  That is an energy equivalence. 
  •        Carbon Emissions are measured in Metric Tons ( t or mt in the documents) which are 2204 pounds in Imperial units.
  •        Power (P) = Current (I) x Voltage (V).  P=I xV.   As the system voltage is constant, as loads increase, power demand increases and current increases proportionally.  This is taught in high school physics and Electrical Engineering 101 but is part of what was objected to by the parties in the case.
  •        Wires are not perfect conductors.  They have a resistance (R) and the energy losses are measured in watts (W).  Losses on the wires equal I2 xR.  So as the power demands increase, the current increases and the line loss increases.  Line loss appears as heat in the wires and components of the utility system, such as transformers. If the load doubles, P doubles, I doubles and the line loss increases by a factor of four.  Line loss costs are paid for by the ratepayers as part of the “Delivery” portion of the bill.
  •        As wires get hotter, their resistance increases.  One of the documents shows the equation for this but simply put, for every 18 degree increase in temperature above 70 degrees-F, the resistance of aluminum or copper (the primary conductors used on the utility system) will increase by 4% and line loss for those components will increase by 4%.  When I received a grant from the state in 2010 to analyze line losses and mitigate them, Con Ed mounted power monitors I built onto their poles that measured the before and after of the process.  However, these monitors also measured the temperature of the transformers  that they were connected to.    On a 90-degree summer day, the metal shell of the  transformers reached over 140  degrees-F, indicating at least a 16% increase of resistance.  If the exterior of the transformer in the open air was 140 degrees, the interior was likely substantially hotter.

 A July 2008 presentation by Con Ed at a DPS session on line losses (Case 08-E-0751) that was initiated based upon a paper I wrote showed that the average line loss over the course of a year was 7%.  That included an average of 3% losses during the winter when loads are lower and wires and equipment are cooler and 11% losses during the summer when loads are higher and wires and equipment are hotter.  I tried to use a slide from their presentation, but they objected to their own documents because they said that it was 17 years old and not applicable.  The following will show how ridiculous that objection was.  Con Ed has not publicly released line loss data since 2008 but it can be clearly shown that the 7% is the low end of line loss and it is going to get worse, not better.  The NYISO has predicted that loads are going to increase and if state policies are followed, NY State’s loads will peak during the winter by 2033 instead of during the summer as they do now.  As a result, winter line losses will approach the 11% of summer line losses and the average line loss will increase from 7% to 11%..  Despite the colder winter temperatures, the even higher pending winter loads will raise the losses to near those encountered during the summer.  Further, Con Ed has not replaced a lot of the equipment on the system since 2007 so there is no reason to believe that line loss has decreased.  The image below is from the project that I did in 2010 and both of those transformers were not new then and are still in use 15 years later.  The small grey electrical boxes below the transformers are the power monitors I built and if you look at the Monitor 11 photo, you will see a small beige patch with a wire connected to the power monitor halfway up the transformer.  That is the temperature sensor.  There were four monitors located on transformers in various locations in New Rochelle and they communicated via Zigbee and ethernet to a computer in my home that collected data every few seconds. 

If someone needs to wonder about how old the infrastructure in the Con Ed system is,  EIOP  23441915 Ed Koch Queensboro Bridge 13kV Riser Replacement in the JP is to replace an extremely old transmission cable on one of the East River bridges.  We didn’t object to that as it is a necessary expense, and it is those types of projects that need to be executed.  Throughout the list of EIOP’s are statements saying that equipment shortages may complicate their ability to be executed.  That raises the question, “Why are we building unnecessary projects that are very likely to compromise supply chains and the ability to build necessary projects?”  I copied the first two pages of an article from the IEEE Spectrum Magazine, February, 2025 (Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers) that documents the acute transformer shortage facing the entire world.  It is a large document and it is behind a firewall so if anyone wants the full copy, feel free to ask me for it.  Transformer shortages are affecting energy projects everywhere.

Another example of the age of the downstate system is made clearly evident by this caption copied from page 30 of the NYISO 2025-2034 Reliability Analysis documenting the age of NY City’s generation fleet.  The rest of the downstate system isn’t much newer.  The caption speaks for itself.

New York’s generation fleet is among the oldest in the country. Compared to generation in other Independent System Operator (ISO)/Regional Transmission Operator (RTO) regions in the United States, NYCA generation ranks among the oldest or second oldest in each of the natural gas steam turbine, combustion turbine, and combined cycle technology types. This is particularly apparent in New York City where the average age of a steam turbine is 65 years.

Objection Rationale

With knowledge of the facts listed and the associated information, the balance of the discussion will be understandable. 

Why is line loss important in a discussion about electric heat?  Emissions data for on-site gas combustion is based upon emissions at the building level.  However, emissions data for the generators is based upon looking at the source which is the generating plant.  But heat pumps use the electrical energy at the building level so energy lost on the wires adds to their carbon footprint unless the system is 100% renewable or carbon free.  The heating caused by line loss also contributes to wear and tear on the system components leading to earlier failures.   The recent NYISO 2025 – 2034 reliability study clearly showed that the downstate system is only 5% carbon free and 95% fossil fuel supported.  This means that every heat pump is going to eventually be 10% more carbon intensive than what they are calculating.  Complicating that fact is the state’s inability to build sufficient renewables reflected in the cancellation of the CleanPath renewable project and the cancellation of several offshore wind bids over a year prior to Trump taking office.  All of that was due to excessive costs so expecting that the system will get less carbon intensive is not realistic.  Exhibit 14 is a copy of the state’s 2024 draft biennial review.  It has since been finalized.  Exhibit 12 is an analysis of data in the review done by Roger Caiazza that clearly shows that the state’s carbon free generation relative to load is going to DECREASE by 2% by 2030 so despite the Climate Act being in effect for 11 years by that time, emissions are increasing.  The baseline was done after the closure of Indian Point, so the loss of that carbon free energy is not a factor in the calculations.

Why is Local Law 97 such an albatross?  It is an ideological document that is designed to remove gas combustion from the city and electrify all onsite heating.  It is going to impose penalties on every building that can’t meet certain emission metrics.  The problem is that the math to support that concept doesn’t work so the city embedded fake metrics into the law to support the concept so that it would look like it is working.  There are several issues with that and documents that we tried to introduce into the case to document these issues were objected to by the attorneys as irrelevant even though they clearly showed why the JP would be wasting taxpayer and ratepayer money.  To get around the fact that the numbers didn’t support their policies, the city arbitrarily decreased the emissions metric for downstate generation to 630 pounds per Megawatt-Hour (MWh).  They will begin fining buildings based upon that in the near future.  But a document published by the US EPA states that the downstate NY emissions are 865 pounds per MWh.  If line loss is figured in, the energy to run building electrification will emit 930 pounds per MWh, 47% higher. Then they state that in 2030, the emissions will magically be reduced to 315 pounds per Megawatt-Hour, 50% of the fake 2025 value despite NY State documenting a 2% increase in emissions by 2030.  All of this is being done to make their policies look feasible and environmentally friendly.  They are as feasible as the airplanes designed to the wrong gravity constant.   The line loss calculations are in Exhibit 13 and the Local Law 97 information is in Exhibit 10.  The analysis of why heat pumps run less efficiently than gas boilers on the Con Ed system and will cost more is in Exhibit 9.  That fact is confirmed by a NYSERDA report released in 2019.  In the Abstract of the document on page ii, it states the following.  Note the text in bold font.

This Report describes NYSERDA’s analysis of the costs, benefits, and adoption opportunities for small-scale residential heat pumps in New York State over the period to 2025. The Report concludes that, based on a conservative application of constraint assumptions, heat pumps could serve approximately  half of the thermal energy load in the small residential sector, with potential to increase this estimate as barriers such as landlord-tenant constraints or availability of hydronic heat pump systems are overcome. Achievable adoption potential for small-scale residential heat pumps is assessed to be around 7.5 TBtu   of incremental site energy savings from oil and resistance heating replacements by 2025.

It was not promoting gas heat replacements, just oil and resistance heat replacements.  Tables within the document clearly show higher costs for ASHP’s when compared to gas combustion.  The reason for that appears in the two charts below that were shown to NYSERDA in May of 2019 and they agreed that the numbers matched theirs.  Notice that the air source heat pumps have higher emissions on the downstate system than gas but they have lower emissions than oil and radiant heat. 

DPS Staff and Con Ed staff said that they were unaware of the NYSERDA document so we weren’t allowed to question them on it.  However, that fact didn’t stop NY City or Con Ed from misrepresenting the conclusions of the NYSERDA document and attempting to replace gas units to the detriment of NY City and Westchester residents.  The costs were originally presented to NYSERDA in 2019 as well.  They were updated in 2023.  The analysis in Exhibit 9 clearly shows that dependent on the outdoor winter temperature, it will cost 40% more to heat with an air source heat pump at 30 degrees-F and 118% more at 5 degrees-F (2.18 times the cost) based upon utility rates this past February when gas costs were highest.   It was objected to by the parties because they couldn’t establish provenance, although I took ownership in a sworn document presented to the judges.  We even offered to have me testify to explain the documents but that was objected to at a pre-trial conference.  I was one of the last people that they wanted to have testify.  DPS asked me to go to Albany in 2008 for the 08-E-0751 conference to “embarrass the utilities” because they should have been providing the information to DPS that I provided but they failed to.  While they may not be aware of that event, they are aware of my writings.  During the confidential portion of the hearing I was called “Inflammatory, Unprofessional, and anti-electrification” because I mentioned that some of the parties should go back and take high school physics and math.  They ignored the fact that I was one of the earliest adopters of renewable and geo-thermal technologies in the state over twenty years ago.  I am not against electrification.  I am against electrification that math and physics dictates will not work and will simultaneously cause more environmental damage in the process.

As a gift to certain parties, Con Ed is offering a new/modified tariff rate SC1-IV for heat pump users.  It will give them a special rate for a period of one year if they switch to electric heating.  After the year is up, the heat pump user may end up back on the regular SC-1 rate that will have the costs mentioned previously and the special tariff rate is being subsidized by the non-heat pump users on the regular rate (SC-1) because the money has to come from somewhere. On Page 54 of the JP (page 63 of the JP pdf) it specifically states the following:

The Company will make the following modifications to special provision (H) of SC 1 in the tariff. First, a customer who takes service under Rate III or Rate IV of SC 1 for the first time during the term of the rate plan in Case 25-E-0072 may be eligible to receive a price guarantee for one year. This represents an extension of the existing price guarantee for Rate IV and adds Rate III to the list of eligible rate classes for which the price guarantee applies.

Second, the Company will remove the language that limits the number of customers eligible for the price guarantee to no more than 500 ground source heat pump customers and no more than 500 air source heat pump customers during the term of the rate plan. The price guarantee will now be available to all new or existing residential customers operating air source heat pumps or ground source heat pumps commencing billing for the first time under SC 1 Rate III or Rate IV during the term of the rate plan.

Finally, a customer that leaves SC1 Rate III or Rate IV prior to the conclusion of the first twelve-month period will receive a credit, if applicable, based on the period during which the customer took service under SC1 Rate III or Rate IV.

It does not document what happens to those customers after the twelve month period expires.  It’s great for Con Ed because they will be charging the poor fools that switched to ASHP’s double to heat their homes after a year.  If anyone is on the SC-1 electric rate, you will be paying for people to switch to heat pumps, raising their rates and yours, while also raising carbon emissions in the name of Environmental Defense.

Beyond the costs of operating the equipment is the cost of the conversion which was highlighted by the $600 additional per month for the state plan.  Exhibit H is attached which is an article about a Brooklyn co-op that converted from oil heat to electrification at a cost of $50,000 per unit ($40,000 after rebate but the rebate money will quickly run out).  Also attached is a snapshot of a Loan Calculation for what a $50,000 mortgage would cost at 6% amortized over 30 years.  It is $300 additional  per month that a resident will have to pay every month for the next 30 years and $50,000 is the low end of electrification conversions.  Estimates for Co-Op City’s cost of compliance for Local Law 97 have approached $2 billion for its 15,732 units in 35 buildings.  That averages out to $130,000 per apartment and would add $780 per month to the carrying cost of every unit in the complex.  These are the concerns highlighted in the REBNY report, attached.  There is absolutely no way to make these policies work because they defy natural law.

Adding to the issues, there is a NYSERDA PowerPoint from August 2022.  The slide from page 19 of the report is shown below.  Note that it says that the Energy Use Intensity for an Air Source Heat Pump (ASHP) is almost 10 times higher in heating mode than in cooling mode.  Except our utility system has difficulties now on a hot day in the summer.  This past June, the NYISO declared an emergency during a heat wave.  How is that going to translate to a heating technology that could magnify that figure by a factor of TEN on a very cold day during the winter? 

The additional carrying costs mentioned previously and the 40% – 118% higher operational costs don’t include Con Ed’s costs for upgrading their system to deliver the higher energy load needed to run the ASHP’s.  This rate case with its $270 million additional is the tip of the iceberg.  This is going to be the norm for decades to come. 

They are also promoting these policies while the NYISO is stating that NY State’s generation margins are critically low so what is going to power the heat pump use intensity.  The following graph, copied from page 30 of the NYISO 2025-2034 Reliability Document, shows the declining generation margins on the NY State System with potential for blackouts starting in 2027.  This will be weather dependent.

Concluding Remarks

I could present another ten pages of arguments that would just show more of the inane policies that NY State and NY City are proposing with several more pages of documentation, but after a while it just gets redundant. 

The bottom line is that they are not looking out for the ratepayer.  Special interests have overlaid an ideology devoid of reality onto the utility system either because they drank the Kool-Aid or they are exploiting those that did to make a buck from it and we are all going to pay for it.  The policy is inevitably going to fail but how much damage will be done to the ratepayers in the process?

The Independent intervenors have done what we can.  It is now up to anyone reading this to stand up and protest against what is about to happen to your utility costs and the utility system.  If people don’t, they will get what they deserve along with a high probability of not having any electricity at all.  Feel free to forward this.  I finish with the following observation.

In May 2025, the designer of the Hydrogen Bomb, Richard Garwin, died.  He spent the last 70 years of his life arguing against the use of the device he designed and he advised several Presidents.  In his obituary, he was quoted as having said, “I don’t go after stupidity in general, just stupidity that is expensive or dangerous.”  NY State’s Energy plans and Con Ed’s JP in support of it are exactly what he would have argued against. Stupid because it tries to defy natural law and as a result it is both Expensive and Dangerous.

Postscript After I completed this post Rich sent a note. 

The timing of this release is interesting.  We may be having an impact even if it isn’t everything that we want.  We forced the NYISO document into their record and mentioning people dying in their rate case transcript may have tied their hands and forced them to act.


Failure of the Energy Plan Stakeholder Process

On December 16, 2025 the Energy Planning Board  approved the State Energy Plan. Despite all the talk about public participation the fact is that the stakeholder process was a failure.  It has no credibility because it did not publicly address all stakeholder comments.  At the start of the Draft Energy Plan comment period I published an article expressing my fear that this process would replicate the perfunctory treatment of stakeholder comments in the development of the Scoping Plan.  All my fears came true. 

I am convinced that implementation of the New York Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act or CLCPA) 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.

Energy Plan

The New York State Energy Plan is billed as a “comprehensive roadmap to build a clean, resilient, and affordable energy system for all New Yorkers”. According to the Energy Plan Process webpage:

In September 2009, a law was passed that statutorily establishes the State Energy Planning Board and calls on that Board to launch an energy planning process and to complete a State Energy Plan (opens in new window). The goal of the planning process is to map the state’s energy future by showing how the state can ensure adequate supplies of power, reduce demand through new technologies and energy efficiency, preserve the environment, reduce dependence on imported gas and oil, stimulate economic growth, and preserve the individual welfare of New York citizens and energy users. To support the development of the State Energy Plan, numerous white papers, forecasts, and policy documents are developed based on input from energy experts and concerned citizens. 

I have provided background information and a list of relevant articles including summaries of recent meetings on my Energy Plan page. 

State Energy Plan Stakeholder Process

This description of the process is based on the Summary for Policy Makers Public Input, Section 1.2.  In July 2025, the Energy Planning Board approved the release of the Draft Plan for public comment.  The public comment period ran from July 23, 2025, to October 6, 2025.   Nearly 15,000 written comments on the Draft Plan were submitted, with over 250 from organizations and the balance from individuals (80% of which were through 13 comment campaigns).  A “thematic summary of public comments” was discussed at the November 2025 meeting of the Energy Planning Board.  On December 16, 2025, the Board summarily approved the State Energy Plan.

The process is playacting.  The outcome was never in doubt.  Despite claims about the value of public engagement and input to inform the development of the State Energy Plan there is no record showing that all the input was considered.  On October 7th the Energy Plan comment website promised that “All comments will be posted on the State Energy Plan website as soon as practicable” but they were only posted immediately after the 16 December Planning Board meeting where the Plan was approved.  During the State Energy Planning Board meeting presentation on November 13 Karl Maas stated: “This presentation and its appendix, which includes comments on each plan chapter, will be posted after this meeting.”  I used Perplexity AI to search for the appendix and confirmed that my search of the Energy Plan website had not missed that this was posted.  Perplexity concluded: “The State Energy Planning Board failed to follow through on its commitment to publicly release the detailed comments appendix, despite the explicit promise made during the meeting. This lack of transparency undermines the credibility of the public comment process for the Draft State Energy Plan.”  The only record of the comments received was a list of comments searchable by “comment text, commenter name, group name, etc.”

The bottom line is that the Energy Planning Board members were never given a comprehensive summary of all the comments.  I believe that they were never told anything that negatively reflected on the Administration’s narrative that the Energy Plan represented a comprehensive roadmap to “build a clean, resilient, and affordable energy system for all New Yorkers”.

My Stakeholder Process Concerns

In early August I published an article stating that I was worried that the Hochul Administration would just go through the motions of using stakeholder input.  My primary concern was the need for a transparent and comprehensive stakeholder process.  I included two examples of issues that I had highlighted as problems in the Scoping Plan that were also present in the Energy Plan. 

I argued that a credible stakeholder process needs two components. The first is interactive meetings.  In this process NYSERDA read their findings from scripts and gave the Energy Planning Board the opportunity to ask questions but never took questions from the public.  During the public comment meetings, people were given two minutes to speak, no opportunity to ask questions, and NYSERDA staff at the meeting never asked questions.   If the State was serious about considering public input for the energy plan, then they would hold a series of meetings to cover specific technical topics that includes interactive sessions.

The second component of a credible process is a public response to all the substantive comments submitted.  Documentation describing specific comments, responses to the issues raised by comments and the recommendation for resolution in the final Energy Plan should be provided to the Energy Planning Board, the Public Service Commission and the public.  If the State is to have any credibility regarding their Energy plan stakeholder process, then they must provide documentation showing that all the comments were considered and addressed.  To be trustworthy the authors of the documents at the New York State Energy Research & Development Authority should explain why issues raised in comments don’t need to be addressed.  Importantly,  this information was especially necessary for the Energy Planning Board to consider when they voted on accepting the Energy Plan.

Reaction to Stakeholder Process

I searched through the transcript of the statements made at the Energy Planning Board meeting to see how Board members referenced the stakeholder process.  Eight members mentioned the stakeholder process.  Consdider two examples.  Chair Harris claimed, “In the last four months alone, our draft, we have delivered significant ground in terms of updating our draft plan to incorporate thousands of public comments”.  NYSERDA’s Karl Maas said the Energy Plan “represents the work conducted by dozens of State Energy staff and technical experts informed by stakeholders and public commenters and ultimately shaped by members of this Board.”

In reality, the incorporation of comments by stakeholders and public commenters was incomplete. I will show examples where my comments were not acknowledged but had bearing on material presented in the Final Energy Plan and presumably could have influenced votes to approve the Plan.

One of the emphasized points in descriptions of the Plan was that “Implementing New York’s State Energy Plan is projected to improve air quality, resulting in public health benefits for all communities throughout the State, with the greatest benefits realized in disadvantaged communities.”  This point warranted its own Public Health Impacts Fact Sheet.  However, I submitted comments explaining that there were issues with the numbers in the following table from the Fact Sheet.

All these health benefits are based on air quality impacts estimated using a methodology that is based on the premise that air quality improvements associated with reductions in GHG emissions are the driver for these health effects.  My comments raised issue with that presumption. 

NYSERDA tried to determine community-scale impacts with the resolution required to predict impacts to disadvantaged communities.  This is an enormous challenge given the number of emission sources and receptor locations, the characteristics of the pollutants considered, and difficulty projecting future emissions for all of society.  As a result, a “newly developed air quality and health impacts modeling framework—the NY Community-Scale Health and Air Pollution Policy Analysis (NY-CHAPPA) model —rather than using the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) CO-Benefits Risk Assessment Health Impacts Screening and Mapping Tool (COBRA)” was used.  My comments showed that this new model over-simplified the relationship between sources and receptors.  The most important factor affecting pollution impacts is wind direction.  NYSERDA modeling only used four wind directions whereas COBRA uses 16.  They also only used one year of observed data instead of the five typically used.  Using one year of data weakens the estimates but using only four wind directions invalidates the projected estimates.  NYSERDA evaluated model performance to justify using their new model by comparing observed historical concentrations against future predicted concentrations.  That approach is  laughably inappropriate.  I do not deny that reductions in most of the pollutants will improve air quality but assigning quantitative values to the improvements is inappropriate because the modeled numbers are so imprecise.

I also demonstrated that the asthma exacerbation metric was invalid.  This metric claims a reduction in emergency room visits due to asthma is related to reductions in inhalable particulate concentrations.  I demonstrated the the approach used is wrong. I showed that there are environmental, socio-economic, healthcare access, clinical, comorbidity, behavioral, clinical management and psychosocial confounder factors affecting asthma.  Claiming that any one of the factors affecting emergency room visits is the unique cause of observed changes in asthma rates is not likely to represent what is happening.  My comments also documented that the claim that there would 1300 avoided emergency room visits due to reductions in inhalable particulate concentrations were invalid.  I compared the observed inhalable particulate concentrations with the observed emergency room visits and found no correlation.  Correlation does not prove causation, but no correlation means that there cannot be causation.

Discussion

Everyone associated with the Energy Plan process brags about how there is a “robust” stakeholder process that “informed” the process.  This article debunks those claims. 

This article gives two examples of impactful issues that I identified in my comments that were not acknowledged, much less addressed.  With all due respect, no one at NYSERDA has the air pollution meteorology experience that I do.  The failure to act on expert input that impacts the analysis and results means that New York’s energy plan is not as good as it could be. 

NYSERDA notes that “Nearly 15,000 written comments on the Draft Plan were submitted, with over 250 from organizations and the balance from individuals (80% of which were through 13 comment campaigns).”  I acknowledge that sifting through the volume of comments is a challenge.  However, most of the comments from organizations and campaigns are similar so the number of unique comments is much less.  Moreover, comments like that are typically thinly veiled lobbying submittals supporting their vested, and probably, financial interests, instead of comments addressing particular technical issues..  Those comments can be addressed simply an would reduce the total response to muc less than the number of comments submitted. 

I believe that NYSERDA must develop a stakeholder comment process that raises substantive issues to another level of consideration.  For example, there could be technical issue workshops where a dialogue between NYSERDA and stakeholders is encouraged and a resolution to the problem developed.  For example, such a workshop would recommend that in the next edition of Energy Plan that the NY-CHAPPA model be modified to use more wind directions.

The stakeholder process associated with regulations proposed by the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) require the agency to respond to all comments.  That addresses one of my recommendations, but DEC also cannot interact with anyone once the regulation has been formally proposed.  That means that my second recommendation that interactive meetings are necessary is not possible.  NYSERDA has no such restriction but refuses to respond to comments in any way.

Finally, there are two other ramifications. First, I gave two examples of many that I found in my evaluation but could have provided many more.  There is no doubt that others raised many other technical issues associated with the Draft Energy Plan that were similarly impactful and not addressed.  The second issue is that this information is especially necessary for the Energy Planning Board to consider when they voted on accepting the Energy Plan.  That they voted with incomplete information is another example of why the New York stakeholder process is simply political theater.

Conclusion

The State Energy Plan is too important for it to be a politicized process.  The flaws in the stakeholder process of the recently approved Energy Plan prove that the process is undeniably politicized.  Selective treatment of stakeholder input does not further the goals of the Hochul Administration to provide a “comprehensive roadmap to build a clean, resilient, and affordable energy system for all New Yorkers”.

December Reasons to Pause the CLCPA

I am very frustrated with 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  I believe that there are three general reasons to amend the Climate Act: affordability, reliability, and environmental impacts.  This post highlights recent articles in each category that provide additional reasons to pause.

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 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.

Affordability

Governor Hochul’s letter announcing the approval of the State Energy Plan states: “If any state can show the nation that a clean energy transition can be reliable, affordable, and achievable, it’s New York.”  Gaslighting involves repeatedly denying, distorting, or contradicting what the target knows or observes so that they begin to question their reality and judgment.  The Hochul Administration is gaslighting us to cover up the fact that the recently approved State Energy Plan analysis shows the clean energy transition costs are anything but affordable.  The analysis of energy affordability with a sensitivity for equipment costs analysis  shows that when the levelized costs of the appliances and vehicles necessary to meet the Climate Act household zero-emissions goals are included energy costs increase $593 month for a moderate Upstate household that uses natural gas and has two gasoline vehicles.  Insufficient information to calculate similar costs for other household profiles was provided.

This is a common feature of all states that have similar ambitions.  Energy Bad Boys Isaac Orr and Mitch Rolling released a report this week entitled Blue States, High Rates that Always On Energy Research coauthored with the Institute for Energy Research. You can access the entire report here.

The report includes the following section describing New York:

Federal data show New York’s electricity prices were 58% higher than the national average and 62% higher than Florida’s, based on the average all-sectors rate from January 2025 to August 2025.

Furthermore, a study from the left-leaning Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) found New York has experienced some of the fastest increases in electricity prices in the country. Retail electricity prices for residential customers increased by 36% between 2019 and 2024, nearly three times faster than the national average and the second-fastest increase in the country during this period, after California.

PPI determined that electricity is expensive in New York due to a wide range of factors, but the report clearly explains: “The convergence of shrinking supply and rising demand inevitably leads to upward price pressures for consumers. These costs are compounded by the immense capital investment required to transform the grid and specific policy choices that increase the cost of energy production [emphasis added].”

For example, New York’s Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA) constitutes a massive renewable energy mandate, requiring the state to produce 70%of its electricity from renewable sources by 2030 and 100% by 2040, which will require substantial capital investments financed by ratepayers.

At the same time, the state’s firm capacity is being diminished by the premature closure of the Indian Point nuclear power plant, the state’s decision to deny the expansion of needed natural gas pipelines, and the state Department of Environmental Conservation’s decision to block a number of necessary upgrades for natural gas power plants, which the New York Independent System Operator (NYISO) warns could cause an increased risk of power shortages over the next five years.

Prices are also rising in response to state policies mandating the electrification of buildings and transportation, which are straining New York’s already overburdened grid and necessitating additional infrastructure buildouts. The state also suffers from natural gas supply issues due to its decision to ban hydraulic fracturing. In addition, ratepayers effectively pay a tax on carbon dioxide emissions as part of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative.

The expenses associated with these policies are projected to be so large that New York Governor Kathy Hochul delayed implementing the state’s cap-and-tax mandates under the 2019 climate law. The state claimed the regulations would be “infeasible” because they would impose “extraordinary and damaging costs upon New Yorkers.” The Governor has approved two natural gas pipelines as part of a rumored deal with the Trump Administration to approve offshore wind facilities.

New York’s attempts to show the nation that a clean energy transition can be reliable, affordable, and achievable will never succeed.

Reliability

Rafe Champion recently described the work of Anton Lang, widely known in the Australian energy discourse by his pseudonym “TonyfromOz.  ”  For over five years he has updated his weekly series of posts that documents data collection and recording for wind power generation in Australia. 

His work  highlights a reliability issue that in my opinion, has not been adequately addressed In New York despite my attempts to get the issue considered since September 2020.  Responsible New York agencies all agree that new Dispatchable Emissions-Free Resource (DEFR) technologies are needed to make a solar and wind-reliant electric energy system viable during extended periods of low wind and solar resource availability.  Case 15-E-0302 – Proceeding on Motion of the Commission to Implement a Large-Scale Renewable Program and Clean Energy Standard addresses the fact that there is no commercially available technology for this resource.

Lang’s analysis addressed my ultimate reliability concern.  How much DEFR will be required to keep the lights on when needed most?  Lang documents “wind droughts”.  Champion notes:

Through his analysis of Australian Energy Market Operator records, Lang has identified numerous instances where wind generation across the entire National Electric Market (spanning Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, and Tasmania) has fallen to less than 5% of its installed capacity. He points out that these droughts often coincide with high-pressure systems during winter or summer peaks when demand is at its highest. Lang’s work poses a fundamental challenge to the “the wind is always blowing somewhere” mantra, showing that when a large high-pressure cell sits over the Great Australian Bight, the entire fleet of thousands of turbines can fall silent simultaneously.

These droughts are a global phenomenon and occur in New York.  In my opinion, New York should evaluate data going back to 1950 to determine the worst-case drought.  If those results were available, we could discuss what to do about the likely result.  I suspect that deploying DEFR capacity sufficient to prevent the worst-case blackout will be extremely expensive and will need to use resources with expected lifetimes less than the return period of the worst case.  I believe this is a strong reliability case against relying on weather-dependent resources to the point that DEFR is required.  New York has not determined this renewable capacity decision point.

Environmental Impacts

In my Draft Scoping Plan comments I noted that on September 17, 2020 the Final Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement (SGEIS) for the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act was released.  It covered the “environmental impacts of the offshore wind and distributed solar procurement goals, and the estimate of utility-scale solar capacity required to meet the meet the 70 by 30 goal” based on the resources estimated necessary at that time.  Since then, considerably more resources have been projected, but the cumulative assessment has not been updated.

Syracuse.Com recently published an opinion piece submitted by residents living near the planned Liberty Renewables wind farm in the town of Fenner, Madison County.   These people live near 20 250-foot wind turbines that came online in December 2001.  This is the kind of wind resource modeled in the 2020 cumulative analysis and the opinion piece describes the cooperative process that characterized siting those turbines.  That has changed:

Liberty Renewables, representing an international energy company, came to Fenner, Nelson, Smithfield and Eaton; secured leases from some small, and often struggling farms and residents; and developed a large-scale project of 24 700-feet-tall wind turbines. Twelve of these would be sited in Fenner and in the middle of our thriving neighborhood of 230 homes and farms. Liberty Renewable’s tactics in securing leases and in dealing with our objections have been questionable.

They go on to point out that the cooperative siting process is broken:

At one time, state laws gave municipalities a say if New York state had approved hydrofracking. Now these state laws have been set aside, undermining our local town councils. Our town supervisors have been diligent in investigating, attending public hearings and keeping the citizens informed, but have not had a seat at the table and the town’s investigations have been ignored. This is immoral, unethical and cruel. Our state should be protecting its citizens and supporting its local democracies, not punishing us in our very own neighborhoods. We are furious and broken-hearted that, in the name of saving our climate, we would be treated with such disrespect and forced to live with such a massive industrial project.

I conclude that in addition to their concerns, the cumulative impacts of these monstrous wind turbines have not been considered.  To meet the generating capacity needed to fulfill the projections in the State Energy Plan, I expect that all land-based wind facilities will use these turbines that are twice the size of the current 20 turbines and twice the height of the State Tower Building in downtown Syracuse.

Conclusion

We cannot afford the Climate Act, the proposed reliance on weather-dependent resources is dangerous, and the environmental impacts being shoved down rural areas is unconscionable.  Please contact your legislators and demand accountability.

Letter to the State Energy Planning Board

The last several weeks I have written multiple articles about the State Energy Plan and the Energy Planning Board.  This post describes a letter I sent to the members of the Energy Planning Board that said that it was premature to approve the Plan at this time.  I wrote this post to document the fact that Board was told that there were issues before they voted to approve the Energy Plan because someday it will be obvious that approving the plan was a mistake.

In short, implementing New York’s net-zero dreams are unaffordable.  The State Energy Plan analysis of total monthly household energy costs estimates that the capital costs  to install replacement appliances and vehicles that can meet the Climate Act zero-emissions mandate is nearly $600 a month more than replacement with conventional household appliances and vehicles even when the savings of more efficient equipment are considered.

I am convinced that implementation of the New York Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act or CLCPA) 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.

Energy Plan

The New York State Energy Plan is billed as a “comprehensive roadmap to build a clean, resilient, and affordable energy system for all New Yorkers”. I have provided background information and a list of relevant articles including summaries of recent meetings on my Energy Plan page. My latest article discussed presentations of findings from analyses completed since last summer (presentation and recording) at the December 1 meeting. 

NYSERDA presentations and documentation are carefully curated to amplify the political messaging of the Hochul Administration, so it is necessary to read between the lines and carefully check all the statements that are made.  The most important finding in the presentation on December 1 is what I think is a clear admission of expected unaffordable costs necessary for New York households to achieve the Climate Act mandates for zero emissions.  I have explained how I derived the $600 a monthcost estimates in multiple posts and in a summary description of the Equipment Cost Sensitivity slide in the NYSERDA energy affordability presentation.

This information is not explicitly mentioned in the Energy Affordability Fact Sheet (Fact Sheet).  I recognize that this is an extraordinary claim, so I prepared two articles focusing just on the calculation of that estimate.  The Energy Affordability Initial Thoughts at SEP Board Meeting on 12/1/2025 article was my first attempt to document this finding. My latest article specifically addressed the claims in the Fact Sheet but also documented the location of every value in the Energy Affordability Data Annex spreadsheet published on 4 December 2025 after my first article on this topic. 

State Energy Plan Process

This description of the process is based on the Summary for Policy Makers Public Input, Section 1.2, . On September 9, 2024 the Hochul Administration initiated the development of the State Energy Plan announcing the release of a draft scope of the plan.  The Board solicited written public comment on the Draft Scope from September 9, 2024 to December 16, 2024.  Comments were reviewed and incorporated into the final Scope, which was adopted by the Board in March 2025.  In July 2025, the Board approved the release of the Draft Plan for public comment.  The public comment period ran from July 23, 2025 to October 6, 2025.   Nearly 15,000 written comments on the Draft Plan were submitted, with over 250 from organizations and the balance from individuals (80% of which were through 13 comment campaigns).  A “thematic summary of public comments” was discussed at the November 2025 meeting of the Energy Planning Board.  On December 16, 2025, the final act in the process will occur when the Board summarily approves the State Energy Plan.

The process is playacting.  The outcome was never in doubt.  Despite claims about the value of public engagement and input to inform the development of the State Energy Plan there is no record that all the input was considered.  On October 7th the Energy Plan comment website promised that “All comments will be posted on the State Energy Plan website as soon as practicable” but they still are not posted.  During the State Energy Planning Board meeting presentation on November 13 Karl Maas stated: “This presentation and its appendix, which includes comments on each plan chapter, will be posted after this meeting.”  I used Perplexity AI to search for the appendix and confirmed that my search of the Energy Plan website had not missed that this was posted.  Perplexity concluded: “The State Energy Planning Board appears to have failed to follow through on its commitment to publicly release the detailed comments appendix, despite the explicit promise made during the meeting. This lack of transparency undermines the credibility of the public comment process for the Draft State Energy Plan.”

The bottom line is that the Energy Planning Board was never told anything that negatively reflected on the Administration’s narrative that the Energy Plan implementation meeting the Climate Act mandates would Be a comprehensive roadmap to “build a clean, resilient, and affordable energy system for all New Yorkers”.

My Letter

My final effort to reach the Energy Planning Board to reconsider rubber stamping the Administration’s overly optimistic Energy Plan was to send the following letter to the Board.

I am writing to the members of the State Energy Planning Board  to argue that it is premature to consider and act upon a resolution to adopt the State Energy Plan at the Board meeting scheduled for December 16, 2025.  The Energy Plan is supposed to be a “comprehensive roadmap to build a clean, resilient, and affordable energy system for all New Yorkers”. The draft documents labeled “pending board decision” show that there are untenable upfront costs that New Yorkers would face if the State follows the existing State Energy Plan roadmap to achieve the Legislature’s aspirational 2030 deadlines.

The State Energy Plan will have no energy affordability credibility if the Energy Planning Board adopts a plan that its analyses show is unaffordable.  The 2025 Energy Plan Data Annex spreadsheet titled Energy Affordability Outputs and Input Data contains unacceptable affordability information.  In the Equipment Cost Sensitivity slide there are monthly total energy costs including levelized equipment costs for a single household profile.  As documented here, the projections for a moderate-income household in Upstate New York that uses natural gas found the difference between replacement of conventional existing equipment and the highly efficient electrification equipment necessary for Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (CLCPA) compliance increases monthly average energy expenditures $594 when capital costs are considered.  Only the wealthy could consider that affordable.

The Attorney General’s Office agrees that there are the “insurmountable upfront costs” if the Energy Plan is consistent with the CLCPA as it stands.  Earlier this year there was a court case considering whether the Department of Environmental Conservation had to issue final regulations establishing economy-wide greenhouse gas emission (GHG) limits.   During the case, the Attorney General  submitted a letter that addressed “two categories of new developments: (1) the publication of the 2025 Draft New York State Energy Plan by the New York State Energy Planning Board on July 23, 2025 and (2) additional actions by the federal government that impede New York’s efforts to achieve the CLCPA.”  The letter argued that it was inappropriate to implement regulations that would ensure compliance with the 2030 40% reduction in GHG emissions CLCPA mandate because meeting the target is “currently infeasible”. 

Ordering achievement of the 2030 target would equate to even higher costs than the net zero scenarios and would affect consumers even sooner. Undoubtedly, greenhouse-gas reducing policies can lead to longer-term benefits such as health improvements. This does not, however, offset the insurmountable upfront costs that New Yorkers would face if DEC were forced to try to achieve the Legislature’s aspirational emissions reductions by the 2030 deadline rather than proceeding at an ambitious but sustainable pace.

There is no obvious record of what insurmountable State Energy Plan upfront costs led to that statement in the Attorney General letter, but the statement is consistent with the Equipment Cost Sensitivity analysis.  I find it troubling that this finding received so little attention in the NYSERDA presentations to the Board.  This information is not explicitly mentioned in the Energy Affordability Fact Sheet, in the Volume I: Summary for Policymakers or in the Energy Affordability Impacts Analysis chapter.  The findings were mentioned in a 41 second segment of the December 1 Energy Affordability presentation (Page 8 in the annotated transcript):  “What we can take away is that the net costs for efficient electrification journeys could be thirty five to forty percent higher than conventional replacement when accounting for equipment, reinforcing the importance of action to address upfront equipment costs so that households are able to access the benefits of these systems.” 

In addition, the Pathways Analysis shows that meeting the 2030 CLCPA 40% GHG emission reduction target and electric system 70% renewable energy mandates are impossible.  Those results are consistent with other State agency findings.  I believe that these conclusions and the affordability results clearly show that it is time to amend the CLCPA  consistent with the Ulster County New York Supreme Court decision ordering the Department of Environmental Conservation 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 2030 GHG reduction mandate schedule changed.   The Hochul Administration and DEC appealed the decision on November 25, 2025 claiming that “it is impossible for the Department to simultaneously comply with both the Court’s order and its substantive statutory obligations.” 

The State Energy Plan for approval on December 16, 2025, does not recognize these findings.  Ignoring them to meet an arbitrary schedule means the Plan will be immediately obsolete.  The Plan must explicitly state that the CLCPA mandates cannot be achieved and are unaffordable so must be amended for a State Energy Plan that ensures a clean, resilient, and affordable energy system for all New Yorkers.  Failure to do so would be a serious disservice to New Yorkers.

Discussion

I do not expect that there will ever be any acknowledgment of the letter.  This post documents that the State Energy Planning Board was told that total monthly household energy costs estimates for the capital costs  to install replacement appliances and vehicles that can meet the Climate Act zero-emissions mandate are nearly $600 a month more than replacement with conventional household appliances and vehicles even when the savings of more efficient equipment are considered.  Only the wealthy could consider that affordable.  The Energy Plan is supposed to consider affordability so ignoring this finding destroys the credibility of the document.

Conclusion

My hobby of fighting the Climate Act mandates certainly keeps me busy but certainly does not have any effect on New York energy policy.  I hope that someday I will be able to say I told you so.

NYSERDA Energy Plan Affordability Fact Sheet

On December 11, 2025 the New York State Energy Research & Development Authority (NYSEDA) announced that “Pre-Decisional Materials are Available” for the next meeting of the Energy Planning Board.  It included a link to the Affordability Analysis Overview Fact Sheet that describes affordability impacts.  This post documents differences between the Fact Sheet key points and recent articles on this blog and at Watts Up With That that argued that the projected costs are so great that it is time to reconsider the Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act) and premature for the Energy Planning Board to vote on an energy roadmap that purports to support affordability.

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 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.

State Energy Plan

The New York State Energy Plan is a “comprehensive roadmap to build a clean, resilient, and affordable energy system for all New Yorkers”. I have provided background information and a list of relevant articles including summaries of recent meetings on my Energy Plan page.  NYSERDA released the Draft Energy Plan last summer.  Stakeholder comments were accepted until early October.  The Energy Planning Board has the responsibility to approve the document.  After two recent meetings that described stakeholder comments (presentation and recording) and presented findings from analyses completed since the release of the Draft Energy Plan (presentation and recording) they will meet on December 16, 2025 to “consider and act upon a resolution to adopt the State Energy Plan”.

Overview

In addition to the articles arguing that the Climate Act needs to reconsidered, I also published an article describing my thoughts about the State Energy Planning Board (SEP) meeting on December 1, 2025 that described the NYSERDA energy affordability analysis.   The key point made in my articles is that the projected monthly energy cost increase necessary to convert an Upstate household that uses fossil fuel for the home and transportation to the equipment necessary to comply with the emission reductions necessary to achieve the Climate Act is extraordinary.  The monthly energy expense cost difference to replace existing fossil fuel equipment with new equipment relative to “zero emissions” electrification equipment is $593 a month in 2031, which is 43% more than the cost for conventional equipment replacement.  This article also updates the supporting information used consistent with the Energy Affordability Data Annex spreadsheet published on 4 December 2025.  To forestall any complaints that I am making up numbers this documents the numbers and provide context for NYSERDA claims.

Energy Affordability Fact Sheet

The contents of the Affordability Analysis Overview Fact Sheet are reproduced below.

The Fact Sheet includes the following text including highlighting:

Policy and market solutions that focus on lowering upfront costs and other barriers to adoption for a range of energy-saving choices — such as building envelope efficiency, efficient appliances and equipment, and electric vehicles — can enable households to lower their energy bills. This can help to alleviate energy insecurity and energy burdens.

While New Yorkers on average spend less on utility, heating fuel, and transportation fuel bills combined than the average American, New York households and residents across the country face overarching affordability challenges.

Drivers of household affordability include expenditures in areas such as housing, transportation, food, and healthcare. Energy, as a subset of transportation and housing costs, is an important driver of affordability challenges for many households. Low- and moderate-income households are more likely experience substantial cost burdens related to meeting their energy needs.

Due in part to proactive policies to boost energy efficiency and affordability, average utility, heating fuel, and transportation fuel spending for New York households is $700 less every year compared to the national average. These findings are reinforced by recent analysis from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, which finds that New York State has the second lowest per capita energy expenditure in the nation.

There is a stark contrast between the Fact Sheet energy affordability message and mine.  The supporting documentation does support the Fact Sheet takeaway message that  “The energy affordability analysis shows that the use of new, efficient equipment and electrification can cut energy spending by $100 to over $300 every month for many New York households, across energy costs for transportation and heating and utility bills.”  However, the supporting information and a sensitivity analysis  show that the monthly energy expense costs that consider the capital expense (CapEx) for new equipment present a vastly different conclusion.  It is no coincidence that the Fact Sheet emphasizes that “Policy and market solutions that focus on lowering upfront costs” can enable households to lower their energy bills.  Left unsaid is that if upfront capital costs are not lowered that the expected costs are unaffordable.

Energy Affordability Analysis

The December 2025 Energy Affordability Data Annex spreadsheet (Annex Spreadsheet)  and the Energy Affordability Impacts Analysis (Impact Analysis) document provide the supporting documentation for the Fact Sheet. To project potential future costs based on continued use of fossil fuels relative to two levels of electrification and emission reduction, the modelers considered eleven household energy use categories based on location, income levels, and energy equipment.

Figure 3 shows the analysis regions and summarizes household profiles used.  The three income level definitions are:

• Low-income includes households with incomes at or below 60 percent of State Median Income.

• Moderate-income includes households with incomes above 60 percent but below 80 percent of State Median Income or Area Median Income, whichever is higher

• Average income uses the average income of a household in an analysis region to represent households with incomes that fall above the low- or moderate-income range.

Figure 3: Figure 6 from the Impact Analysis

For each of the eleven household profiles four scenarios or journeys were considered:

  • Starting Point using fossil fueled heating and transportation with average existing equipment.
  • Conventional Replacement: Fossil fueled heating and transportation with new, more efficient equipment
  • Moderate Efficient Electrification: Some electrification of heating and transportation, with basic building envelope efficiency measures
  • High Efficient Electrification: More electrification of heating and transportation, with basic or medium building envelope efficiency measures, and efficient electric appliances

Table A-6 in the Impact Analysis document describes the equipment, vehicle, and building shell assumptions by household profile and scenario.  Figure 4 is an excerpt from that table that lists the four Upstate household profiles.  NYSERDA did a sensitivity analysis that included the equipment costs for one household profile: Upstate New York moderate income.  The starting point household for that scenario uses gas space heating with central AC, gas water heating, has two average gasoline vehicles, uses a gas clothes dryer and stove, and has a mixture of incandescent/CFL/LED lighting.  Conventional replacement for that household replaces all these systems with more efficient models.  In the “High Efficient Electrification” scenario existing systems are replaced with a medium building shell, ducted air source heat pump, heat pump water heating, one plugin hybrid electric vehicle and one battery electric vehicle, efficient electric clothes dryer, induction stove, and LED lighting.

Figure 4: Excerpt from Table A6 in the Impact Analysis Document

Energy Affordability Results

The monthly energy costs shown in Figure 1 in the Fact Sheet are derived from the Annex Spreadsheet in tables “Upstate Results” and Downstate Results”. For each of the eleven household profiles, data for the total monthly household energy and expenditures (real 2025 $) breaks down costs by four cost components: household electricity and fuel and vehicle electricity and fuel.  The Fact Sheet simply graphs two examples to illustrate the claim that monthly household expenditures will decrease in 2031 for the four future scenarios.  All the results show the same thing (Table 1).  When an existing household does nothing costs do rise between 2026 and 2031.  If the household upgrades their existing systems with more efficient conventional equipment the monthly energy bills go down.  If the household upgrades with the two electrification scenarios the monthly energy bills go down more.

Table 1: Household Profile Total Monthly Household Energy and Transportation Energy Expenditures (real 2025 $) excluding CapEx

The meeting on December 1 emphasized a similar story.  Figure 5 from that presentation shows the data for the Upstate New York, natural gas, moderate income household using data from Annex Spreadsheet in table “Upstate Results.  The reason for the difference between my work and these NYSERDA results is buried at the bottom of the figure.  There is a notation that states: “Average monthly expenditures. Does not include equipment costs”. 

Figure 5: NYS Energy Planning Board Meeting Presentation Slide 40

It turns out that including equipment costs makes a difference as shown in the Figure 6. This information is in Annex Spreadsheet in table “Equipment Cost Summary”.

Figure 6: NYS Energy Planning Board Meeting Presentation Slide 43

I extracted information from these Annex Spreadsheet “Upstate Results” and “Equipment Cost Summary” tables to prepare Table 2 that was used to prepare these bar chaarts.  Rows 1-4 list the monthly energy expenditures with the total in row 5 from the “Upstate Results” table.  The increase in efficiency decreases monthly energy costs for all three journeys but that changes when CapEx is considered.  The CapEx monthly total costs in rows in row 6-8 are from the “Equipment Cost Summary” table.  Row 9 lists the sum of the total monthly energy costs and rows 6 and 7 the total monthly levelized capital costs for home and vehicle.  The cost of Climate Act compliance is the difference between replacement of conventional equipment and the highly efficient electrification equipment.  Row 10 shows this difference.  It lists the $594 increase in costs necessary for Climate Act compliance and row 11 lists the percentage increase as 43%. 

Table 2: Upstate New York Moderate Income Household That Uses Natural Gas for Heat Projected Monthly Costs and Costs Necessary to Comply with the Climate Act

NYSERDA Affordability Messaging

The Energy Affordability Fact Sheet highlights the point that “The energy affordability analysis shows that the use of new, efficient equipment and electrification can cut energy spending by $100 to over $300 every month for many New York households, across energy costs for transportation and heating and utility bills.”  It acknowledges that New Yorkers face “overarching affordability challenges” and that

“Energy, as a subset of transportation and housing costs, is an important driver of affordability challenges for many households.”   However, it does not acknowledge that when the equipment’s capital expense costs necessary to achieve the Climate Act mandates are included in the projected total monthly energy costs that costs are certainly not affordable.

There is another aspect of the NYSERDA messaging.  I prepared an annotated transcript for the energy affordability presentation at the Energy Planning Board meeting on December 1 that includes a heading for questions made during the meeting with a link to each person who commented or asked a question. Chair Doreen Harris of the Energy Planning Board asked NYSERDA presenter James Wilcox about energy price uncertainty.  He admitted that the key driver of change over the next five years is “change in energy price”.  The modeling shows that this could increase household energy spending 3% to 8% in the starting point base case but could go up to as much as 14% to 19% even if they do nothing as shown in the ”Sensitivity” columns under the Starting Point 2026 and 2031 scenarios shown in Table 2.  Chair Harris extracted a response from him that summarizes the second public message: “That is what I was trying to elicit: What does doing nothing get you?”  These data show that even if you do nothing costs could rise as much as 19% if you exclude the CapEx costs of compliant equipment.  That is misleading because the equipment costs are the main cause of future costs and not changes in energy prices.  It is also emblematic of another NYSERDA message that costs are going to go up anyway and that the costs to comply with the Climate Act are less so we can still continue to pursue this initiative.

Discussion

On Oct. 24, 2025, there was an Albany County New York Supreme Court decision ordering the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) to issue final Climate Act implementing 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 2030 GHG reduction mandate schedule changed.   During the legal proceeding the State Attorney General submitted a letter that argued that it was inappropriate to implement regulations that would ensure compliance with the 2030 40% reduction in GHG emissions Climate Act mandate because meeting the target is “currently infeasible”.  That argument was undoubtedly based on the total cost including CapEx for households results of the single equipment cost sensitivity analysis.

The State Energy Planning Board will meet on December 16, 2025 to “consider and act upon a resolution to adopt the State Energy Plan”.  The Energy Plan is a “comprehensive roadmap to build a clean, resilient, and affordable energy system for all New Yorkers”.  How can the Energy Planning Board members vote to approve something that will increase monthly energy bills nearly $600 a month and claim any credibility for an affordable energy system?  Clearly the answer is they cannot which means the whole process is only for show.

There is no question in my mind that the total cost, including CapEx results are being downplayed as much as possible.  Nowhere in the supporting quantitative information are results presented for all the households evaluated.  I believe that those results were calculated but not presented because of the affordability implications.  Iin addition, there is insufficient information provided that would enable independent analysis to calculate the CapEx costs for the other scenarios.

New York GHG emissions are less than one half of one percent of global emissions and global emissions have been increasing on average by more than one half of one percent per year since 1990.  The fact that New York cannot solve global warming by itself coupled with these extraordinary costs in the face of an acknowledged energy affordability challenge is a very strong case to reconsider the proposed Energy Plan and rethink the Climate Act.

Conclusion

When I tell people that I have spent a lot of time evaluating the Climate Act they usually ask how much is this going to cost.  When I tell them that that the Scoping Plan comprehensive roadmap to “build a clean, resilient, and affordable energy system for all New Yorkers” estimates that when the cost to buy the necessary infrastructure to meet the Climate Act are included households could see an increase of %594 per month they are shocked.  The Affordability Fact Sheet talks about affordability and gives numbers to the suggest affordability.  However, NYSERDA covered up the finding in the Energy Plan modeling that Climate Act compliance is anything but affordable.   This must be addressed.

Time to Reconsider the Climate Act Press Release

UPDATE: Two weeks after this was published I can safely now say that nobody I contacted responded. I thought that showing that $593 per month in added energy expenses would have prompted some kind of response.

A recent court decision and findings presented at the 1 December 2025 State Energy Planning (SEP) Board meeting present overwhelming evidence that implementing the Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act)  as mandated will be unaffordable and the 2030 CLCPA 40% emission reduction target and 70% renewable energy in the electric system mandate will not be achieved.  I don’t think that most New Yorkers are aware of the Climate Act much less its potential impacts, so I prepared a press release that I distributed to various New York press outlets explaining why it is time to reconsider the Climate Act.   This article documents the findings included in the press release and refers to recent articles published on this blog.

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 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.

Overview

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 interim 2030 targets: 70% of the electricity must come from renewable energy and GHG emissions must be reduced 40%.  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 Integration Analysis prepared by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) and its consultants quantified the impact of the electrification strategies.  That material was used to develop the Draft Scoping Plan outline of strategies.  After a year-long review, the Scoping Plan was finalized at the end of 2022.  Since then, the State has been trying to implement the Scoping Plan recommendations through regulations, proceedings, and legislation. 

Note there is a second implementation law.  Public Service Law (PSL) Section 66-P, Establishment of a renewable energy program, that requires the Public Service Commission to establish a program to ensure the State meets the 2030 and 2040 electric system Climate Act requirements.  

Energy Plan Overview

In 2025 another overarching evaluation of the energy system was initiated.  According to the New York State Energy Plan website (Accessed 3/16/25):

The State Energy Plan is a comprehensive roadmap to build a clean, resilient, and affordable energy system for all New Yorkers. The Plan provides broad program and policy development direction to guide energy-related decision-making in the public and private sectors within New York State.

The New York State Energy Research & Development Authority (NYSERDA) released the Draft Energy Plan last summer.  Stakeholder comments were accepted until early October.  The Energy Planning Board has the responsibility to approve the document. At the November 13, 2025 Board meeting there was a perfunctory description of the comments received.  There was another meeting on December 1 that presented results from additional analyses.  During the wrap up for the latest meeting Chair Doreen Harris said the Board will meet later this month to approve the plan. I have provided background information and a list of relevant articles on my Energy Plan page. 

Court Decision

On Oct. 24, 2025, there was an Albany County New York Supreme Court decision ordering the Department of Environmental Conservation 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 2030 GHG reduction mandate schedule changed.   On November 3, I published an article providing detailed information about the decision. 

In another article I explained that during the legal process the State submitted a letter that addressed “two categories of new developments: (1) the publication of the 2025 Draft New York State Energy Plan by the New York State Energy Planning Board on July 23, 2025 and (2) additional actions by the federal government that impede New York’s efforts to achieve the Climate Act.”  The letter argued that it was inappropriate to implement regulations that would ensure compliance with the 2030 40% reduction in GHG emissions Climate Act mandate because meeting the target is “currently infeasible”. 

Ordering achievement of the 2030 target would equate to even higher costs than the net zero scenarios and would affect consumers even sooner. Undoubtedly, greenhouse-gas reducing policies can lead to longer-term benefits such as health improvements. This does not, however, offset the insurmountable upfront costs that New Yorkers would face if DEC were forced to try to achieve the Legislature’s aspirational emissions reductions by the 2030 deadline rather than proceeding at an ambitious but sustainable pace.

The letter concluded that the Climate Act is unaffordable:

Petitioners have not shown a plausible scenario where the 2030 greenhouse gas reduction goal can be achieved without inflicting unanticipated and undue harm on New York consumers, and the concrete analysis in the 2025 Draft Energy Plan dispels any uncertainty on the topic: New Yorkers will face alarming financial consequences if speed is given preference over sustainability.

The Judge acknowledged that this information was relevant but ruled that DEC must promulgate regulations implementing a law however persuasive their arguments it is inappropriate are. The Hochul Administration and DEC appealed the decision on November 25, 2025 claiming that “it is impossible for the Department to simultaneously comply with both the Court’s order and its substantive statutory obligations.” 

Energy Affordability

In addition to the Attorney General’s supplemental letter arguing that the Climate Act is unaffordable, there were findings presented at the State Energy Planning (SEP) Board meeting on December 1, 2025 that present extraordinary cost estimates.  My article on the Energy Affordability presentation at the meeting documents the projections for a moderate-income household in Upstate New York that uses natural gas.  My article found the difference between replacement of conventional existing equipment and the highly efficient electrification equipment necessary for CLCPA compliance increases monthly average energy expenditures $593 when capital costs are considered. That number was in a slide but there was only passing mention of the cost.

I derived explanatory numbers from information presented at the SEP Board meeting.  The following energy affordability analysis slide summarizes the projection approach.  It explains that for eleven household profiles, NYSERDA evaluated future household and transportation energy expenditures for four cases involving different technology mixes and fuel types.  These “Illustrative Household Journeys” include:

  • Starting Point: Fossil fueled heating and transportation with average existing equipment
  • Conventional Replacement: Fossil fueled heating and transportation with new, more efficient equipment
  • Moderate Efficient Electrification: Some electrification of heating and transportation, with basic building envelope efficiency measures
  • High Efficient Electrification: More electrification of heating and transportation, with basic or medium building envelope efficiency measures, and efficient electric appliances

Slides were presented that describe the four journeys for several profiles.   My numbers were derived from the typical Upstate moderate-income household that uses natural gas for heat household profile.  This was the only profile that included all the information needed to project total cost.  In the following slide,  three projected “household journeys” reduce monthly energy expenditures relative to the current starting point.  However, buried at the bottom of the page is the notation that these values are “Average monthly expenditures. Does not include equipment costs”. 

It turns out that including equipment costs makes a difference as shown in the next slide.

I extracted information from these slides to prepare Table 1.  Rows 1-4 list the monthly energy expenditures with the total in row 5 from the first slide.  The increase in efficiency decreases monthly energy costs for all three journeys but that changes when CapEx is considered.  The CapEx monthly total cost in row 6 is available on the second slide.  However, the breakdown between the costs of a new plugin hybrid electric vehicle (moderate electrification) in row 7 and a battery electric vehicle (high efficiency electrification) relative to home energy electrification row 8 is not listed on the included slides.  I estimated the percentage of home electrification from the size of the blue bars on the right side of the second slide. (Row 10). When the CapEx costs are included all the projected alternative journeys are more expensive.  Row 9 lists the total monthly energy costs including the costs of equipment from the second slide.  The cost of Climate Act compliance is the difference between replacement of conventional equipment and the highly efficient electrification equipment.  Row 12 lists the $593 difference  necessary for Climate Act compliance and row 11 lists the 43% increase in energy costs. 

Table 1: Upstate New York Moderate Income Household That Uses Natural Gas for Heat Projected Monthly Costs and Costs Necessary to Comply with the Climate Act

The affordability messaging is embedded in this table.  I prepared an annotated transcript for this presentation that includes a heading for questions made during the meeting with a link to each person who commented or asked a question. I believe that this presentation and the questions asked was scripted to further the messaging of the Administration.  Chair Doreen Harris of the Energy Planning Board asked NYSERDA presenter James Wilcox about energy price uncertainty.  He admitted that the key driver of change over the next five years is “change in energy price”.  The modeling shows that this could increase household energy spending 3% to 8% in the starting point base case but could go up to as much as 14% to 19% even if they do nothing.  Chair Harris elicited a response from him that summarizes the public messaging: “That is what I was trying to elicit: What does doing nothing get you?”  Even if you do nothing costs could rise as much as 19%.  That is misleading because the equipment costs are the main causes of future cost not changes in energy prices.

The presentations emphasized that Climate Act costs are not the primary energy cost increase driver and that multiple factors beyond climate policy contribute to expected costs.  The other implementation cost message in the NYSERDA presentations is that the additional costs to meet the Climate Act mandates are smaller than expected cost increases.  This table quantifies that claim.  If this example household replaces its internal combustion car with another one and replaces household appliances with natural gas appliances total costs will go up $868 from $506 to $1,374.  The cost to meet the Climate Act mandates beyond conventional replacement is “only”  $593 more which is less than the cost of conventional replacement. 

I think the magnitude of these impacts are being downplayed as much as possible.  After I published my analysis I went to the Draft Energy Plan supporting documentation page and reviewed the Energy Affordability Outputs and Input Data spreadsheet.  The equipment costs are only provided as a sensitivity for one household. I think that this is by design because these costs are so extraordinary.  I believe these numbers indicate a serious energy affordability crisis is coming.  In my opinion, including an additional 43% cost increase is unconscionable.  New York GHG emissions are less than one half of one percent of global emissions and global emissions have been increasing on average by more than one half of one percent per year since 1990.  New York cannot solve global warming by itself. 

Implementation Timing

I summarized my initial thoughts about the Pathways Analysis presentation at the December SEP Planning Board meeting.  The presentation found that neither the CLCPA 40% GHG emission reduction target nor the electric system 70% renewable energy mandate would be achieved on time.  The “Key Takeaways (3/3)” Slide (#31) in the meeting presentation states that “the state is currently not on track to meet the 2030 emission limit – Current Policies is estimated to hit 40% reduction in 2038 while Additional Action is estimated to hit 40% reduction in 2037.” 

The Electric Sector Results: Additional Action slide (#21) states that “Pace of additions leads to delayed achievement of 70% renewable to 2036-2040”.

Discussion

The Court Decision and the Energy Plan findings are not the only reasons given by state agencies that it would be appropriate to reconsider the Climate Act.  I described three other findings in an article last month. The New York State Comptroller Office audit of the NYSERDA and PSC  implementation efforts for the Climate Act was an early acknowledgement that the implementation plan needs to be revised.  The Public Service Commission (PSC) compared the renewable energy deployment progress relative to the Climate Act goal to obtain 70% of New York’s electricity from renewable sources by 2030. The final Clean Energy Standard Biennial Review Report document found that 2030 goal will likely not be achieved until 2033.  Finally, The Second Informational Report prepared by Department of Public Service (DPS) staff described four feasibility concerns: the 2030 renewable energy target is “likely unattainable”, offshore wind faces major obstacles, transmission remains a “critical bottleneck”, and grid reliability challenges are mounting

There have been other recent articles arguing that New York has impossible targets.  David Wojick recently published an article explaining implementation issues that I backed up with observed data.  Tom Shepstone describes a New York Post editorial that cites a Progressive Policy Institute article that calls the Climate Act an “undeniable” failure.

These findings should inspire the Hochul Administration to amend the  Climate Act.  It is troubling that the SEP Board meeting presentations did not mention these ramifications in the presentation.  Furthermore, there has been no sign that the Hochul Administration or the majority leadership in the Legislature are amenable to considering amendments to the Climate Act.

Conclusion

I was motivated to publish this and distribute it to the media because these findings have significant implications for the future New York energy system.  In the near term, something must be done to reconcile the reality that the CLCPA schedule is too ambitious to have any hope of compliance.  More importantly, the findings described should become the basis for a discussion of more New Yorkers.  As it stands now New York energy policy is being guided by a small but extremely vocal and motivated constituency that does not understand the physics of the energy system.  Thomas Sowell has been quoted as saying: “It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong”.  In this instance, there is nothing more stupid or dangerous than ignoring the people who will pay the price if there are problems with the energy system.

Energy Affordability at Energy Planning Board Meeting on 12/1/2025

On December 6, 2025, I published an article describing my initial thoughts about the State Energy Planning Board (SEP) meeting on December 1 that discussed updated Pathways modeling for the State Energy Plan.  This post describes the presentations at the meeting that covered energy affordability.  I will cover the health benefits and employment analysis in another post.

I am convinced that implementation of the New York Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act or CLCPA) 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.

Energy Plan Overview

According to the New York State Energy Plan website (Accessed 3/16/25):

The State Energy Plan is a comprehensive roadmap to build a clean, resilient, and affordable energy system for all New Yorkers. The Plan provides broad program and policy development direction to guide energy-related decision-making in the public and private sectors within New York State.

The New York State Energy Research & Development Authority (NYSERDA) prepared the Draft Energy Plan last summer.  Stakeholder comments were accepted until early October.  The Energy Planning Board has the responsibility to approve the document. At the November 13, 2025 Board meeting there was a perfunctory description of the comments received.  During the wrap up for this meeting Chair Doreen Harris said the Board will meet later this month to approve the plan before the end of the year. I have provided background information and a list of previous articles on my Energy Plan page. 

Meeting Overview

There were three items on the agenda: approval of last meeting minutes, discuss analyses conducted for the Energy Plan, and consider any new business.  The recording of the meeting available here included a transcript.  I created an edited transcript for the Pathways Analysis presentation and a separate transcript for the energy affordability, health benefits, and employment presentations. These annotated versions include tables and headings.

In this meeting NYSERDA described the updated Pathways Analysis—the modeling exercise that underpins New York’s triennial State Energy Plan. In my opinion, the entire Energy Planning Board process is political theater.  The members of the Board were chosen mostly for political reasons and not technical expertise.  Everyone involved is going through the motions. 

My last post explained that the updated Pathways Analysis described in the first part of this meeting found that the 2030 Climate Act goals will not be achieved on time.  The aspirational schedule of the Climate Act was never realistic, and these results are simply acknowledgement of that fact.  The topics featured in the remaining sessions support the positive spin narrative that the Hochul administration is trying to convey to the public to save some face regarding Climate Act implementation.  This post will highlight key points of the narrative.  I want to emphasize that this narrative is based mostly on political messaging, so it is appropriate to assume that every NYSERDA point has been approved by the Hochul Administration.

Energy Affordability

James Wilcox presented the Household Energy Affordability Analysis Update. He said that NYSERDA “reviewed key analysis structure and assumptions based on stakeholder feedback and new data availability”.  The claim regarding review of stakeholder feedback is the first narrative speaking point.  There will be a subsequent post detailing how New York State agency claim that all stakeholder feedback was considered is unsupported by evidence.  While there are indications that some feedback from outside NYSERDA was incorporated in the updated analyses, later I will detail instances where comments inconsistent with the intended story line were ignored.

Wilcox summarized the updates:

  • For Base Case, moved to an electric and gas price forecast based on the trend of total bills from bill history
  • Added a higher energy price growth sensitivity based on the trend of total bills from recent bill history combined with recent DPS/utility projections
  • Although numbers have shifted, key takeaways remain the same
  • Net result from changes is a higher growth rate for electricity and gas rates

The affordability messaging has been consistent.  NYSERDA acknowledges that there are energy affordability challenges.  The Climate Act embeds environmental justice principles throughout its implementation framework, so descriptions include low- and moderate- income household impacts that are consistent with this narrative talking point,  Unsurprisingly, those households are “more likely to experience energy affordability challenges”.

The following energy affordability analysis slide explains that for eleven household profiles, NYSERDA evaluated future household and transportation energy expenditures for four cases involving different technology mixes and fuel types.  These “Illustrative Household Journeys” include:

  • Starting Point: Fossil fueled heating and transportation with average existing equipment
  • Conventional Replacement: Fossil fueled heating and transportation with new, more efficient equipment
  • Moderate Efficient Electrification: Some electrification of heating and transportation, with basic building envelope efficiency measures
  • High Efficient Electrification: More electrification of heating and transportation, with basic or medium building envelope efficiency measures, and efficient electric appliances

Slides were presented that describe the four journeys for several profiles.   The following example describes monthly expenditures for a typical Upstate moderate-income household that uses natural gas for heat.  Relative to the current starting point all three projected “household journeys” reduce monthly energy expenditures.  However, buried at the bottom of the page is the notation that these values are “Average monthly expenditures. Does not include equipment costs”. 

It turns out that including equipment costs makes a difference as shown in the next slide.

The Hochul/NYSERDA story is that monthly energy expenditures will go down when investments in moderate electrification or high efficiency electrification necessary for Climate Act compliance are made.  The public release sound bite press releases will emphasize that point and barely acknowledge that the costs that include the capital expenses (CapEx) for the equipment costs tell a different story.  I summarized all this information in Table 1.  The first four rows list the monthly energy expenditures with the total in the fifth line.  The CapEx monthly total cost is listed but the breakdown between the costs of a new plugin hybrid electric vehicle (moderate electrification) and a battery electric vehicle (high efficiency electrification) relative to home energy electrification is not provided.  I estimated the percentage of home electrification from the bars in the previous figure.  When those CapEx costs are included all the projected alternative journeys are more expensive.  Note that the difference between replacement of conventional equipment and the highly efficient electrification equipment necessary for Climate Act compliance increases monthly average energy expenditures $593, a whopping 43% increase in energy costs.  That is the cost of Climate Act compliance.

Table 1: Upstate New York Moderate Income Household That Uses Natural Gas for Heat Projected Monthly Costs and Costs Necessary to Comply with the Climate Act

The following key takeaways slide summarizes the messages that NYSERDA and Hochul want the Energy Planning Board and public to accept.  The first statement suggests that if households continue to use existing equipment that energy spending will increase.  But households “see gradually declining rates of energy consumption and total energy spending as more efficient equipment is adopted” then that “can help to offset energy price increases”.  That advocates going forward despite a tacit acknowledgement that it may not save money, just reduce the increase.  The final takeaway points out that according to their numbers transportation energy spending could offset incremental cost increases for home heating.  I cannot overemphasize enough that results from this kind of modeling are completely dependent upon input assumptions.  That means that the modelers can get any answer they want.  It is therefore very telling that these takeaways cannot avoid the conclusion that the transition will incur significant costs. The modelers could not completely avoid reality.

Ultimately, the question is how much will all this cost. During his presentation Wilcox stated: “What we can take away is that the net costs for efficient electrification journeys could be 35% to 40% higher than conventional replacement when accounting for equipment, reinforcing the importance of action to address upfront equipment costs so that households are able to access the benefits of these systems.”   NYSERDA is left hoping that there will be a magical solution that will reduce upfront costs so that the projections might be palatable.

The conclusions sums up the energy affordability messaging.  There is an energy affordability problem that impacts low- and moderate-income households more with the implication that focus on those households will improve the situation.  Energy costs impact both household and transportation spending.  This needs to be emphasized because NYSERDA cannot claim monthly energy benefits for many household profiles if transportation costs are not included.  Wilcox concludes the obvious point that “expected increases in energy prices highlight the importance of actions that can lower energy costs”.  In my opinion the point that doing nothing is the least impactful action is not acknowledged.  The importance of energy savings measures is highlighted.  However, I don’t think this will provide as many benefits as they do because this has been emphasized for decades so the simple fixes and obvious solutions have already been implemented.  It is easy to say that “Policy and market solutions that focus on lowering up-front costs” may make this more affordable, but no suggestions how that can be done or why anyone would expect that this may happen are offered.  Finally, there is the recommendation of all analysts that have no clue how to get the preferred answer to “do further research”.

Presentation Discussion Topics

The annotated transcript for this presentation includes a heading for questions made during the meeting with a link to each person who commented or asked a question. 

Chair Doreen Harris asked about the differences between Upstate and Downstate.  Wilcox explained that there are climatic differences, transportation patterns are different, and the predominant type of housing is different.  Harris followed up stating:

I think that’s important because that’s one of the reasons why we had to produce so many variations, right? Like, it reflects the diversity of our state in a way that means that the answer isn’t the same for everyone, depending on their own experience and the way they live.

Because I believe that this presentation was scripted to further the messaging of the Administration, I think it is telling that she wanted to emphasize impacts are not the same for everyone.  I am not sure why, however. 

The rationale for her second question about what happens if households do not upgrade is obvious.  The projections show that all replacement scenarios doubles costs so doing nothing is an attractive option.  Not only is that a great argument against an implementation schedule, but it establishes a significant public acceptance hurdle.  Wilcox admitted that the key driver of change over the next five years is “change in energy price”.  The modeling shows that this will increase household energy spending 3% to 8% in the starting point base case but could go up to as much as 14% to 19% even if they do nothing. 

The questions and answers went on:

Harris: “And then, James, maybe to kind of take those percentages in context, was it in that higher price sensitivity, a household that did nothing could see as much as one hundred dollars a month increased costs. Is that about right?

Wilcox: “Yeah. That’s correct.”

Harris: “So there’s a substantial increase with these energy prices for folks who don’t take any action. Thank you. That is what I was trying to elicit: What does doing nothing get you?

To summarize, the Chair of the Energy Planning Board was trying to elicit a specific point from her staff that there will be a substantial increase in energy prices even if people don’t take any action.  Her staff person Wilcox could have destroyed his career if he had pointed out that the minimum increase in any of the scenarios that replaced household and transportation equipment is 1.7 times greater than current costs which is far greater than the greatest impact of doing nothing which was 0.19 times greater.

After that the rest of the questions were a comedown.  There were suggestions that the new technologies might offer new opportunities that might somehow, someway, mitigate the cold equations that show this is unaffordable.  There was also a suggestion made that all would work out if New Yorkers used public transit.

Discussion

Presumably the Attorney General Office supplemental letter  that argued that promulgating regulations for the Climate Act target would cause “undue harm” used in the New York Supreme Court litigation was developed with the assistance of NYSERDA.  That letter claimed that the Climate Act mandates are infeasible due to excessive costs that are “unaffordable for consumers”.  All these numbers confirm that there are affordability issues.

This finding sums up Climate Act affordability.  For a moderate-income household in Upstate New York that uses natural gas the difference between replacement of conventional equipment and the highly efficient electrification equipment necessary for Climate Act compliance increases monthly average energy expenditures $593, a whopping 43% increase in energy costs. 

There are ten other household profiles.  The presentation did not provide sufficient information for a similar assessment of any of those other profiles.  The State Energy Plan document web page does not list any updates to the draft materials from last summer so I am not able to develop an overview of all the household profile results.  Also note that the documentation does not provide backup to the graphs and tables presented in the Energy Plan reports so this is no small task.

Conclusion

Any argument that the Climate Act transition will not be extraordinarily expensive can be refuted by using the data included in this presentation.  Coupled with the Pathways Analysis presentation described previously that found that neither 2030 Climate Act target will be met before 2036, the only appropriate course of action is to reconsider the Climate Act.  Given that it will require accountability by the politicians who got New York into this mess I am not optimistic.

Initial Thoughts on Energy Planning Board Meeting on 1 December 2025

Note: Updated on 12/10/2025 to add a slide 32 from the presentation

On November 13 I published an article describing my initial thoughts about the State Energy Planning Board meeting that day that discussed public comments on the Draft State Energy Plan document.  I had intended to follow up with another post providing more detail, but other projects got in the way.  This post describes the latest meeting held on December 1.

I am convinced that implementation of the New York Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act or CLCPA) 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 summaries and references included in this document.  The focus of this article is how the results of the Pathways Analysis relate to Climate Act goals.  Note that I went so far as to request that the response be written up.

Energy Plan Overview

According to the New York State Energy Plan website (Accessed 3/16/25):

The State Energy Plan is a comprehensive roadmap to build a clean, resilient, and affordable energy system for all New Yorkers. The Plan provides broad program and policy development direction to guide energy-related decision-making in the public and private sectors within New York State.

I have provided background information and a list of previous articles on my Energy Plan page. 

Meeting Overview

There were three items on the agenda: approval of last meeting minutes, discuss analyses conducted for the Energy Plan, and consider any new business.  The recording of the meeting available here included a transcript.  I created an edited transcript that has headings and includes the slides.

The New York State Energy Research & Development Authority (NYSERDA) prepared a Draft Energy Plan last summer.  Stakeholder comments were accepted until early October.  At the last Energy Planning Board meeting there was a perfunctory description of the comments received.  In this meeting NYSERDA described the updated Pathways Analysis—the modeling exercise that underpins New York’s triennial State Energy Plan.

Implementation Timing

Under New York’s own Climate Act accounting framework—the methodology that matters for compliance—no scenario modeled by NYSERDA hits the 40% economy-wide GHG reduction target by 2030. Not the “current policies” case. Not the “additional action” case. None of them.  Instead, the core planning cases achieve the 40% GHG emission reduction by 2030 mandate in roughly 2037–2038, a full 7–8 years later than the statute requires.  The 70% renewable electricity target by 2030 is also behind schedule.  Offshore wind permitting delays push that into the 2036–2040 window.

This is not a surprise to anyone closely tracking federal policy and state implementation. However, this is the first time that it is not necessary to read between the lines of the NYSERDA presentations.  NYSERDA laid it out in black-and-white.  The State is no longer pretending the Climate Act is on schedule.

Federal Rollbacks and Deployment Headwinds

The updated modeling incorporates two major factors that were not included in the draft plan.

The draft plan was counting on extensive Federal support but there have been policy changes. The modeling breaks this down by sector:

  • Across the electric sector: $25 billion in lost investment tax credit (ITC) and production tax credit (PTC) for renewables and related credits.
  • Buildings: ~$1.5 billion in lost heat pump and efficiency incentives by 2040.
  • Transportation: ~$4.5 billion in lost EV incentives, plus higher long-term fuel costs if the Advanced Clean Car and Advanced Clean Truck programs are also repealed.
  • Offshore wind deployment delays. Federal permitting obstruction and supply-chain headwinds are slowing the pace of offshore wind additions.
  • Offshore wind deployment delays. Federal permitting obstruction and supply-chain headwinds are slowing the pace of offshore wind additions. The 2035 offshore wind capacity in the modeling is below the 9 GW target, which cascades into delays across the entire renewable timeline.

The second factor is that issues with siting constraints are slowing the physical deployment of wind and solar deployment relative to the unrealistic presumptions in the Draft plan.  Offshore wind deployment delays because of changes in Federal permitting and supply-chain issues are slowing the pace of offshore wind additions. The 2035 offshore wind capacity in the modeling is below the 9 GW target, which cascades into delays across the entire renewable timeline.

Policy Implications

The Perplexity AI summary listed six takeaways.

  1. NYSERDA plainly states that the 2030 targets cannot be met using the Climate Act’s accounting as shown on the Key Takeaways (3/3) Slide 32 shown below.. However, the presentation just described this analysis result and not the implication that this means that the Climate Act must be amended to shift the schedule.
  • The building sector urgently need more aggressive policy actions to achieve Climate Act goals. The gap between current-policy building decarbonization and a net-zero-consistent path is large, and it’s growing. Stronger codes, more financing, larger direct-install programs, and targeted support for renters and low-income owners are all needed.
  • The transition of the gas system requires active management and investment. This isn’t a “let the market sort it out” situation. Utilities, the PSC, and the state need coordinated strategies for how gas infrastructure evolves over time—including decisions about when and where to invest in network modernization versus when to accelerate targeted electrification.
  • The presentation noted the importance of Dispatchable Emissions Free Resources (DEFR).  I disagree with the optionality adjective, however. There is nothing optional about the need for these new and unproven resources.  The description of green hydrogen illustrates why it won’t solve the problem. The presentation argues the state should be actively exploring, piloting, and supporting a portfolio of zero-carbon dispatchable technologies. RNG, long-duration storage, ammonia, and others all deserve serious development support.
  • Federal policy is now a binding constraint. New York can optimize its own policies, but it cannot outrun federal rollbacks. The state’s energy strategy increasingly needs to figure out how to replace Federal funding, procure projects to lock in tax credits before phase-outs, and re-structure policy design that works even if federal support evaporates.
  • Nuclear is back in the conversation, and that’s not a bad thing. The modeling shows that nuclear power, where available and deployable, reduces system costs and relieves pressure on renewables and DEFR. The presentation argues that the state should pursue the NYPA project, explore other Small Modular Reactor and advanced reactor opportunities, and think carefully about lifecycle extension of existing assets.

Stakeholder Comments

I am extremely disappointed with the stakeholder process.  In my comments at the first virtual public hearing and a subsequent written comment I explained that the lack of documentation on the disposition of stakeholder comments undermined the credibility of the process and the opportunity to improve the Energy Plan.  The only acknowledgment of the comments received is a promise that “all comments will be posted on the State Energy Plan website as soon as practicable”.  It has been two months since that promise was posted and the comments still are not posted.

This matters because the presentation at this meeting claimed the Pathways Analysis finds that the additional-action case generates net societal benefits of about $18 billion by 2040, with roughly $19 billion in aggregate net-present-value benefits through 2040, when carbon and health benefits are factored in.  However, in my unacknowledged comments I pointed out that the cost accounting in the Pathways Analysis “No Action” scenario only includes costs associated with the Climate Act law, not the cost to meet the Climate Act targets.  The misleading “No Action” scenario is not a baseline that excludes all programs necessary to achieve the Climate Act targets because it includes legacy programs in place prior to the Climate Act.  Furthermore, in other comments I identified issues that reduced the alleged benefits.  If costs and benefits were properly addressed, then I suspect that there would not be net societal benefits.

Discussion

I recently described the Oct. 24, 2025 New York Supreme Court decision and order in a case pitting environmental organizations 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 2030 GHG reduction mandate changed. Importantly, during the trial , the Attorney General Office submitted a supplemental letter  that argued that promulgating regulations for the Climate Act target would cause “undue harm” because the Climate Act mandates are infeasible due to excessive costs that are “unaffordable for consumers” to bear.  Subsequently, DEC appealed the decision which postpones resolution of the problem.

The rationale for the Judge’s decision coupled with the acknowledgement that the costs are unaffordable and the updated Pathways Analysis finding that the 2030 targets cannot be met using the Climate Act’s accounting methodology should mean that the Climate Act itself needs to be amended.  This important finding was not mentioned in the presentation.  Furthermore, there has been no sign that the Hochul Administration or the majority leadership in the Legislature are amenable to considering amendments to the Climate Act.

There is another aspect to this.  The Climate Act is not the only law that includes the mandates for the net-zero transition.  New York Public Service Law § 66 “Establishment of a renewable energy program” describes energy systems that are prohibit some of the findings in the updated Pathways Analysis.  It appears to me that this legislation also needs to be amended.

I will follow up with another post on this meeting because there are more issues that I did not address.

Conclusion

Reality bats last.  The findings of the updated Pathways Analysis reflect that fact.  The aspirational schedule of the Climate Act was never realistic, and these results are simply acknowledgement of that fact.  It remains to be seen how the identified problems and the implicit feasibility concerns described will be addressed.  Given that it will require accountability by the politicians who got New York into this mess I am not optimistic.

Implications of New York State 2025 GHG Emissions Inventory

This post describes the latest New York State (NYS) GHG emission inventory report that provides data through 2023.  A recent post explained why the Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act) 2030 target for a 40% reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from 1990 levels was impossible.  It included GHG emissions data through 2022 so this report updates that assessment.  It also describes implications of other aspects of the inventory results.

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.

Overview

The Climate Act established a New York “Net Zero” target (85% reduction in GHG emissions and 15% offset of emissions) by 2050.  In addition GHG emissions are supposed to be 40% lower than the 1990 baseline.  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 was finalized at the end of 2022.  Since then, the State has been trying to implement the Scoping Plan recommendations through regulations, proceedings, and legislation. 

NYS GHG Emissions

The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) released the 2025 statewide GHG emissions report (2025 GHG Report) at the end of November, a month earlier than recent releases.  DEC is required by the Climate Act to follow unique inventory requirements.  Four years ago I published an overview post of this greenhouse gas (GHG) inventory that described things that maximize emissions in an apparent attempt to make GHG emissions as large as possible. 

The 2025 GHG Report includes the following documents:

The Summary Report for the GHG Inventory gives an overview of the highlights.

In 2023, statewide gross GHG emissions were 354.06 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent GHGs (mmt CO2e) using CLCPA accounting. Total gross emissions in 2023 were 14.8% lower than the 1990 baseline in this report and 13.6% below the 1990 statewide emission baseline adopted in regulation in 2020. Carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) comprised the largest portion of emissions by gas, 58% and 35% respectively, and energy was the largest source of emissions (73%). Net emissions were 316.58 mmt CO2e in 2023, which includes a net 37.48 mmt CO2e removed.

Note that the 1990 total gross emissions calculated in this analysis were different than the those calculated when the 1990 statewide emission baseline was adopted in regulation in 2020.  The implications of this will be discussed later in this post.  The Summary Report goes on:

Emissions in New York State in 2023 have mostly recovered from the effects of the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic. As noted in the two previous versions of this report, 2020 emissions were not considered representative and were expected to normalize to broader trends in future reports. Annual gross emissions in 2023 were less than 0.1% higher than in 2022 and 4% lower than the pre-pandemic levels in 2019. This trend is primarily the result of energy sector changes. Energy emissions in 2023 were 10% higher than in 2020, and 1% lower than in 2022. Within the energy sector, these trends were driven by the gradual recovery of energy sector subsectors such as transportation and a change in electricity generation sources. Some of the trends in energy emissions are also affected by seasonal weather patterns and interannual differences in the demand for heating or cooling.

When a New York state agency says “change in electricity generation sources” they cannot state the obvious that this is the result of poor energy policy.  The changes in sources were caused by the politically motivated decisions to shut down two zero emissions Indian Point nuclear units and reject the permits to repower old and inefficient natural gas fired power plants.  The Draft Energy Plan and multiple New York Independent System Operator reports clearly show that both nuclear power and fossil generation resources are needed to maintain electric system reliability.

The Summary Report goes on:

Greenhouse gas emissions from the extraction, processing, and transmission of imported natural gas greatly decreased for years 2020-2022 relative to the 2024 Statewide GHG Emissions Report due to updated data and methodology. This report uses an updated fuel lifecycle analysis model made available by the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL 2025) that estimates GHG emissions from natural gas systems based on year 2020 operating conditions. Note that use of the updated model reduced statewide greenhouse gas emission totals for years 2020-2022 compared to the totals included in the 2024 Statewide GHG Emissions Report. More details about the changes to the data and methodology underlying imported natural gas emissions are included in Sectoral Report #1: Energy.

Two points to keep in mind about this paragraph.  New York’s unique GHG emission accounting methodology not only includes the use of different global warming potential but also includes upstream emissions.  This means that most results cannot be compared to other jurisdictions.  The second point is that this inventory relies on emission factors instead of direct emission measurements.  As a result, updates to data and methodology mean that emission totals change.  This will be discussed below.

2023 GHG Emissions

Table ES.2 in the Summary Report presents emissions for different sectors and different greenhouse gases.  There are four Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) sectors and there are four  sectoral reports for energy, industrial processes and product use, agriculture, forestry and land use, and waste.  The table also includes United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) totals that use the “conventional accounting used by other governments, applies a 100-year GWP (IPCC 2014), omits biogenic CO2, and does not include emissions outside of New York State.”  These are the only data that can be compared to other jurisdictions. 

In my recent post I claimed that the 2030 40% emission reduction target was impossible. According to the Final DEC Part 496 regulation, 1990 emissions were 409.78 MMTCO2e.  I used DEC’s 2024 Statewide GHG Emissions Report, covering data through 2022, that revealed that New York emissions as of 2022 were 371.08 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MMTCO2e) from Table ES.2 in the 2024 report.  Using these numbers NYS had only achieved a 9.3% reduction in gross GHG emissions from 1990 levels.  Table ES.2 in the 2025 report states that NY emissions were 354.06 MMTCO2e) at the end of 2023. 

2030 40% Reduction Mandate

The Climate Act requires a 40% reduction of GHG emissions by 2030.  Table 1 compares the current GHG inventories performance relative to th4 40% reduction mandate.  At the end of 2023 the reductions since 1990 using the Part 496 state limit were only 14% lower.  The fact that 2022 had slightly higher emissions reinforces the observation that the 2030 goal is impossible.

Table 1: Statewide GHG Emission Inventory Report Emissions Relative to Climate Act 2030 Mandate (mmt CO2e GWP20)

Emission Reduction Trend

The 2025 GHG Report describes emission trends:

Total statewide gross emissions in 2023 were 14.8% below 1990 and 24.5% below 2005 levels, when assessed using CLCPA accounting and the most up-to-date methodologies. Figure ES.1 shows overall trends in statewide emissions by gas on an annual basis, including gross and net emission totals, as well as the emission limits for 2030 and 2050 pursuant to ECL § 75-0107 and 6 NYCRR Part 496. Statewide emissions are 13.6% below the 1990 baseline used in the Part 496 regulation. Statewide emissions for 2020 are also described in this report but are not representative of historic nor current conditions due to the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Currently, the data for Figure ES.1 are not available.  When it becomes available, I will dive into the trends.  In the meantime, Table 3 extracts individual trend tables from each of the sectoral reports for energy, industrial processes and product use, agriculture, forestry and land use, and waste.  The only emission categories that have reduced emissions in excess of 40% are the energy “other fossil fuel use” and “electricity transmission” categories but both total only 1% of the inventory.  Total emissions increased in the Industrial Process and Product Use Sector “product use” category; the AFOLU Agriculture Emission Sector “livestock” category; and the Waste Sector “waste combustion” and “wastewater” categories.  The increases in emissions were in categories that total 14% of the inventory.

Table 3: Summary of Sectoral Emission Trends

Annual Variation of the GHG Emission Inventory

I previously mentioned that 1990 total gross emissions calculated in this analysis were different than the those calculated when the 1990 statewide emission baseline was established by ECL 75-0107 and reflected in 6 NYCRR Part 496. It is important to understand that GHG emission inventories are not based completely on measured emissions.  The power plant emissions used in EPA trading programs are based on direct measurements, but the estimates in this inventory are derived using emission factors and estimates of activities such as fuel use or vehicle miles traveled. 

Table 3 illustrates how this affects the status relative to the 2030 emission limit.  All the emission inventories have estimated a different 1990 value than the regulatory limit in Part 496.  The Sum 1990 Gross Total row lists the different numbers.  The rest of the table shows how these differences affect the comparison of current emissions to the 2030 limit.

Table 3: Annual Statewide GHG Emission Inventory Report Emissions Relative to Climate Act 2030 Mandate (mmt CO2e GWP20)

The variation in the emissions estimates is significant.  The sectoral GHG emission reports list data for 1990, 2005, and the last five years.  Table 4 presents the standard deviation and range of observed data for 1990, 2005, and 2019 for the last five reports for different sector emission categories.  Note that the total range of variation for 2019 emissions is 12.18 million metric tons of CO2e.  In this report the total 2019 emissions were 367.25 million metric tons of CO2e so variations in methodology are about 3% of the total estimated emissions.

If you take the time to dive into the details of Table 4 one thing stands out.  The main driver of the observed variation range is the estimate for the “out of state energy” category in the energy sector. The 2019 variation range was 13.47 million metric tons of CO2e.

Table 4: Standard Deviation and Range of Observed Emissions from Last Five GHG Emission Reports

Implications Discussion

There are several implications for the GHG inventory.  Most important relates to the Climate Act target for a 40% reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from 1990 levels by 2030.  In 2023 statewide emissions were only 14% lower than 1990 and there is no suggestion that the rate is increasing so this confirms that the achieving the 2030 goal is impossible.

This article quantifies the variation of emissions estimates. This emission inventory relies on emission factors instead of direct emission measurements, so future variations are to be expected.  Changes due to reporting sources and improvement of the emission factors used will be a feature of program going forward.  The question is how it gets handled.  The report notes “The 6 NYCRR Part 496 regulation may be revised at a later date using updated information.”  For any affected source trying to determine their control strategy this uncertainty complicates planning.  Worse, in the face of changing numbers, New York Cap-and-Invest Program compliance will be more challenging.  Finally, when there is a price on carbon, say $10 per ton, the methodology changes will affect millions of dollars of costs.

Finally, I want to emphasize that this report illustrates that New York “follows the science” when it is convenient but ignores the consensus when politically expedient.  In particular, the GHG emissions accounting is inconsistent with the UNFCCC.  Note that the largest driver of the observed variation in emission estimates across reports is the “out of state energy” category in the energy sector.  There are reasons that the UNFCCC methodology does not include upstream emissions and one of them is the challenge of estimating those emissions consistently.

Conclusion

The 2025 GHG emission inventory reports is another warning regarding Climate Act implementation.  It is clear that the 2030 GHG emission reduction target cannot be met.  There are unacknowledged challenges inherent in the emission inventory approach that will make the Cap-and-Invest program implementation more challenging.

December 2025 New York Cap and Invest Program Update

There have been a couple of developments since my last status update on June 13, 2025 regarding the New York Cap and Invest (NYCI) Program. I previously described the decision issued on Oct. 24, 2025 by the Albany New York Supreme Court.  Last week the Hochul Administration appealed the ruling.  Last June I described the draft regulation that establishes mandatory greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reporting requirements.  The final rule has been released.  This post describes these items.

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.  I have worked on every market-based program that affected electric generating facilities in New York including the Acid Rain Program, Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), and several Nitrogen Oxide programs. I follow and write about the RGGI and New York carbon pricing initiatives so my background is particularly suited for NYCI.   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.

Overview

The Climate Act established a New York “Net Zero” target (85% reduction in GHG emissions and 15% offset of emissions) by 2050.  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.”  After a year-long review, the Scoping Plan that outlines how to achieve the targets was finalized at the end of 2022.  Since then, the State has been trying to implement the Scoping Plan recommendations through regulations, proceedings, and legislation. 

The CAC’s Scoping Plan recommended a market-based economywide cap-and-invest program.  NYCI is supposed to work by setting an annual cap on the amount of greenhouse gas pollution that is permitted to be emitted in New York: “The declining cap ensures annual emissions are reduced, setting the state on a trajectory to meet our greenhouse gas emission reduction requirements of 40% by 2030, and at least 85% from 1990 levels by 2050, as mandated by the Climate Act.”  Affected sources purchase permits to emit a ton (also known as allowances) and then surrender them at the end of the year to comply with the rule.  As is the case with all aspects of the Climate Act, this approach is not simple and is riddled with complications that make it unlikely that it will work as advocates expect.  I have explained  that proponent claims that the program will simultaneously raise money, ensure compliance, and be affordable are wishful thinking and have described other concerns on my Carbon Pricing Initiatives page.

To implement the carbon pricing initiative, the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) has proposed three regulations: mandatory GHG emissions reporting, a cap-and-invest rule that sets the cap or limit on emissions, and an auction rulemaking that establishes how the allowances will be allocated.  The only regulation that was formally proposed this year was the reporting rule.

Court Decision and Order

On Oct. 24, 2025, the New York Supreme Court issued a decision and order in a case pitting environmental organizations against the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC).  The decision explained that the Climate Act implementation plan has three steps:

  1. DEC was required to set emission limits for the reduction targets;
  2. The Climate Action Council, “an advisory group made up of 22 members with relevant expertise”, was given two years to prepare a Scoping Plan containing recommendations for “attaining statewide greenhouse gas emissions limits”; and
  3. The DEC was required to issue regulations that would achieve the mandated emissions reductions following the findings of the Scoping Plan.

The State met the first two requirements but the regulations that were supposed to be released by January 1, 2024, were not promulgated.  On March 31, 2025, a group of environmental advocates filed a petition pursuant to CPLR Article 78 alleging, among other things, that DEC had failed to comply with the timeframe.

The Attorney General Office submitted a supplemental letter during the trial stated that argued that promulgating regulations for the Climate Act target would cause “undue harm”.  Nonetheless,  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 2030 GHG reduction mandate changed. 

The latest update is that DEC appealed the decision on November 25, 2025.  The table of contents of the argument gives three reasons: mandamus to compel applies only to ministerial acts, promulgation of regulations by the court’s deadline is impossible, and publication of proposed rulemaking by the court’s deadline is impossible.  The appeal concludes that “it is impossible for the Department to simultaneously comply with both the Court’s order and its substantive statutory obligations.”

I agree with the claim that it is impossible to comply with the regulation for the reasons given.  However, the Judge already ruled that DEC does not have the authority, however persuasive its arguments, not to comply with the law.  The law must be changed. 

Cap-and-Invest

The press release announcing the finalization of the proposed rule claimed that the data collected will “inform future strategies to reduce pollution”.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) Commissioner Amanda Lefton today announced the finalization of regulations establishing a Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program. This rule will improve New York State’s understanding of the sources of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. As a result of the rule and reporting mechanism, New York State will know more about the largest polluters in the State, including those affecting disadvantaged communities and other sensitive populations, and will be able to more effectively monitor the State’s progress toward pollution reduction goals. This effort also supports the production of the annual GHG Emissions Report and will protect against anticipated federal rollbacks to ensure New York’s essential air pollution information remains accessible.

As part of the 2025 State of the State Address, Governor Kathy Hochul directed DEC to advance a Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program. DEC released draft regulations in March 2025 and received more than 3,000 public comments through July 1, 2025. DEC also offered informational webinars in May to better inform stakeholders’ public comments on the proposal and held hearings in June to collect feedback

.  

DEC made some changes to the proposal based on comments received that will include additional flexibility for the regulated community. The final regulation extends the verification reporting deadline for the first two years, changed the requirement from three years to one year for reporting from facilities that closed or ceased operations, and clarifies some terms and definitions and better aligns with federal reporting. 

DEC’s Mandatory GHG Reporting Program is for data collection only. It does not impose requirements for facilities to reduce GHG pollution or to obtain emission allowances. A facility required to report emissions will annually provide certain GHG emission data and information to DEC starting in June 2027 to reflect the previous year’s emissions. Certain large emission sources will also be required to verify their emissions data report annually using DEC-accredited third-party verification services. 

The rule also helps minimize potential reporting requirement costs by utilizing data already required to be reported under existing State and federal requirements and other mandatory reporting programs. In light of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s reconsideration of key federal air quality and GHG regulations, including the U.S. Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program, DEC’s regulation will also serve as a backstop to ensure the ongoing availability of critical GHG information. 

I will follow up with another post on the details of the final rule and the responses to the comments I submitted.

Part 253 Schedule

The rulemaking documents for the adopted regulation is Part 253 – Mandatory GHG Reporting Program are available here.  There are so many issues associated with this plan I am going to have to do another post.  For this summary just consider one aspect of the schedule.  These observations are based on my personal experience reporting emissions in Environmental Protection Agency and DEC market-based programs starting in 1993.

A universal component of reporting requirements is the monitoring Plan. In this regulation the definition states:  

Part 253-1.7 Record Keeping (e) GHG Monitoring Plan

(1) The GHG monitoring plan shall include these elements:

(i) identification of positions of responsibility (i.e., job titles) for collection of the emissions data;

(ii) explanation of the processes and methods used to collect the necessary data for the GHG calculations; and

(iii) description of the procedures and methods that are used for quality assurance, maintenance, and repair of all continuous monitoring systems, flow meters, and other instrumentation used to provide data for the GHGs reported under this Part.

The description of the monitoring plan states that affected entities “must submit to the department a GHG monitoring plan by December 31, 2026.  Basically this document just describes how the data will be collected and submitted.

However, according to DEC’s Mandatory GHG Reporting website the first Emissions Data Report is due to the Department. Annual emissions reports are due June 1, 2027, and it states that emission data reports and verification statements for the 2026 emissions data year would be due in 2027.  For all previous market-based program emission reporting requirements iI have worked on, there was a phase-in period before required reporting started.  I did not see any mention of the obvious need for DEC to review and approve the monitoring plans. Part 253-1.7 Record Keeping (e) GHG Monitoring Plan states “Each facility operator or supplier that meets the thresholds in section 1.2(f) of this Part must submit to the department a GHG monitoring plan by December 31, 2026”.  Clearly, requiring emission data starting one month after the regulation was finalized, before affected sources can figure out how they will collect the data consistent with the regulation, before they are required to submit a monitoring plan, and before the DEC approves the monitoring plan is inappropriate and very likely subject to litigation.

Discussion

Even though the Court decision said DEC does not have the authority to not follow the law, the Hochul Administration is appealing the decision.  This is a transparent ploy to prevent the costs of NYCI affecting the regulation.

The first of three implementing regulations has been promulgated.  I will follow up with another post describing the implementation issues that are common throughout the regulation.  As I noted in my last NYCI update stakeholders have had trouble interpreting the proposed rules and have found inconsistencies with past practices that will make this program unnecessarily more complicated and time-consuming than necessary.  The comments from stakeholders who have the most experience with these programs appear to have been ignored.

Also note that this is the easiest of the three regulations.  There are few impactful components of the reporting requirements for the affected sources and almost no impact on the public.  All the tough decisions that will be controversial have been delayed until after the next gubernatorial election.

Conclusion

Activists continue to agitate for implementing NYCI faster in the hopes that this magical solution will work as advertised. However, it is not moving quickly despite litigation designed to quicken the pace.  The first of the three implementing regulations is out, and the results do not inspire confidence that the other rules will be well written.