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.

In Search of the Climate Act Safety Valve

Proponents of the New York Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act) don’t acknowledge that there are affordability and reliability safety valves.  Worse, the rate case proceedings ignore them too.  This post documents references to Public Service Law 66-p safety valves in the New York State Department of Public Service (DPS) Document and Matter Management Proceedings.

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

Public Service Law (PSL) Section 66-P Establishment of a renewable energy program includes subsection 2 that states that the commission shall establish a program to require that:

  1. a minimum of seventy percent of the state wide electric generation secured by jurisdictional load serving entities to meet the electrical energy requirements of all end-use customers in New York state in two thousand thirty shall be generated by renewable energy systems; and
  2. that by the year two thousand forty (collectively, the “targets”) the statewide electrical demand system will be zero emissions. In establishing such program, the commission shall consider and where applicable formulate the program to address impacts of the program on safe and adequate electric service in the state under reasonably foreseeable conditions. The commission may, in designing the program, modify the obligations of jurisdictional load serving entities and/or the targets upon consideration of the factors described in this subdivision.

These two requirements are mandates in the Climate Act so Public Service Law 66-P is simply executing those provisions.  It charges the Public Service Commission (PSC) with implementing renewable energy programs but includes feasibility safety valve conditions for affordability and reliability.  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 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, they have ignored the safety valve provisions of 66-p(4).

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.  Before the availability of artificial intelligence programs, it was impossible for me to determine how many of the filings in the system referred to the safety valve provisions in 66-p(4).  Now I can check out whether anyone besides me is questioning this requirement.

Response to DMM Safety Valve References Query

This post describes the findings to the following question I posed to Perplexity AI: “In the New York State Department of Public Service Matter Master Proceedings have any of the filings acknowledged Public Service Law Section 66-P, Establishment of a renewable energy program requirements section 66-p (4)?  This section quotes the Perplexity AI response with my annotated comments. Note that I have included links for the references. I want to make the point that AI is not without faults so I do not claim that the following documents are the only ones with references to PSL section 66-p(4).

The order (Case 15-E-0302) adopting the modifications to the Clean Energy Standard for consistency with the Climate Act describes all the provisions of PSL 66-P.  If this reference had not shown up, then the AI search would have failed.

Direct Acknowledgment of PSL Section 66-P(4) in DPS Proceedings

Clean Energy Standard Case (15-E-0302)

The most significant acknowledgment of PSL Section 66-P(4) appears in Case 15-E-0302, the proceeding on the Clean Energy Standard Reference Link 1.In this case, the Commission explicitly recognized that “PSL §66-p(4) provides the Commission with authority to ‘temporarily suspend or modify’ the obligations created by the Program if, after conducting a hearing, it finds that the Program ‘impedes the provision of safe and adequate electric service,’ ‘is likely to impair existing obligations and agreements,’ and/or is related to ‘a significant increase in arrears or service disconnections'”  Reference Link 1.

At least one entity acknowledged that there are bounds to the implementation of the Climate Act.  I do not know if there were others or just this example.

Independent Power Producers Filing

Independent Power Producers of New York, Inc. (IPPNY) filed comments in Case 15-E-0302 that directly reference PSL Section 66-P(4) Reference Link 2. Their filing states that “the CLCPA is also carefully bounded to ensure reliability and affordability, providing that ‘the Commission may temporarily suspend or modify’ the program if it finds ‘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'” Reference Link 2.

The following response illustrates a shortcoming of AI searches.  I suppose I could have refined the search to ask for the number of unique individual stakeholders who referenced 66-p(4) but I did not.  The quotation is from one of my submittals and I know I have referenced this safety valve numerous times.  I suspect that the reference to multiple public comments means the search program found my comments in multiple filings.

Public Comments and Stakeholder Acknowledgment

Individual Stakeholder Comments

Multiple public comments filed in DPS proceedings have acknowledged PSL Section 66-P(4) Reference Link 3. One commenter specifically stated: “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'” Link 3.

The Perplexity AI report incorrectly refers to environmental advocacy comments twice.  In the first instance, the comment was from a renewable developer instead of an advocacy group.

Environmental Advocacy Comments

A September 2024 filing by Darren Suarez directly quotes PSL Section 66-P(4), noting that “the law grants the Commission the power to temporarily suspend or modify the program, but only after a hearing and a specific finding” Reference Link 4. This filing acknowledges the statutory framework while expressing concerns about the State’s ability to meet the legal standards for suspension Link 4.

It is interesting to note that the State Comptroller noted the requirement in its July 2024 audit of Climate Act progress.

State Comptroller’s Office Recognition

The New York State Comptroller’s Office has acknowledged PSL Section 66-P(4) in its audit reports of Climate Act implementation Reference link 5. The Comptroller’s report states: “According to the Climate Act, PSC may temporarily suspend or modify obligations after a hearing if it determines the implementation of the renewable energy program is impeding the provision of safe and reliable electric service, impairing existing obligations or agreements, or resulting in a significant increase in arrears or service disconnections” link 5.

The New York University School of Law Institute for Policy Integrity was referenced but the link provided does not work.

Academic and Legal Analysis

Policy Integration Analysis

Academic and policy analysis documents filed in DPS proceedings have recognized the significance of PSL Section 66-P(4) as a safeguard mechanism Reference Link 6.These analyses acknowledge that while PSL Section 66-p charges the Commission with implementing renewable energy programs, “it does not alter the extent of the Commission’s jurisdiction or authority to do so” and that the Commission should “carry out its responsibilities under PSL Section 66-p within the bounds of its jurisdictional constraints” Link 6.

The second reference to environmental advocacy also mislabeled the commenter.  I am not sure real environmental advocates would count this website as one of their own, but Perplexity AI did.

Stakeholder Process Documentation

Environmental advocacy groups have noted that PSL Section 66-P(4) establishes “safety valve criteria” for renewable energy program implementation Reference Link 7. These comments emphasize that “it is incumbent upon the Commission to define ‘safe and adequate electric service’ and ‘significant increase in arrears or service disconnections’ before the LT Plan is implemented” Link 7.

The reference for the following section is to a PSC order to “measure and track compliance with, and develop and consider proposals to implement, the provisions” of the Climate Act.

Regulatory Framework Context

Commission Authority Recognition

DPS staff documents and Commission orders acknowledge that PSL Section 66-P(4) provides necessary flexibility in renewable energy program implementation Reference Link 8. The Commission has recognized that this provision ensures renewable energy programs can be adjusted if they compromise electric system reliability or create significant customer impacts Link 8.

Procedural Requirements

Several filings acknowledge the specific procedural requirements of PSL Section 66-P(4), particularly the requirement for conducting a hearing “as provided in section twenty” before any suspension or modification can occur Link 1 and Link 3. This procedural safeguard ensures due process in any decision to suspend or modify renewable energy program obligations.

Discussion

The Comptroller report audited Climate Act progress and acknowledges the safety valve and then  makes the ultimate point:

PSC’s mission is to ensure affordable, safe, secure, and reliable access to utility services for the State’s consumers at just and reasonable rates while protecting the natural environment and to stimulate effective competitive markets for clean, renewable, and distributed energy resources along with product and service innovations to benefit consumers. PSC thus must determine the rates are reasonable for both the consumer and the producer so that New York can successfully transition to the level of renewable energy it desires to achieve.

One of the key findings of the Comptroller report addressed affordability:

The costs of transitioning to renewable energy are not known, nor have they been reasonably estimated. Moreover, funding sources to cover those costs have not been identified, leaving the ratepayers as the primary source of funding. The lack of alternative funding sources adds additional risk to whether the State can meet its goals timely. Data shows utility costs have already risen sharply over the last two decades and more New Yorkers are having difficulty paying their utility bills. 

The problem is that PSC has not determined whether the rates are reasonable and the transition can provide safe, secure and reliable energy.  Nor has it established the criteria to trigger a hearing if 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.

With regards to the rate case expenditures, the utilities are in a difficult spot.  They are under tremendous pressure to invest in mandated programs to achieve Climate Act goals.  However, when they include the costs for those programs the costs go up so much that there is as much pressure to keep the rates down.  In my opinion, their rate case filings should at least acknowledge that there are limits to how much money can be squandered trying to decarbonize New York.

In my opinion, the Hochul Administration is doing everything in its power to hide the costs of Climate Act implementation.  On July 20, 2023 the first annual informational report (“Informational Report”) on the implementation of the Climate Act was released.  It included a description of financial data from 2022.  There hasn’t been an update since the initial report. 

Conclusion

This search for the safety valve provisions in DMM filings found multiple references to it, albeit a large percentage were my submittals that have been mostly ignored.  Importantly there is no sign that the provision has not been addressed by DPS.  This is more consistent with political pressure to focus on renewable energy program expansion than to protect the interests of New York ratepayers.

I recently evaluated National Grid Upstate New York customer in arrears data and found that there has been a significant increase in arrears. On the face of it that could be a safety valve trigger.  However, it is impossible to determine whether there has been a significant increase in arrears related to the Climate Act because there have been no updates to the DPS Informational Report and the other Agency information highlighted by the Comptroller Report. 

Given the magnitude of the rate case proposed increases observed, it long past due for the DPS and NYSERDA to provide sufficient financial status information to determine the impact of the Climate Act.  I believe that the Commission should hold a hearing as provided in PSL 66-P because it is likely that the safety valve triggers have been exceeded.

New York Cap and Invest Update

The first regulation associated with the New York Cap and Invest (NYCI) Program is currently out for comment.  The regulation establishes mandatory greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reporting requirements.  Accurate and reliable emissions information is a cornerstone for any market-based p  program, so this is a necessary first step.  This post describes the status of that rulemaking. 

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.  I have worked on every market-based program that affected electric generating facilities in New York including the Acid Rain Program, Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), and several Nitrogen Oxide programs. I follow and write about the RGGI and New York carbon pricing initiatives so my background is particularly suited for NYCI.   The opinions expressed in this article do not reflect the position of any of my previous employers or any other organization I have been associated with, these comments are mine alone.

Overview

The Climate Act established a New York “Net Zero” target (85% reduction in GHG emissions and 15% offset of emissions) by 2050.  The Climate Action Council (CAC) was responsible for preparing the Scoping Plan that outlined how to “achieve the State’s bold clean energy and climate agenda.”  After a year-long review, the Scoping Plan that outlines how to achieve the targets was finalized at the end of 2022.  Since then, the State has been trying to implement the Scoping Plan recommendations through regulations, proceedings, and legislation.  NYCI is but one example of that effort.

Cap-and-Invest

The CAC’s Scoping Plan recommended a market-based economywide cap-and-invest program.  NYCI is supposed to work by setting an annual cap on the amount of greenhouse gas pollution that is permitted to be emitted in New York: “The declining cap ensures annual emissions are reduced, setting the state on a trajectory to meet our greenhouse gas emission reduction requirements of 40% by 2030, and at least 85% from 1990 levels by 2050, as mandated by the Climate Act.”  Affected sources purchase permits to emit a ton (also known as allowances) and then surrender them at the end of the year to comply with the rule.  Colin Kinniburgh’s description in New York Focus describes the activist’s theory of a cap-and-invest program 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 state away from polluting energy sources — ‘invest.'” 

As is the case with all aspects of the Climate Act, this approach is not simple and is riddled with complications that make it unlikely that it will work as advocates expect.  I have summarized my concerns on my Carbon Pricing Initiatives page.

I have written a couple of articles about the status this year.  Going into the year, the climate activist cult was confident that Governor Hochul would say that NYCI implementation would be a priority and that a schedule for the first auctions would be announced.  However, that did not happen which has goaded the cult into an extensive lobbying campaign.  For example, lobbyists cajoled my Assemblyman into writing a letter to the editor in the Syracuse paper saying that Governor Hochul should “get moving on cap and invest.”  I responded explaining that proponents claims that the program will simultaneously raise money, ensure compliance, and be affordable are wishful thinking. 

Regulation Implementation Status

To implement the carbon pricing initiative, the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) has proposed three regulations: mandatory GHG emissions reporting, a cap-and-invest rule that sets the cap or limit on emissions, and an auction rulemaking that establishes how the allowances will be allocated.  There hasn’t been any update on when the cap-and-invest rule and auction rulemaking will be released.  Part 253 Mandatory GHG Reporting was released for comment in late March and comments are due on July 1, 2025.

Colin Kinniburgh recently described the status of the NYCI response by climate activists. They have used every opportunity to push for the cap-and-invest rules to be implemented as quickly as possible.  I made the mistake of attending a Part 253 hearing and lasted through two speakers before I had to leave. The first speaker made the oft-repeated argument that there are dire health effects like asthma that are the result of fossil fuel emissions which was met by cheers from the audience.  Nothing was said about the Part 253 reporting rule that was the subject of the hearing. I could not face listening to other speakers parrot similar talking points, so I left.

Before getting into the specifics, I want to make a general point about NYCI.  For the uninitiated, implementing a rule like others already in place seemingly should be simple and straightforward.  The reasoning goes something like this: California has a similar program in place, so all New York needs to do is to convert their rules for use in New York.  It is not that easy.  For starters, California took upwards of ten years with a large staff to develop their rules.  NYCI implementation started in early January 2023 and DEC has many fewer staff.  Furthermore, the Climate Act has unique emissions definitions which makes simple substitution impossible. Finally, there are significant differences between the energy system nomenclature in the states.  In my opinion, the New York Department of Environmental Conservation has done a remarkable job getting something out.  Unfortunately, the proposed rule shows signs of haste and lack of understanding.

Consider this from my standpoint.  This is the first market-based program proposed rule in 30 years affecting the electric industry that I have no responsibilities to review.  So, I have not spent any time looking at that aspect of the rule.  However, I have a cousin who owns and operates a small heating oil and propane distribution company.  When I glanced at the web page for the draft rule I saw that fuel supply companies were required to report emissions if they supply “any quantity” of fuel.  Programs like this always have reporting thresholds so I thought there had to be a mistake in the summary.  When I dug into the rule, I found it very difficult to follow the rationale and requirements but convinced myself that DEC did intend to require everyone to report emissions.  That is such an extraordinary requirement that I contacted a former colleague who I knew was reviewing the rule to ask for his impression.  He confirmed that it was not just me but everyone was having trouble interpreting the proposed rules and had found similar inconsistencies with past practices.

Mandatory GHG Reporting Rule

This description is limited to fuel suppliers in the Part 253 rule.  I am going to submit comments and draft a letter for my cousin’s company to submit their own comments.  The proposed Part 253 Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program rules (“Draft Rule”) would require most if not all small heating oil and propane distributors to report emissions that would be a significant time and expense resource burden.  As a more efficient alternative, I will recommend that primary supply terminals that provide fuel to the small distribution companies be the entities responsible for reporting emissions and complying with the allowance trading rules.

Applicability

The summary of the Draft Rule includes Figure 1 that describes the entities that must report. There are four categories that “must report emissions” if they supply “any quantity” of fuels.  There is a category for “owners and operators of facilities” that has a 10,000 metric ton (MT) threshold but no threshold is provided for fuel suppliers.  The Draft Rule should be revised to include a consistent reporting threshold for emissions.  Smaller sources could be required to report fuel use instead of emissions.

Figure 1: New York Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting webpage (accessed on 6/11/25 and last updated 4/30/25)

Large Emission Sources

The rule includes another provision that would require small retail distributors to report emissions. Section 253-1.2 Liquid Fuel Suppliers – Applicability, (f) Large Emission Sources, (2) Fuel supplier has an applicability threshold for suppliers of liquid fuels and petroleum products of 100,000 gallons or more of affected liquid fuels per emission year.

According to the Department of Environmental Conservation GHG Estimation Tool 100,000 gallons of distillate fuel oil number 2 emits 1,351 metric tons of CO2.  The California GHG reporting rule uses a threshold of 10,000 metric tons which is equivalent to 740,126 gallons.  The United States Environmental Protection Agency GHG emission reporting rule threshold is 25,000 metric tons which is equivalent to 1,850,314 gallons.  Using a higher threshold that targets primary supply terminals will cover the fuel emissions while reducing the overall industry reporting burden and the DEC processing burden.  

The 100,000 gallon threshold is so low that it would require most retail distributors to report emissions. These small companies have NO experience reporting GHG emissions.  In addition, the rules include a verification mandate for large emissions sources.  This would require hiring a third party to verify that the data they submit is accurate.  Retail heating oil and propane suppliers do not have ready access to resources to report emissions so this would be burdensome.

Other NYCI Compliance Obligations

The Part 253 GHG reporting rule is one component of the regulations for NYCI.  The reporting emissions requirement for fuel suppliers that process 100,000 gallons suggests that those facilities could be required to participate in the NYCI allowance market.  If that happens then small companies will require significant training or need to hire an experienced consultant to develop a compliance strategy.  They need to estimate their expected emissions. They would then be required to purchase allowances either through an auction or a broker, incorporate the allowance price into their retail price, generate compliance reports, and surrender allowances for compliance.  This would be an extraordinary financial and resource burden for small businesses.

Recommendation

The draft rules impose an unnecessary and expensive burden on retail fuel suppliers because the applicability thresholds are so low.  This challenge to small fuel supply businesses can be addressed by setting the Part 253 emissions reporting and the allowance compliance rule threshold at 25,000 metric tons.  It is more efficient and appropriate to make the primary fuel terminal suppliers responsible for reporting emissions and complying with the NYCI allowance regulation.  The only obligation for small distributors should be reporting annual fuel sales.

I would appreciate it if readers would submit a comment to the online DEC portal.  After filling out your name, location, and other information there is a spot to insert a comment.  Please just copy the preceding paragraph in that location.  Tell them you are not a robot and submit.  Thank you.

Discussion

NYCI is floundering.  Governor Hochul is not pushing to get it implemented.  I suspect that it is because when the other rules are promulgated it will be necessary to set a price on the allowances.  At that point it will become clear to the public that their costs will increase.  Climate activists don’t seem to grasp that raising money by making the “polluters pay” will just mean consumer costs will increase. 

It is also clear that in the rush to get rules drafted, that some decisions were made without considering the ramifications.  The inconsistency between the large emission source GHG associated with 100,000 gallons (1,351 MT) and the 10,000 MT threshold for other sources is unexplained.  As a result, of that definition, many small businesses will be required to learn how to report emissions. If they report their fuel use to DEC, then DEC can calculate the emissions and remove the chance for calculation errors.  If the primary fuel terminals are the reporting entity reporting burdens and processing burdens will be reduced and all the emissions will still be counted.

Conclusion

Activists continue to agitate for implementing NYCI faster in the hopes that this magical solution will work as advertised. However, it is not moving quickly.  Maybe the Administration has caught on to the fact that it won’t work out as advertised and that accounts for the delay.  I have no idea if that is the reason, but I am sure that NYCI has more downside risk than proponents realize.

2024 New York State Wind Resources

I recently published a status update on New York State wind and solar capacity factors. Peter Carney alerted me to New York Independent System Operator hourly wind and wind curtailment data for 2024.  I have not been able to find those data sets since I evaluated the 2021 data so this article summarizes 2024 wind data.

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 and a mandate for zero-emissions electricity by 2040.  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. 

This article summarizes the hourly wind production (MW), hourly wind curtailments (MW) and capacity factors for 2024.  Production is simply the generation from all industrial wind turbines each hour.  The New York Independent System Operator (NYISO) describes curtailment of wind as limits on their output when it is economically or operationally necessary to reduce wind generation.  The capacity factor is a useful metric to understand electric generation resources.  The annual capacity factor for a generator equals the actual observed generation (MWh) divided by maximum possible generation (capacity in MW times the hours in a year). 

2024 Wind Resources

The New York Independent System Operator (NYISO) 2024 Load & Capacity Data Report (also known as the “Gold Book”) is now available at the NYISO website: 2025 Load & Capacity Data Report. Table 1 lists the capacity data and net energy produced for the wind generating units in New York from that report.

Table 1: NY 2024 Wind Facilities in the 2025 Gold Book

Table 2 summarizes the hourly NYISO wind production and curtailments in 2024.  I do not think that the production results are particularly impressive.  The percentiles are shown in the first column and the data indicate that wind power is greater than 71% of the total capacity only 87 hours (99th percentile) in 2024.  Three quarters of the time, the production is less than 1,053 MW equivalent to about one third of the total capacity.  If you assume that less than 10% of production is the threshold for appreciable support to the grid, then wind was not producing meaningful power 30% of the time.   I calculated that there was a period of 107 consecutive hours when the wind production was less than 10% of the total.  Curtailments do not appear to be an issue in New York yet.

Table 2: 2024 NYISO Hourly Wind Production Summary for the Entire New York Control Area

Table 3 summarizes the hourly production in 2021 and is useful to show interannual variation.  In 2021 the 99th percentile was slightly better at 78% compared to 71% in 2024.  At the 75th percentile production was 33% of the total in 2021 and in 2024 it was 36%.  The 10% threshold was 30% in both years.  In my opinion there was no substantive difference between 2021 and 2024.

Table 3: 2021 NYISO Hourly Wind Production Summary for the Entire New York Control Area

Curtailment Discussion

Parker Gallant keeps track of wind energy production in Ontario and the problem of what to do with excess wind energy when the production from Ontario exceeds the load.  The current strategy is to dump the excess power into Quebec, New York, and Michigan at a low price which has short-term consumer benefits to those jurisdictions.  However, Gallant has documented that through 4/26/25 dumping the excess wind and solar energy cost Ontario ratepayers a total for the month had reached $101 million which is about $20 per Ontario household.  I suspect that when New York builds all the wind capacity needed for the Climate Act that similar problems will occur in New York.  How that affects Ontario the curtailment situation in Ontario is open for discussion.

Production Discussion

The production results have an important ramification for resource planning.  The existing wind facilities are spread across the state and wind production is highly correlated.  Half the time the total generation capacity is around 17% of the total.  This means that improving energy production substantially requires a lot more generation capacity.  For example, in 2021 the production at the 25th percentile was 151.6 MW and in 2024 the production at the 25th percentile was 233 MW an increase of 81 MW.  However, the nameplate capacity in 2021 was 2,191 and in 2024 it was 2,858 MW an increase of 667 MW.  The investment of 667 MW of wind capacity only increased production 81 MW at the 25th percentile.

In my previous article I discussed the unreconciled differences between the Integration Analysis and observations.   Three years later there still hasn’t been any acknowledgement that the Integration Analysis overestimated the production capability of wind investments. This means that more wind development is necessary to meet the Climate Act goals.

Conclusion

The Climate Act 2040 zero-emissions target will require much greater reliance on wind and solar generating resources.  Unfortunately, the authors of the Climate Act did not recognize limitations for those resources.  These results show that land-based wind in New York is not a particularly good resource.  Wintertime solar is poor because of New York’s high latitude with short days in the winter and cloudiness downwind of the Great Lakes.   The ramifications on reliability and affordability of these poor resources has not been acknowledged.

Three years ago, I noted that it is imperative that the State conduct a detailed evaluation of renewable energy resource availability to determine the generation and energy storage requirements of the future New York electrical system.  There has been some progress in the evaluation of renewable resources, but the ramifications have not inspired any reaction by the those responsible for future energy planning.  In my opinion, resolving the issues shown in this article need to be addressed sooner rather than later.

The Fallacy of Cheap Solar and Wind

The solar and wind mandates in the Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act) were no doubt heavily influenced by the idea that renewable energy is cheap.  This post describes three articles by Planning Engineer (Russ Schussler) that eviscerate that argument.

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.

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. 

One rule is Public Service Law Section 66-P Establishment of a renewable energy program that requires the Public Service Commission to establish a program to meet the interim Climate Act targets for 70% of the energy delivered in 2030 “shall be generated by renewable energy systems” and that “by the year two thousand forty the statewide electrical demand system will be zero emissions”.  This mandate establishes a preference for solar and wind in the future New York grid.

Advocates think this will mean cheaper prices.  A quick search for cheap solar quickly an example of the cheap claim.  Pierina Fiestas recently updated an article at the WTS Energy website that claimed: “Solar energy has come a long way over the past few decades, and today it has become the cheapest source of electricity in history, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA).”

Russ Schussler is a retired electric system planner who wrote many articles at Climate Etc about the electric system under the pen name Planning Energy before he retired.  He recently posted a three-part series that addresses the myth of cheaper renewables: Why “cheaper” wind and solar raise costs. Part I: The fat tail problem;  Part II: The hidden costs of residential solar; and Part III: The problem with power markets

The Fat Tail Problem

I have argued elsewhere that green energy works well until you really need it and then it does not work.  Schussler notes that “just because a resource is cheaper most of the time that does not mean that it reduces overall system costs”. His post explains why renewable energy costs must be considered within the context of constant energy supply not just when the sun shines and the wind blows.

The fat tail problem refers to the shape of the total cost curve but don’t worry about that reference.  Schussler explains that the fat tail problem is simply the fact that rare but extreme events drive the costs of the electric system.  He notes:

Peak demand periods in power systems drive costs that overshadow renewables’ savings during easy times. Electricity demand fluctuates, and supplying power is far more challenging—and expensive—during certain periods.

His post includes both a generalized description and a more detailed discussion as backup.  He explains:

Typically, the most difficult times are peak demand periods in winter and summer, which account for less than 5% of the year.  During a single hour of peak demand, electricity costs can spike orders of magnitude higher than the typical average cost, forcing utilities to rely on expensive backup plants that sit idle most of the year.  For example, during the January 2014 Polar Vortex, a massive cold snap gripped the eastern U.S., driving electricity demand for heating across the PJM Interconnection to record levels. With no spare power to share among states, wholesale prices soared to $2,000 per megawatt-hour, over 60 times the typical $30/MWH average. Smaller localized events are more common with less drastic price fluctuations, but they contribute as well to the fat tail problem.

This is a particular issue with renewables that advocates ignore:

Wind and solar often shine during easy times, producing electricity at a lower marginal cost than traditional sources like natural gas or nuclear power. However, their output is intermittent and less reliable during peak periods, when weather conditions may not align with demand. Relying heavily on renewables requires backup systems—often expensive fossil fuel or nuclear plants—to ensure reliability during these critical fat tail events. The cost of maintaining these backup systems, combined with the infrastructure needed to integrate intermittent renewables, can greatly outweigh the savings from cheap renewable energy during easy times.

This problem is exacerbated because the peak load often occurs when wind resources are low and winter peaks occur when days are short.  The b0ttom line is that if you consider the total costs to provide power over every hour of the year, then the added costs for the extreme situations increase total costs so much that solar and wind are not the “cheapest”.

Hidden Costs of Residential Solar

In his second post, Schussler explains that residential solar has an issue like the fat tail.  He states that:

Residential solar follows a similar pattern: it seems affordable for homeowners, but raises system costs through rate structures that over-incentivize adoption. Generous subsidies, like retail-rate net metering, drive excessive solar growth, risking grid stability and shifting costs to non-solar customers that are often less affluent.

Schussler explains the problem of cost-shifting through rate structures well:

It’s hard to understand why many don’t see the unfairness in rate structures, as similar arrangements would seem absurd in other industries. Imagine hotels required to keep rooms ready for all customers (at standard rates) just in case they “might” want them. Worse, during low occupancy, hotels must send guests to customers’ Airbnb properties whenever there are excess rooms. Or consider pizza chains forced to buy excess pizzas from restaurants during slow hours while supplying low-cost pizzas during peak hours and covering all pickup and delivery costs. In all of these cases, the major problem is that large infrastructure investment is required that will sit idle most of the time and receive inadequate compensation from the beneficiaries.

He goes on to explain how the residential rate structure currently in use in New York is another incentive for the Climate Act transition.  He provides details on “net-metering” which in one way or another enables residential owners to serve their own needs and sell the excess that the don’t need back to the utility at a rate unfavorable to the utility and everyone who does not have solar panels.

Not surprisingly, the greater the incentive offered the more solar panels installed.  However, he also explains that there are significant costs to the system:

  • Lost Revenue: Utilities need steady charges to cover fixed costs (grid lines, backup power). Solar homeowners avoid these during low-demand periods, reducing revenue.
  • Overpaid Purchases: High credits for low-value power strain utility budgets.
  • Fat Tail Costs: Peak periods drive high costs (peaking plants and transmission and distribution expansion). Non-solar customers face 1-2% rate hikes in high-solar areas, per National Renewable Energy Laboratory studies.

Schussler also recommends a path forward that would “reduce incentives and align adoption with grid economics”.

Problem with Power Markets

In the third post Schussler describes why power markets that can optimize resource allocation in many sectors, “struggle to deliver affordability and reliability in electricity systems dominated by intermittent renewables.”

Schussler succinctly describes how power markets and the problem with renewables:

Power markets use a merit-order dispatch system, where generators bid their costs, and the market sets prices based on the most expensive unit needed. During “easy” times—when demand is low or renewable output is high—wind and solar often dominate. Their near-zero marginal costs (no fuel expenses) allow them to bid low, displacing higher-cost fossil fuel plants and driving down market prices. This creates the appearance of cheap electricity and fuels the narrative that renewables are inherently cost-effective.

However, during peak or extreme conditions, wind and solar often underperform due to weather or diurnal constraints. For example, wind speeds may drop during heatwaves, or solar output may be negligible at night or during cloudy winters. When demand spikes or renewables falter, markets rely on dispatchable resources—combined cycle plants, combustion turbines, or even older coal units—to meet the shortfall. These resources have higher marginal costs and are often called upon during the most expensive hours, driving market prices skyward. During Winter Storm Uri in February 2021, ERCOT prices surged to $9,000/MWh as renewables underperformed and demand soared. As discussed in the first posting, doing well most of the time is not enough. The challenge in providing costly backup during peak shortages exposes the limitations of power markets.

He goes on to note that he generally supports market-based systems over central planning.  However, he also explains why there are issues with power markets.  He notes:

Electricity differs from most commodities, with highly inelastic demand and a need for instantaneous balance between supply and demand to maintain grid stability. Unlike markets for goods like wheat or electronics, where substitutes abound, electricity has few viable alternatives. Storage technologies, such as batteries, remain costly and limited, unable to support seasonal needs, leaving utilities reliant on traditional generation (e.g., natural gas, coal, nuclear) to fill gaps left by intermittent wind and solar. This complexity makes electricity a poor fit for market-driven systems.

This complexity requires ten additional markets besides the real-time pricing market needed to address electric complexity.  Unfortunately, power markets “tend to prioritize short-term efficiency over long-term reliability.”  Consequently, we have seen blackouts occur because of market failures. 

He points to the best evidence that solar and wind do not reduce costs:

If you look globally there is an unmistakable pattern: “regions with high renewable penetration often face higher electricity prices.  Germany, with its aggressive Energiewende, has some of the highest retail electricity rates in Europe, despite abundant wind and solar.  In contrast, regions, like France, with balanced mixes, including nuclear and natural gas, often maintain lower and more stable prices. Power markets’ short-term focus exacerbates cost increases by neglecting reliability during high-cost events.

Conclusion

I cannot provide a better closing than just quoting Schussler’s conclusions.

Modern civilization needs electricity most all of the time. Otherwise wind and solar would be a better deal.  But having energy 80% or 90% of the time is not enough. Although there are many programs and approaches employed to limit electric use during peak times, large amounts of electricity are not shiftable away from peak periods. Consumers need cooling when it is hot and heating when the temperature is frigid. Those needs ensure the fat tail can’t be significantly slimmed down.

Poor rate designs hide solar’s true costs, making it seem affordable while raising electricity rates for all. Retail-rate net metering drives excessive adoption of solar, shifting costs to non-solar customers. Less supportive rates, like avoided costs or California’s NEM 3.0, slow solar growth, aligning it with grid needs. This ensures fairness and avoids cost spirals. A sustainable energy supply requires pricing that reflects true costs, ensuring affordability for all.

For now, the takeaway is this: power markets amplify the cost challenges of renewables by prioritizing short-term gains over long-term reliability.  A sustainable energy system must prioritize reliability and affordability through regulated planning, market reforms, or other tailored approaches addressing power market limitations. Policymakers must prioritize reliability over short-term market gains for a resilient, affordable energy future.

NYISO 2025 Power Trends Report

Recently the New York Independent System Operator (NYISO) released Power Trends 2025.  This is the NYISO’s annual analysis of factors influencing New York State’s power grid and wholesale electricity markets.  This post highlights some of the key points made.

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.

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.  One law is Public Service Law Section 66-P Establishment of a renewable energy program that requires the Public Service Commission to establish a program to meet the interim targets for 70% of the energy delivered in 2030 “shall be generated by renewable energy systems” and that “by the year two thousand forty the statewide electrical demand system will be zero emissions”.

The Power Trends Resources landing page provides documentation and links to the Power Trends 2025 report itself, and a Power Trends Fact Sheet.  The Fact Sheet describes the report and summarizes the findings:

Power Trends explores the issues and challenges shaping the grid of the future based on the latest economic data, forecasts of peak demand and changing generation mix.  Our 2025 report underscores the heightened uncertainty of future system conditions and key assumptions such as population and economic growth, installation of behind-the-meter renewable resources, electric vehicle adoption and charging patterns.   Specifically, the impact on the load forecast of several energy-intensive economic development projects, such as data centers and semiconductor manufacturing, provides additional forecasting and planning challenges.

I have summarized the key points made in the Fact Sheet, the Power Trends report and the Press Release with my comments.

Reliability Margins

The Fact Sheet, Power Trends Report, and Press Release emphasize the concern about declining reliability margins.  The Press Release explains:

Generator deactivations are outpacing new supply additions. Electrification programs and new large-load customers associated with economic development initiatives are pushing projected demand higher. Together, these forces are also narrowing reliability margins across New York and increasing the risk of future reliability needs.

Recent Power Trend reports have included the declining reliability margins issue.  The following figure shows last year’s status compared to this year.  The decline in margin is mostly because fossil units are retiring faster than zero emissions replacements are coming on-line. 

Fossil Plants

All three NYISO documents note that the average age of the fossil fleet is increasing.  They also point out the advantages of modernizing old fossil facilities.  The Press Release explains:

Repowering aging power plants can lower emissions, meet rising consumer demand, and provide reliability benefits to the grid that are needed to integrate additional clean energy resources.

The declining margin and the age of the fossil plants reflects a lack of foresight by the New York Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) who has been pressuring existing power plants to reduce emissions or shut down. 

Power Trends states that: “Repowering aging power plants can lower emissions, meet rising consumer demand, and provide reliability benefits to the grid that are needed to integrate additional clean energy resources.”  DEC has rejected several repowering applications to replace existing old generators with modern new facilities because of the Climate Act.  Unfortunately, there is no direct link between the proposed facilities and a particular reliability issue, so DEC rejected the applications.  This is an example of poor New York energy planning – the permit decisions were considered in isolation not in the context of the system.  While I applaud the fact that this is a recommendation of Power Trends, it is also fair to ask why the NYISO did not intervene in the repowering applications. 

New Load Growth

Future reliability margins will also be affected by new load growth.  The Fact Sheet and Report note that “New high-tech, AI and data center projects are having an impact on future electric demand and load growth”.  Figure 1 from the Report notes that 2,567 MW of new load capacity is needed by 2035 and the document notes that other projects could add around 1,900 MW of capacity after that.  I am disappointed that the NYISO Report did not mention that these new load centers require constant energy and clean power that is free from electrical noise, surges, voltage spikes, and drops which exacerbates the challenge of the Public Service Law Section 66-P “Establishment of a renewable energy program” requirements.

Winter Shift

The three NYISO documents all note that the peak loads are projected to shift to the winter from the summer.  The Press Release notes that:

New York is projected to become a winter-peaking electric system by the 2040s, driven primarily by electrification of space heating and transportation. On the coldest days, the availability of natural gas for power generation can be limited, and interruptions to natural gas supply will introduce further challenges for reliable electric grid operations.

There is another unmentioned issue with winter peaking.  When the Public Service Law Section 66-P “Establishment of a renewable energy program” electric system that relies on wind and solar generating resources is in place, the winter solar availability is much lower than in the summer.  This is another challenge that I think the Power Trends report should have acknowledged.

Competitive Market

The Fact Sheet, Power Trends Report, and Press Release all extoll the power of competitive markets to support the transition while maintaining reliability and minimizing consumer costs.  The NYISO is a product of the de-regulated competitive market. The report explains that: We are committed to administering and overseeing the competitive electricity markets as the most cost-effective way to attract and retain new resources to meet our reliability needs as we transition to a decarbonized grid.”  I do not share their optimistic outlook for the ability to attract and retain new resources.  At this time, it is not clear what kind of resources and how much of those resources are needed, so the presumption that they can design a market to attract those resources is questionable.

Interconnection Process

The three NYISO documents all note that there are interconnection issues.  The Press Release states:

New supply, load, and transmission projects are seeking to interconnect to the grid at record levels. NYISO’s interconnection processes continue to evolve to balance developer flexibility with the need to manage the process to more stringent timeframes.

This is an issue that is directly within the purview of NYISO, and it is a problem.  Power Trends describes proposed modifications to the process but does not acknowledge that there are fundamental issues.  Many of the new projects are inverter-based resources and integrating this new category of resources is problematic for grid stability and reliability.  Regulatory frameworks are under development to address this problem, and this has contributed to the interconnection delays.

Discussion

The Climate Act was promulgated without consideration of feasibility.  Nowhere is this more impactful than with respect to the schedule.  A rational New York energy plan would implement the zero-emission resources before retiring existing generating resources.  New York is not rational.  Despite the obvious delays in construction of new supply and transmission due to a whole host is issues the Hochul Administration has not broached the possibility of postponing any Climate Act targets.

The current Climate Act implementation plans appears to just be a matter of building as many zero-emissions resources as possible as soon as possible. These reliability planning reports indirectly affect the implementation schedule.  The process identifies specific issues which triggers a procedure to address them.  All that takes time.  Coupled with the interconnection process it is no wonder that deployments are lagging behind the Scoping Plan schedule.

In my opinion the biggest reliability challenge for the Public Service Las Section 66-P “Establishment of a renewable energy program” is the necessity of a new category of electric system support technology that can be reliably dispatched to provide both energy and capacity over long durations with no emissions.  NYISO calls this resource the Dispatchable Emissions-Free Resource (DEFR). They are “crucial for meeting energy demands when intermittent renewable sources like solar and wind are unavailable.”  The challenge is we don’t know what will work and we don’t know how much is needed because an analysis of potential renewable resource availability using the longest duration dataset available has not been completed.

I think that NYISO has become more forthcoming about the Climate Act issues in this edition of the report.  I am still disappointed with the NYISO for several reasons.  In the first place, it is still necessary to read between the lines in all their reports to understand that they know there are enormous challenges associated with the transition to a renewable energy electric system.  I think that is a disservice to the residents of New York.  A truly independent agency should explicitly describe the reliability and affordability difficulties facing the electric system without holding back. 

I am also disappointed that the Power Trends document did not describe specific issues with the key points presented.  As noted above, this edition of Power Trends does not acknowledge challenges associated with the need for clean and reliable electric energy for proposed new load centers, fossil retirements and repowering policies, weather-related complications associated with the shift to winter peaking, interconnection feasibility concerns, and DEFR

Finally, I wish that NYISO would be more assertive in New York energy policy matters.   It is understandable given the bully-tactics of the Cuomo Administration but New York State needs to hear from the experts.  Power Trends notes that we need to do repowering, but NYISO did not intercede directly to advocate for repowering applications that were rejected. 

Conclusion

The following conclusion is identical to last year’s summary here because nothing has changed.

The Power Trends 2025  report provides an excellent overview of New York State’s power grid and wholesale electricity markets.  Unfortunately, NYISO does not consolidate all the warning signs about Climate Act implementation, nor does it call out state policies that are exacerbating problems.

Ultimately the problem is that New York has no comprehensive energy plan.  The Scoping Plan is just a list of technologies that describe an electric system that is zero-emissions.  However, there is no feasibility study that shows how it will work nor has the Hochul Administration reconciled the differences between the Scoping Plan and NYISO resource outlooks.  As it stands now the Administration plan is to build as many wind and solar facilities as possible and hope someone works out how they are supposed to be integrated into the electric system.  When that does not work, I predict the NYISO will be blamed.

The only way to ensure the safety of New Yorkers is to do a demonstration project that proves that an electric system that relies on wind and solar energy will work.  A poor second choice would be a comprehensive feasibility analysis that reconciles the Integration Analysis and NYISO analyses.  Failing to do either is planning to fail.

More Reasons to Pause Climate Act Implementation

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.

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. 

Energy Austerity Dangers

David Turver writing at Eigen Values explains that as more energy dense sources of power were used in England that less time and effort to survive was needed.  That freed up time and resources were made available for innovation and development of art and culture.  Furthermore, he states “Arguably, the availability of cheap, abundant energy enabled the Slavery Abolition Act to be passed in 1833 and the British Empire had sufficient surplus of energy, men and money to afford a Royal Navy to enforce the ban in the North Atlantic.”  The use of cheap, abundant energy has transformed society in many positive ways.

There are problems brewing:

Unfortunately, the expansion of energy and wealth can lead to complacency and we collectively forget what it was that allowed us to create the most prosperous society the world has ever known. Bad ideas like Malthusianism can flourish and luxury beliefs that undermine the very principles on which society was built can begin to take over.

………………..

In the name of saving the planet, we are being forced to give up on concentrated, reliable energy and energy supply is dwindling as shown by the orange line in Figure 3 below.

Energy prices have risen as supply has fallen through a combination of taxes on hydrocarbons, subsidising expensive renewables and incurring the extra costs of intermittency and remote connections. As a result, energy consumption is falling and the economy is stagnating as shown by the blue line in Figure 3 (data sourced from OWID).

Turver goes on to argue that the wealth gap will increase as the energy use per person decreases. People will have to spend more of their time just getting by so that societal disorders will increase.  He concludes that “If we continue down this Net Zero path, we will soon find that political change from energy austerity gets very ugly, very quickly.”  England is further down this unsustainable path, but New York will surely follow unless we acknowledge the folly of chasing intermittent and diffuse energy.

Zero-Emissions Transportation

Chapter 11 in the Scoping Plan outlines the zero-emissions strategy for the transportation sector:

Transitioning the transportation sector to zero-emission technologies is central to achieving GHG emission reduction requirements. In most cases, this means replacing existing vehicles that run on gasoline or diesel fuel with either battery electric, hydrogen fuel cell, or future zero-emission propulsion technologies.

Recent experience in Korea is not encouraging for the hydrogen fuel cell option.

In my comments on the Draft Scoping Plan I noted the admission in the document that the “transition to ZEVs for this subsector will entail a mix of battery electric and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles” depends on technologies that are “just beginning to emerge into the market”.   The text goes on to say: “Achieving the aggressive transition in this market will require a mix of regulations, incentives (which will require identifying new sources of funding), and removal of market barriers and depends on industry greatly accelerating the expansion of production capacity for these vehicles”.  I commented that the Final Scoping Plan must include a feasibility analysis to prove that these strategies are viable.  This suggestion was ignored. 

So how is deployment of hydrogen fuel cells working out in Korea?  Hyundai Motor Company has sold over 1,000 hydrogen fuel cell buses in Korea. On May 15, 2025, MPR Korea Certification described  Hyundai’s Elec City FCEV bus:

  • Equipped with a 180 kW fuel cell system, an 875-liter hydrogen tank, and a 78.4 kWh high-output battery.
  • Offers a driving range of up to 550 kilometers per charge.
  • Each bus can reduce CO₂ emissions by approximately 72 tons annually

According to the MPR website: “Hydrogen drive related components and equipment usually require KGS certification in order to be approved for import and sale in Korea.”  “KC Certification (also known as KC Safety Certification or KC Mark Korea Certification) is a product certification that proves the compliance of products with Korean safety regulations.”

Someone has a sense of humor because on May 21, 2025, Hydrogen Insight reported that:

Hyundai is recalling all units of its hydrogen-powered Elec City buses in South Korea after a faulty part was found to create a risk of hydrogen leakage, according to the country’s Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport (Molit).

Nick Carter notes that:

In September, the South Korean government decreed that 25 per cent of its metropolitan bus fleet would be powered by hydrogen by the decade’s end.

Three months later, a hydrogen-fueled bus exploded, sending debris into the face of a refueling station attendant in the city of Chungju and injuring two innocent passers-by.

Carter reports on the net-zero transition in Australia.  He pointed out that like New York, the net-zero transition is supposed to rely on green hydrogen to decarbonize hard to electrify sectors.  He explains:

Green hydrogen is vital to the government’s plan for net-zero emissions by 2050. In October, Chris Bowen set a target of producing a million tonnes of green hydrogen by the end of the decade, earmarking $8 billion in subsidies to achieve that goal.

That won’t happen, no matter how much borrowed money the government might throw at it. In Europe, EU member countries are scaling back their expectations and preparing to renege on their obligation under the European Union’s Renewable Energy Directive, which set a target of 42% green hydrogen usage in industry by 2030.

In a Facebook post, Norwegian cabinet minister Ola Borten Moe admitted that the technology was “light years away from being justifiable or sensible”.

New York is further behind in adoption. There are pilot programs in Rochester and New York City for hydrogen fuel cell buses.  They are also used in forklifts in the warehouse sector but there is no evidence that any private vehicles are using fuel cells.

Another Example of a Net-Zero Plan Disaster in the Making

The Energy Bad Boys recently described a partnership with the Arizona Free Enterprise Club to analyze the Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) of Arizona Public Service (APS).  Their findings were published in a March report detailing how APS’s self-imposed Environmental and Social Governance (ESG) goals of reaching 100 percent Net Zero by 2050 are going to cost its ratepayers billions of dollars in unnecessary costs and undermine grid reliability.

The IRP Preferred Plan proposes to replace coal and meet load growth with wind, solar, batteries, and demand management.  The Preferred Plan does see some savings in fuel expenses, but these savings are far dwarfed by the additional cost of building and maintaining new wind, solar, and battery storage facilities.

The authors conclude that “even in states without mandates for unreliable energy sources, monopoly utilities are rushing in to close down their reliable power plants to replace them with billions of dollars in new capital expenditures in the form of solar panels, battery facilities, and wind turbines.”  The inescapable conclusion is that even those resources aren’t very productive utilities are sacrificing reliability because it actually helps the utility’s bottom line.

One Big Beautiful Bill NY Implications

The environ MENTAL blog had an article that described changes in the recent “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” (1BBB) passed by the U.S. House of Representatives last week.  If the Senate passes a version of the bill without substantive changes to Title IV “Energy and Commerce” where 1BBB hammers or eliminates the key federal tax incentives that have underpinned wind and solar energy for too long, primarily by targeting “clean energy” tax credits, accelerating their expiration and imposing strict new eligibility requirements it will remove critical incentives to the renewable energy industry. 

The hyperbolic response to the loss of the endless subsidy stream by renewable energy developers chronicled in the article belie the argument that a transition to wind and solar will be cheaper.  The Energy Bad Boys article mentioned the passage of this legislation and included a figure that showed the subsidy extensions. 

The chart below summarizes the change to the subsidies.

If this passes it will have an immediate and substantial impact to New York’s renewable energy development plans.  I believe that many of the proposed wind and solar projects proposed for New York will not be viable without the subsidies.  If New York cannot develop those resources, then it is clear that a pause in Climate Act implementation is necessary.

Conclusion

New York cannot “solve” climate change on its own because our greenhouse gas contributions to the atmosphere are dwarfed by emissions elsewhere.  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 the current approach is not on the right path.  Pausing the insanity before it does more damage is the only rational path.

New York Solar Siting Status

I recently had the opportunity to give a briefing on solar siting issues and think it is time to publish an update here.  In my opinion, the deployment of solar resources exemplifies poor planning inherent in the Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act) net-zero transition plan.

I am convinced that implementation of the Climate Act net-zero mandates will do more harm than good 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 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.

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. 

Solar Mandates

Public Service Law Section 66-p requires the Public Service Commission (PSC) to establish a renewable energy program.   Subsection 66-p(2) requires the PSC to establish a program to require that 70% of the

statewide electric generation shall be generated by renewable energy systems; and that by 2040 the statewide electrical demand system will be zero emissions. This basically codifies the Scoping Plan outline for a decarbonized electric system.

Both the Scoping Plan Key Drivers Output spreadsheet and the New York Independent System Operator (NYISO)  2021-2040 System & Resource Outlook  project a massive increase in New York solar capacity (Table 1).  Note that the solar generating capacity increases to over 20% of total capacity by 2030 for both scenarios.

Table 1: Installed Capacity (MW) NYISO Outlook Scenario 1 and Integration Analysis Mitigation Scenario 2 – Strategic Use of Low-Carbon Fuels

I have a solar siting issues page that documents my concerns.  In my briefing I highlighted three issues with the solar siting policy in New York since the inception of the Climate Act: protection of prime farmland, agrivoltaics policy, and inconsistency with the Scoping Plan,.  The farmland and agrivoltaics issues are addressed by Specialist Committees in the New York State’s Agricultural Technical Working Group.  At their last meeting in November 2024 there were updates for the Regional Agronomic Impacts of Solar Energy (RAISE) Specialist Committee, the Agrivoltaics Specialist Committee, and the Scorecard Specialist Committee that will be discussed below.

Farmland Protection

The New York Department of Agriculture and Markets has guidelines for solar siting.  New York Department of Agriculture and Markets testimony notes that “The Department’s goal is for projects to limit the conversion of agricultural areas within the Project Areas, to no more than 10% of soils classified by the Department’s NYS Agricultural Land Classification mineral soil groups 1-4, generally Prime Farmland soils, which represent the State’s most productive farmland.”  That seems reasonable to me because they are the Agency responsible for supporting New York agriculture.

I keep track of the status of projects with this guideline with a Prime Farmland Scorecard.  At this time only 12 of the 25 facilities with available data at the Office of Renewable Energy Permit Applications site meet those guidelines.  Two facilities had no impacts on prime farmland.  If they can do it, why can’t others.

Table 2: Prime Farmland Scorecard Updated May 25, 2025

It is extremely frustrating to me that the Department of Ag and Markets recommendation was not adopted as a matter of course for solar development permitting.  Instead, the New York State Energy Research & Development Authority (NYSERDA) is studying the issue.  The Smart Siting Scorecard considers this siting concern:

NYSERDA has developed the Smart Solar Siting Scorecard to 1) provide a tool to address multiple solar siting considerations and site management practices from the perspective of environmental, agricultural, and climate interests and 2) to provide criteria for renewable energy developers to consider in siting future projects, and include within project design, operations and maintenance, and decommissioning plans to encourage a balanced approach between renewable energy siting and other New York State policies, goals, and objectives. The Scorecard Specialist Committee provides input to NYSERDA on what avoidance and minimization approach to reduce impacts on these lands and how to value these approaches in a Scorecard format.  

I do not see any sign of urgency to finalize and implement farmland protections using the scorecard.  The Smart Siting Scorecard Specialist Committee has had three meetings this year:

Worse it does not appear that a solar development can get a failing grade for not doing smart siting.  In my opinion, this is lip service to the issue.

Agrivoltaics Policy

In my opinion, responsible solar siting policy would include agrivoltaics requirements that would mitigate impacts to agriculture.  NYSERDA is in charge of agrivoltaics policy: 

Agrivoltaics is a new and emerging combination of technologies that enhance climate resilience and allow sustainable food and energy production. From crop production to livestock grazing and pollinator habitat, agrivoltaics can support a wide range of agriculture practices.

This rapidly growing sector of the solar energy industry is undergoing considerable research, development, and demonstration in the United States and across the globe.

For the latest information and guidance, read the Growing Agrivoltaics in New York State report [PDF].

The New York State’s Agricultural Technical Working Group’s (A-TWG) Agrivoltaics Specialist Committee manages the agrivoltaics policy.  Based on the update at the A-TWG meeting last November, they have meetings and train farmers.  NYSERDA is supporting their efforts with the Agrivoltaics Research and Demonstration Request for Proposal (PON 5752).  The deadline to submit proposals was Sept 12th and contracts were supposed to be awarded in the first quarter of 2025. Nothing has been funded yet.

There is another agrivoltaics study: Regional Agronomic Impacts of Solar Energy (RAISE):

In 2022, the State Farmland Protection Working Group recommended the State initiate a study, to determine the potential benefits and/or burdens of renewable energy development related to New York’s agricultural industry. NYSERDA has convened a Specialist Committee under the A-TWG to assist NYSERDA to undertake a study or studies to assess the impact of solar development on the agricultural economy in the state. The study will inform State and regional policy, and will include an assessment of land use conversions, economic pressures, and other factors. The RAISE Specialist Committee shall:

  • Advise on developing scope(s) of work and associated study methodologies.
  • Identify information, data, and resources helpful to undertaking associated agricultural, economic, land use and other analyses.
  • Make recommendations on undertaking additional studies or actions.

I have found that NYSERDA sponsored research related to the Climate Act is designed to further the narrative that the transition is simple, cheap, and has inconsequential negative impacts.  The RAISE presentation at the last A-TWG meeting described takeaways for the impacts of solar development on agricultural  land values illustrates this on the following slide.  If solar lease rates are higher than agriculture lease rates, then it is obvious that landowners will preferentially lease to the solar developers making it more difficult for farmers who need to lease land to operate.  Note the weasel words – “limited research”, no “direct impact”, and could be “more vulnerable” in the description that try to avoid concluding the obvious.  The longer this report takes to be released the longer these negative impacts will persist and the more the developers can continue to negatively impact agriculture.

Scoping Plan Inconsistency

The capacity factor is a measure of how much energy can be provided by a generating facility in a year.  It is simply the amount of energy produced (MWh) divided by the capacity (MW) times the number of hours in the year.  Table 3 lists the capacity factors for the resources listed in Table 1. In my opinion, the Scoping Plan solar capacity factors are biased high.  I believe the only way these factors can be achieved is if the installed solar facilities use tilting axis solar panels.

Table 3: Capacity Factors (%) NYISO Outlook Study S-1 and Scoping Plan Scenario 2

I recently reported on the observed capacity factors of solar facilities.  Table 4 lists individual station factors.

Table 4: New York State Utility-Scale Solar Facility Capacity Factors Based on NYISO “Gold Book” Load & Capacity Data Reports Table III-1

Assuming a linear interpolation between the Scoping Plan Strategic Use of Low Carbon Fuels 2020 capacity factor of 17% and the 2023 factor of 20%, the expected capacity factor was 18.2%.  The observed capacity factors are lower than the Scoping Plan projection and I believe that is likely because NYSERDA does not require solar developers to install tilting axis solar panels to obtain subsidies from the State.

Discussion

The Scoping Plan is just an outline of emission reduction strategies that NYSERDA claims will achieve the goals of the Climate Act.  There never has been a feasibility analysis that proves that the Public Service Law Section 66-p requirement to establish a renewable energy program can work and there are no jurisdictions anywhere that have successfully developed an electric system that relies primarily on wind, solar, and energy storage. As far as I can tell, the Hochul Administration plan is to build as much wind and solar as possible, as fast as possible. That approach meant that there was no provision to develop responsible solar siting guidelines. 

The failure to plan has had negative consequences.  The decision to not require developers to meet the Department of Ag & Markets prime farmland protection guideline has led to the destruction of 6,650 acres of prime farmland.  The lack of an agrivoltaic policy means that very few developers are trying to mitigate the impact of solar panels.  The failure to require utility-scale solar facilities to use tilting-axis solar panels means that even more land will be covered in solar panels.

This was all preventable.  The claim that these programs had to be implemented as fast as possible because of the existential threat of climate change is no excuse.  If New York were able to eliminate all its GHG emissions, the effect of global emission increases elsewhere would supplant our efforts in one year.  New York GHG emissions are less than one half of one percent of global emissions and global emissions have been increasing on average by more than one half of one percent per year since 1990.  

Conclusion

NYSERDA has lost its way as a source of unbiased scientific information to guide energy policy in New York.  Their Climate Act responsibilities are opaque, their work products are biased to support the political narrative, there is no sense of urgency to address obvious deficiencies in current policy, and they do not respond to stakeholder concerns.  This has significant negative consequences for New York.

I cannot help but think that there is another reason for the development policy to build as much as possible as fast as possible.  The developers of these facilities push that narrative because they know that limits on using prime farmland and mandates to use tilting-axis solar panels will hurt their profitability.  It is all about the money.

Status Update on New York Wind and Solar Generation Capacity Factors

Note – Table 2 was corrected on May 25, 2025 at 21:30 EDT

Last year I published an article describing the New York Independent System Operator (NYISO) Load & Capacity Data Report (also known as the “Gold Book”) and how I used it.  This post uses the latest edition to determine the wind and solar capacity factors last year.

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.

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 and a mandate for zero-emissions electricity by 2040.  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. 

.

Capacity Factor

The capacity factor is a useful metric to understand electric generation resources.  The annual capacity factor for a generator equals the actual observed generation (MWh) divided by maximum possible generation (capacity in MW times the hours in a year).  Projections for the amount of future wind and solar generation capacity needed for the Climate Act depend on capacity factor assumptions.

Not surprisingly, the aspirational schedule of the Climate Act has proven to be more difficult to implement than planned and many aspects of the transition are falling behind.  Worse, there has not been any indication that the Scoping Plan is being refined to incorporate the lessons learned in the years since it was drafted or address any of the issues raised in the comments.  The capacity factor assumptions are a prime example of an issue that needs to be addressed.

Wind and Solar Capacity Factor Projections

I have previously summarized future resource projections. The New York Independent System Operator (NYISO) 2021-2040 System & Resource Outlook is part of the NYISO Comprehensive System Planning Process.  That analysis included several scenarios for the future grid that includes capacity factor projections.  The Integration Analysis also included several scenarios and capacity factor projections.  In both instances the capacity factor projections determine how much wind and solar capacity will be needed in the future.

I am not the only one who submitted comments about the Scoping Plan capacity factors.  I pointed out that the Integration Analysis land-based wind capacity factors were unrealistically high.  The model projected the 2020 generation with a capacity factor of 29% but the 2021 observed capacity factor was only 22%.  The Integration Analysis model could not even get the starting year correct.  As a result, the Integration Analysis projections for the land-based wind capacity needed to meet the load are too low.  It is particularly disturbing that the State has never attempted to reconcile the NYISO projections and assumptions with the Integration Analysis.  For all renewable resources the Integration Analysis capacity factors are higher than the NYISO projections as shown in Table 1.

Table 1: Capacity Factors (%) NYISO Outlook Study S-1 and Integration Analysis Mitigation S-2

2024 Wind and Solar Observed Capacity Factors

The New York Independent System Operator (NYISO) 2024 Load & Capacity Data Report (also known as the “Gold Book”) is now available and has been posted on the NYISO website: 2025 Load & Capacity Data Report (Gold Book).  Many of the most useful tables are also provided as spreadsheets.  The following supplemental materials have also been posted:

The Existing Generating Facilities spreadsheet was used to calculate New York capacity factors.  Table 2 sums the capacities and net energy for all the combinations of primary fuel type and secondary fuel type for all the generators tracked by the NYISO.  This includes units that are in the market system as well as others that are not.  The nameplate capacity of generating units that use natural gas and can also burn number 2 fuel oil is the largest category in the state.

Table 2: 2025 NYISO Gold Book Tables III – 2a NYISO Market Generators and Table III – 2b Non-Market Generators 2023 Capacity, Energy, and Capacity Factors

Table 3 lists the capacity data and net energy produced for the wind generating units in New York.  Note that the Western NY Wind Power site was deactivated and that the offshore Southfork Wind Farm came on line on July 16, 2024.  Using the data, it is possible to calculate the capacity factors for each facility.  The NYISO Resource Outlook and the Integration Analysis both assume a land-based 34% capacity factor in 2030.  Only one wind farm exceeded 34% and there were seven more that were over 30% capacity of the 30 wind farms in New York.  In 2023 two exceeded 34% and three exceeded 30%.  The overall capacity factor was up from 21.8% to 23.4%.  To achieve the assumed capacity factor for 2030 most of the existing onshore wind farms will have to be replaced.  The Integration Analysis does not retire any of the existing wind farms which I suspect is so that the cost estimate does not have to include those costs.

One of the oft-touted benefits of offshore wind is that it will have higher capacity factors.  The NYISO Resource Outlook and the Integration Analysis both assume offshore wind capacity factors of at least 45% in 2030.  The annual observed capacity factor was only 34.8%.  I assumed that the full capacity was available on the in-service date.  That might explain why the offshore wind capacity is so low.

Table 3: NY 2024 Wind Facilities in the 2025 Gold Book

I have been tracking the wind farm capacity factors since 2006 as shown in Table 4.  There is nothing to suggest that 2024 was an abnormal year.  To meet the 2030 projections these wind farms are going to have to be replaced or a large number of wind farms with much higher capacity factors that will bring the average up will have to be built.  The data shown are also interesting as they show large interannual variation by site and the state overall.  Finally note that the NYISO wind capacity factor for 2019 was modeled as 25% but the observed capacity factor was  22.3%.  The Integration Analysis did not get their first year correct either.  It modeled the 2020 capacity factor as 29% but the observed capacity factor was only 23.9%.

Table 4: New York State Onshore Wind Facility Capacity Factors Based on NYISO “Gold Book” Load & Capacity Data Reports Table III-1

In 2024 the capacity factor of the solar facilities in New York was 17.7%, the highest capacity factor was 22.6% and the lowest capacity factor was 12.8%. The NYISO assumed a capacity factor of 15% from 2019 to 2040.  On the other hand, the Integration Analysis assumed a capacity factor of 17% in 2020, increasing to 20% by 2030 so they expected a capacity factor of 18.2% in 2024.  The observed capacity is less than the Integration Analysis.

Table 5: NY 2024 Utility-Scale Solar Facilities in the 2025 Gold Book

I have been tracking the industrial solar facility capacity factors since 2018 as shown in Table 6 but until 2022 there was only one reporting facility.  There is nothing to suggest that 2024 was an abnormal year. 

Table 6: New York State Utility-Scale Solar Facility Capacity Factors Based on NYISO “Gold Book” Load & Capacity Data Reports Table III-1

Discussion

The NYISO has interesting generation resource information available in its Gold Book.  As shown here, that information can be used to calculate the capacity factors for wind and solar resources in New York.  The annual wind capacity factors observed are consistently lower than the values used in the Integration Analysis which is being used to implement the state plan to meet the Climate Act mandates.  Solar is better but the statewide capacity factor is less than the Integration Analysis projection in 2024  As a result, The Scoping Plan is underpredicting the wind and solar resources necessary to generate the energy they project will be needed. That means that their cost projections are too low.

It is troubling that the differences shown here between the NYISO capacity factors and the Integration Analysis capacity factors have not been reconciled.  Worse, none of the differences between the two sets of projected resource projections have been addressed.  This matters not only because the differences affect the projected outcomes and the costs, but also because Integration Analysis projections are being used for the New York Cap-and-Invest (NYCI) Program proposal.A key component of the NYCI plan is the trajectory for allowance allocations.  NYCI’s reduction trajectory is based on the Integration Analysis and the overly optimistic capacity factors used means that they are projecting lower emissions than is likely to occur.  That imbalance could have significant consequences to the allowance market.

One other point is that these are annual metrics.  In order to assure that the electric grid will be able to provide energy when it is needed the most the NYISO must deal with resource availability over shorter periods.  Think of it as the capacity factor over the coldest week of the year.  That is a much more difficult issue and one that the Scoping Plan did not address and has not been addressed by the Public Service Commission.

Conclusion

This post documents the most recent wind and solar capacity factors observed in New York.  It is notable that the wind data show a lot of interannual variation that should be considered when projecting future resource availability.  Historical data have not been incorporated into an updated analysis of the generating resources needed to achieve the Climate Act goals. 

I have long argued that the State’s plans for implementing the Climate Act mandates must include a feasibility study that could address the observed variability and lower capacity factors.  Given the tremendous uncertainties like these shown here, I have recently decided that a feasibility study is not enough.  No jurisdiction anywhere has successfully demonstrated an electric grid that depends on wind and solar to the extent that the Scoping Plan does.  Before New York goes any further it should prove it can be done with a demonstration project.  Anything less risks catastrophic blackouts and enormous costs.

Champlain Hudson Power Express Payment in Lieu of Taxes Grift

One of the reasons that I decided to submit a statement in opposition to the Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation dba National Grid (NMPC) rate case proceeding was the lack of transparency on costs of the Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act) net zero transition.   This article describes a Climate Act cost to New Yorkers that uncaring Albany policy makers pass down to localities.

I am convinced that implementation of the Climate Act net-zero mandates will do more harm than good 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 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.

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 target of a 100% zero emission grid by 2040. 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. 

Another Renewables Subsidy

One missing piece in the implementation of the Climate Act is an honest admission of costs.  Not only has the State failed to provide required cost information, but there is no accounting of all the costs like the property tax exemption for renewable projects.   Peter Carney explains the basis of the property tax subsidy:

New York State laws encourage projects that are aligned with specific public policies such as the development of renewable energy or infrastructure that supports the economy, in a variety of ways including Real Property Tax exemptions.

The laws provide the local county, town, and schools with the option of negotiating Payment In Lieu of Tax (PILOT) agreements to compensate the local jurisdictions for some of the lost tax revenue.

There are three outcomes for these potentially tax-exempt projects:

  1. The projects can be accepted as fully exempt (no tax revenues are collected) (TCSD has not done this).
  2. The local entities can negotiate Payment In Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) agreements that compensate the local jurisdictions for some of the lost tax revenue. (TCSD has done this with the recent energy projects.)
  3. The law also provides the affected governments with the several or joint ability to opt out of the tax exemptions provided by the state law, in which case the energy projects would be fully taxable. (The TCSD has not enacted such an opt-out provision and thus none of the energy projects will be taxed at their full value.)

New York State’s Real Property Tax Law (RPTL) Section 487 provides a 15-year tax exemption for properties with renewable energy systems, including solar, wind, and other clean energy technologies.  The costs of this tax forgiveness from PILOTs are not “hidden” rather the policy makers in Albany just don’t care about the costs imposed on local taxpayers.  It is setup as an “opt-out” rule that requires local jurisdictions to jump through hoops if they decide not to participate.  It automatically applies otherwise. 

PILOT agreements provide a structured payment system to developers that reduce their initial property tax burden to help support the new projects. Their benefits include “multifaceted effects on local economies, ranging from stimulating redevelopment to reshaping municipal revenue streams”. PILOT agreements in New York cover the following types of projects:

  • Manufacturing and industrial developments
  • Not-for-profit organizations
  • Renewable energy installations, particularly solar projects
  • Commercial and residential real estate developments
  • Economic revitalization initiatives

In my opinion, four of these five types of projects will provide value to the jurisdictions once the development is complete.  On the other hand, renewable energy installations do not.  New York GHG emissions are less than one half of one percent of global emissions and global emissions have been increasing on average by more than one half of one percent per year since 1990 so emission reduction projects in New York will be supplanted by increases elsewhere in a year..  Furthermore, New York’s statewide impact on global temperature is unmeasurable so no new project is going to impact global warming.

The response to my Perplexity AI query “How do New York Payment in lieu of tax agreements benefit jurisdictions for transmission or renewable energy projects?” claimed other benefits PILOT proponents thought these agreements would provide.  The query claimed seven benefits to the jurisdictions granting the PILOT:

  1. Predictable revenue streams – The basis of this is that traditional property tax arrangements can fluctuate with changes in assessment values, so the PILOT payments provide predictability.  I think that one thing that is predictable is that the tax revenues will be less than the traditional property tax proceeds.
  2. Growth-oriented payment structures – If the jurisdiction negotiates an escalation clause, then payments can increase.
  3. Revenue preservation mechanisms – “While PILOT agreements offer tax exemptions, they are designed to preserve a significant portion of the potential tax revenue that would have been generated without compromising project viability. Under New York law, PILOT amounts cannot exceed what the tax amount would have been without the exemption, creating a natural ceiling that balances developer needs with jurisdictional interests.”
  4. Economic development benefits – Proponents of PILOTs argue that the agreements support broad economic development but that only benefits New York if the installed infrastructure is manufactured in New York.
  5. Job creation and industry growth – The AI response claimed that there was remarkable growth in the renewable energy sector, but this is a weak argument in my opinion.  For an individual jurisdiction PILOT agreements for manufacturing or industrial projects will provide local jobs but the construction of a transmission line will only impact a local jurisdiction during construction and those jobs will not be local.  I do not think this is a benefit for a renewable project.
  6. Supporting the transition to clean energy – As noted previously, the Climate Act transition will have no tangible effect on global emissions or temperature, so it is only a virtue-signaling exercise.
  7. Jurisdictional control and flexibility – The Perplexity AI explanation states: “PILOT agreements provide local governments with significant control over how renewable energy projects are incentivized and taxed.”  It is not clear to me why local jurisdictions would care about incentives and taxation for renewable energy.

The Perplexity AI response claiming benefits for renewable energy projects from PILOT agreements gave an example of a successful agreement.  Note that the only reference cited for the following quotation was a Bethlehem Central School description of the PILOT:

The Champlain Hudson Power Express Project (CHPE) demonstrates how PILOT agreements work for large-scale transmission projects. This underground transmission line, delivering renewable energy from Canada to New York City, spans multiple jurisdictions including four towns, two villages, and four school districts

.

The Albany County Industrial Development Agency (IDA) structured a 30-year PILOT agreement for this project, significantly longer than typical 10-11 year terms. Payments are apportioned based on geographical coverage, with the Bethlehem Central School District receiving benefits proportional to the 2.14 miles of pipeline within its boundaries.

After reviewing the proposed PILOT terms, the school district found them reasonable, highlighting how these agreements can satisfy the needs of both developers and local jurisdictions.

After the acceptance of a PILOT agreement there is no way a school district is going to acknowledge any issues.  Before describing an example, here are more details on CHPE.

Champlain Hudson Power Express (CHPE)

This transmission project is intended to bring zero-carbon electricity from Quebec to New York City: “Two five-inch-diameter cables will be placed underwater or underground and run 339 miles from the U.S.-Canadian border, south through Lake Champlain, along and under the Hudson River, and eventually ending at a converter station that will be built in Astoria, Queens.”  This project has been underway for a long time.  The first regulatory filing was posted on March 30, 2010.  Construction finally started in September 2023 and the developers claim that as of April 2025 it is on schedule for an in-service date of May 2026. The New York Independent System Operator (NYISO) 2023-2032 Comprehensive Reliability Plan notes that the reliability of the grid is “heavily reliant on the timely completion of planned transmission projects, chiefly the Champlain Hudson Power Express (CHPE) project.”    

Note that it was designed with no substations or interconnections to the local or regional transmission system between Quebec and New York City along the CHPE route. The transmission line was designed as a point-to-point HVDC link, running continuously from the Hydro-Québec system at Hertel to the Astoria converter station.  This is not to say that an interconnection could be added later but for now it means that there are no local benefits once the line is in place.

CHPE Ticonderoga Central School PILOT

Peter Carney authored “A review of the Ticonderoga Central School District’s energy project PILOT agreements and impacts on taxpayers” (White Paper) that breaks down the effect of the PILOT agreements on local taxpayers that the Bethlehem Central School district description did not. Carney prepared the white paper to “document missed opportunities for the TCSD Board of Education (BoE) to increase non-tax school revenues, estimated at more than $1 million annually, from seven new energy projects. Consequently, rather than the energy projects paying their fair share of taxes, the taxpayers of Hague and Ticonderoga will need to make up the difference.” 

The White Paper analyzed six solar projects and CHPE.  It explains the impacts related to CHPE as follows:

This project is for the installation of a 1,250 MW DC transmission system from Hydro Quebec to New York City. Without the successful completion of this project, load shedding and blackouts are projected for NYC as soon as 2026vii. Clearly, this project will go forward to completion with or without a PILOT tax exemption.

Despite this, TCSD agreed to several disadvantageous terms:

  • The PILOT is a small fraction of the full tax: The PILOT Agreement forecasts that in the first year, TCSD will receive $122,770 or approximately one quarter of the fair share of taxes due from CHPE if taxed at full value.
  • The PILOT is calculated based on estimated construction costs, almost certain to be lower than the actual costs incurred several years later. Any costs above the preconstruction estimate will be fully tax exempt.
  • There are no PILOT payments until CHPE decides that the PILOT agreement should begin.
  • The payment schedule is back-end loaded with most of the payments due to be delivered in the last several years of the 30-year PILOT agreement.

The route for this system passes through TCSD jurisdiction for 9.26 miles. The first year PILOT payment for Essex County is fixed at $1,532,592 which will be divided among Essex County, seven host towns and six school districts based on a formulation that considers route distance, and full value tax rates for each jurisdiction for the first year the PILOT is effective.

TCSD copied the Town of Ticonderoga’s agreement, which copied the Essex County agreement, without considering that TCSD includes Hague and what impact that would have.

To the extent that Hague’s total Full Market Value assessment (FMV) increases compared to Ticonderoga’s, the Ticonderoga school tax rate decreases and therefore the TCSD will receive a reduced portion of the Essex County PILOT payments.

Discussion

The White Paper included the following table that reports the level of PILOT tax exemptions reported in NY.  Unfortunately, TCSD clearly passed up opportunities to be more protective of its taxpayers in its negotiations with CHPE. The only jurisdiction that gets value for providing tax breaks is New York City and they are taxing CHPE at the full value.  The opt-out provisions of New York’s Real Property Tax Law contributed to the sad state of affairs where a rural upstate school district unwittingly subsidizes a renewable energy project that provides no direct benefits to its taxpayers while the only entity that benefits charges the project as much as it can.

There are other costs associated with CHPE that are not obvious.  Carney wrote me that “Not only will CHPE receive New York State Energy Research & Development Authority subsidies that are many multiples of the New York City Locational Based Marginal Pricing (LBMP) they are also going to significantly increase the Locational Capacity Requirements for New York State thus increasing the capacity cost to New York City.  Through the magic of Perplexity AI, I have an explanation of his comment if you are interested.  Finally, if Niagara Mohawk/National Grid, Transco, and Con Ed built the CHPE it would be fully taxable, so the developers are unquestionably getting millions of dollars of tax breaks each year for 30 yrs on top of being paid many multiples of the LBMP in New York City.

Conclusion

CHPE offers a perfect example of the many subsidies and programs set up to facilitate renewable energy development. The Department of Public Service is required to report annually on the status of the implementation of the Climate Act and include cost impacts.  Not only is the 2024 report overdue, but it will not account for hidden costs like those described here.  Anyone who thinks that special interests are not taking advantage of these complexities at the expense of New Yorkers is naïve.

Personal Statement on Niagara Mohawk Rate Case Joint Proposal

I have followed the Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act or CLCPA) 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.  I believe that Governor Hochul’s Administration has forced New York utilities to incorporate programs to try to meet the goals of the Climate Act despite never proving that it is feasible and mounting evidence that implementation is not working out as planned.  My frustration that no one is acting on those concerns led me to join Constantine Kontogiannis in a submittal in the Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation dba National Grid (NMPC) rate case proceeding.  This post describes our statement in opposition to the Joint Proposal (JP) settlement plan.

 I am convinced that implementation of the Climate Act net-zero mandates will do more harm than good if the future electric system relies only on wind, solar, and energy storage because of reliability and affordability risks.  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 a requirement to make the electric grid zero-emissions by 2040. 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.  The NMPC rate case is one example of these efforts.

NMPC Rate Case

This rate case has been moving slowly.  On May 28, 2024, NMPC filed revised tariffs, supporting testimony, and exhibits for new rates and charges for electric and gas service to be effective July 3, 2024.  The new tariffs were designed to increase electric and gas delivery revenues by approximately $525 million and $148 million, respectively.  On July 22, 2024 NMPC filed corrections and updated testimony and exhibits decreasing the electric revenue requirement to approximately $509.6 million and increasing the gas revenue requirement to approximately $156.5 million.

On October 21, 2024, NMPC notified the active parties that settlement negotiations were starting.  Settlement negotiations were held from October 30, 2024, to April 15, 2025.  On April 25, 2025, a Joint Proposal (“JP”) that would establish a three-year rate plan running from April 1, 2025 through March 31, 2028, was filed by the following parties: NMPC; trial staff of the New York State Department of Public Service; Multiple Intervenors; Walmart; the Alliance for a Green Economy; the New York Solar Energies Industry Association; Independent Power Producers of New York, Inc. (IPPNY); the United States Department of Defense and all other Federal Executive Agencies; the New York Geothermal Energy Organization; Turning Stone Enterprises, LLC; Fedrigoni Special Papers North America; Empire National Gas Corporation; New Yorkers for Clean Power; the New York Power Authority, and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union No. 97.

Initial statements on the JP were due on May 14, 2025.  Reply statements are due on May 23, 2025, and on June 3 there will be an Evidentiary Hearing.  I cannot explain all this because I have ignored rate cases in the past. 

Caiazza and Kontogiannis Initial Statement

Kontogiannis shares my frustration with the Climate Act transition plan.  We are convinced that the current plan is dangerous and will lead to extraordinary price increases.  We decided that submitting a statement in opposition to the JP would force a response to our concerns that have been ignored to date.

The rate request filing states that NMPC is focused on three priorities: (1) continuing to deliver safe, reliable energy service to its more than two million customers, (2) enabling customers to affordably meet their energy needs while improving NMPC’s customer service, and (3) supporting the goals of the Climate Act.  Kontogiannis and I referred to the greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction transition plan described in the Climate Act Scoping Plan as the “CLCPA Electrification Mandate”.  We defined “CLCPA Generation Plan” as the projected electric grid changes described in the Climate Act Scoping Plan that relies on wind, solar, energy storage, and Dispatchable Emissions-Free Resources (DEFR) resources to achieve the 2040 Climate Act mandate for a zero-emissions electric system.

Our primary concern is ensuring reliable, affordable, and environmentally responsible service to ratepayers while at the same time supporting the goals of the Climate Act is impossible.  Simply stated, the goals of Climate Act are in direct contradiction to the statutory and regulatory obligations of NMPC and Public Service Commission.

Five arguments were included.  I will highlight some of the key points in our arguments.  I also need to apologize for the length of the post but providing all the background was necessary.   I encourage interested readers to follow up and read the entire submittal.

Argument 1

The first argument made in our Statement is that the “JP burdens the ratepayers with additional Climate Act-related costs that sacrifice reliability for unproven sustainability benefits.”  Kontogiannis described several examples of Climate Act electrification initiatives imposed on NMPC ratepayers that have created significant cost and reliability safety issues without a tangible environmental benefit.

NMPC and NYSERDA have jointly promoted building electrification using heat pumps, but without properly vetting the applicable technologies and host site suitability.  Many of the installations have replaced efficient natural gas-fired equipment, with those ratepayers now subject to substantially higher heating costs that are not nearly offset by program incentives and tax credits for air source heat pumps and ground source heat pumps.  Less than 15% of those ratepayers decommissioned their old heating equipment and many likely returned to using it after experiencing the higher operating costs of the heat pumps, negating most of the GHG savings claimed by the program administrators.  Moreover, nearly all of the heat pumps installed through this program to date utilize a high global warming potential (GWP) refrigerant that is currently being phased out, which will likely necessitate early replacement instead of routine mid-life servicing.

There is one provision that illustrates the futility of the heat pump transition plan.  The rate case includes an effort to minimize the need to repair leak prone pipelines by offering non-pipeline alternatives.  This program includes heat pump incentives for disadvantaged communities with the intention to eliminate the gas service rather than repair it.  After all, this will eventually be required anyway, so the reasoning goes.  However, the JP admits that the heat pump conversion will not save money because their proposed solution is to offer a monthly credit after installation.  The payoff is only for five years, does not cover all the conversion and operating costs of the conversion, will likely not be available for everyone who needs it, and will increase costs for everyone else. 

Argument 2

The second argument says that the JP does not acknowledge New York Public Service Law § 66-p (4).  In no small part this triggered my desire to submit a statement in opposition to the JP because I have been arguing for years that New York Public Service Law  § 66-p (4). “Establishment of a renewable energy program” includes safety valve conditions for affordability and reliability that must be addressed.  The provision 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”. 

This argument was included to force the PSC to acknowledge that the safety valves must be addressed.  The submittal included an attachment that was summed up my analysis that showed that the number of people in arrears has significantly increased since the state of the Climate Act.  Our statement argued 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.

Argument 3

The third argument is that dispatchable emissions free resources (DEFR) must be resolved to ensure safe and adequate supply.  Until this issue is resolved it is imprudent to invest in any support of the Climate Act Generation Plan.  An attachment was included based on my many articles on DEFR.  The attachment documents the need for DEFR, explains the requirements for this new resource, describes potential options, and notes the challenges associated with specifying how much capacity and energy will be needed to prevent a reliability crisis.

The JP does not adequately address the fact that a new category of Dispatchable Emissions-Free Resources (DEFR) must be identified, tested, and deployed to provide energy during extended periods of low wind and solar resource availability.  There is a very real chance that nothing will be feasible.  Furthermore, because the DEFR technologies have not been identified it is impossible to determine if they are affordable. 

In our opinion, the most promising DEFR 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 works best as a baseline resource rather than as backup so nuclear power can replace renewables, eliminating the need for a massive DEFR backup resource.  Therefore, all the JP investments included to support renewable energy development are imprudent because nuclear generation may be the only viable path to zero emissions making all those investments worthless.

Argument 4

The fourth argument pointed out that the JP does not properly consider alternatives to the Climate Act Generation Plan that provide similar environmental benefits without the reliability risks of dependency upon intermittent and diffuse renewable energy.  To maintain adequate system reliability, the CLCPA Generation Plan must include substantial overbuilding of renewable sources, energy storage, and equipment for ancillary grid support.  The JP does not address the fact that the Climate Act fails to consider other options that would largely satisfy its sustainability target without as many ratepayer reliability and affordability risks.

Kontogiannis and I agree with Richard Ellenbogen’s pragmatic approach described at the March 18, 2025 NYS Senate Energy and Telecommunications Committee meeting.  We all believe that substantial interim reductions can be achieved simply by deploying natural gas fired combined cycle gas turbines (CCGT).  For large sources of new load, a CCGT power plant requires no additional ancillary service support infrastructure, can provide process heat, and when coupled with an agricultural park, can further lower CO2 emissions by using the CO2 to boost plant productivity. CCGTs will last longer than any wind, solar, or energy storage infrastructure, can be used for peaking support when a better long term zero emissions technology is developed and deployed, and converted to burn hydrogen if necessary.  Moreover, if it becomes economical to produce and store hydrogen this approach eliminates the need to develop ways to transport it because it can be stored and used in one location.

Unfortunately, this rational approach is not lawful at this time.  However, the approach is emerging as a preferred low carbon solution in other areas of the U.S. and abroad.   The significant tradeoffs of the CLCPA Generation Plan must be reevaluated by NMPC and the Public Service Commission as part and parcel of the JP to ensure protection of the ratepayers.

Argument 5

The fifth argument addressed the electric system planning risks that are inherent in the transition to weather-dependent generating resources.  The DEFR argument mentioned the difficulties associated with figuring out how much DEFR will be required because the assessment must account for weather variability.  This argument and the associated attachment explained all the challenges of defining the frequency, duration and intensity of low wind and solar resource availability events.  Two reliability metrics were evaluated with respect to weather variability.  The argument concluded that the associated uncertainties may not be reconcilable. 

The presumption in the JP that the CLCPA Generation Plan will be safe does not stand up to scrutiny.  Grid planners recognize that unanticipated adverse events—such as line outages, generator trips, substation failures, and major faults—will continue to impact power grids. Their challenge is to ensure the grid is robust enough to withstand and recover from such disturbances without major consequences.  Kontogiannis and I believe that it is unrealistic to expect that the grid planners will be able to anticipate all the additional adverse events that will occur when the electric system depends on weather-reliant resources.  It would be prudent to pause the Climate Act projects within the JP until grid planning improves.

Conclusion

Kontogiannis and I submitted the Statement of Opposition because of our concern that, with its disproportionate efforts to support the goals of the Climate Act, the JP does not properly balance NMPC and Public Service Commission responsibilities to ensure reliable, affordable, and environmentally responsible energy generation and delivery to ratepayers. 

With so many legacy hydroelectric and nuclear assets, by all accounts New York State should have some of cleanest, most reliable, and affordable energy in the United States – but we are failing on all counts.  Special interests have effectively hijacked what should be a relatively straightforward exercise of prudent engineering – shuttering a critical nuclear asset, denying legacy fossil fuel powerplants permission to repower as CCGT generators, and forsaking cost-effective and fuel-neutral building and transportation energy efficiency initiatives – all for the well-intentioned but sorely misguided fantasies of climate scientists in academia and policy advocates who have no idea of the complexities involved in the safe and reliable production and delivery of arguably the most essential commodity for the modern world.  As if the failure isn’t complete, the stated sustainability targets are nothing more than smoke and mirrors – an honest accounting of the lifecycle carbon impacts shows no improvement compared to what solid engineering and standard industry practice afford.  

Even if the Climate Act was to fully achieve its sustainability objectives, the effect on global emissions is negligible and the resulting global temperature change is infinitesimally small.  If New York were able to eliminate all its GHG emissions, the effect of global emission increases elsewhere would supplant our efforts in one year.  New York GHG emissions are less than one half of one percent of global emissions and global emissions have been increasing on average by more than one half of one percent per year since 1990.  Furthermore, New York’s impact on global warming is unmeasurable.  A Perplexity AI query “What is the expected change in global warming per ton of CO2 reduced” found that “Current estimates suggest that reducing 1 gigaton (1 billion tons) of CO₂ emissions prevents approximately 0.00045°C of warming”.  That conversion was applied to the expected NMPC GHG emission reductions expected in Exhibit CLCPA-2 included in NMPC’s Climate Act Panel testimony on May 8, 2024 as well as historical emissions (Table 1).  Emissions attributable to the Climate Act and historical emissions predict no measurable changes in global warming.

Table 1: Potential Warming Savings for JP Emission Reductions and Historical Emissions

NMPC’s NY Climate Resiliency Plan website states that: ”National Grid is committed to urgent action to address climate change as we’ve outlined in our vision for a fossil free future, but we all must recognize that climate change is no longer a future threat, but a current threat based on the extreme climate hazards we are witnessing today.”  Kontogiannis and I  believe that the crisis facing NMPC customers is not from the changing climate, but rather the irrevocably flawed climate policy.  Kontogiannis and I concluded that a properly conceived statewide energy plan can achieve essentially the same sustainability target at a much lower cost to ratepayers and with no diminishment of system reliability.