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.

Energy Plan 25 June 2025 Meeting – Modeling Analysis Scenarios

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

I am convinced that implementation of the New York Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act or CLCPA) net-zero mandates will do more harm than good if the future electric system relies only on wind, solar, and energy storage because of reliability and affordability risks.  I have followed the Climate Act since it was first proposed, submitted comments on the Climate Act implementation plan, and have written over 550 articles about New York’s net-zero transition.  The opinions expressed in this article do not reflect the position of any of my previous employers or any other organization I have been associated with, these comments are mine alone.

Energy Plan Overview

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

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

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

June 25, 2025 Board Meeting

The materials for the meeting include the following:

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

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

Pathways Analysis Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

Pathways Analysis Modeling Approach

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

Institute for Policy Integrity: Power Plant Pollution is Clearly Significant

This post was first published at Watts Up With That.

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

I am convinced that implementation of the Climate Act net-zero mandates will do more harm than good because the energy density of wind and solar energy is too low and the resource intermittency too variable to ever support a reliable electric system relying on those resources. I have followed the Climate Act since it was first proposed, submitted comments on the Climate Act implementation plan, and have written over 550 articles about New York’s net-zero transition.  The opinions expressed in this article do not reflect the position of any of my previous employers or any other organization I have been associated with, these comments are mine alone.

Overview

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

Report Summary

The description of the report states that:

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

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

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

Arguments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

Reality Bites Climate Act Affordability

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

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

I am convinced that implementation of the Climate Act net-zero mandates will do more harm than good because the energy density of wind and solar energy is too low and the resource intermittency too variable to ever support a reliable electric system relying on those resources. I have followed the Climate Act since it was first proposed, submitted comments on the Climate Act implementation plan, and have written over 550 articles about New York’s net-zero transition.  The opinions expressed in this article do not reflect the position of any of my previous employers or any other organization I have been associated with, these comments are mine alone.

Overview

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

Safety Valves

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DMM Affordability Reference: Case 22-M-0149

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

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

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

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

The annual informational report description stated:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

DPS Response to Safety Valve Recommendations

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

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

I am convinced that implementation of the Climate Act net-zero mandates will do more harm than good because the energy density of wind and solar energy is too low and the resource intermittency too variable to ever support a reliable electric system relying on those resources. I have followed the Climate Act since it was first proposed, submitted comments on the Climate Act implementation plan, and have written over 540 articles about New York’s net-zero transition.  The opinions expressed in this article do not reflect the position of any of my previous employers or any other organization I have been associated with, these comments are mine alone.

Overview

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

Safety Valves

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The affordability references white paper document notes that:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

Energy Plan 25 June 2025 Meeting – Electricity Topic

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

I am convinced that implementation of the New York Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act or CLCPA) net-zero mandates will do more harm than good if the future electric system relies only on wind, solar, and energy storage because of reliability and affordability risks.  I have followed the Climate Act since it was first proposed, submitted comments on the Climate Act implementation plan, and have written over 540 articles about New York’s net-zero transition.  The opinions expressed in this article do not reflect the position of any of my previous employers or any other organization I have been associated with, these comments are mine alone.

Energy Plan Overview

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

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

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

June 25, 2025 Board Meeting

The materials for the meeting include the following:

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

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

Topic Area – Electricity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

Energy Plan Board 25 June 2025 Meeting Overview

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

I am convinced that implementation of the New York Climate Act net-zero mandates will do more harm than good if the future electric system relies only on wind, solar, and energy storage because of reliability and affordability risks.  I have followed the Climate Act since it was first proposed, submitted comments on the Climate Act implementation plan, and have written over 540 articles about New York’s net-zero transition.  The opinions expressed in this article do not reflect the position of any of my previous employers or any other organization I have been associated with, these comments are mine alone.

Energy Plan Overview

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

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

On September 9, 2024, the Hochul Administration initiated the State Energy Plan process to update the Plan consistent with the Climate Act.  The goal of the planning process is to “map the state’s energy future by showing how the state can ensure adequate supplies of power, reduce demand through new technologies and energy efficiency, preserve the environment, reduce dependence on imported gas and oil, stimulate economic growth, and preserve the individual welfare of New York citizens and energy users.” The major question that must be addressed is whether the Hochul Administration will use the energy planning process as an opportunity to consider the advice of stakeholders in its stakeholder process or will stakeholder involvement just be an obligation with no attempt to meaningfully engage with any comments inconsistent with the narrative.

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

June 25, 2025 Board Meeting

The materials for the meeting include the following:

There were two important agenda items for the meeting

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

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

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

Pathways Analysis Overview of Energy Modeling

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pathways Analysis Overview of Energy Affordability

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

State Energy Plan Topic Areas

After a break there were six presentations on topic areas:

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

Discussion

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

More Reasons to Pause Climate Act Implementation June 25, 2025

I am very frustrated with the New York Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act) net zero transition because the reality is that there are so many issues coming up with the schedule and ambition of the Climate Act that it is obvious that we need to pause implementation and figure out how best to proceed.  This article describes more reasons to pause implementation.

I am convinced that implementation of the Climate Act net-zero mandates will do more harm than good because the energy density of wind and solar energy is too low and the resource intermittency too variable to ever support a reliable electric system relying on those resources. I have followed the Climate Act since it was first proposed, submitted comments on the Climate Act implementation plan, and have written over 540 articles about New York’s net-zero transition.  The opinions expressed in this article do not reflect the position of any of my previous employers or any other organization I have been associated with, these comments are mine alone.

Overview

The Climate Act established a New York “Net Zero” target (85% reduction in GHG emissions and 15% offset of emissions) by 2050.  It includes an interim reduction target of a 40% GHG reduction by 2030. The Climate Action Council (CAC) was responsible for preparing the Scoping Plan that outlined how to “achieve the State’s bold clean energy and climate agenda.”  After a year-long review, the Scoping Plan was finalized at the end of 2022.  Since then, the State has been trying to implement the Scoping Plan recommendations through regulations, proceedings, and legislation. 

Australia New Zero Model

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

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

He shows why in the following graph.

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

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

CO2 is not the Climate Control Knob

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

The report has four major sections:

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

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

The concluding statement in the Summary states:

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

An Alternative Driver of Climate Change

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

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

Charles Rotter explains:

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

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

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

Final Word on the Science

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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.