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.

More Reasons to Pause Climate Act Implementation July 12, 2025

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 proceed.  This article describes reasons to pause implementation.

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 500 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.

Call for a Pause

Tom Shepstone wrote an article about a letter from 18 New York Republican Senators calling on Governor Hochul to declare a State of Emergency and “halt Climate Act mandates.”  I was meaning to write about this but can now just quote his article.  Tom wrote “I applaud the following letter these folks just sent to Kathy Hochul (emphasis added):

The Honorable Kathy Hochul Governor of New York State New York State Capitol Building Albany, NY 12224

Subject: Energy State of Emergency

Dear Governor Hochul,

We write today with a deep sense of urgency to respectfully urge you to issue a State Declaration of Disaster Emergency pursuant to Executive Law §28, in response to escalating reliability concerns surrounding our electric grid and the rapidly rising energy costs burdening New York ratepayers. In accordance with Executive Law §29-A, we further request the suspension of laws enacted under the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA), Chapter 106 of the Laws of 2019.

The current trajectory toward an all-electric future presents serious and immediate threats to both the reliability of our power grid and the affordability of energy for New Yorkers. Just last month, the New York Independent System Operator (NYISO) issued multiple Energy Warnings due to a significant decline in operating reserves – underscoring the fragility of the system under current policies.

Legislation stemming from the CLCPA, including mandates for electric vehicles, electric school buses, electric buildings, the repeal of the “100-foot rule,” and a Cap-and-Invest program risks overloading the grid at a time when demand is growing and reliable energy supply is increasingly constrained.

In addition to these reliability concerns, the economic toll of the CLCPA implementation is becoming untenable. A conservative estimate places the total cost of the law’s implementation at

$340 billion. Electricity rates in New York are now 48% higher than the national average and 35% higher than in neighboring Pennsylvania. Alarmingly, nearly 20% of a typical utility bill now consists of government-imposed charges, a figure likely to rise further without intervention.

These realities point to a transition plan that is not only unsustainable but one that risks creating an economic and energy disaster. We believe a pause is essential – one that allows for reassessment, thoughtful adjustment, and a renewed commitment to an energy policy that balances environmental responsibility with reliability and affordability.

We urge your administration to convene a comprehensive review process involving a wide range of stakeholders – industry experts, energy producers, ratepayer advocates, labor and local communities. We further advocate for an “all-of-the-above” energy policy that does not rely solely on wind and solar but also embraces dependable energy sources.

We encourage your administration to continue to push forward with nuclear energy development but let the private sector take the lead. At the same time, we respectfully ask you to reconsider your administration’s stance toward natural gas, a critical and dependable energy source for millions of New Yorkers. Natural gas must remain part of our diverse and resilient energy mix.

This is a pivotal moment for our state’s energy future. We urge you to act now to protect the stability of our energy grid and the economic well-being of all New Yorkers.

Sincerely,

Senator Robert G. Ortt

Senator Tom O’Mara

Senator Mario Mattera

Senator Steve Chan

Senator Jake Ashby

Senator Peter Oberacker

Senator Pam Helming

Senator Mark Walczyk

Senator Dan Stec

Senator Steve Rhoads

Senator Alexis Weik

Senator George Borrello

Senator William Weber

Senator Patrick Gallivan

Senator Dean Murray

Senator Jack M. Martins

Senator Joseph Griffo

Senator Andrew Lanza

Tom went on to note that “Kathy Hochul called it grandstanding, of course. What else is she going to do? Here’s some of what her people had to say, which tells quite a different story:”

The Governor has made it clear she’s taking an all-of-the-above approach to energy that prioritizes affordability, reliability, and sustainability…

Hochul did acknowledge last week that the economic environment has changed since the CLCPA was passed under former Gov. Andrew Cuomo.

“It all goes back a number of years and I’ve had to take a close look and realize that we cannot accomplish what those objectives were back before I became governor in a timeframe that’s gonna not hurt rate payers. So we’re slowing things down. I wanna make sure people know that,” the governor said last Tuesday.

Doreen Harris, president and CEO of the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA), acknowledged the change in policy, telling Capital Tonight on Wednesday that while the achievement of the climate law is still one potential scenario, the state’s emerging draft energy plan also looks at the challenges the law is facing, including roadblocks at the federal level.

Shepstone concluded:

“All the above” is the first step toward admitting the unreliables are not only not helpful, but also dangerous to the grid. And, then there is “one potential outcome.” I’d say that’s a complete win for our friend Roger Caiazza, who has successfully predicted every bit of this!

For the record, when I wrote to Shepstone and thanked him for the shoutout I noted that my predictions have always bet on physics batting last.  Politicians can deny reality for only so long.

Prove It.

Ed Reid makes the point that I have often made that proponents of a renewable plus storage energy grid need a successful demonstration project before we are convinced that it will work. Maybe this will be the face-saving outcome for the Hochul Administration when they bow to the inevitable need to pause implementation.  Francis Menton, Rich Ellenbogen, and I have nominated Ithaca separately,  Menton explains our perfectly aligned reasoning.

Climate Alarmism and the Media

For physics realists and green energy skeptics like myself it is very frustrating that all media accounts connect any extreme weather event to climate change.  This article by Matt Vespa describes Michael Shellenberger’s shared frustration:

This piece is a bit more unconventional than his usual work, but Michael Shellenberger was interested in exploring how climate alarmism has become a lucrative industry in the media. It goes beyond ‘fear sells’ and ‘if it bleeds it leads’ models. It’s panic pornography in its worst form, so bad that one in five children in the United Kingdom suffered nightmares about our impending doom from climate change, manufactured by the media.

He used the recent Texas floods as an example, a tragic event where storms ripped through central Texas, flooding the Guadalupe River in Kerr County, killing at least 100 people. That body count is destined to rise. The river rose 20-plus feet in 90 minutes. The media ran with this cockamamie narrative that it was Donald Trump’s fault due to cuts to NOAA and the National Weather Service, all of which don’t go into effect until next year. Then, there was the ‘NWS was short-staffed,’ which was also debunked—NWS had extra staffers for this system. They also sent alerts; the problem is that no one got them. This area doesn’t have a flood warning system. When it was initially pitched, the public was not keen on the cost.

Shellenberger explained that floods are not new, they’re not caused by climate change, and other nations have adapted to flooding.

30 Items of Evidence that the Rationale is Collapsing

Tom Nelson lists 30 updates on the “climate scam implosion”.  Here are my favorites:

RGGI Third Program Review Delays Reckoning

The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) is a market-based program to reduce CO2 emissions from electric generating units.  One aspect of RGGI is a regular review of the program status and need for adjustments.  On July 3, 2025, RGGI announced that results of the Third Program Review.  Based on my analysis of the planned revisions, the RGGI States only delayed the inevitable reckoning of the futility of this program to achieve the goal of a “zero-emissions” electric system.

Dealing with the RGGI regulatory and political landscapes is challenging enough that affected entities seldom see value in speaking out about fundamental issues associated with the program.  I have been involved in the RGGI program process since its inception and have no such restrictions when writing about the details of the RGGI program.  I have worked on every cap-and-trade program affecting electric generating facilities in New York including RGGI, the Acid Rain Program, and several Nitrogen Oxide programs, since the inception of those programs. I also participated in RGGI Auction 41 successfully winning allowances and holding them for several years.   The opinions expressed in this post do not reflect the position of any of my previous employers or any other organization I have been associated with, these comments are mine alone.

Background

RGGI is a market-based program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) (Factsheet). It has been a cooperative effort among the states of Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont to cap and reduce CO2 emissions from the power sector since 2008.  New Jersey was in at the beginning, dropped out for years, and re-joined in 2020. Virginia joined in 2021 but has since withdrawn, and Pennsylvania has joined but is not actively participating in auctions due to on-going litigation. According to a RGGI website:

The RGGI states issue CO2 allowances that are distributed almost entirely through regional auctions, resulting in proceeds for reinvestment in strategic energy and consumer programs.

Proceeds were invested in programs including energy efficiency, clean and renewable energy, beneficial electrification, greenhouse gas abatement and climate change adaptation, and direct bill assistance. Energy efficiency continued to receive the largest share of investments.

The RGGI States regularly review successes, impacts, and design elements of the program.  This is the third iteration of the review program.  It started in February 2021 and finally was completed in June 2025, years behind schedule.

I was an active participant in the program review.  I described my initial comments in October 2023 addressing the disconnect between the results of RGGI to date relative to the expectations in the RGGI Third Program Review modeling.  Last October I submitted more comments as described here.  I also described other comments submitted to RGGI.

Third Program Review Summary

The RGGI summary of the program review changes states:

The 10 states participating in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) have agreed to strengthen their regional carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions cap through 2037, starting in 2027, and establish new mechanisms to protect energy affordability. These updates will ensure the longstanding bipartisan initiative’s continued success in promoting clean air, health and economic benefits across the region. States also agreed to launch their next Program Review no later than 2028, as part of their commitment to regularly evaluate their CO2 budget trading programs. The next Program Review will consider factors such as changes in energy policy, the pace and scale of electricity load growth, progress in clean energy deployment, and ongoing efforts to ensure energy affordability.

The updates are designed to:

  • Provide stability and certainty to market participants, including power producers who purchase allowances to match their emissions and developers of new electricity generation resources.
  • Ensure access to sufficient RGGI allowances to meet expected energy demand and bolster price protection for consumers. RGGI states will continue to invest the proceeds from those allowances into programs that lower electricity bills and provide economic benefits to local communities, including energy efficiency, renewable energy, and bill assistance programs.
  • Confirm states’ long-term commitments to energy affordability, public health, and the environment, maintaining an economic climate in which innovative companies and the region’s workforce thrive.

Changes to the Allowance Allocation Budget

The allocation budget sets the limits on future emissions. Strengthening the cap means reducing the allocations. The RGGI summary describes the changes to the budget:

The updated Model Rule reduces the regional emissions cap in 2027 to 69,806,919 tons of CO2 from 75,717,784 tons under the previous Model Rule (Figure 1). Allowances decline by an average of 8,538,789 tons per year, which is approximately 10.5% of the 2025 budget, thereafter through 2033. Then, from 2034 through 2037 the cap will decline by 2,386,204 tons of CO2 annually, which is approximately 3% of the 2025 budget. Subsequent years are set to match the 2037 emissions cap. No adjustments are made to banked allowances, which continue to be available for compliance.  (As of July 2025, the estimated bank of privately held allowances more than RGGI compliance obligations is around 67 million tons.) Setting the regional cap beyond 2037 will be addressed in the next RGGI Program Review, to begin no later than 2028.

This figure compares the current regional base cap (light blue) with the updated cap trajectory (dark blue). The orange and yellow lines display the total updated regional cap if all allowances are released from the updated first and second Cost Containment Reserve (CCR)  tiers, respectively.

This figure compares the current regional base cap (light blue) with the updated cap trajectory (dark blue). The orange and yellow lines display the total updated regional cap if all allowances are released from the updated first and second Cost Containment Reserve tiers, respectively.

The two-tiered CCRs is another revision in the Third Program Review. The CCR is a reserve of allowances that is released if costs exceed certain limits.   In my comments on the draft revisions, I argued that the biggest issue is how the allowances allocated for the annual caps and the bank of already allocated allowances held compared with actual emissions.  Environmental activists demand that the allowance cap “bind” emissions to ensure that the reductions occur on their preferred arbitrary trajectory.  They don’t understand that a binding cap will limit emissions even if the zero-emissions resources are not available to displace the existing emissions.  The ramifications of that situation are enormous.  In the worst case, an electric generating unit needed to keep the lights on will refuse to operate because they have insufficient allowances.  The two-tier CCR resolves this problem for a while anyway.

Table 1 quantifies the allowance allocations for the Policy Update, the Current Program and includes the allowance bank from the RGGI Secondary Market Monitoring Report.  Note that trying to figure out the allowance allocations is a non-trivial task so I relied on a Perplexity AI search.  The numbers do not match but for my purposes that is not a concern. One of the controversial topics during the Third Program Review was the acceptable size of the allowance bank.  Activists without any compliance responsibilities think the bank should be zero.  Regulated entities and the regulators recognize that the bank is required because it represents current compliance obligations, a safety margin for extreme weather conditions, and that non-compliance entities own a significant share of the bank.  The regulators and the regulated entities argue about the size of the bank but not its necessity.  There is another important aspect of the bank.  Regulated entities generally purchase allowances as needed and keep their banked allowances at a fixed percentage of expected emissions.  In other words, there is no nefarious reason for the bank.

Table 1: RGGI Allowance Allocations 2015- 2040 and Recent Allowance Bank

Table 2 compares recent emissions to the Current Program allowance allocations and the Policy Update allowance allocations.  The observed emission trend since 2015 is affected by the addition of New Jersey and Virginia to the program so I included the emissions without Virginia.  Note that there is quite a bit of interannual variation and an increase in emissions between 2019 and 2022.  The increase in emissions was affected by New York’s idiotic shutdown of 2,000 MW of zero-emissions nuclear power.  The takeaway from this is that since 2015 there hasn’t been any major reduction in emissions despite RGGI investments and Federal subsidies. 

Table 2: RGGI Emissions and Allowance Allocations 2015 – 2040

In 2027 the Policy Update mandates a 20% reduction in the allowance allocated.  Initially that could be covered by dipping into the allowance bank, but eventually existing fossil generation must be displaced by zero-emissions resources. My back of the envelope estimate is that 2.8 GW of solar, 2.4 GW of onshore wind, and 1.2 GW of offshore wind would have to come online to displace the fossil emissions necessary to meet the 2027 allowance allocation decrease.  The other alternative is that compliance entities will compete to buy allowances necessary for compliance and trigger a price increase that will kick in the Cost Containment Reserve which will provide enough allowances for compliance.  As the Policy Update steep reduction requirements continue eventually the second Cost Containment Reserve will kick in.  Inevitably, there will come a time when the only viable control option is for zero-emission resources to displace the fossil units to meet the compliance requirements.  In my opinion, the reduction trajectory was based on meeting aspirational targets in the Climate Act and other state’s programs rather than a feasibility projection of what could reasonably be implemented.

Discussion

Cap-and-invest programs like RGGI are frequently touted as a program that will kill two birds with one stone: “It simultaneously puts a limit on the tons of pollution companies can emit — ‘cap’ — while making them pay for each ton, funding projects to help move the jurisdiction away from polluting energy sources — ‘invest.'”  That is the theory and RGGI is the experiment.

The RGGI experiment is getting more complicated which I think accounts for the long delay finalizing the policy update.  The changes to the participating states was a major reason for the delay. A reasonable allowance reduction trajectory when Virginia or Pennsylvania was in the program will not be reasonable when either state is not in the program because their emissions are large and there is more opportunity for fuel switching reductions.  When you consider the conflicting reduction goals of the states the challenge of an acceptable consensus becomes very difficult.

The RGGI Policy updates were designed to support three goals.  Firstly, “Provide stability and certainty to market participants”.  The power producers now know when it is unlikely that there will be sufficient allowances for fossil units to continue to operate like they currently do.  My bet is 2032 when the allowances allocated in the Policy Update plus both CCR allocations will be 30% less than current emissions because I do not think that there will be sufficient zero emission renewable resources developed by then.  The second goal was to “Ensure access to sufficient RGGI allowances to meet expected energy demand and bolster price protection for consumers.”  The Policy Update provides access for now.  They have punted accountability for this goal, and I bet that by 2032 the goal will be unattainable.  The final goal is “long-term commitments to energy affordability, public health, and the environment, maintaining an economic climate in which innovative companies and the region’s workforce thrive”.  This is just a marketing slogan.

Late last year I published an article that documented that RGGI performance to date,  The results are not promising.  The RGGI States claim that they will continue to “invest the proceeds from allowances into programs that lower electricity bills and provide economic benefits to local communities, including energy efficiency, renewable energy, and bill assistance programs.”  Given that recent Federal legislation is cutting subsidies to renewable development the priorities of proceed investments needs to be revisited.  While bill assistance programs are necessary to reduce impacts to those least able to afford the RGGI carbon tax, the observed performance of RGGI emission reduction investments for energy efficiency and renewable energy projects has not been good enough to expect that the ambitious emission reduction targets can be achieved using RGGI proceeds.

Ultimately, I am convinced that no GHG emission reduction cap-and-invest program will succeed.  Danny Cullenward and David Victor’s book Making Climate Policy Work explains why.    They note that the level of expenditures needed to implement the net-zero transition vastly exceeds the “funds that can be readily appropriated from market mechanisms”.  Even though RGGI allowance prices will increase significantly, they still will be insufficient to fund the necessary development of zero emission resources.  Note that when the allocations go down the proceed will drop too.  I intend to follow up this post with another specifically addressing auction price ramifications.

Conclusion

The Third Program Review Policy Update features an allowance allocation schedule that is consistent with RGGI State net-zero regulations.  That trajectory is inconsistent with wind and solar deployment history and reasonable expectations.  As a result, there eventually will be insufficient allowances available for CO2 emitting generation resources to operate.  The use of a CCR and addition of a second CCR will delay the inevitable reckoning but in less than ten years I expect that RGGI will need to be abandoned as a feasible emission reduction strategy.

Energy Plan 25 June 2025 Meeting – Pathways Analysis Modeling Approach

This is part of my continuing coverage of the New York State Energy Plan.  This is the first update to the Plan since the Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act) was implemented so it has important ramifications on the net-zero transition.  My intent is to describe most of the sections of the June 25, 2025, meeting presentation.  As part of my attempt to reduce the size of my articles I will focus this article on the Pathways Analysis modeling approach that is being used for the draft Energy Plan.  Note that this article is out of order.  I published what was intended as a follow on to this earlier this week.

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 550 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.

I have provided more background information and a list of previous articles on my Energy Plan page.  My biggest concerns are whether the Hochul Administration will use the Energy Plan process as an opportunity to consider the implications of the observed transition so far and if the advice of stakeholders in its stakeholder process will be treated as an opportunity to improve the transition or an obligation with no attempt to meaningfully engage with any comments inconsistent with the narrative

June 25, 2025 Board Meeting

The materials for the meeting include the following:

I have included links to the locations of the video in the following descriptions.  Also note that a transcript of the presentations is included at the meeting recording video platform.  There is a nice feature for this video.  If you set auto scroll on then  you can follow the presentation transcript.  All quotes below come from that transcript.

I previously summarized this meeting’s presentations that described the analyses conducted for the State Energy Plan and described the electricity topic area. This article will evaluate one aspect of the overarching Pathways Analysis, namely the bottom-up modeling framework.

Pathways Analysis

Doreen Harris, head honcho of the New York State Energy Research & Development Authority and co-chair of the Climate Action Council, introduced the Pathways Analysis discussion.  The Pathways Analysis is the Energy Plan equivalent of the Scoping Plan’s Integration Analysis.  Recall that the Integration Analysis was the quantitative assessment of emission reduction strategies that formed the basis of the Scoping Plan outline of policy strategies to achieve the Climate Act net-zero transition.  Harris emphasized that while similar, the assessment approaches for both analyses are different.  The Integration Analysis was “top down” whereas the Pathways Analysis is “bottoms up”.  There are significant differences between these methodologies. 

The Integration Analysis top-down approach started with large-scale policy strategies and used the Energy and Environmental Economics (E3) using model framework to choose a selection of policy options that produced the necessary emission reductions.  Never forget that the feasibility of those policy option expectations and implementation schedule were never tested for feasibility.

The bottom-up approach starts with specific policy options and determines how they can be used to achieve the targets.  On the face of it the bottoms-up approach is more grounded to reality.  However, when Harris explained the approach she listed adjustable factors:

This analysis uses a bottom-up assessment of the various energy supply and delivery systems that will be available to meet forecasted energy needs through 2040, accounting for policies, technology availability, and consumer uptake, and the energy planning law requirements to consider energy affordability, reliability, economic development and jobs, equity, and environmental needs.

Accounting considerations and energy planning law have many levers that can be manipulated to get the desired answer.  Absent transparent documentation that describes the assumptions for all those considerations and a process that engages the subject matter stakeholders for refining them, this bottom approach will not be grounded in reality .

Consider, for example, the different levers Harris described that can affect infrastructure deployment:

  • Disruptions due to the pandemic
  • Resulting supply chain disruptions
  • Inflation, and
  • Changes in energy policy from the Federal Administration, including the potential to cancel tax credits provided under the Inflation Reduction Act, planned denial of permits for wind generation, and attempts to remove state based clean car and clean truck rules by revoking California’s ability to enforce stricter vehicle emission standards.

Missing from this list is physics.  Years from now, historians will look back and wonder why New York State went down this path without considering the immutable laws of physics that precluded some of the naïve assumptions inherent in the proposed wholesale transition to diffuse and intermittent weather-dependent generating resources.

Pathways Outlook

The presentations to the Energy Planning Board hint that there are issues.  It is still necessary to read between the lines to understand the implications.  In one of the biggest under-statements of this transition process Harris conceded that the considerations will “likely impact state progress on statutory emissions goals”.

She went on to state “I would say we are continuing to monitor changes in federal policy and may need to explore the impacts of these changes in the final state energy plan that we will be driving toward this year.”   Then Harris claimed that:

Yet even with these challenges, the current analysis shows that New York can build on our successes, such as the creation of the nation’s largest green bank, the deployment of six gigawatts of distributed solar ahead of schedule, the completion of South Fork wind, the groundbreaking for the Champlain Hudson Power Express, Empire Wind One, and Sunrise Wind. And, of course, we have governor Hochul’s commitment to invest over a billion dollars of public funds in the sustainable future program, the largest single climate investment in state history.

I suspect that the recent passage of the “big, beautiful bill” is not going to represent a minor adjustment in renewable energy development.  Federal policies affected all the claimed success stories Harris described so a complete re-assessment is warranted.

Discussion
New York is at a crossroads  The inevitability of Climate Cost affordability being a political liability has been acknowledged even by Hochul. 

I am particularly incensed by this statement by Harris: “Importantly, this analysis demonstrates that we can continue to make meaningful progress toward our energy goals while preserving reliability and affordability for our citizens.”  They have not defined affordability or what reliability risks are acceptable.  Without those definitions this is just a slogan.

New York’s Climate Act implementation was not well planned.  The Scoping Plan’s Integration Analysis ignored the impact of uncertainty on their projects, and the stakeholder process did not acknowledge input contrary to their narrative.  I will concede that the supply chain effects of the Pandemic were unanticipated, but I am pretty sure stakeholders comments mentioned the risk that if everybody is planning a similar electrification transition that there will be supply chain competition as the suppliers gear up.  It is not clear how much of the supply chain issue is due to that competition as opposed to the convenient scapegoat of the pandemic.

Conclusion

As mentioned before, there is every indication that slavish devotion to the aspirational goals of the Climate Act is the goal of the Energy Plan process.  At the same time NYSERDA and DPS claim that the transition “must be managed within the constraints imposed by Federal and State reliability requirements and at a justifiable cost to ratepayers.”  Qualitatively the Governor’s recent admission that Climate Act costs contribute to recent rate case increases means that the planned transition is not affordable.  If the State were to establish specific limits, then I am sure affordability would be cause for a reassessment of the schedule and ambition of the Climate Act.  This should be a cornerstone objective of the Energy Plan.

Energy Plan 25 June 2025 Meeting – Modeling Analysis Scenarios

This is part of my continuing coverage of the New York State Energy Plan.  My intent is to describe most of the sections of the June 25, 2025, meeting presentation.  As part of my attempt to reduce the size of my articles I will focus this article on the Pathways Analysis modeling approach scenarios.  A previous article introduced the Pathways Analysis that is being used for the draft Energy Plan

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 550 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.

I have provided more background information and a list of previous articles on my Energy Plan page.  My biggest concerns are whether the Hochul Administration will use the Energy Plan process as an opportunity to consider the implications of the observed transition so far and if the advice of stakeholders in its stakeholder process will be treated as an opportunity to improve the transition or an obligation with no attempt to meaningfully engage with any comments inconsistent with the narrative

June 25, 2025 Board Meeting

The materials for the meeting include the following:

I have included links to the locations of the video in the following descriptions.  Also note that a transcript of the presentations is included at the meeting recording video platform.  There is a nice feature for this video.  If you set auto scroll on then you can follow the presentation transcript.  All quotes below come from that transcript.

I previously summarized this meeting’s presentations that described the analyses conducted for the State Energy Plan and described the electricity topic area. I also published an overview of the Pathways Analysis.  This article addresses the bottom-up modeling framework.

Pathways Analysis Introduction

Karl Mas introduced the modeling framework discussion.  It is notable that he acknowledged that there are issues:

I’d first like to acknowledge that conducting such analysis during a time of uncertainty is challenging, as Chair Harris noted.  And it’s true with all aspects of our economy, the energy system has been impacted by the supply chain disruptions, high interest rates, inflation, and changing federal policy landscape. Yet the work must provide a rigorous economy wide view of how New York will meet the energy needs over the planning horizon while making progress on the state’s policy objectives.

Unfortunately, there is a difference between saying there is uncertainty and applying that constraint to the modeling analysis.  After acknowledging uncertainty, Mas said the “the work must provide a rigorous economy wide view of how New York will meet the energy needs over the planning horizon while making progress on the state’s policy objectives.”  My primary concern with this kind of modeling is that I know that the results are affected by modeler biases and their choice of assumptions.  This sentence all but explicitly admits that NYSERDA is going to get an answer consistent with the Climate Act schedule and ambition.  Even though Mas went on to qualify his assertion, I remain unconvinced:

Looking out over fifteen years requires assumptions regarding technology progress and policy achievement. To address uncertainties in both these areas, the analysis takes a realistic yet ambitious approach and explores several potential scenarios to better understand the full spectrum of possible outcomes.

One of the significant failings of the Scoping Plan modeling is that NYSERDA did not show their work, especially the assumptions made.  When there were enough details for explicit stakeholder comments showing issues, they were ignored.  I fully expect that NYSERDA will continue that approach.  If that happens then “realistic yet ambitious approach” is no more than a slogan.

Pathways Analysis Modeling Approach

Nick Patane, Assistant director for policy analysis at NYSERDA described the pathways analysis modeling approach in more detail.  His description of the modeling approach never mentioned which model was being used which leads me to believe that this is an in-house analysis.  He explained:

There’s two main modules that we use in the analysis. The first is our economy wide model. This model takes as input, key data from other NYSERDA industry studies and programs. It models stock turnover and sales of, key equipment across, the buildings, transportation, and other demand sectors. This allows us to develop a perspective on fuel use as well as electric loads and peaks, and net emissions.

Our information on electric loads is then passed off to the second module, which is our electric sector model. This module, builds out an electric system to meet those loads, maintain reliability, and achieve any scenario specific, policy constraints.

That information on the electric system costs and emissions then feeds back to the economy wide model, for an aggregated roll up of economy wide benefits and costs.

This is an enormous effort and full of opportunities to tweak results towards a desired outcome.  NYSERDA analysts must interpret each of these factors for every energy component across every sector of the economy. The description of the economywide model describes six factors that affect the results.  Consider just “Models stocks, turnover, and sales of equipment across sectors, e.g., buildings, transport”.  Later in his presentation Patane mentions building shells, the protective envelope of a building that includes insulation and energy efficiency windows and doors.  To model that NYSERDA must estimate the New York building shell status across the state, determine what could be done to improve the building stock, and how much increased efficiency will change the energy use.  Clearly, reasonable people can make different assumptions about these factors that in aggregate and over time can generate significantly different results.  With all due respect, if I was the analyst charged with determining “how New York will meet the energy needs” in a politicized organization, my choices might be guided by the desired results.  This reinforces the absolute need for clear and transparent documentation.

After describing current energy use noting that buildings (50%) and transportation (40%) are the primary energy uses today, Patane described five energy future scenarios to estimate the potential impact of different policies.  The first scenario is “No Action”:

Our first case is what we call the no action case. You could think of this as sort of the world absent the climate act and the New York, state and local energy policies that have stemmed from it. It includes an extension of historic policy interventions, native market adoption, and federal policies as of the time of the modeling earlier this year.

Recognize here again that there’s significant uncertainty on the future of many federal clean energy policies, and we plan to explore any impacts of future changes, as we go into the final energy plan.

This case will act as a point of comparison against which we can compare the other scenarios to understand what are the net benefits and that costs and other trade offs of New York’s clean energy policies.

The results of the modeling are affected by the definition of the strategies used in the No Action case.  In my opinion, I want to know what reduction strategies will be imposed on me and how much it is going to cost me to achieve the Climate Act goals.  I do not care which clean energy policy requires them.  This is another opportunity that NYSERDA used in the Scoping Plan analysis to modify the results to fit the desired outcome.  In the Scoping Plan impacts of the policies were compared to a Reference Case that included “already implemented programs” that resulted hid significant costs to meet Climate Act targets.  The interpretation of “extension of historic policy interventions, native market adoption, and federal policies” all could have similar impacts to the point where claiming this is a “no action” scenario is misleading.  In my opinion, there should be a sixth case that excludes all programs necessary to achieve Climate Act goals. 

I agree with the other strategy scenarios   They cover the full gamut of potential outcomes.   Note that the “Current Policies” scenario includes “deployment of clean electric generation in line with the Clean Energy Standard biennial review”, which concedes that the 2030 70% renewable grid target cannot be achieved until 2033.   The third scenario is “Additional Action”:

This case includes all the policies from current policies and then layers on top of that, continued acceleration of adoption of clean energy technologies out to the future from some mix of future policies.

These can include things like environmental markets, increasing investments, and other recommendations, from the individual sectors of the the state energy plan.

As Doreen noted in her introductory remarks, current policies and additional actions are our core planning cases for this exercise. They represent a more bottoms up accounting.

For example, current policies reflecting the energy system that we expect under current policies, additional action reflecting achievable, but ambitious further progress.

This is where the modeling analysis starts to get into wishful thinking.  Are there any indications that “achievable, but ambitious further progress” is possible?  Even without the Federal policy changes that threaten the anticipated renewable deployments it has become clear that affordability and reliability issues can no longer be ignored.

The two remaining scenarios address pathways to net zero by 2050.  Reading between the lines there is acknowledgement that this target will be an enormous challenge. 

These scenarios continue to lean on similar levers like electrification and efficiency, but to much greater extent Also introducing new levers that aren’t contemplated by current policies.

In our work, we have two different net zero scenarios. The primary difference here is the use of hybrid heating for buildings that retain a gas connection for use on the coldest days.

Net Zero A has limited use of this hybrid heat pump, and more all electric customers. Net Zero B has expanded use of customers that retain a supplemental gas heating system. And this allows us to sort of explore the potential value of a larger residual gas network on mitigating, electric system peaks, and the associated building costs.

The inclusion of a scenario that maintains gas supply is a good starting point to acknowledge that going to zero emissions massively increases costs and complexity.  I believe that this is entirely appropriate to include. 

Discussion

The recent passage of the Big, Beautiful Bill Act will have massive implications for the Climate Act net-zero transition.  In the meantime, the Energy Plan proceeding goes on.  The presentations are a mixed bag.  There are acknowledgements of the potential impacts of uncertainty which is good.  I am disappointed by the similarities to the Pathways Analysis “No Action” scenario and the Scoping Plan “Reference Case”.  NYSERDA is not following standard practice with this and the potential for misleading results looms large.

I cannot over emphasize the necessity of clear and transparent documentation.  If it is not provided, then the results will not be credible.  I hope, but do not expect, that NYSERDA will address the comments of stakeholders. 

It has become clear to me that addressing all the issues in this meeting’s presentations while keeping my articles to around 2,000 words is going to mean more posts than I originally anticipated.  Stay tuned.

Conclusion

New York is at a crossroads  The inevitability of Climate Cost affordability being a political liability has been acknowledged even by Hochul.  Saying that there is “significant uncertainty on the future of many federal clean energy policies” is quite the understatement.  Frankly, the potential for existential changes to renewable energy development must now be considered.  This is the perfect opportunity for politicians to stop a program that even they must realize is not working according to plan.  Throw in the ability to blame somebody else now, I bet we soon see something along the line of we wanted to do this but Bad Trump made us stop.  The alternative is to use this process and conclude the schedule and aspirations of the Climate Act need to be reconsidered.  That will take a lot of time though.

Institute for Policy Integrity: Power Plant Pollution is Clearly Significant

This post was first published at Watts Up With That.

The Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University School of Law recently published The Scale of Significance: Power Plants: The U.S. Power Sector’s Annual Climate Pollution Causes Thousands of Deaths and Massive Economic Damage”.  The lede provoked an immediate negative reaction from this retired utility meteorologist.  It is typical of the superficial analyses that activists use to support the Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act).

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 550 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.  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 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. 

Report Summary

The description of the report states that:

The Trump Administration is openly questioning the significance of U.S. contributions to climate change, playing down U.S. greenhouse gas emissions as contributing only “some mysterious amount above zero to climate change.” According to a leaked draft of a proposed regulatory repeal, Trump’s EPA will compare the U.S. power sector’s greenhouse gas emissions to worldwide totals and find, judged on that relative scale, the sector’s contribution to climate change is neither “significant” nor “meaningful.” That kind of skewed appraisal would produce the reductio ad absurdum under which no U.S. sector, sliced thinly enough, is ever a significant source of greenhouse gases—a clearly irrational outcome.

By any measure, emissions from major U.S. industries like the electric power sector contribute significantly to climate damages. The best available evidence shows that each year of greenhouse gas emissions from U.S. coal-fired and gas-fired power plants will contribute to climate damages responsible for thousands of U.S. deaths and hundreds of billions in economics harms.

The report was authored by Peter H. Howard and Jason A. Schwartz.  The document states that “Peter Howard is the Economics Director at the Institute for Policy Integrity, where Jason A. Schwartz is the Legal Director.” 

Arguments

The reductio ad absurdum remark refers to the relative scale of US power plant pollution.  It is based on the following graph. While US power plant emissions are likely still significant, using cumulative emissions from 1990 to 2022 is enormously misleading.  The start of that period was before the results of massive emission reduction programs kicked in.  Since then, the Acid Rain Program reduced SO2 emissions 93%, numerous nitrogen oxide emission reduction programs to reduce ozone pollution cut emissions 86%, and the fracking revolution made natural gas cheaper than coal and oil which reduced CO2 emissions 15%.  Using cumulative emissions ignores those reductions.  Moreover, changes to the rules impacts future emissions so the use of 30-year old data is misleading.

Figure 1: (https://policyintegrity.org/files/publications/Power_Sector_GHG_Contribution_Issue_Brief_vF.pdf)

The authors also argue that power plant emissions must be reduced because:

One useful way to confirm that a sector’s contributions to climate change merit regulation is to evaluate whether the benefits of reducing that sector’s emissions justify the costs. From that perspective, the U.S. power sector unquestionably makes a meaningful contribution to climate change that is worth regulating. EPA’s 2024 carbon pollution standards for fossil-fuel-fired power plants, for example, entailed less than a billion dollars in costs per year and in return achieved $14 billion per year in climate benefits (not to mention an additional $6.3 billion per year in health benefits from reduction of co-pollutants)

The estimates are from the Fact Sheet for the Carbon Pollution Standards for Fossil Fuel-Fired Power Plants Final Rule, Standards And Regulatory Impact Analysis. This nonsense does not deserve a detailed rebuttal.  EPA climate benefits were calculated based on the Social Cost of Carbon (SCC).  Value judgements by biased analysts over-estimate societal benefit claims in the EPA Final Rule.  Furthermore, the Fact Sheet states: “The Regulatory Impact Assessment projects 1.38 billion metric tons total of CO2 avoided from 2028-2047 systemwide along with tens of thousands of tons of nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and fine particulate matter (PM2.5).  The use of avoided emissions increases the total, but SCC benefits are based on annual emission reductions.  That approach coupled with biased SCC results in massive numbers that are not realistic. 

The report also argues that US action will prompt other countries to cut their emissions in response to our reductions: “Regardless, most claims about leakage overlook how countries may be just as—or even more likely to—reciprocally reduce their own emissions in response to U.S. emissions-cutting policies and goals”.  The report disparages the idea that foreign countries will increase their emissions in response and suggests that leakage is not an issue.  In the real world when an industry that depends on electrical energy cannot afford to stay in business in the US because the alternative to fossil-fueled electric production is so much more expensive, their product will be produced elsewhere.  It is very likely that the alternative location does not have the same pollution and efficiency standards so the emissions will go elsewhere and increase to boot.  Claiming otherwise is magical thinking.

If you substitute New York for U.S., then you get the rationale proponents of the Climate Act use to claim that New York will inspire other states to reduce their emissions.  I doubt that will be the case.  I know that increased costs to do business in NY will surely incentivize companies to move where prices are cheaper.

There are other easily debunked claims that I do not have the time to address.  However, I cannot let the claim that “The U.S. power sector’s annual emissions will cause thousands of U.S.. mortalities” go without a response.  If their claims have merit, then the change in any of the claimed morbidity and mortality health effects should have improved from 1990 to the present proportional to the observed emission reductions.  I have never seen any analysis that made such a claim, so I say that their projections are hokum.  If any reader has found such an analysis, please let us all know.

Conclusion

The report claims that the Trump Administration did a “skewed appraisal” when it claimed that US power plant emissions are not significant.  The report concludes that “By any measure, emissions from major U.S. industries, like the electric power sector contribute significantly to climate damages.”  The measures described in the report are biased, based on selective choice of metrics, and ignore historical emissions improvements.  That fits my definition of a skewed appraisal. The pot is calling the kettle black.

Reality Bites Climate Act Affordability

There finally has been a long overdue admission that the Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act) might not be affordable.  Buffalo TV Station WRGZ 2 On You Side posed questions to the governor that forced Governor Hochul to suggest that a “slow down” on the Climate Act was needed because of affordability concerns.

I noticed this article as I was preparing this article on the New York Department of Public Service (DPS) “broad mandate to ensure access to safe, reliable utility service at just and reasonable rates.” The fact is that Climate Act implementation process pushes ahead because the law says so while at the same time DPS ignores another law that says that there are limits.  This is an update to earlier posts about Climate Act Safety Valves and the DPS response to my safety valve recommendations.  We shall see if the Governor’s revelation slows the process down.

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 550 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.  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 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. 

Safety Valves

My previous article about safety valves described Public Service Law (PSL) Section 66-P Establishment of a renewable energy program that provides for bounds on implementation. Section 66-p (4) states: “The commission may temporarily suspend or modify the obligations under such program provided that the commission, after conducting a hearing as provided in section twenty of this chapter, makes a finding that the program impedes the provision of safe and adequate electric service; the program is likely to impair existing obligations and agreements; and/or that there is a significant increase in arrears or service disconnections that the commission determines is related to the program”.

I have started following some of the rate cases for electric and gas services which are universally requesting markedly higher rates.  Based on what I have found so far program costs to implement the Climate Act mandates are clearly part of the reason that the costs are increasing.  The rationale to include those programs is that the Climate Act is a law that requires it. Thus far, DPS has ignored the safety valve provisions of 66-p(4).

As documented in my DPS response to my safety valve recommendations article, DPS Staff said that this issue should be addressed elsewhere:

Finally, the issues raised by Caiazza and Kontogiannis regarding the CLCPA are beyond the scope of this rate case. The Commission has instituted a proceeding to address the CLCPA, and Caiazza and Kontogiannis’ statewide concerns are more appropriately addressed in that proceeding.

There are numerous generic proceedings that were initiated or expanded to comply with the directive for the Commission to establish a renewable energy program.

I researched these other proceedings.  The DPS Document and Matter Management (DMM) system is the online repository for all cases before the Public Service Commission.  There are thousands of cases in the system and individual cases can have thousands of filings.  I used Perplexity AI to generate summaries and references that are documented in a white paper. I entered the following prompts on [1 July 2025]:

  • Find all explicit recommendations for affordability related to implementation of the Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act in the New York DPS DMM system.
  • Find all explicit recommendations for reliability related to implementation of the Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act in the New York DPS DMM system.

Note that the Perplexity link also includes two other questions: “How does the DMM system document affordability criteria for CLCPA implementation” and “How does the DMM system evaluate household ability to pay energy costs” that I posed to clarify the affordability definition.

DMM Affordability Reference: Case 22-M-0149

Case 22-M-0149: Proceeding on Motion of the Commission Assessing Implementation of and Compliance with the Requirements and Targets of the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act responds to a Public Service Commission order in May 2022. It required the major utilities to

  • Develop a proposal for an annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory Report, including “detailed requirements and the methodology used to calculate total gas system-wide emissions,” and then report annually;
  • Include, in all future rate filings, an “assessment of the impacts that the utility’s specific investments, capital expenditures, programs and initiatives included in the rate filing will have on its greenhouse gas emissions from its gas network, specifying the potential emissions impacts of each”;
  • “Develop a Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Pathways Study Proposal that analyzes the scale, timing, costs, risks, uncertainties and customer bill impacts of achieving significant and quantifiable reductions in carbon emissions from the use of delivered gas”;
  • Describe in all future rate filings, “the investments, programs and initiatives necessary to achieve the objectives described in the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Pathways Study.”

In addition to the requirements for the major utilities the order included two other items:

  • Department of Public Service Staff is directed “to present an annual informational item detailing overall compliance with Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act as discussed in the body of this Order”
  • Seek public comment regarding “utility ownership of both distributed energy resources and large-scale renewables contemporaneously with the issuance of this Order.”

The annual informational report description stated:

Staff is directed to present to the Commission an annual informational item detailing the Commission’s actions and DPS’ activities associated with overall compliance with the CLCPA mandates. This presentation shall include, but not be limited to, the emissions associated with electric and gas usage in the State, as identified in the annual GHG Emissions Inventory Reports, progress on achieving the targets mandated within the renewable energy program (including the biannual review required by the CLCPA), the cost and benefits to ratepayers of CLCPA investments over the prior calendar year, including the purchase of RECs and ORECs by LSEs, the costs of local and bulk transmission facilities constructed for purposes of facilitating compliance with CLCPA targets, and the cost recovery associated with NE:NY and other energy efficiency programs implemented by the Utilities and NYSERDA.

The annual informational report should be a primary source for assessing the affordability impacts of Climate Act implementation.  Unfortunately, the Order included a condition that negates its value. “In the Secretary’s sole discretion, the deadlines set forth in this Order may be extended.”   The first annual Informational Report was released in July 2023, but nothing was released in 2024 and to date in 2025.  Note that the requirement is just for numbers.  There is no affordability mandate to relate the costs to the ability to pay.

The docket for Case 22-M-0149 only had 93 filed documents on July 2, 2025.  Most of the filings were related to the GHG Emissions Inventory Report or a request for information about Federal funding for the utility Climate Act work.  Earlier this year there were two requests for an update to the annual informational report and a reply from the Department of Public Service as chronicled here.

There is no apparent sense of urgency in this Proceeding.  The second annual informational report is a year late and the utility GHG emission inventory report “remains in a proposal stage”.  There hasn’t been a response to the last filing on April 14, 2025.

DMM Affordability References: Case 14-M-0565 and Case 23-M-0298

Case 14-M-0565: Proceeding on Motion of the Commission to Examine Programs to Address Energy Affordability for Low Income Utility Customers mandates that major utility companies provide quarterly updates for affordability-related metrics.  Notably that includes the number of customers in arrears that is parameter mentioned in PSL 66-P(4). 

Case 23-M-0298: In the Matter of Budget Appropriations to Enhance Energy Affordability Programs is closely linked to the other Proceeding.  Frankly I am not sure why this is separate.  Of note is the March 2025 Staff White Paper on Implementing an Enhanced Energy Affordability Policy.  It includes a procedural history that explains how energy affordability has been addressed and proposes a pilot program that builds on existing programs.  It does not mention the Climate Act.

These two proceedings address general affordability concerns.  They do not directly consider the effect of the Climate Act on affordability.

Discussion

In my opinion, the PSC and DPS have dropped the ball on Climate Act affordability.  No one has ever argued that affordability should not be a consideration.  The problem is that the Hochul Administration has not bothered to define what is acceptable.  A Business Council of New York memo on Climate Act implementation made the point that the “CLCPA only requires the consideration of equitable impacts and cost minimization, in effect making affordability and cost-effectiveness of CLCPA implementation measures a consideration, not a requirement.”

It was inevitable that the impact of the Climate Act on energy affordability would become a political liability.  On July 1, 2025 Governor Hochul suggested that a “slow down” on the Climate Act was needed.  Buffalo TV Station WRGZ 2 On You Side posed questions to the governor that forced her to admit “At the end of her long response on utility rates and energy strategy, there was this summation from Hochul: “You’re absolutely right. Utility costs are a huge burden for families, and I’ll do whatever I can to alleviate that.”  The entire article is well worth a read because it reveals that the Administration has realized that an “all of the above energy strategy” that includes nuclear power is needed.

There is no more direct and immediate impact of Climate Act implementation to New Yorkers than utility bills.   Hopefully, the Administration will realize that PSL 66-P(4) safety valve considerations can be interpreted to trigger the PSC to conduct a hearing that could result in a decision to “temporarily suspend or modify the obligations” of the Climate Act.  Such a hearing could address modifications to the Climate Act address affordability as well as changes necessary to incorporate nuclear power.

Such a hearing could also address reliability.  The PSC has acknowledged that a new category of resources is needed to support the proposed renewable-dependent electric energy system.  During periods of extended low wind and solar resource availability dispatchable, emission free resources (DEFR )are needed as backup to keep the lights on.   In my opinion, the most promising backup technology is nuclear generation because it is the only candidate resource that is technologically ready, can be expanded as needed and does not suffer from limitations of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. If the only viable DEFR solution is nuclear, then renewables cannot be implemented without it.  But nuclear can replace renewables, eliminating the need for a massive DEFR backup resource.  Therefore, it would be prudent to pause renewable development until DEFR feasibility is proven because nuclear generation may be the only viable path to zero emissions that can maintain current standards of reliability.

Conclusion

The PSC and DPS have not adequately addressed the necessity to consider the costs of the Climate Act on their “broad mandate to ensure access to safe, reliable utility service at just and reasonable rates.”  DPS has not even bothered to update its mandated report on Climate Act costs in over a year.  No proceeding has directly addressed the need for safety valve boundaries on costs or reliability. In rate case proceedings DPS says this issue is addressed elsewhere, but my search shows it is mentioned elsewhere but not directly addressed.  Even Governor Hochul has figured out that it is time to do this right.  Only time will tell whether the PSC acts.

DPS Response to Safety Valve Recommendations

In May I described my Personal Statement on Niagara Mohawk Rate Case Joint Proposal (JP).  The article mentioned that the statement argued that the JP does not acknowledge New York Public Service Law safety valves.  This article describes the response to that argument by the Department of Public Services (DPS).

The New York Department of Public Service (DPS) “has a broad mandate to ensure access to safe, reliable utility service at just and reasonable rates.” The New York Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act) DPS implementation process proceeds because the law says so while at the same time DPS ignores another law that says that there are limits.  This is an update to an earlier post about Climate Act Safety Valves.

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 540 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.  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 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. 

Safety Valves

My previous article about safety valves described Public Service Law (PSL) Section 66-P Establishment of a renewable energy program that provides for bounds on implementation. Section 66-p (4) states: “The commission may temporarily suspend or modify the obligations under such program provided that the commission, after conducting a hearing as provided in section twenty of this chapter, makes a finding that the program impedes the provision of safe and adequate electric service; the program is likely to impair existing obligations and agreements; and/or that there is a significant increase in arrears or service disconnections that the commission determines is related to the program”.

A couple of months ago I joined Constantine Kontogiannis in a submittal in the Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation dba National Grid (NMPC) rate case proceeding.  I posted an article describing our statement in opposition to the Joint Proposal (JP) settlement plan.  In one of our arguments, we addressed these safety valve provisions.   It was included to force the PSC to acknowledge that the safety valves must be addressed.  The submittal included an attachment that was summed up in my analysis that showed that the number of people in arrears has significantly increased since the start of the Climate Act transition which I believe should trigger the DPS to consider a Section 66-p (4)  hearing. Our statement concluded that it is inappropriate to invest in Climate Act programs until the PSC defines the criteria for the Section 66-p(4) safety valves, institutes a tracking system, and determines if the Climate Act implementation should be suspended or modified.

The DPS Staff Reply Statement in Support of the JP addressed issues raised in my Statement in Opposition to the Joint Proposal dated May 14, 2025.  The following quotes the relevant text in the Reply Statement with my annotated comments.  For readability the footnotes are not included.  The following is the introduction to the response.

A Statement in Opposition to the Joint Proposal filed by Roger Caiazza and Constantine Kontogiannis (Caiazza and Kontogiannis) raises various issues, which will be address in turn, below. However, the issues alleged by Caiazza and Kontogiannis largely concern the CLCPA. The CLCPA, adopted in 2019, established a nation-leading effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and respond to the effects thereof across New York State.

As discussed in Staff’s Initial Statement in Support, the text of the CLCPA includes directives for the Commission. CLCPA §7(2) requires the Commission to consider whether its decisions are inconsistent with or will interfere with the attainment of the statewide greenhouse gas emissions limits established in article 75 of the environmental conservation law.

The following text makes the point that DPS must follow the law.  However, they ignore the inconvenient fact that PSL-66(p) is a law too.  By not acknowledging that provision DPS fails their “broad mandate to ensure access to safe, reliable utility service at just and reasonable rates.”

Further, pursuant to CLCPA §7(3), the Commission shall not disproportionately burden disadvantaged communities and shall prioritize reductions of greenhouse gas emissions and co-pollutants in disadvantaged communities. Caiazza and Kontogiannis’ arguments regarding the CLCPA ignore the fact that the aforementioned provisions of the CLCPA are statutory requirements that the Commission is obligated to comply with.

The next statement refers to an argument that we made noting that the items that give priority to certain classes of ratepayers necessarily increases costs for everyone else.  This will exacerbate the costs of the program for the other ratepayer classes and likely increase the number who need support to survive.  In the absence of an update to the mandatory Informational Report that documents ratepayer impacts, it is impossible to quantify those impacts.

Moreover, as discussed throughout the Joint Proposal, and in Staff’s Statement in Support, the items that would help meet the goals of the CLCPA have been included to support ratepayers and are not a “substantial detriment” to ratepayers.

The next statement passes the buck of responsibility for affordability to another proceeding:

Finally, the issues raised by Caiazza and Kontogiannis regarding the CLCPA are beyond the scope of this rate case. The Commission has instituted a proceeding to address the CLCPA, and Caiazza and Kontogiannis’ statewide concerns are more appropriately addressed in that proceeding.

The following quotes Section D of the DPS reply.  The first paragraph acknowledges my analysis that showed that the number of people in arrears has significantly increased since the state of the Climate Act.  The reference to the fact that it is “not clear how much the CLCPA costs affected the number of customers in arrears” devalues the analysis without recognizing that the reason it is not clear is because DPS has not updated its mandated reports in over a year.

D. The Provisions of PSL § 66-p Are Not Applicable to This Proceeding

  In their Statement, Caiazza and Kontogiannis assert that the Joint Proposal does not acknowledge PSL § 66-p(4). The subject of PSL §66-p is the requirement for the Commission to establish a renewable energy program. Caiazza and Kontogiannis contend that they have significant reliability and affordability concerns related to the programs that support the CLCPA in the Joint Proposal. To support this claim, Caiazza and Kontogiannis cite to an increased number of customers in arrears; however, they note that it is “not clear how much the CLCPA costs affected the number of customers in arrears.” Ultimately, Caiazza and Kontogiannis conclude that their concern supports the suspension of the CLCPA and any CLCPA-related programs in the Joint Proposal, pursuant to PSL §66-p(4).

The DPS Staff made several other points in response to our Statement.  There are unmentioned conflicting obligations in the following.  Both the DPS and the company seeking the rate increases do have an obligation to provide a safe, reliable utility service at just and reasonable rates.  Apparently DPS staff are not willing to establish the criteria for what that means.

First, the assertion that the Joint Proposal does not acknowledge PSL §66-p(4) is not a failing of the Joint Proposal. Neither the Joint Proposal nor the Signatory Parties have the power or authority to direct the Commission to conduct a hearing to consider a suspension of the CLCPA or CLCPA-related programs pursuant to PSL §66-p(4).

Second, there are numerous generic proceedings that were initiated or expanded to comply with the directive for the Commission to establish a renewable energy program.

In the preceding paragraph, the DPS staff response deflected responsibility for addressing PSL §66-p(4) by saying that there are other proceedings.  I used Perplexity AI to prepare a white paper documenting references to affordability and reliability recommendations in the New York Department of Public Service (DPS) Document and Matter Management (DMM) System.  The search found the following relevant references ; four stakeholder letters and comments, two business and industry filings, six government and oversight filings, and note that the PSC imposed affordability provisions in four rate cases.  I believe the requirement in the NYSE&G/RG&E for a mandated Benefit-Cost table in future filings showing the share of new revenue that funds Climate Act mandates vs. core reliability should be included in all cases.

The affordability references white paper document notes that:

The July 2024 Office of the State Comptroller (OSC) audit warns that neither DPS nor NYSERDA has produced a comprehensive estimate of total CLCPA implementation cost, leaving ratepayers the de-facto funders. OSC recommends that PSC:

  • “assess the extent to which ratepayers can reasonably assume responsibility”;
  • “identify alternative funding sources” (federal, State budget, carbon revenues);
  • craft a backup plan should affordability thresholds be exceeded.

The affordability references  white paper showed a disturbing lack of urgency by DPS to address affordability issues related to the renewable energy program. DPS did not respond to the OSC audit for six months and then referenced an existing program.  That response could have been sent a couple of weeks after the OSC audit came out.  Moreover, there has been no action on the commitment to address the OSC tasks mentioned below:

DPS Chair Rory Christian’s January 2025 response commits the Commission to those tasks and highlights the existing 6% energy-burden target as its affordability yardstick.

The DPS reply tries to explain away my analysis finding that the number of customers in arrears has increased significantly since the start of the Climate Act by saying that there are outreach programs.  That is treating the symptoms and not the disease.

Additionally, regarding Caiazza and Kontogiannis’ statements regarding arrears, the Joint Proposal includes provisions that require additional outreach to customers who have unresolved arrears.

The final paragraph passes the buck for safety valve responsibility.  As shown in the reliability references white paper the issue has been raised but DPS has not addressed the clear need to address PSL §66-p(4).

Finally, the concerns raised by Caiazza and Kontogiannis are likely not limited to the Niagara Mohawk service territory and the programs implemented by Niagara Mohawk and are potentially state-wide concerns. Caiazza and Kontogiannis’ position that the Commission should suspend the CLCPA-related programming is outside the scope of the rate case and more properly addressed in the generic proceedings that are related to the renewable energy programs.

Conclusion

The DPS response to the need for affordability and reliability safety valves clearly is a failure to support the broad mandate to ensure access to safe, reliable utility service at just and reasonable rates.   Utility costs are the most significant manifestation of Climate Act implementation to ratepayers.  DPS staff responsible for rate cases defer to someone else.  Despite numerous filings and explicit OSC recommendations DPS has not updated the costs of implementation much less whether observed costs are affordable.

Without quantifiable bounds DPS claims that they recognize the “obligation to provide safe, reliable utility service at just and reasonable rates” is no more than a slogan,  How much longer will the DPS facilitate the “build as much as possible as quickly as possible” Hochul Administration Climate Act plan without considering affordability and reliability limits.  Crossing fingers and hoping things work out is not a recipe for a successful energy plan.

Energy Plan 25 June 2025 Meeting – Electricity Topic

This is part of my continuing coverage of the New York State Energy Plan.  My intent is to describe most of the sections of the June 25, 2025 meeting presentation.  This article addresses the discussion of the electricity portion of the draft Energy Plan document.  My friend Tom Shepstone described the natural gas section so I don’t have to do that one.

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 540 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.

I have provided more background information and a list of previous articles on my Energy Plan page.  Sad to say but this process looks like a repeat of the Scoping Plan process where New York State Energy Research & Development Authority (NYSERDA) provides numbers that align with the desired political outcome and goes through the pro forma motions of a stakeholder process.  In my opinion, stakeholder input should be treated as more than just an obligation.  There is no sign that NYSERDA considers stakeholder input because the only way to prove that input is considered is to provide a response to comments document that describes how comments were considered.  This has been noticeably lacking in NYSERDA Climate Act documentation.   Obviously, the Energy Planning Board needs to hear both sides of issues to provide a meaningful input to the process.  Otherwise, the Board is just a figurehead entity that provides the appearance of deliberation but does not engage in actual review.

June 25, 2025 Board Meeting

The materials for the meeting include the following:

I previously summarized the presentations that described the analyses conducted for the State Energy Plan and those that covered Energy Plan topic areas. I have included links to the locations of the video in the following descriptions.  Also note that a transcript of the presentations is included at the meeting recording video platform.  There is a nice feature for this video.  If you set auto scroll on then  you can follow the presentation transcript.  All quotes below come from that transcript.

This article will describe the electricity topic area in the draft Energy Plan document.

Topic Area – Electricity

David Coup, assistant director on NYSERDA’s Policy Analysis and Research team, and Jessica Waldorf, Chief of Staff and Director of Policy Implementation at the Department of Public Service read the electricity topic script.  Waldorf set the theme of the presentation acknowledging “major challenges” in the first slide:

Waldorf stated that the “The electric chapter focuses on the key theme of needing to have reliable power at reasonable rates, because it is the backbone of the State’s economy and critical to our public health and safety.”  This is typical for New York State.  The statement sounds good and addresses an absolute need, but the reality is there is no substance or follow-through to the commitment.  In this instance if the State were committed to reliable power at reasonable rates, they would define what that means.  Clearly there is some limit to what New York can afford to pay but the criteria for the safety valves  for affordability and reliability have not been defined.

The presentation went on to describe six slides.  One takeaway is this is the first acknowledgement of some key challenges that have not been mentioned before.  However, in my opinion the presentation does not convey the myriad issues associated with some of the topics mentioned in passing. 

All the topic slides have a similar format.  There is a list of key existing state actions and related recommendations.  However, the uncertainties and seriousness of the challenges for the recommendations are not mentioned.  I think this gave the Energy Planning Board members a false sense of security.

The first slide title said “New York State will continue to support the deployment of clean energy resources including large scale renewables (LSR), distributed and community solar to meet demand and preserve reliability.”  Earlier in the meeting the uncertainty and challenges of the deployment were mentioned.  However, there was no explicit acknowledgement of the Biennial Report findings that found that the meeting the 2030 targets would not be possible until at least 2033.

Two of the recommendations are related and are of particular interest to me.  The first acknowledges that planning is required for existing sources: “Continue to evaluate the State’s existing clean firm capacity resources since they will be critical to achieving a zero-emissions grid.”  The second confronts the reality of New York City peaking power plants: “The State will need to be strategic about the pace of combustion unit retirements and/or replacements as it works to pursue achievement of its clean energy targets.”  Waldorf explained:

This section of the chapter highlights the importance of the state needing to be mindful about managing the retirement of downstate units in a manner that won’t cause air quality to worsen and disadvantaged communities and will not cause negative system reliability impacts.  It also discusses a statutory requirement that the New York Power Authority has, and as part of that, the requirement to conduct an air emissions analysis prior to any retirement of these facilities.

I described my position on peaking power plants on a dedicated page and asked Perplexity AI to compare my arguments against the Peak Coalition position.  The implementation issue is that that a politically favored group has demanded that the peaking units be shut down but this presentation acknowledges there is an issue.  Wordsmithing this problem and promising more analyses that cannot possibly affect the outcome will only postpone political accountability for the inevitable decision that shutting those units down to placate a political constituency is not going to keep the lights on.

The title of the second slide states: “The State will continue to leverage and expand the deployment of storage and demand side resources, including energy efficiency measures and flexible technologies, to lower the cost of the clean energy transition and to enhance grid reliability.”  The lack of uncertainty descriptions and not including a rating of technological maturity and challenges for the proposed storage and demand side resources is a significant flaw.  In my opinion, most of the recommendations are basically magical thinking.

The next slide title states: “The State will need to be strategic in identifying and integrating clean firm technologies that have the attributes necessary to support the achievement of a zero emissions electric grid by 2040.”  This is the most egregious failure to admit the challenge of “identifying and integrating” technologies.  This is a veiled reference to the Dispatchable Emissions-Free Resource that is an acknowledged prerequisite for the proposed weather-dependent electric system.  The State is studying the issue but there is no timeline for definitive recommendations how the state should go forward.  I think that the Energy Planning Board needs to know that the chances are essentially zero that technologies that are not commercially viable and must be tested, permitted, and deployed at the scale projected on a timeline consistent with the Climate Act mandates will be availble.  This should have been discussed.

Furthermore, consider the key existing state actions.  The Zero emissions by 2040 Proceeding is in place but nothing has happened since early 2024 so there is no apparent sense of urgency regarding plans for DEFR.  The DPS Staff Whitepaper refers to a November 2024 technical document that defined zero emissions and the statewide electrical demand system and recommended how to treat imports.  The PSC has not yet acted on the paper.    The zero by 2040 techno-economic study refers to an on-going research study.  In my opinion all these efforts represent the starting point of a planned transition.  Implementing them as we go along does not bode well.

The fourth slide headline notes “The State will continue to advance smart and strategic energy system planning to enhance system reliability and drive down the cost of necessary transmission and distribution system investments.”  This slide is bafflegab, i.e., wordy jargon whose purpose, in this instance, is to obscure the challenge of maintaining current reliability standards while massively implementing unprecedented changes to the system.  The Coordinated Grid Planning Process is a great example of what needs to be done but the reality is that it should have been set up before New York embarked on this transition.  Moreover, it only addresses transmission.  They mention that we should “pursue integrated electricity and natural gas system planning” recognizes that something similar is needed in that realm.  Implementation planning in retrospect is not a recipe for success.

The next slide’s headline states: “The State needs to evaluate wholesale market and retail rate structures to ensure they properly value and compensate new energy resources and market services and prioritize energy affordability for consumers.”  Coup acknowledges that “There’s a lot of things here on this slide that talk about assessing, exploring, and evaluating.”  In other words, we are not doing this now. This is another example of the lack of planning inherent in CLCPA net-zero transition planning to date.

The final slide title states: “Future investments in our energy system must be designed to withstand the impacts of a changing climate.”  This slide and Coup’s description frustrates me to no end as a meteorologist. New York State climate change doctrine is completely consistent with the media narrative.  Roger Pielke, Jr. just reposted an article describing the media’s narrative. His section on extreme weather is consistent with Coup’s statement and encapsulated my concern:

Weather is a renewable resource. It happens every day, and somewhere it is extreme. Hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, drought, hail, oh my! It has become fundamental to the climate beat to associate, link, connect — pick your favorite — the extreme event that just happened with climate change. Forget the IPCC and rigorous standards of detection and attribution. There are studies to cherry pick, quotable experts and a new cottage industry of rapid event attribution studies. Extreme weather is no longer about the weather.

The solution is simple – “withstand the impacts of a changing climate” should be changed to “withstand the impacts of extreme weather”.  We are not even planning for the past now.  My message to NYSERDA is to get back to me when you have accounted for past extreme weather and then we can discuss climate change impacts.

Discussion
I have takeaway messages for the Energy Planning members.  The impression I got from the presentations at the 25 June 2025 Energy Plan meeting is that NYSERDA and DPS have the implementation of the Climate Act under control.  It cannot be emphasized strongly enough that the reality is different.  In the real world the presentations only scraped the surface of the number and magnitude of the issues facing New York’s implementation of the Climate Act.

For an example of the complexity not acknowledged, consider the statement in the last slide in the presentation that stated that “Establishing criteria for metrics like expected unserved energy (EUE) may help supplement traditional LOLE-based criteria by providing information about risks of long-duration outages.”  EUE stands for Expected Unserved Energy.  It is the summation of the expected number of megawatt hours of demand that will not be served in a given time period as a result of demand exceeding the available capacity across all hours.  This parameter addresses issues associated with the long duration wind and solar resource lulls that is the driver for the need for DEFR.  I have concluded that this issue causes insurmountable reliability risks.  Eventually there will be an unusual set of weather conditions and load requirements that exceed the EUE criteria.  When that happens for the future net-zero system there won’t be enough energy for all the electrified sectors and a catastrophic blackout will result.  In my opinion, the Energy Planning Board should consider risks like this for the proposed Energy Plan.  I do not expect that NYSERDA or DPS will willingly raise this issue.

Reading between the lines reveals that the draft Energy Plan concedes the electric system transition is not well planned.  Consider that New York State will “advance smart and strategic energy system planning“ is predicated on coming up with ways to do that.  If they are “assessing, exploring and evaluating” ways to be smart, then what does that say about current planning?  My Google AI Assistant says the opposite would be “unstructured or haphazard planning, which lacks clear goals, measurable outcomes, and a coherent approach to achieving objectives”.  I agree.

Finally, there are multiple references to stakeholder input in this presentation.  Until NYSERDA documents how they treated stakeholder input, the implication that they value this input rings hollow. 

Conclusion

There is every indication that slavish devotion to the aspirational goals of the Climate Act is still the goal of the Energy Plan process.  At the same time NYSERDA and DPS claim that the transition “must be managed within the constraints imposed by Federal and State reliability requirements and at a justifiable cost to ratepayers.”  There are no quantifiable criteria for affordability and reliability.  If there were safety valve criteria, then I have no doubt that they would be exceeded because a weather-reliant electric system will never be affordable or safe.

Energy Plan Board 25 June 2025 Meeting Overview

The development of the New York State Energy Plan is underway but I have been remiss on providing updates.  Frankly, there hasn’t been too much to write about until the latest meeting on June 25, 2025. The last meeting had some interesting presentations because there were hints that even the New York State Energy Research & Development Authority (NYSERDA) is beginning to admit that there are issues associated with Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act or CLCPA) enactment.

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 540 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.

On September 9, 2024, the Hochul Administration initiated the State Energy Plan process to update the Plan consistent with the Climate Act.  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.” The major question that must be addressed is whether the Hochul Administration will use the energy planning process as an opportunity to consider the advice of stakeholders in its stakeholder process or will stakeholder involvement just be an obligation with no attempt to meaningfully engage with any comments inconsistent with the narrative.

I have previously published articles about this process. On November 15 New Yorkers for Clean Power (NYCP) sponsored a related webinar titled “Get Charged Up for the New York Energy Plan”.  My first post on this webinar described the response to my question does New York need a Climate Act feasibility analysis. I also addressed the presentation by Janet Joseph who was deeply involved in the development of the Scoping Plan noting that she admitted that issues associated with reliability and affordability are real problems.  My post on the March 3 meeting explained that I was discouraged because the format and approach is so similar to the Scoping Plan process that I think that NYSERRDA is following the same script.  It looks just like the Scoping Plan process where the numbers were tortured to provide the desired analysis then tied up into a pretty package.  NYSERDA went through the motions of a stakeholder process but never responded to comments in a meaningful way.  I fear this is the plan for this document as well.

June 25, 2025 Board Meeting

The materials for the meeting include the following:

There were two important agenda items for the meeting

  1. To discuss analysis conducted for the State Energy Plan.
  2. To discuss select Energy Plan topic areas.

I have included links to the locations of the video in the following descriptions.  Also note that a transcript of the presentations is included at the meeting recording video platform.  There is a nice feature for this video.  If you scroll down into the transcript you can follow the presentation.  All quotes below come from that transcript.

The discussion of the analysis conducted for the State Energy Plan described “two overarching analyses”.  The Pathways Analysis and topic plan areas are summarized below.

Pathways Analysis Overview of Energy Modeling

Doreen Harris teed up this presentation.  Although this work does a similar assessment of the strategies needed to achieve the Climate Act mandates as the Scoping Plan, the approach is different.  For the Scoping Plan the modeling was a top-down approach: “We looked at the emissions requirements in the Climate Act and demonstrated the nature of the changes that would be needed to meet those emissions limits.”  After acknowledging challenging headwinds, Harris claimed there has been extraordinary progress and that the Energy Plan modeling builds off progress to date in its bottom up approach:

This analysis uses a bottom up assessment of the various energy supply and delivery systems that will be available to meet forecasted energy needs through 2040, accounting for policies, technology availability, and consumer uptake, and the energy planning law requirements to consider energy affordability, reliability, economic development and jobs, equity, and environmental needs.

For those not attuned to modeling this is simply a different way to cook the books.  If the assumptions for affordability, reliability associated with the policies, technological availability, and other aspects that affect the rate of deployment are transparently documented it would be an improvement.  However, if the input is treated like a black box and stakeholder input is not appreciated as adding value, then the results will not be credible.  There are many ways to make assumptions to get a preferred answer.

Karl Mas who was responsible for much of the Scoping Plan modeling introduced the detailed presentation.  His introduction was noteworthy because he admitted that the modeling was uncertain:

I’d first like to acknowledge that, conducting such analysis during a time of uncertainty is challenging, as Chair Harris noted.

And it’s true with all aspects of our economy, the energy system has been impacted by the supply chain disruptions, high interest rates, inflation, and changing federal policy landscape. Yet the work must provide a rigorous economy wide view of how New York will meet the energy needs over the planning horizon while making progress on the state’s policy objectives.

Looking out over fifteen years requires assumptions regarding technology progress and policy achievement. To address uncertainties in both these areas, the analysis takes a realistic yet ambitious approach and explores several potential scenarios to better understand the full spectrum of possible outcomes.

Nick Patane gave the detailed presentation. I will follow up with another post that delves into details about this modeling.

Pathways Analysis Overview of Energy Affordability

The second pathways analysis described energy affordability.  Karl Mas also introduced this presentation noting that:

Understanding how our energy planning efforts might impact New Yorkers can be a critical consideration that’s run through our entire plan. This new analysis provides a detailed view into the variation of potential future energy spend by New York households, allowing us to tailor planning considerations to best meet the needs of all New Yorkers.

James Wilcox presented the details.  To get a flavor of what was presented consider the household modeling “snapshots”.  Clearly there are many ways to interpret household energy consumption today and even more ways to estimate how changes could be made to get future reductions.  I cannot over-estimate enough that without comprehensive and transparent documentation of those assumptions the results will not be credible.  The Scoping Plan documentation failed to provide the necessary level of documentation.  It remains to be seen whether this modeling will do so.

In my opinion, energy affordability is the most important Climate Act consideration.  Wilcox admitted there were “overarching affordability challenges”:

However, low and moderate income households are more likely to experience energy affordability challenges.  To understand how energy costs impact people, it’s important to look comprehensively at both household energy and also transportation energy spending.

Energy saving measures, such as building envelope efficiency, efficient appliances and equipment, fuel efficient and electric vehicles, and transit use can lower overall household energy costs. Many households pursuing these measures are likely to see net reductions in operating costs due to the combined impacts of a variety of efficiency measures, including electric efficient electrification on household energy and transportation energy spending.

And finally, policy and market solutions that focus on lowering upfront costs and other barriers to adoption for a range of energy efficiency measures have the potential to enable households to realize lower, more affordable operating costs. And this can, in turn, help to alleviate energy insecurity and energy burdens.

In contrast to the first presentation there were multiple questions about this work.  I intend to follow up on this topic with another post too.

State Energy Plan Topic Areas

After a break there were six presentations on topic areas:

I will follow up with another post that addresses these too.  At this point it seems if I go into detail on any one of these topics then I must cover more and the post will spiral out of control.  Stay tuned.

Discussion

I want to make two points on my initial read of this meeting.  Energy affordability is important, but it appears that the State is still only paying lip service to the problem. 

In the first place, while Jessica Waldorf from the Department of Public Service mentioned that work continues to develop the resources mandated by the Clean Energy Standard, she only acknowledged the existence of the Biennial Review.  On December 18, 2024, the New York Assembly Committee on Energy held a public hearing to gather information and asked Waldorf about the status of the Informational Report covering 2023 data that provides cost recoveries, benefits, expected ratepayer impacts and other information.  On January 13, 2025 the DPS said that “The Department is currently preparing the Second CLCPA Report and anticipates presenting it to the Commission in 2025”.  This is important information that is a year overdue.

There is another worrisome aspect of the modeling.  Waldorf stated that “The cost recoveries, benefits, and other information reported here are mainly focused on the direct effects of CLCPA implementation.”  As I have noted previously, this focus on direct effects of the CLCPA does not cover all the costs of implementation.  For example, my utility company must include programs to meet the CLCPA mandated goals not just the CLCPA mandated programs.  The focus on CLCPA programs iexcludes substantive costs.  I think NYSERDA is trying to do it again.

Conclusion

Given the myriad effects and unintended consequences of the Climate Act implementation, I think it is incumbent upon the State to be fully upfront with the costs and challenges of the transition.  Unfortunately, it has become politicized, and the costs are being covered up.  Stay tuned for in-depth analyses of the Energy Plan presentations at this meeting.

More Reasons to Pause Climate Act Implementation June 25, 2025

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 proceed.  This article describes more reasons to pause implementation.

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 540 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.  It includes an interim reduction target of a 40% GHG reduction by 2030. 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 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. 

Australia New Zero Model

Robert Bryce sums up the Australian net zero scheme “won’t work because it can’t work”. He points out that:

Affordability matters. Given that, let’s start with prices. Aussie households have seen their energy costs rise by more than 40% over the past three years alone.

He shows why in the following graph.

This sums up New York’s path forward if nothing changes.  Bryce concludes:

The punchline here is obvious: Australia cannot — will not — achieve net zero by 2050. It’s an impossible task. Nevertheless, it appears the country will waste a lot of money pretending that it can.

CO2 is not the Climate Control Knob

Richard Lindzen and William Happer have published a white paper that goes after the reducing GHG emissions will affect the climate rationale for the net-zero transition.  The document is titled :Physics Demonstrates that Increasing Greenhouse Gases Cannot Cause Dangerous Warming, Extreme Weather or Any Harm.  Lindzen and Happer are career physicists with a special expertise in radiation physics, which describes how CO2 and GHGs affect heat flow in Earth’s atmosphere. The only conclusion from their work is that even if New York could magically reduce its emissions and inspire all other jurisdictions to do the same, that it could not possibly have any impact on the weather.

The report has four major sections:

  • Government opinion, consensus, 97% of scientists’ opinions, peer review, models that do not work, or cherry-picked, fabricated, falsified or omitted contradictory data.
  • Ignored science #1: CO2, other GHGs and fossil fuels will not cause catastrophic global warming and more extreme weather.
  • Ignored science #2: there will be disastrous consequences or the poor, people worldwide, future generations, Americans, America, and the West if CO2, other GHGs and fossil fuels are reduced to net zero and will endanger public health and welfare.
  • Unscientific evidence is the basis of the EPA endangerment finding, all known net zero rules and subsidies.

One quote from the paper caught my attention:  “Peter Drucker warned, as every Net Zero Theory rule and subsidy demonstrates, that science in government is often based on “value judgments” that are “incompatible with any criteria one could possibly call scientific.”  These value judgements have permeated every aspect of the Climate Act implementation.  New York’s Climate Act is even worse because the “science” was provided by activists and promoted into law by naïve politicians.

The concluding statement in the Summary states:

In summary, the blunt scientific reality requires urgent action because we are confronted with policies that destroy western economies, impoverish the working middle class, condemn billions of the world’s poorest to continued poverty and increased starvation, leave our children despairing over the alleged absence of a future, and will enrich the enemies of the West who are enjoying the spectacle of our suicide march. Instead, let people and the market decide, not governments.

An Alternative Driver of Climate Change

The driver for reducing GHG emissions is that they are the primary driver of climate change.  In my opinion, the primary driver for climate change is the sun.  After all, the currently accepted theory for continental glaciation is that it is caused by changes in solar intensity due to orbital variations.  Unfortunately, the arguments for solar variation based on sunspots and other factors causing recent changes in the climate are weak.  However, there is another way that the sun’s impacts can affect the Earth.

The recent paper by Tselioudis et al., titled “Contraction of the World’s Storm-Cloud Zones the Primary Contributor to the 21st Century Increase in the Earth’s Sunlight Absorption” evaluated Earth energy budget observations.  They showed that a decrease in cloud reflection increased sunlight absorption which caused an increase in global temperatures. 

Charles Rotter explains:

To understand the full implications of this study, we need to parse its findings in plain terms. The paper concludes that the Earth has absorbed significantly more solar radiation over the past 24 years—0.45 W/m² per decade. The primary culprit? A reduction in cloud cover, specifically a contraction of the midlatitude and tropical storm-cloud zones. This change has resulted in less solar radiation being reflected back into space and more being absorbed by the Earth’s surface. Crucially, 0.37 W/m² of this uptick is attributed solely to this contraction in cloud coverage, a result of large-scale atmospheric circulation changes: “This cloud contraction, along with cloud cover decreases at low latitudes, allows more solar radiation to reach the Earth’s surface. When the contribution of all cloud changes is calculated, the storm cloud contraction is found to be the main contributor to the observed increase of the Earth’s solar absorption during the 21st century.”

These conclusions are based on observations.  Clouds are one of many emergent phenomena that the climate models cannot represent.  Rotter concludes:

This paper should serve as ammunition for any skeptic pointing out the absurdity of building trillion-dollar policies on the backs of incomplete and overconfident simulations. The cloud regimes are shifting. The models aren’t keeping up. And neither is the narrative.

Final Word on the Science

Despite the constant refrain that 97% of climate scientists agree there is problem facts differ.  “Your funding, salary increase, and tenure case are tied to agreeing with the ‘consensus.’ It’s really about careerism and resources. They all have to dance to that same drum beat to get professional recognition and professional advancement,” says Dr. Judith Curry, professor emeritus at the Georgia Institute of Technology, describing the state of climate science and research in recent years.  She “𝐝𝐞𝐛𝐮𝐧𝐤𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐲𝐭𝐡 𝐨𝐟 𝐚 𝐜𝐥𝐢𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐮𝐬, 𝐫𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐟𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝 𝐬𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐜 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐚𝐠𝐫𝐞𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐨𝐧 𝐜𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐢𝐬𝐬𝐮𝐞𝐬 𝐥𝐢𝐤𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐚𝐮𝐬𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐰𝐚𝐫𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐠” in a video interview. 

There is a transcript of the interview available.  This response about the pursuit of net-zero is particularly apropos for New York:

No, yeah, it’s not achievable. Not only that, okay, here’s the part that they don’t tell you: even if we did achieve net zero by 2050, we wouldn’t notice any change in the climate until well into the 22nd century. 

Climate Act proponents plea that we need to do this for our children and grand-children.  Keep in mind that if New York managed to reduce all its GHG emissions that represent one half of one percent of global emissions, the climate won’t change for over 100 years even if our actions inspire everyone else in the world to follow suit. That is several generations after our grandchildren.

Conclusion

New York cannot “solve” climate change on its own because our greenhouse gas contributions to the atmosphere are dwarfed by emissions elsewhere.  Recent work shows that GHG emissions are not a significant driver of climate change.  The best we can help for is a successful model for other jurisdictions, but the continuing ride of unresolved questions and unacknowledged issues suggests that our current approach is not on the right path.  Pausing the Climate Act insanity before it does more damage is the only rational path.