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.

Governor Hochul Executive Budget Climate Funding

Recently I described the status of the New York Cap-and-Invest Program (NYCI) and reactions to the decision to delay its implementation. In the 2025 State of the State address Governor Kathy Hochul announced a $1 billion climate investment. This post describes the references to climate in the FY2026 NYS Executive Budget Book that described Hochul’s budget for the next fiscal year.

I am convinced that implementation of the New York Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act) net-zero mandates will do more harm than good if the future electric system relies only on wind, solar, and energy storage because of reliability and affordability risks. I have followed the Climate Act since it was first proposed, submitted comments on the Climate Act implementation plan, and have written over 490 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 2030 reduction target of a 40% GHG reduction by 2030. The Climate Action Council (CAC) responsible for preparing the Scoping Plan to “achieve the State’s bold clean energy and climate agenda” recommended a market-based economywide cap-and-invest program.

The program 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.” The prevailing perception of NYCI is exemplified by Colin Kinniburgh’s description in his recent article in New York Focus. He describes the 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.'” I described questions about NYCI that I believe need to be resolved here.

Stopgap Climate Funding

According to a Perplexity AI search: Governor Hochul announced a $1 billion climate investment as part of her 2025 State of the State address. This investment, described as the single largest climate investment in New York’s history, aims to address the climate crisis and achieve a more sustainable and affordable future for the state. The $1 billion funding package includes:

Retrofitting homes and incentivizing heat pump installations
Building sustainable energy networks, including thermal energy upgrades at SUNY campuses
Expanding green transportation options
Supporting businesses in their decarbonization efforts

I concluded in the previous articles about NYCI that the costs were incompatible with the political narrative that Governor Hochul is concerned about affordability. At the Energy Access and Equity Research webinar sponsored by the NYU Institute for Policy Integrity on May 13, 2024 Jonathan Binder stated that the New York Cap and Invest Program would generate proceeds of “between $6 and $12 billion per year” by 2030. That certainly would have increased costs for New Yorkers but it also was a primary source of revenue for the emission reduction strategies necessary to meet Climate Act targets.

Colin Kinniburgh’s description in a recent article in New York Focus described the last-minute decision to delay NYCI implementation. Kinniburgh described the reaction of the environmental justice community:

It is not clear where that funding would come from — whether it would be new or “cannibalizing other existing funding sources,” in the words of Stephan Edel, executive director of the climate justice coalition NY Renews.

Even if it is entirely new funding, $1 billion would be considerably less than the $3 billion or more the state had expected to raise in the first year of the cap and invest program.

“We don’t want a band-aid solution here,” Courtin said. “We need a long-term, sustainable funding solution.”

He noted that Hochul explained that more data was necessary to design the program well. “I’m not walking back on all of our commitments… I’m not letting these projects go unfunded,” Hochul said, referring to the stopgap $1 billion in climate funding she announced on Tuesday.

Fiscal Year 2026 Executive Budget

The press release for Governor Hochul’s executive budget was captioned “More money in your pocket”. There are specific recommendations in the FY2026 NYS Executive Budget Book (Budget Book) for programs including the $1 billion in climate funding. Given the dynamic between Hochul and the environmental organizations upset at the pause in NYCI I searched the Budget Book for the work climate to see how she planned to appease them. The complete search is at the end of this article. Here are some highlights.

The Hochul Administration continues to invoke the existential threat of climate change as a driver for budget planning. They do not understand the difference between weather and climate. They attribute every extreme weather event to climate change with the implication that reducing emissions will alleviate those weather conditions. Climate change was listed as a financial risk in several places.

The Budget Book also claims that New York is “leading the nation:

From the beginning of her administration, Governor Hochul has made it clear that responding to climate change remains a top priority for New York State. Acknowledging that the cost of inaction greatly outweighs the cost of any actions we can take together, New York will continue to pursue an aggressive agenda in transitioning to a sustainable green energy economy, in a way that is both environmentally effective and economically affordable for all New Yorkers.

The slogan that the costs of inaction are greater than the costs of action has been the mantra of the Administration regarding costs. However, that statement is misleading and inaccurate as I documented in my verbal comments and in my written comments on the Draft Scoping Plan. I described the machinations based on reality used to mislead and harm New York as a shell game in a summary post.

In brief, one reason that this claim is a shell game is that the cost estimate everyone wants to know is how much it is going to cost to achieve all the New York “Net Zero” targets (85% reduction in GHG emissions and 15% offset of emissions) by 2050 and all the other mandates in the Climate Act. The Scoping Plan cost estimates only include a subset of the total costs by excluding costs of programs that are needed to meet the Climate Act targets but were implemented before the Climate Act was passed. The argument is that the “already implemented” projects were not mandated by the Climate Act itself so they are not included.

This is a political document, so it is not surprising that the Budget Book bragged that:

Governor Hochul is directing New York to embark on the single-largest climate investment in the history of the state budget, directing over $1 billion in new funding towards achieving a more sustainable future. This landmark investment will generate new jobs, help reduce household energy bills, and cut down on harmful pollution and its impacts on our families.

What is missing is the specifics about the expenditures. The $1 billion is intended to “reduce the State’s carbon emissions by building out thermal energy networks at SUNY campuses, making clean energy investments in State-owned buildings, retrofitting homes and incentivizing the installation of heat pumps, expanding green transportation options across the State, and supporting businesses of all sizes in their decarbonization journey.”

I asked Perplexity AI how many buildings does New York State own. The response said it was not possible to provide an exact number but noted that the Office of General Services manages 22 state office facilities. A quick check indicates that the NYSERDA office building is not listed so I believe that the buildings used by the various state authorities are not included. There are 64 SUNY campuses. I went to school at one and it had a thermal energy system. I suspect that is the rule and not the exception. Presumably the plan is to convert all those systems to zero carbon emissions. In round numbers there are 100 buildings and campuses operated by New York State. I would not be surprised if the average price to convert is at least $10 million. To convert them all would cost a billion dollars.

The bottom line is that the one billion dollars is just a fraction of the amount needed to reduce carbon emissions as needed to meet the Climate Act targets.

Discussion

The Climate Act requires the State to invest or direct resources in a manner designed to ensure that disadvantaged communities receive at least 35 percent, with the goal of at least 40 percent, of overall benefits of spending. Last year’s NYCI proposal included carveouts from the proceeds for this mandate.

Hochul is being pilloried for delaying implementation of NYCI and the distribution of these funds. The Climate Justice Working Group has” had an important advisory role in the Climate Action Council process, providing strategic advice for incorporating the needs of disadvantaged communities in the Scoping Plan.” That process is in disarray. I have been told that there was a working group meeting recently but could not find any announcement for the meeting or other descriptive documentation. I also found out that three prominent members of the Working Group resigned because Governor Hochul was not moving ahead fast enough.

Against that backdrop Hochul’s announcement of the $1 billion, the single-largest climate investment in the history of the state budget, appears to be a bid to maintain her credibility with the environmental justice political constituency. In my opinion, this demographic will never be happy. The leaders of the movement require a problem for their business model to succeed. They never can admit that the problem is solved or even progressing satisfactorily because then the reason for their organization to exist disappears. Keep in mind that a common recommendation in all the funding proposals is for local control of how the proceeds will be invested and who better to provide that expertise than the members of the Climate Justice Working Group.

Conclusion

Reality bats last. The reality that the Climate Act transition has affordability and reliability issues can no longer be ignored by Progressive Democrats. I believe that they are insurmountable issues, but it is now apparent that even Governor Hochul has recognized that costs are an issue. The slogan that the costs of inaction are more than the costs of action does not resonate as it becomes obvious that the costs to New Yorkers are real and significant. When the public figures out that the benefits are biased and mostly imaginary, the illusion will be completely shattered. Hochul’s re-election campaign is coming to grips with the reality that voters are not going to be mollified by any political slogan. Stay tuned.

Addendum – Budget Book references to Climate

FY2026 NYS Executive Budget Book

In the Financial Plan Review on Page 16:

At the same time, uncertainty looms. Risk as varied as policies and plans of the new Federal administration, the potential for a slowdown in economic growth, geopolitical risks, the ongoing implications of climate change, and sustained trends of rising enrollment and costs in public health insurance programs all present the potential for fiscal challenges in the future.

In the discussion of Reserves and Risks on Page 24:

The Financial Plan faces ongoing economic risks, including: slowing economic growth; continued price inflation; geopolitical uncertainties; immigration policy; climate change and natural disasters; programmatic cost pressures; uncertainty about the fiscal conditions of outside entities relying on State assistance; risks due to the State’s dependence on Federal funding and approvals; and possible policy changes under the new Federal administration.

In the discussion of Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation on Page 31:

The Executive Budget includes funding to protect our environment and make our future more sustainable; supporting New York’s ability to adapt to everchanging climate effects and mitigate damage from extreme weather events, including:

$1 billion to reduce the State’s carbon emissions by building out thermal energy networks at SUNY campuses, making clean energy investments in State-owned buildings, retrofitting homes and incentivizing the installation of heat pumps, expanding green transportation options across the State, and supporting businesses of all sizes in their decarbonization journey;

$78 million for coastal resiliency projects;

$30 million increase in Green Resiliency Grants to support flood control infrastructure projects;

$50 million to support sustainability in New York’s dairy industry, and

$50 million to bolster the Resilient and Ready program, which will support low and moderate income homeowners with resiliency improvements and assist with repairs in the event of a catastrophic event.

In the discussion of Federal Infrastructure, Energy and Manufacturing Investments Page 44:

Federal investments included in the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) are providing funding to address the climate crisis, lower utility costs, and lower emissions.

The next four references were in the section titled “Environment, Energy, and Agriculture”.

Page 60:

New York State’s environmental, energy and agriculture agencies are on the front lines of the ongoing fight against climate change; are tasked with conserving and protecting precious natural resources; promoting New York State as a natural destination for tourism and recreation; ensuring the integrity of freshwater resources; and supporting the kind of agricultural development that is critical to New York State’s robust farming industry.

Page 60:

Leading the Nation

From the beginning of her administration, Governor Hochul has made it clear that responding to climate change remains a top priority for New York State. Acknowledging that the cost of inaction greatly outweighs the cost of any actions we can take together, New York will continue to pursue an aggressive agenda in transitioning to a sustainable green energy economy, in a way that is both environmentally effective and economically affordable for all New Yorkers.

Page 61:

Proposed FY 2026 Budget Actions

In addition to announcing critical new programs and advancing new investments related to climate change, Governor Hochul’s proposed budget will provide the funding New York needs to preserve, protect, and enhance our natural resources, expand our outdoor recreation opportunities, and drive economic growth through sustainable agriculture and eco-tourism. Highlights of the FY 2026 Executive Budget include:

Historic Climate Investment.

Governor Hochul is directing New York to embark on the single-largest +climate investment in the history of the state budget, directing over $1 billion in new funding towards achieving a more sustainable future. This landmark investment will generate new jobs, help reduce household energy bills, and cut down on harmful pollution and its impacts on our families.

Decarbonizing State Government.

An additional $50 million is included to support New York’s ongoing efforts to reduce its own carbon footprint. This continued investment will accelerate State facilities’ decarbonization efforts and provide resources to initiate procurement practices that prioritize sustainable and climate-resilient design initiatives.

Environmental Protection Fund.

$400 million for the Environmental Protection Fund (EPF) is again provided to support critical projects that work to mitigate the effects of climate change, improve agricultural resources, protect our water sources, advance conservation efforts, and provide recreational opportunities.

In the section Supporting the NY State of Health on Page 76:

Expand Access to Air Conditioning Units.

The escalating threat of climate change poses significant risks to public health. Climate-induced health risks, such as extreme heat, can both exacerbate existing health conditions and contribute to new health issues. The Budget adds to a FY 2025 Enacted Budget action which provided air conditioning units for Essential Plan enrollees with persistent asthma by expanding eligibility for additional conditions exacerbated by heat such as diabetes, cardiovascular disease, heart disease and hypertension.

Response to New York Cap-and-Invest Delay

Recently I described the status of the New York Cap-and-Invest Program (NYCI). It was widely accepted that Governor Hochul’s State of the State address would say that NYCI implementation would be a priority and that a schedule for the first auctions would be announced. However, the only mention of NYCI noted that in the coming months the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) and the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) will take steps forward on developing the cap-and-invest program by proposing new reporting regulations to gather information on emissions sources. Nothing was said about implementing an auction. This post describes reactions to this unexpected development.

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 2030 reduction target of a 40% GHG reduction by 2030. The Climate Action Council (CAC) responsible for preparing the Scoping Plan to “achieve the State’s bold clean energy and climate agenda” recommended a market-based economywide cap-and-invest program.

Kinniburgh also described the last-minute decision to pull any mention of timing about NYCI from the State of the State briefing book. In the remainder of this post, I will describe the response to the delay by politicians and environmental advocates.

Political Reaction

Kate Lisa described the reaction of New York lawmakers on Spectrum News. After describing the program, she explained that late last year Hochul’s office “floated a draft plan with varying funding levels to stakeholders, who anticipated a proposal in the upcoming executive budget.” Lisa believes:

The delay of the program means the system will not be in place to generate revenue for the state’s green energy mandates until at least 2027 and increases the chances lawmakers will have to rollback its ambitious emission reduction mandates set under its climate law.

Her interview with Sen. Kevin Parker, a Democrat from Brooklyn included the following quotes:

“They haven’t talked to anybody. They haven’t had hearings, they don’t know what the community thinks, (and) they haven’t talked to the Legislature with their ideas about it.” Lisa stated that “The senator said Hochul, and her team failed to tell policymakers about their new hesitancy to impose cap and trade after codifying language in the 2023-24 budget to create a fund to impose the program this year.” She quoted Parker: “They said: ‘We’ve got it, we’ll come out with rules,’ and now, they said they’re not ready”.

Lisa noted that:

Hochul on Wednesday defended her decision to delay the program’s rollout and said the state needs more pollution data to get the program right. She insisted that her support for New York’s climate mandates have not faltered.

“This simply says we can study here, we’ll get the right information, we’ll get it right,” Hochul told reporters. “But I’m not letting these projects go unfunded. I think that’s an important distinction to make here.”

As I noted in my first article about NYCI in the State of the State address, funding is the key issue. Lisa quoted Senate Environmental Conservation Committee chair Pete Harckham who said:

What was disappointing was that there was no mention of climate change, the environment, or specifically cap and invest pertaining to climate change. Let’s hope the approach to climate policy is not changing. It’s greatly disappointing, but more importantly, it’s a missed opportunity to address climate change and a missed opportunity to address affordability in utility rates.

Lisa noted that “Other top Democrats stand ready to fight back this budget cycle — arguing the policy is critical to bridge the state’s affordability gap that Hochul focused on in her speech.” She noted that Hochul has proposed that the NYCI fee on polluters would “fund rebates for consumers to drive down utility costs.”

Senate Finance Committee chair Liz Krueger expressed her extreme disappointment in a statement that claimed Hochul is “choosing not to save ratepayers billions of dollars every year through NY HEAT or provide low- and middle-income New Yorkers the immediate affordability benefits of cap and invest.”

I am no economist, but politicians are innumerate. The initiatives to reduce emissions are going to cost money. The only way that NYCI will address affordability in utility rates is if the money comes from somewhere else. The more complicated the scheme to fund the initiatives the more likely that the transactional costs will increase overall costs. NYCI is supposed to fund emission reduction programs, so the proposed rebates decrease the funding available for reductions. Another problem with rebates is that a fundamental precept for market-based programs is that increasing costs incentivizes people to change behaviors that can reduce emissions. Rebates ruin that incentive. Another nonsensical idea pushed by Democratic leadership is the idea that fees on polluters will not get passed on to consumers.

Kate Lisa also recognized that critics worry that the cap-and-invest system would increase gas prices and costs of natural gas and other utilities. “The speed in which they’re moving forward is really unworkable, not feasible and very, very costly,” said Assemblyman Phil Palmesano, the ranking Republican on the Energy Committee. “It’s a radical energy climate agenda that’s really going to be borne by ratepayers and businesses.”

Environmental Advocate Reactions

It is no surprise that environmental advocates are concerned. The Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) voiced disappointment with the delay in implementing the cap-and-invest program. Kate Courtin, Senior Manager of State Climate Policy & Strategy at EDF, criticized the decision, stating, “By continuing to kick cap-and-invest down the road, Governor Hochul is delaying the benefits that New Yorkers want — cleaner air, lower energy bills and more resilient communities.” The Nature Conservancy in New York released a statement from Jessica Ottney Mahar, policy and strategy director, that included the following:

Unfortunately, in a concerning setback for climate action, Governor Hochul is delaying the implementation of a Cap and Invest Program that would reduce the air pollution that causes global warming. Rather than advancing draft regulations this month, as had been widely discussed, the Governor’s address states that partial program details will be released sometime this year, and then proposes a one-time infrastructure investment of $1 billion. This is insufficient. Policy change is needed to reduce carbon pollution and generate ongoing revenue that can be used to invest in cleaner energy, buildings, transportation and cost reduction programs for New Yorkers. A Cap and Invest program is necessary for the State to meet the goals of the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act. At a time when our state and our nation face unprecedented impacts from climate change—from flooding to wildfires to droughts—as well as new uncertainty regarding climate policy at the federal level, there is no time to waste. We must address the climate emergency now, and New York must lead the way. The Nature Conservancy urges Governor Hochul to implement a strong Cap and Invest Program this year.

Kinniburgh quoted Patrick McClellan, policy director of the New York League of Conservation Voters, who was dismayed to learn of the change: “There’s really no reason why that rule couldn’t be done this year,” he told New York Focus by text. “If the Governor is unwilling to set a deadline even for that then I think it’s a total capitulation on her part.”

In her Spectrum News segment Kate Lisa referenced lawmakers and environmental advocates who argue the continuing costs of climate change are higher than waiting to address it.” I cannot let that statement go unchallenged. The idea that the costs of Climate Act inaction are greater than the costs of action is a political sound bite that is is misleading and inaccurate as I documented in my verbal comments and written comments on the Draft Scoping Plan. I summarized the machinations used to mislead New Yorkers as a shell game in a summary post.

One of the talking points of environmental advocates is the concern that delaying NYCI could impact the strict timeline of the state’s other climate mandates. Lisa quoted New York League of Conservation Voters President Julie Tighe:

The longer we wait, the harder it will be to meet those targets and generally speaking, the more expensive it will get. Most infrastructure projects don’t get cheaper over time, they get more expensive, so trying to move things along sooner rather than later also provides a longer time frame over which to help get those reductions.

I agree with Tighe that the longer we wait the more expensive infrastructure will get. However, that is not the position taken in the Scoping Plan. For example, the Integration Analysis device costs for zero-emissions charging technology and the vehicles themselves is presumed to decrease significantly over time. Home EV chargers and battery electric vehicles both are claimed to go down 18% between 2020 and 2030. Of course, this optimistic scenario is not panning out.

Conclusion

Democratic legislators and environmental advocates subscribe to the NYCI premise that it would be an effective policy that would provide funding and ensure compliance because of their naïve belief that existing market-based programs worked. Past results are no guarantee of future success, especially when past results are not triumphs. My evaluation of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) program results show that cap-and-invest programs can raise money but have not shown success in reducing emissions. That analysis also showed that New York investments in programs are not cost-effective relative to the state’s value of carbon. Unfortunately, that is not the reason that Hochul is delaying implementation. It is all about the money.

It is not just NYCI. The optimistic projections of environmental advocates and the Progressive Democrats who whole-heartedly support the Climate Act are at odds with reality. When all the transition costs are tallied, massive increases will be found whatever word games and numerical tricks are employed to claim otherwise. I believe it would be prudent to re-assess the Scoping Plan cost estimates to determine if New York can afford to implement the Climate Act in general and NYCI in particular.

Commentary on Recent Articles January 18, 2025

This is an update of articles that I have read that I want to mention but only have time to summarize briefly. I have also included links to some other items of interest. Previous commentaries are available here.

I have been following the Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act) since it was first proposed and most of the articles described below are related to the net-zero transition. I have devoted a lot of time to the Climate Act because I believe the ambitions for a zero-emissions economy embodied in the Climate Act outstrip available renewable technology such that the net-zero transition will do more harm than good. The opinions expressed in this article do not reflect the position of any of my previous employers or any other company I have been associated with, these comments are mine alone.

Videos

Recommended – Steve Koonin – Is there a climate emergency

Alex Epstein and Jordan Peterson – How to Solve All of America’s Energy Problems Transcript and Video

Brian Gitt – Confessions of an environmentalist.

Sea-Level Rise News

I recently described the responses by the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) to my comments on the Amendment to Part 490 Projected Sea-Level Rise. My primary criticism was that the DEC methodology yields absurdly high estimates of sea level rise. The biggest driver of that was because they rely on estimates of the future global warming based on emission projections that are acknowledged by most scientists as impossible. I did not mention that they also relied on a limited number of controversial analyses that claimed that rapid Antarctic ice melt was possible.

Kip Hansen recently reported that:

Antarctic ice melt has been an ongoing scientific controversy for more than a decade. Oddly, the warring parties are all at the same U.S. Federal Agency. The war, which involved salvos of papers between the NASA’s GRACE Ice Mass team and H. Jay Zwally and his team.

Hansen reports the news that:

The news is that some clever scientists — Collin M. Schohn, Neal R. Iverson, Lucas K. Zoe , Jacob R. Fowler, and Natasha Morgan-Witts — had decided that instead of blindly following the long-standing formulas for glacier ice flow, maybe they ought to find out, using real experiments, if those formulas actually reflect what happens in the physical universe where glaciers, ice under pressure, are flowing and melting. It took them ten years.

The story is covered in this SciTechDaily article: Glacier Experts Uncover Critical Flaw in Sea-Level Rise Predictions. The article is a press release from Iowa State University (the by line is theirs). It says:

“New research shows temperate glacier ice flows more steadily than previously thought, leading to lower projections of sea-level rise.

The bottom line described by Hansen is further evidence that the sea level rise projections in Part 490 are unacceptably high:

New research shows temperate glacier ice flows more steadily, linearly and not exponentially, contrary to our previous understanding, and this leads to far lower projections of future sea-level rise due to any glacier melt in Greenland and Antarctica.

Climate Discussion Nexus (CDN)

CDN is run by John Robson and produces a highly recommended weekly newsletter. The latest edition includes a story about access to electricity. His piece starts with complaints about some technical problems with electronic gadgets including Gmail’s “The operation cannot be performed because the message has been changed”, surely the most useless bug in history”. He goes on to say “If you think we’re being petty and whiny about First World problems, you’re right. Because what people should hate is that, for instance, 17 million human beings in Latin America and the Caribbean alone never face any of those issues because they don’t have access to electricity, never mind a frozen web page.” Robson goes on to point out:

Half a billion people don’t have to worry about the light switch not working because there isn’t one. And yet countless well-fed activists with more selfies on their phone than they can sort look at those numbers and think we must prevent them from burning natural gas or coal, stop them building nuclear reactors and keep inhaling particulates from wood and dung if they stupidly persist in cooking what little food they’ve managed to obtain. While hating us for lacking compassion and concern for the future.

Energy Transition Challenges

Rick Dunn described the visions, delusions, and nightmares of the proposed energy transition in a well-documented piece that includes good graphics. He made a good point that transition challenges are related to primary energy consumption. In 2023 “wind and solar only represented 2.6% of total U.S. primary energy consumption in 2023, and ‘evil’ fossil fuels (hydrocarbons) represented 83%.” He notes:

To help digest the stunningly low numbers for wind and solar it is important to keep in mind that energy represents the capacity to do work and that direct use of combustible fuels in residential, commercial, industrial and transportation sectors is where the vast majority of work on the planet is being done today.

I concur with his conclusion that “Dogma has replaced physics, engineering, and economics in shaping energy policies. Citizens must demand far more from their elected officials and utility leaders.”

Americans rejected Biden’s expensive climate agenda, but New York still offers it a safe haven

Kevin Killough wrote an article describing New York’s climate agenda that I mention here because he referenced my work extensively. I think he captured my concerns well.

Caiazza said that nuclear power is the only viable DEFR option. Though there are financial challenges that need to be addressed with nuclear energy, that’s true of any emissions-free, reliable option. And nuclear energy would overwhelm intermittent resources.

“Here is the thing. If the only viable DEFR solution is nuclear, then the wind, solar, and energy storage approach they are advocating cannot be implemented without nuclear power. I estimate that 24 GW of nuclear can replace 178 GW of wind, water and battery storage. Developing nuclear eliminates the need for a huge DEFR backup resource and massive buildout of wind turbines and solar panels sprawling over the state’s lands and water,” Caiazza said.

California Withdraws EPA Clean Truck Waiver Request

Here is another reason that the Climate Act transition is not going to happen. The regulations necessary to convert heavy duty trucks to zero-emissions alternatives are not going forward. According to a Reuters news report:

California said on Tuesday it has withdrawn its request for a federal waiver to require commercial truckers to transition to zero-emissions vehicles, preempting an expected denial from the incoming administration of President-elect Donald Trump.

The withdrawal was among several pollution-fighting waiver requests filed with the Environmental Protection Agency that was dropped by the California Air Resources Board (CARB), according to documents posted on Tuesday.

“The withdrawal is an important step given the uncertainty presented by the incoming administration that previously attacked California’s programs to protect public health and the climate and has said will continue to oppose those programs,” CARB Chair Liane Randolph said in a statement.

California’s Advanced Clean Fleets rule aimed to set timelines for operators of trucks carrying everything from U.S. mail and UPS packages to 40-foot containers of goods and other cargo, to switch to zero-emissions vehicles such as those powered by electric batteries.

Exxon Litigation

Doomberg described (paywalled) an Exxon lawsuit against California Attorney General Rob Bonta personally, along with five environmental groups, accusing the defendants of disparagement, defamation, tortious interference, and civil conspiracy after Bonta and these groups sued Exxon for their advanced plastic recycling technologies. “Exxon’s opening 40-page salvo in this case is quite the page-turner. The brief says “It is also a case about the corrupting influence of foreign money in the American legal system and about the sordid for-profit incentives and outright greed that tries to hide behind so-called public impact litigation.”

The thrust of the Exxon’s argument is that Bonta’s legal assault was actually the brainchild of the brash Australian billionaire Andrew Forrest, founder of Fortescue Mining Group. The article explains that Forrest had a scheme to address plastic pollution that Exxon refused to join because it was a clear violation of US antitrust law. Now Forrest is funding this high-profile environmental litigation attack through the State of California and stand-in environmental groups. Doomberg closed by asking how many attacks on fossil fuel energy infrastructure might be funded by wealthy foreign interests with hidden agendas as opposed to truly spontaneous political uprisings funded by concerned citizens? In my humble opinion, the irrational and over-the-top attacks on natural gas is likely one such example.

Implications of the Moss Landing Battery Plant Fire

Note – This post was updated with revised cost numbers on January 17 at 8:00 PM EST

According to the Mercury News “Flames and smoke in the community of Moss Landing and the Elkhorn Slough area in northern Monterey County largely were just smoldering late Friday morning following a major fire at a battery storage plant that brought evacuations.” I think it is appropriate to consider the implications of this fire on their proposal by the PEAK Coalition who is dedicated to the shutdown of New York City peaking power plants. In their report from last year, Accelerate Now! The Fossil Fuel End Game 2.0 they described their plan to address harmful and racially disproportionate health impacts of the city’s peaker plants by replacing them with renewable energy and energy storage solutions.

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 490 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 PEAK coalition has stated that “Fossil peaker plants in New York City are perhaps the most egregious energy-related example of what environmental injustice means today.” The influence of this position on current New York State environmental policy has led to this issue finding its way into multiple environmental initiatives. I have prepared a summary of this issue that explains why the presumption of egregious harm is based on selective choice of metrics, poor understanding of air quality health impacts, and ignorance of air quality trends. The page documents my concerns based on my background in air pollution control theory, implementation, and evaluation over my 45+ year career as an air pollution meteorologist and extensive personal experience with peaking power plants and their role during high energy demand days.

Peak Coalition and Battery Storage

The Accelerate Now! The Fossil Fuel End Game 2.0 report concludes that “The pace of renewable energy, energy storage, and transmission development must increase.” The following energy storage recommendations were made:

The most immediate and pressing step is to address the short-term reliability challenges that led NYISO to issue reliability must-run scenarios for the Gowanus and Narrows peaker plants. Governor Hochul must direct key decision-makers to fund and develop transmission and energy storage assets before May 2025 in order to minimize or eliminate the use of these peaker plants.

NYPA must be held accountable for the linked mandate to phase out their peaker plants in New York City and Long Island by accelerating the process of issuing, evaluating, awarding, and developing battery storage projects at the sites.

NYSERDA can and must develop new large-scale and community-led renewable energy and energy storage projects in an expedient manner and prioritize applications that will transition fossil fuel operations or develop distributed energy resources capacity.

Local leaders can play a significant role in educating the public on issues such as developing responsible solutions to address safety concerns without overburdening renewable energy and battery storage development due to misinformation.

Also note that the Peak Coalition emphasizes equity for the transition from traditional power plants for neighboring communities. The report notes that the “phaseout of fossil fuel peaker plants creates new opportunities for communities to take back control over their future.” This includes a demand to “allow community governance in renewable energy and battery storage”.

The Peak Coalition webinar entitled Replacing NYC’s Peaker Plants with Clean Alternatives: Progress, Barriers, and Pathways Forward on February 6, 2024, also discussed battery storage. Victor Davila, Community Organizer, THE POINT CDC included the following slide in his presentation that demands that battery storage replace peaking power plants.

Megan Carr, Skadden Fellow – Environmental Justice Program, New York Lawyers for the Public Interest talked about regulatory barriers including those for battery storage. She illustrated her comments with the following slide.

Regarding battery storage she said:

I want to talk about regulatory barriers. There are real challenges to developing battery storage in New York City. The city has additional codes and safety standards beyond the state standards when it comes to siting battery storage. FDNY has a site-specific approval process for every potential energy development. There are set back and clearance requirements that limit the possibility of rooftop solar across the city. There are fire code regulations that continue to prevent lithium-ion batteries from being installed indoors and the second use of lithium-ion batteries is banned in New York City. These limitations stem from real safety concerns. We’ve all been horrified by the deadly e-bike fires that we’ve read about in the news. To increase energy storage development in New York City without sacrificing safety we need greater education for the public and policymakers alike that looks at the nuance between different types of battery storage and does not just fear monger in the public about the risk of storage.

The literal poster child for the Peak Coalition proposal is the Rise Light & Power Renewable Ravenswood initiative, a plan to transition Ravenswood Generating Station (shown below) into a clean energy hub. The plan involves the replacement of Ravenwood’s remaining peaking capacity with a mix of offshore wind, upstate renewables, district heating, and large-scale battery storage.

Not so Fast

A couple of years ago I put together a substantive post that discussed battery energy storage system (BESS) concerns. I concluded that these systems must overcome space constraint issues and are not proven technology. When a leading expert on batteries says: “Everybody has to be educated how to use these batteries safely”, I think the best course of action is to follow his advice. It is not appropriate to make the residents of the disadvantaged communities near a BESS become unwilling lab rats to test whether a technology that can generate toxic gases, fires, and explosions is appropriate in an urban setting. I am sure Ms. Carr believes that my article is “fear mongering the public about the risk of storage”.

Reality is confirming my concerns.

The Vistra Moss Landing Energy Storage Facility is the largest lithium battery energy storage system in the world, located in Moss Landing, California. It has a total capacity of 750 MW and 3,000 MWh, providing critical support to California’s electricity grid. On January 16, 2025 a fire was reported at the facility shortly after 3 PM. Mercury News reported that:

Fire Chief Joel Mendoza of the North County Fire Protection said at a Friday morning press conference said the fire had died down significantly by 8:30 a.m., down from its peak about 12 hours earlier. The evacuations remained in place at 11 a.m. for about 1,200 residents

I understand that fire was in the 300-megawatt Phase I energy storage facility and reports indicated that 75% of the facility had burned. The nearby Tesla storage facility was unharmed.

This is the third fire at the facility in the last three years. They evacuated 8 square miles and closed a major highway. What would happen in New York City if there was a fire at the poster child storage facility.

New York City Battery Storage Fire Impacts

Richard Ellenbogen saved me from having to figure out the impacts. The following text in italics is from his email on the fire.

The Moss Landing Battery Plant fire is burning at a temperature of between 2500 – 5000 degrees Fahrenheit. From reports, the fire encompasses 40% of the 300 MW facility. At about 4 MW fitting in a 40 foot sea container sized package, there are about 30 sea container sized units on fire. The first responders won’t be able to get close enough to the fire to fight it, a lot of the water sprayed on it would likely turn to steam before it hit the batteries, and Lithium battery fires turn water that does come into contact with them into hydrogen and oxygen. Explosive fuel, an oxidizer, and a heat source aren’t a great combination. At $400 per Kilowatt, $400,000 per Megawatt, that is $48 million in damage for the 120 Megawatts that are burning, not counting clean up costs and please explain to me how the technology can qualify as zero emission.

RC comment: Later reports said 75% of the 300 MW facility burned making it $90 million in damages. The $400 per Kilowatt, $400,000 per Megawatt, that is $48 million numbers were updated to $400 per KWh, $1600 per Kilowatt-hr or $1.6 million per megawatt – hr for four hour storage. The costs are four times higher or $360 million.

Not to mention that any water sprayed on it would carry heavy metals and other toxins into the ground or into Monterey Bay.

Besides the ridiculous cost of the storage and the short lifespan, this has been one of my arguments against these facilities for years.

At Moss Landing, there are 7676 acres under evacuation with only 1214 people living there. At 640 acres per square mile, that is 12 square miles. It is a circle with a radius of about two miles, much of which is over the Pacific Ocean.

RC comment: Rich recalculated the radius to be 2.6 miles instead of 2 miles so even more of Manhattan would be in the danger zone.

RC Comment: Richard evaluated the impacts of a similar fire and evacuation recommendation for the poster child Ravenswood facility.

They are building a similar sized storage facility using the same technology at the location of the old Ravenswood Power Plant in Queens. There is nothing that can be done to make it any safer than the Moss Landing Plant except the population in the evacuation area would be nearly one million. The Ravenswood location is the Red Stick Pin on Vernon Blvd. across the East River from Roosevelt Island shown below.

The average population density of NY City is 30,000 people per square mile. It is the most densely populated city in the United States, except that figure also includes less densely populated areas in the outer boroughs. The average population density of Manhattan is 73,000 people per square mile and a 12 Square mile evacuation zone would cover some of the most densely populated areas of Queens, Brooklyn, and Manhattan. The evacuation zone would cover most of the map shown. Two miles from Ravenswood extends to the West Side of Central Park due west, southwest to the Empire State building on 33rd Street and 5th Avenue, all of the East side of Manhattan above 30th Street up to 106th Street, and Queens and Brooklyn from the RFK Bridge down to Greenpoint. That is the entire area circled by Routes 278 and 495. Those are the Brooklyn Queens Expressway and the Long Island Expressway, roads that are notorious for being parking lots on a normal day.

What would happen during a mass evacuation because of a battery fire that could also potentially impact the utility system and mass transit in a worst-case scenario, eliminating subways as a viable means of egress? Grand Central Station would also fall within a 2 mile radius evacuation zone so would Metro North trains be able to operate? What contamination would enter the East River during a similar fire at Ravenswood? How many people would die in an evacuation like that from heart attacks, being crushed in a crowd or run over by vehicles, and how many other types of accidents that could occur in an evacuation of that size? A 2 mile evacuation zone would also include all of the hospitals between 60th Street and 70th Street near the East River including Sloan Kettering and Weill- Cornell, and also NYU Langone Medical Center on 34th Street and the East River. How will those facilities be evacuated?

Conclusion

The Peak Coalition demands that regulators “allow community governance in renewable energy and battery storage”. I worry that addressing this constraint distracts from the complex issues involved with peaking power plant needs and fire safety mandates.

When Ms. Carr talked about the Fire Department of New York response to energy storage permitting her voice suggested that she did not agree with their requirements. Even though she acknowledged that their “limitations stem from real safety concerns” she said: “To increase energy storage development in New York City without sacrificing safety we need greater education for the public and policymakers alike that looks at the nuance between different types of battery storage and does not just fear monger in the public about the risk of storage.” These fires have implications for this recommendation.

The Peak Coalition has a very narrow focus that is based almost entirely on emotion. Most importantly, they have no accountability when they disparage the agencies and organizations that are responsible for environmental protection, electric system reliability, and in this case fire hazards. In my previous article I concluded that we should follow the advice of experts who say: “Everybody has to be educated how to use these batteries safely”. Given the experience of Moss Landing, I think it is fair to ask if they can be operated safely and that it would be prudent to delay implementation until that can be shown.

The alleged impacts of peaking power plants pale in comparison to the disastrous impacts of a battery energy storage fire. That risk must be considered as the energy transition implementation plan is rolled out. Crossing fingers and hoping that a fire will not happen is a prescription for disaster.

New York Cap-and-Invest State of the State Update

Recently I posed some questions that I think need to be resolved associated with the New York Cap-and-Invest Program (NYCI) because I believed that Governor Hochul would announce the next steps associated with the implementation of this program when she presented the 2025 State of the State. I was completely wrong. The policy initiatives in the 2025 State of the State book only included this reference to NYCI: “Over the coming months, the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) and the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) will take steps forward on developing the cap-and-invest program, proposing new reporting regulations to gather information on emissions sources, while creating more space and time for public transparency and a robust investment planning process.” This post describes the official announcements and schedule impacts. I will follow up with another post describing reactions later.

Overview

The program works 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.” In addition to the declining cap, it is supposed to limit potential costs to New Yorkers, invest proceeds in programs that drive emission reductions in an equitable manner, and maintain the competitiveness of New York businesses and industries.

I have looked for the original schedule for NYCI implementation but could not find anything to document my recollection that the program was planned to be in place and operating so that auction revenues would start in 2025. There is no doubt that the announcement that the program is taking steps forward on developing the cap-and-invest program “over the coming months” admits that the program is being delayed. Let’s take a look at the information available and possible reasons for the delay.

NYCI Schedule

The State of the State Book and the NYSERDA State of the State Announcement provided nothing concrete about the schedule. The only reference to time was “over the coming months”.

The Nature Conservancy in New York released a statement from Jessica Ottney Mahar, policy and strategy director that is likely to be the most accurate timeline because her husband is the acting Commissioner of the Department of Environmental Conservation. Her statement included the following:

Unfortunately, in a concerning setback for climate action, Governor Hochul is delaying the implementation of a Cap and Invest Program that would reduce the air pollution that causes global warming. Rather than advancing draft regulations this month, as had been widely discussed, the Governor’s address states that partial program details will be released sometime this year”.

Discussion

Obviously, the Hochul Administration is stalling the progress of NYCI. Not surprisingly, advocates are “concerned” but the fact is that the aspirational Climate Act schedule is at odds with reality as developments last summer showed.

Administration descriptions of the 2025 State of the State said; “It includes more than 200 initiatives that will put money back in people’s pockets, keep New Yorkers safe, and ensure the future of New York is a place where all families can thrive.” The reality is that NYCI will be expensive and at odds with the affordability theme of the State of the State. At the Energy Access and Equity Research webinar sponsored by the NYU Institute for Policy Integrity on May 13, 2024 Jonathan Binder stated that the New York Cap and Invest Program would generate proceeds of “between $6 and $12 billion per year” by 2030. In my opinion, costs are primary driver for the delay.

Last September I wrote an article that discussed several reports that should also have influenced the decision to slow down NYCI implementation. On July 16, 2024 the New York State Comptroller Office released an audit of the NYSERDA and Public Service Commission (PSC) of their implementation efforts for the Climate Act titled Climate Act Goals – Planning, Procurements, and Progress Tracking. The key finding summary states: “While PSC and NYSERDA have taken considerable steps to plan for the transition to renewable energy in accordance with the Climate Act and Clean Energy Standard, their plans did not comprise all essential components, including assessing risks to meeting goals and projecting costs.” It recommended:

Begin the required comprehensive review of the Climate Act, including assessment of progress toward the goals, distribution of systems by load and size, and annual funding commitments and expenditures.

Conduct a detailed analysis of cost estimates to transition to renewable energy sources and meet Climate Act goals. Periodically update and report the results of the analysis to the public.

Assess the extent to which ratepayers can reasonably assume the responsibility for covering Climate Act implementation costs. Identify potential alternative funding sources

The Climate Act requires the Public Service Commission (PSC) issue a biennial review for notice and comment that considers “(a) progress in meeting the overall targets for deployment of renewable energy systems and zero emission sources, including factors that will or are likely to frustrate progress toward the targets; (b) distribution of systems by size and load zone; and (c) annual funding commitments and expenditures.” The draft Clean Energy Standard Biennial Review Report released on July 1, 2024 fulfills this requirement. Key findings from the report include:

New York is likely to miss its 2030 target of achieving 70% renewable electricity.

The state is projected to reach this goal by 2033 instead.

There is a significant gap of 42,145 GWh or 37% towards meeting the 70% renewable energy goal by 2030

The Final report was due by the end of 2024, but Department of Public Service staff recently announced that publication would be delayed.

The Scoping Plan is an outline of possible strategies that could reduce emissions consistent with the Climate Act mandates. The State Energy Plan is a comprehensive roadmap to build a clean, resilient, and affordable energy system for all New Yorkers. That process started last fall with the release of a draft scope of the plan. The energy plan required analyses have not been updated since 2015. Section 6-104, State Energy Plan (2) (b) says the state energy plan shall include:

(b) Identification and assessment of the costs, risks, benefits, uncertainties and market potential of energy supply source alternatives, including demand-reducing measures, renewable energy resources of electric generation, distributed generation technologies, cogeneration technologies, biofuels and other methods and technologies reasonably available for satisfying energy supply requirements which are not reasonably certain to be met by the energy supply sources identified in paragraph (a) of this subdivision, provided that such analysis shall include the factors identified in paragraph (d) of this subdivision.

The expectation is that the final Energy Plan scope will be completed in early 2025 and the document will be released for public review in the summer of 2025. I do not see any way that the Plan will be completed before the end of 2025.

In summary, there are several on-going initiatives that are going to put costs and schedule issues out in the open. In my opinion, they all should be completed before implementation proceeds. The Comptroller report emphasized the need for transparent costs. The Biennial Review is supposed to address those costs albeit I am sure that the Hochul Administration does not want to provide those numbers in the detail that the Comptroller requested. The Energy Plan also must fulfill a cost documentation mandate and will address issues glossed over in the Scoping Plan or made obsolete by industry and financial changes since the publication of the Scoping Plan. A major unresolved issue is how to pay for these expected costs.

Conclusion

There are clear reasons for delaying implementation of NYCI. I have commented numerous times on what I think is the biggest issue associated with the aforementioned initiatives – the obvious need for a feasibility analysis to determine a viable decarbonization strategy for New York. The Scoping Plan and the organizations responsible for New York State electric system reliability agree that a new technology is needed to support the proposed wind, solar, and energy storage electric energy system envisioned by the Climate Act during extended periods of low resource availability. It is ridiculous to proceed full speed down an implementation path without knowing if the necessary technology is available to maintain current standards of system reliability.

The other viability constraint is cost. I believe that it is becoming evident even to the true believers in the Hochul Administration that the costs are so large that they are a political liability. I believe that costs are the likely reason that the Hochul Administration is delaying NYCI implementation.

I believe that the NYCI reporting regulations will be enacted in 2025. Based on my extensive reporting experience I think it would be appropriate to give the affected sources time to implement the reporting infrastructure necessary to comply with the new regulations. I also believe that the Hochul re-election plan will avoid having the auction start in the 2026 election year because this billions a year tax is inimical to claiming to be concerned about affordability.

New York Affordable Energy Future

Politico’s Marie French recently reported that “Two reports backed by environmental advocates found distributing money raised from a cap-and-trade program would leave households better off.” New York’s Affordable Energy Future included recommendations for allocating the revenues from the New York Cap-and-Invest program. I did not address the primary claim but did calculate the expected emission reductions from the investments in the proposed allocations to the reductions needed to meet the Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act) 2030 and 2050 targets.

I have been involved in the RGGI program process since it was first proposed prior to 2008. I follow and write about the details of the RGGI program because the results of that program need to be considered for Climate Act implementation. The opinions expressed in these comments 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 2030 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.” The Scoping Plan was finalized at the end of 2022 and included a recommendation for a market-based economywide cap-and-invest program.

In response to that recommendation, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) and New York State Energy Research & Development Authority (NYSEDA) have been preparing implementation regulations for the New York Cap-and-Invest (NYCI) program. The program works 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.” In addition to the declining cap, it is supposed to limit potential costs to New Yorkers, invest proceeds in programs that drive emission reductions in an equitable manner, and maintain the competitiveness of New York businesses and industries. I recently summarized some of my concerns with the proposed program.

My decades long experience with market-based pollution control programs has always been from the compliance side. Starting with the Acid Rain Program in 1990 I spent 20 years tracking electric generating station emissions, submitting emissions data to EPA, and working internally to assure that the compliance obligations of the company were assured before I retired. Over that period, DEC and EPA modified the regulations setting the caps on emissions. I was responsible for evaluating whether the company could meet the new caps. When EPA set new limits, the new standard was based on an evaluation of what the generating units could do, arguments revolved around whether their assessment was appropriate for individual units, and whether their schedule for implementing the new limits was achievable. The Climate Act mandates were arbitrary with no regard to feasibility of limits or timing.

One of the concerning elements of NYCI is the near total disregard for the compliance obligations of affected sources. Last month I evaluated the performance of RGGI relative to compliance obligations in a series of three articles. In the first article I evaluated Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) emission data and NYSERDA documentation and found that the investments funded by RGGI auction proceeds would have been only 4.2% higher if the NYSERDA program investments did not occur. In the second article I showed that the cost per ton reduced from the NYSERDA RGGI operating plan investments was $582 per ton of CO2. The final article described the program allocations in the NYSERDA 2025 Draft RGGI Operating Plan Amendment. I showed that the observed 49% emission reduction since 1990 were primarily due to fuel switching and there are no more fuel switching opportunities available. These analyses also generated a cost per ton of CO2 removed for different NYSDERDA programs that was used in the following analysis.

New York Affordable Energy Future

One of the reports described by Marie French “was produced by Switchbox and paid for by WE ACT for Environmental Justice, Environmental Defense Fund, and Earthjustice”. The recommended citation is

Smith, Alex, Rina Palta, Max Shron, and Juan-Pablo Velez. 2025. “New York’s Affordable Energy Future.” Switchbox. January 13, 2025. I will refer to the report as Smith et al., 2025. I asked Marie about Switchbox and she explained that it was “set up basically to do research for environmental groups in NY/other parts of the country. The project is described by Earthjustice here.

This kind of report bothers me because it is grey literature. One description of grey literature emphasizes the point that it is not subject to peer review but another claims that “it may be the best source of information on policies and programs”. My problem with grey literature performed at the behest of environmental advocacy organizations is that those organizations promote the results without acknowledging the biases. Incredibly, these reports have impacted New York policy. Policy makers cite these works without critical appraisal of the analyses and citations used. The biggest problem is when policy makers neglect to account for potential publication bias when including grey literature in their decision-making process. Of course, I must admit that all of my work is grey literature. The reason that my articles are so long is because I provide the background and data necessary for my readers to assess my results and conclusions. I included this discussion because this report is unique as it is only available on-line at the Switchbox website. That makes assessment of their analysis and data more difficult which I think is the point of that approach.

Program Allocations

French notes that this report focuses on how the revenue from “cap and invest” should be spent and how households could benefit from electrifying their homes. Two revenue scenarios corresponding to the range of expected proceeds proposed by NYSERDA and DEC were analyzed:

Scenario A would set a $24 per-unit ceiling on allowances in 2025, rising to $26 in 2026, $58 in 2027, and by 6% annually thereafter.
Scenario C would set a $14 per-unit ceiling on allowances in 2025, rising to $15 in 2026, $27 in 2027, and by 6% annually thereafter.

Smith et al., 2025 state that:

In 2030, the state would collect $6 billion in NYCI revenue under scenario C, and $13 billion under scenario A.

These sums would cover 54 – 115% of NYSERDA’s 2030 cost estimate and are equivalent to 3 – 5% of New York State’s $237 billion 2025 budget.

Their proposed funding scenario allocates resources to seven categories (Table 1). In the revenue projections examined by the report, NYCI would raise a total of between $61 – $126 billion over the first 11 years of the program.

Table 1: Funding by program under proposed spending program with 11-year total revenues

The NYSERDA RGGI Funded Program Status reports provide estimates of the effectiveness of the programs that NYSERDA manages using RGGI proceeds. Table 2 uses data from NYSERDA’s Table 2. Summary of Expected Cumulative Annual Program Benefits through December 31, 2023 in the most recent status report. The costs and emission savings columns in Table 2 are directly from the NYSERDA report. I assigned different NYSERDA programs to the proposed programs in Smith et al., 2025 in the remaining columns. For example, the NYSERDA Charge New York programs support infrastructure deployment for electric vehicles. I summed up all the relevant costs and benefits and calculated a cost effectiveness for each category by dividing the total costs by the expected emission savings:

Transportation: $917 per ton of CO2e removed
Commercial Decarbonization: $446 per ton of CO2e removed
Residential Decarbonization: $457 per ton of CO2e removed
Place-based Investments: $239 per ton of CO2e removed

Table 2: Summary of Expected Cumulative Annualized Program Benefits through 31 December 2023 Categorized by Smith et al, 2025 NYCI Proposed Programs

Combining these data, it is possible to determine how effective the proposed allocations will be for providing the emission reductions necessary to meet the Climate Act goals. The expected reductions in each for each program equal the funds available divided the cost per ton expected. The question is whether the investments will achieve compliance. The Scoping Plan did not provide a schedule for emission reductions expected for their reduction strategies, so we must do our own estimate. In 2022, the total GHG emissions for New York equaled 371.08 million tons. In 2030 GHG emissions must meet a 40% reduction of 1990 emissions or 294.07 million tons. To get to that level emissions must go down 9.6 million tons per year. For Scenario A we expect to reduce emissions 119.63 million tons and there is a surplus of 13.75 million tons over the 11 year period total to reach the 2030 target. However, Scenario C does not meet the target and the 2050 target will not be met for either scenario.

Table 3: Funding by program , expected cost efficiency and projected 11-year reductions

Discussion

While most advocates do not acknowledge that cap-and-invest programs probably will not guarantee compliance with the emission reduction goals, this report did. One of the features of the proposed program is a price ceiling on the allowance cost that will limit the impact on consumers. Smith et al., 2025 note that “This is why economists often describe a price ceiling as converting cap-and-trade into a carbon tax at that price point.” In my opinion NYCI is simply a re-branded carbon tax. The authors’ described price ceilings:

However, they have the effect of weakening the cap: if the auction price ended up being higher than the price ceiling for a given year, the state would sell unlimited allowances at the ceiling price, resulting in more allowances sold than the cap would otherwise allow.

Price ceilings therefore sacrifice the state’s ability to control the level of climate pollution in exchange for the ability to control the price of climate pollution. A declining cap would thus be unable to single-handedly decarbonize New York by 2050, and Cap-and-Invest would need to be paired with complementary policies.

There is a reference to the last sentence that states “As documented in the book Making Climate Policy Work (Cullenward and Victor 2020), this is true of all real-world cap-and-trade systems.” In a recent article I made the same point that Cullenward and Victor believe that the level of expenditures needed to implement the net-zero transition vastly exceeds the “funds that can be readily appropriated from market mechanisms”. The numbers derived from the New York RGGI experience corroborates that conclusion.

I worry that there are limited emission reduction options for the compliance entities. There are no add-on controls that can achieve zero emissions for any sector. The only strategy is to convert to a different source of energy which takes time because some components are out of the control of the entity that is responsible for compliance. For example, fuel suppliers are responsible for transportation sector compliance, but the strategy is to convert to zero-emission vehicles. They have no control over that. As noted previously, the Climate Act schedule was determined by politicians. I have long argued that New York needs to do a feasibility study to confirm that the Scoping Plan emission reduction strategies themselves and the arbitrary schedule of the Climate Act are possible.

The problem with NYCI is that it establishes a compliance schedule. If the schedule or the reduction technologies are not feasible, then there will be compliance implications. Organizations are unwilling to knowingly violate compliance requirements because the programs are designed to severely penalize non-compliance. The only remaining option for the fuel suppliers to ensure compliance is to simply stop selling fuel. I do not think that the resulting artificial energy shortage will be received well by anyone.

I did not address any aspects of the Smith et al., 2025 analysis other than the compliance obligation aspect. This analysis shows the investments from the NYCI program cannot achieve the annual emission reduction rate necessary to meet the 2050 goal but for the highest revenue scenario the rate could be achieved. This does not mean that NYCI investments will ensure that the 2030 goal can be met. The program hasn’t even been proposed. There won’t be any revenues available until 2026 and the programs need to be proposed, contracts let, and deployment started before there will be any emission reductions. Frankly, I doubt that there will be any meaningful emission reduction from NYCI investments by 2030. This finding emphasizes the need for a pause in implementation until the funding requirements for meaningful reductions are identified.

I expect to follow up with another post on this report later to address the main claim that the higher revenue scenario would “reduce household costs”.

Conclusion

The Smith et al., 2025 analysis proposes an allocation scheme for NYCI revenues. I did not address the specifics of their proposal. My interest was the acknowledgement of the Cullenward and Victor work that persuasively argues that the level of expenditures needed to implement the net-zero transition vastly exceeds the “funds that can be readily appropriated from market mechanisms”. The performance of NYSERDA investment of RGGI proceeds confirms that argument.

The biggest question is the appetite of New Yorkers to accept a $13 billion-dollar annual carbon tax whatever the investment benefits claimed. Governor Hochul will be running for re-election in 2026 so I believe the political machinations regarding costs will be the over-riding factor in the choice of the allowance ceiling price and the costs to consumers. Unacknowledged by most are the compliance obligations that could have massive unintended consequences. Stay tuned.

Commentary on Recent Articles January 12, 2025

Videos

Mark Mills – Electric Vehicle Myths

John Robson comments on key items from the latest Climate Discussion Nexus weekly “Wednesday Wakeup” newsletter.

Hochul Hypocrisy

Governor Hochul has taken at least 30 flights aboard private jets since 2021. I am sure that she can argue why that was necessary for convenience or effective use of her time, However, this is the same person pushing policies that will force me to use electric vehicles that are neither convenient or effective for me. At some point this kind of thing has to catch up with her.

Prospect for Nuclear Power in Japan

Doomberg is a great source of energy-related content but articles are behind a paywall. Nonetheless, I wanted to point out that a recent article pointed out that Japan will release its Seventh Strategic Energy Plan (SEP) that will “address energy mix targets, sector-specific plans, energy efficiency measures, decarbonization targets, and international collaboration agendas.” The point of the article was that despite all the issues Japan has had with nuclear energy, there is a good chance that the upcoming plan will return to nuclear power development which will “also shape public-private investment initiatives, with vast sums of money directed toward achieving the country’s collective energy goals that could have an outsized impact on the global nuclear power sector.”

One thing that struck me in the article was that following the Fukushima meltdown “citizens were asked to participate in massive efficiency drives” and that likely represents a reasonable maximum for energy efficiency improvements. Eyeballing a graph I estimate that Japan reduced demand by only 13%. Climate Act proponents who want to minimize new generating resources and despise nuclear development are claiming their “smart grid” fantasy will result in energy efficiency improvements much larger than 13%. I don’t think these results support their beliefs.

In comments to the Doomberg article JohnS’s Newsletter included a link to his article How the US can make nuclear energy cheap again. The article explains why nuclear power became expensive in the US:

Nuclear power in the early 1970s was the cheapest form of electricity. The US was on a fast track to a rapid transition to this emission-free source of energy. Instead, it was stopped by excessive regulation, regulation applied retroactively to plants under construction, opposition by activist groups, inflation during the 1970s, cheap natural gas, and faith in solar and wind power as a superior alternative. However, as the difficulties of relying on intermittent energy are becoming clearer, interest in nuclear energy is once again on the rise.

The article argues that cheaper nuclear generation should be possible with standardization and modularization. If a single design is used that incorporates many modules that can be built in an assembly line someplace costs should come down. I would add that permitting a standard design would be easier too. One of the points made in the article is that the nuclear development industry in the United States must be rebuilt. His analysis concludes that it is possible to build nuclear generation with an expected lifespan of 80 years that would be close to natural gas development and far cheaper than the firm, dispatchable cost of wind and solar. If you want a deep dive into the prospects of nuclear development I recommend this article.

LA Fires

Here are some articles related to the LA fires. Given the enormity of the destruction this is going to have ramifications across the country.

A media advisory from AccuWeather estimates the total damage and economic loss from the fires will be between $135-$150 billion. This estimate includes “the damage and destruction of thousands of homes and businesses, damage to utilities and infrastructure, the financial impact of evacuation orders for more than 100,000 people, the long-term cost of rebuilding or relocation for people in densely populated areas whose homes were destroyed, anticipated cleanup and recovery costs, emergency shelter expenses, as well as immediate and long-term health care costs for people who were injured or exposed to unhealthy air quality from wildfire smoke.”

I am disappointed that climate ideologues have used this tragedy as an opportunity to publicize their narrative that every extreme weather event proves that there is an existential climate crisis. Mainstream media outlets parrot their claims. Craig Rucker argues that “if the media was doing its job, reporters would vet these claims by following up with, how meaningful was the climate change impact on this event?” I recommend four articles on the LA fires that explain why the impact of climate change was minimal and how misallocation of resources exacerbated the problems:

Patrick T. Brown published an overview article describing the causes and potential solutions to the disaster.

Earlier Patrick T. Brown described the meteorological factors like the Santa Ana winds that drive fire behavior. He concludes that climate change plays a marginal role compared to solutions like fire management and ignition prevention.

Chris Martz evaluated all the Santa Ana fires in Southern California over 70 years and finds that humans caused them all. The primary problems are human activities and poor land management.

Rober Bryce notes that the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power’s latest annual report is a 59-page paean to the gods of sustainability, solar energy, “green” hydrogen, decarbonization, diversity, equity, and, of course, the “clean energy transition.” Those programs are described in great detail but “the report contains precisely one paragraph on wildfire mitigation.”

Anthony Watts’ makes the same arguments that concern me the most. The media focus on climate change ignores the real drivers of damages related to extreme weather.

Ultimately the problem with the misplaced media focus is that California’s obsession with climate change siphons resources from actionable solutions that would have mitigated the effects of this tragedy. I submit that the political emphasis on climate change policies are based on the massive misconception that fixing the weather is a simple matter of just stopping the use of fossil fuels and replacing them with renewables that will be cheaper, more resilient, and more secure. The experience of European countries that are further along in their renewable energy transition programs proves that the transition will be more expensive, less resilient, and will create major reliability risks.

Yet Another Warning Sign in Great Britain

A recent cold snap in Great Britain is a prime example of the resiliency threats to a reliable electric energy system. Tallbloke’s Talkshop notes that the UK has experienced a “particularly long cold spell” Paul Homewood notes that load peaked so high that reserves were low even with all the natural gas units working flat out and using 9 GW of interconnections to Europe. He raises the salient point that “demand for electricity will start to rise rapidly as we transition to heat pumps and EVs”. At the same time there are no plans to build any new natural gas fired units. They are coming to grips with the fact that wind and solar will be no help for these wintertime peaks but have not proposed solutions.

Wind Incidents

Bud’s Offshore Energy (BOE) provides a great resource for wind turbine incidents:

Given the absence of industry and government data on wind turbine incidents, Scotland Against Spin (SAS) has done yeoman’s work in filling the void. SAS gathers information from press reports and official releases. A PDF of the latest SAS update summary (through 2024) is available. You can view their complete incident compilation (324 pages) here. Kudos to SAS for their diligence.

Be sure to see the introductory text at the top of the attached table. Some key points:

The table includes all documented cases of wind turbine incidents which could be found and confirmed through press reports or official information releases.

SAS believes that this compendium of accident information may be the most comprehensive available anywhere.

SAS believes their table is only the “tip of the iceberg” in terms of numbers of accidents and their frequency:
On 11 March 2011 the Daily Telegraph reported that RenewableUK confirmed that there had been 1500 wind turbine incidents in the UK alone in the previous 5 years.
In July 2019 EnergyVoice and the Press and Journal reported a total of 81 cases where workers had been injured on the UK’s windfarms since 2014. SAS data includes only 15 of these (<19%).
In February 2021, the industry publication Wind Power Engineering and Development admitted to 865 offshore accidents during 2019. SAS data include only 4 of these (<0.5%).

SAS includes other examples supporting their “tip of the iceberg” claim.

Although SAS is committed to reforming the Scottish government’s wind energy policy, their incident data summaries are credible. It’s disappointing that the wind industry is unwilling to publish comprehensive incident data that would help protect lives and the environment, and improve the performance of all participants.

New York Cap-and-Invest Issues to Resolve in 2025

After spending most of my time dealing with the December rush of comments submitted for various Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act) initiatives, I finally have time for issues that I would like to see resolved in 2025. At the top of the list are concerns associated with the New York Cap-and-Invest Program (NYCI).

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

There are many issues that remain unresolved even while the Hochul Administration rushes ahead to build as much solar, wind, and energy storage as possible as quickly as possible. This post poses questions related to NYCI;

The CAC’s Scoping Plan recommended a market-based economywide cap-and-invest program. The program works 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.” In addition to the declining cap, it is supposed to limit potential costs to New Yorkers, invest proceeds in programs that drive emission reductions in an equitable manner, and maintain the competitiveness of New York businesses and industries.

New York Cap-and-Invest Concerns

The draft cap-and-invest rule was originally slated for release in summer 2024 after the last public comment period ended in March 2024. The first question is when are the regulations going to come out? At the August 2024 Update on the New York Cap-and-Invest Plan the following slide was included that states that the “Allocation of funds will be finalized through State Budget Process.“ Consequently, I believe that the NYCI regulations will be released in conjunction with the State Budget process that will consume everyone’s attention in Albany for the next couple of months.

There are many questions related to how NYCI fund allocation would be done. At the top of that list is the revenue goals. I don’t see any way to include something in the budget unless they estimate costs. Do not ever forget that these climate initiatives are primarily about scoring political points. Governor Hochul appears to have figured out that the costs of implementing the Climate Act are enormous. I am sure that packaging the costs of NYCI as a benefit and not just another tax is a major reason why the regulations have been delayed. The resulting question is how much will this cost?

Two years ago, the Hochul Administration floated the idea of changing the GHG emissions accounting to the one used by nearly every jurisdiction in the world. That would enable New York to participate in trading programs with other jurisdictions, eliminate the need to develop an entirely new accounting framework, and would reduce the number of allowances in the auction. The last reason was the primary driver because it was alleged that it would reduce costs. There was immediate and intense blowback from environmental organizations and the proposal was dropped. I would not be shocked if it reappears. It is fair to ask how New York will ever be able to participate with other jurisdictions as long as New York insists on a unique accounting system.

The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) is often cited as a model for the NYCI program, but last month I showed that RGGI electric sector performance and New York State Energy Research & Development Authority (NYSERDA) investment effectiveness raise concerns. I question whether NYCI can improve on the results shown in NYSERDA reports that indicate RGGI has not been a very effective emission reduction mechanism.

I evaluated Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) emission data and NYSERDA documentation. The figure below shows that electric sector economic fuel switching from oil and coal to natural gas is the primary reason for the observed reduction in emissions. It also shows that there are no more fuel switching emission reductions possible.
On a regular basis NYSERDA publishes a status update of the progress of their program activities, implementation, and evaluation. According to the latest update, the total cumulative annual emission savings due to NYSERDA program investments of RGGI proceeds through the end of 2023 is 1,976,101 tons. That means that emissions from RGGI sources in New York would have been only 4.2% higher if the NYSERDA program investments did not occur. I showed that according to the report, cumulative combined costs for those programs was $1,149 million which means that the cost per ton reduced is $582.
I also showed that the results in the Funding status reports show that since the start of the program NYSERDA has allocated 10% of its investments to programs that directly reduce utility emissions by 199,733 tons, 58% to programs that indirectly reduce utility emissions by 1,205,780 tons, and 32% to programs that will increase utility emissions by 678,804 tons. When those savings that do not affect RGGI source emissions are removed, total savings are 1,297,297 and the emissions from RGGI sources in New York would have been only 2.8% higher if the NYSERDA program investments did not occur.
The proposed NYSERDA Amendment to the RGGI Operating Plan allocates only 22% to programs that directly, indirectly, or could potentially decrease RGGI-affected source emissions. Programs that will add load that could potentially increase RGGI source emissions total 37% of the investments. Programs that do not affect emissions are funded with 29% of the proceeds and administrative costs total another 8%.

The proposed Amendment to the RGGI Operating Plan indicates that NYSERDA has not incorporated the need to fund RGGI emission reduction programs now that fuel switching is no longer an effective option. Before we start implementing NYCI it is appropriate to check on implementation plans for RGGI. Where does NYSERDA expect the emission reductions necessary for RGGI compliance to come from?

With respect to NYCI and the non-electric sector economy, there are no fuel switching opportunities that will save fuel costs. Has NYSERDA determined how much auction revenue is needed to fund the emission reduction strategies necessary to meet the Climate Act mandates? When that amount is combined with the mandates c to fund benefits to disadvantaged communities and Hochul Administration promises for rebates what is the expected starting cost for the allowance auctions? According to the latest GHG emission inventory, the 2022 GHG emissions were 371.08 MMT CO₂e and need to reach 245.47 by 2040 which means that NYS must reduce emissions by 33.8% over 18 years. Will NYCI target auction prices increase to make up for the reduced number of allowances?

In addition to these relatively broad issues there are numerous technical concerns. NYCI is supposed to be an economy-wide program. Does that mean every sector will participate? The electric sector is already covered by RGGI. Will the electric sector be exempt from NYCI or will there be some accounting mechanism to ensure that ratepayer don’t pay twice.

There are technical issues associated with timing for the start of the program. The 2024 Statewide GHG Emission Report released at the end of December covers data from 1990 to 2022. RGGI emissions are reported by the end of the following January and compliance determined 30 days later. Will NYCI mandate reporting similar to that schedule or one compatible with the official inventory. I spent more time than I care to remember dealing with emission inventories during my career and a major concern was compatibility. How will that be resolved in NYCI considering the report timing?

Discussion

California was the first in the nation legislate a “solution” to climate change with its AB32 Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. I recently posted an article describing the Breakthrough Journal article by Jennifer Hernandez and Lauren Teixeira entitled Time to reset California’s climate leadership. After fourteen years the inevitable effects of reality are getting the attention of the politicians that supported the law. The authors explained:

California’s Democratic Assembly leader Richard Rivas opened the new Legislative session signalling a strong focus on meeting voter concerns about housing and the state’s extraordinarily high cost of living, specifically calling out the state’s climate policies: “California has always led the way on climate. And we will continue to lead on climate,” he told his Assembly colleagues. “But not on the backs of poor and working people, not with taxes or fees for programs that don’t work, and not by blocking housing and critical infrastructure projects. It’s why we must be outcome driven. We can’t blindly defend the institutions contributing to these issues.”

I think it is incumbent upon the Hochul Administration to consider whether the Climate Act will have similar impacts to New York. My analysis of the RGGI program indicates that RGGI is a hidden tax that is not working as advertised. My overarching concern is that any increase in costs is regressive and affects those least able to afford them the most. The Hochul Administration has included promises to reduce those impacts, but the reality is that it is easier said than done. For example, rebates to those adversely affected will lag payments and there is the danger that many in need will not get rebates.

New York’s stakeholder process is another hinderance to effective policy. Comments submitted go off into the bureaucracy and there is no indication which comments are addressed and how. When the regulations come out agencies are not allowed to discuss issues. Revolving issues requires dialogue, and the New York process effectively shuts that down.

There is another stakeholder issue. The desire for inclusivity is a laudable goal and the State has committed to encouraging participation by constituencies that claim that past practices have ignored their concerns. In theory that is great. In practice, if those aggrieved parties demand zero impacts and are unwilling to consider compromises or the existing structure of environmental protections, then the stakeholder process gets mired down, off track, and becomes ineffective. The Hochul Administration has yet to resolve that problem.

Conclusion

The premise for NYCI was that it would be an effective policy that would provide funding and ensure compliance because existing programs worked. The RGGI program results show that cap-and-invest programs can raise money but have not shown success in reducing emissions. My biggest concern is that NYCI has not acknowledged this problem. Past results are no guarantee of future success, especially when past results are not triumphs. This is another instance where I believe that the Climate Act implementation will do more harm than good.

California Tipping Point

A slightly different version of this post appeared at Watts Up With That. If this topic interests you I suggest that you check out the comments there too.

I recently posted an article describing how the Breakthrough Journal article by Jennifer Hernandez and Lauren Teixeira entitled Time to reset California’s climate leadership was relevant to New York State Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act) implementation. I agree with the authors that both states need to reevaluate their climate policies until the states can cut “emissions while assuring that home ownership, an affordable cost of living, and good jobs are available to all.” This post highlights a remarkable description of what is needed to reduce transportation sector emissions on the way to climate nirvana.

Overview

The Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (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 2030 reduction target of a 40% GHG reduction by 2030. Two targets address the electric sector: 70% of the electricity must come from renewable energy by 2030 and all electricity must be generated by “zero-emissions” resources by 2040. Since the completion of the Scoping Plan at the end of 2022 New York has been trying to implement the Scoping Plan recommendations through regulations, proceedings, and legislation.

California Climate Leadership

California was the first in the nation legislate a “solution” to climate change with its AB32 Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. After fourteen years the inevitable effects of reality are getting the attention of the politicians that supported the law. Hernandez and Teixeira’s introductory paragraph explains that:

Faced with the election of Donald Trump to a second term, soaring inequality, and a decline in support from the state’s non-white majority, California’s Democratic leaders have begun asking hard questions about the state’s vaunted climate policies. California’s Democratic Assembly leader Richard Rivas opened the new Legislative session signalling a strong focus on meeting voter concerns about housing and the state’s extraordinarily high cost of living, specifically calling out the state’s climate policies: “California has always led the way on climate. And we will continue to lead on climate,” he told his Assembly colleagues. “But not on the backs of poor and working people, not with taxes or fees for programs that don’t work, and not by blocking housing and critical infrastructure projects. It’s why we must be outcome driven. We can’t blindly defend the institutions contributing to these issues.”

Hernandez and Teixeira compared several metrics for California, Florida, Texas, and the United States to determine how successful California’s claim to lead the way on climate has been. They explained that:

California’s claims to eco-superiority long predate the passage of AB32, the 2006 law that committed the state to ambitious climate targets and established a cap-and-trade system by which to achieve them. Even before this landmark bill, the state’s per capita carbon emissions were far lower than the national average.

The authors show that a primary reason for California’s low per capita emissions was because their electric sector emissions were low to start. Texas and Florida reduced their electric sector emissions without climate policies because generating units “transitioned from coal to natural gas for largely economic reasons”. California’s climate policies limit future generation technologies to solar, wind, and battery storage. The unanticipated costs associated with deploying those technologies has made California electricity prices second only to Hawaii.

In my previous article I compared California to New York. New York observed emission reductions also occurred because of natural gas fuel switching. The deployment costs for wind, solar, and energy storage are starting to become obvious and will force rates up to compete with California and Hawaii as the most expensive. Another similarity is that both California and New York are going to have to find emission reductions from other sectors going forward. The sector with the most emissions in California is transportation and, because of the climate difference, the building sector has the highest emissions in New York. Transportation emissions are only slightly lower. This article highlights the description by Hernandez and Teixeira of what emissions reduction strategies are planned for the California transportation sector to meet their climate goals.

Transportation Sector Strategies

Hernandez and Teixeira raised an issue that has been acknowledged by New York agencies but very few understand the implications. Future emission reductions won’t come from the electric sector because the incremental benefits are small:

The rooftop solar and other signature California climate policy choices, despite their rising cost, increasingly brought diminishing returns, as much of the easy emissions reductions had already been realized, thanks to lower baseline electricity consumption and early adoption of natural gas. Carbon emission reductions from expensive new renewable energy additions were never going to be large. The state therefore increasingly prioritized aggressively reducing emissions from the transportation sector—the state’s largest source of emissions.

In New York the building sector is the largest source of emissions because of our climate. Nonetheless the Climate Act targets are so extreme that New York and any other jurisdiction that wants to go to net zero must eventually pursue the same aggressive transportation sector reduction strategies espoused by California:

Compared to places like Texas and Florida, California’s emissions reductions since 2006 have come disproportionately from the transportation sector, not the electricity sector. Low carbon fuel requirements, new regulations on refineries, and electric vehicle mandates, have collectively increased the cost of driving substantially. California routinely now has the second highest gas costs in the country second only to Hawaii, which must import all of its gasoline by ship. The state has mandated the phase-out of internal combustion engines in vehicles by 2035 and its gasoline prices now seems poised to surpass even Hawaii: a few days after the election, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) voted to further tighten the Low Carbon Fuel Standard, a measure that is expected to further increase gas prices by up to 85 cents per gallon.

I find it hard to believe that Californians are going to passively accept those massive increases in gasoline costs. But that is not all.

Even more ambitiously, California’s climate regulators have demanded that even after California converts to electric vehicles, local governments and regional planning agencies should reduce automobile use by 30%—a reduction in “vehicle miles travelled” that would be 2.5 times greater than the decline in miles driven during the depths of the Covid pandemic lockdown. To achieve this objective, CARB recommends and provides funding for local governments to eliminate traffic lanes through so-called “road diets,” intended to increase drive times and traffic congestion and incentivize use of public transit, even as massive investments in public transit have failed to reverse ridership declines that began pre-COVID and have caused massive transit system operating deficits.

Discussion

The mother of all reality slaps is coming to the regulators that think that road diets will be accepted by citizens. Public transit is fine in concept, but the reality is that our society is now dependent upon personal transportation for most of the country. One hundred years ago there was an extensive network of trolley and interurban railroads in every city and the cities were compact enough that this transit option was viable. By viable I mean that people could get from where they lived to where they worked using transit in a reasonable amount of time. However, one hundred years ago those trolley systems started to go out of business because relying on public transit is inconvenient. Most of those systems are gone now. Even when replaced by bus systems, the fact is that public transit takes more time and using it forces you into a schedule. Over the last 100 years development has spread out and the ability for public transit to get many people from where they live to where they work is limited to major cities. This makes personal transportation demand inelastic. Only fools think that road diets are going to incentivize the use of public transit. This affects the emission reduction goals because the reductions in transportation sector emissions envisioned are never going to happen.

Conclusion

I hope that frequent visitors to my blog are aware of the difficulties associated with the net-zero transition plans imposed by reality. When you are aware of the physical challenges the inevitable impacts on personal choice and quality of life of the transition policies become evident. Unfortunately, most people are unaware of what is coming at them.

The public is faced with incessant propaganda that there is an existential climate crisis that is evident in every extreme weather event. All they hear is the lie that fixing the weather is only the simple matter of stopping the use of fossil fuels which will be cheaper, more resilient, more secure, and improve the quality of life.

California fossil fuel transition plans include policies “intended to increase drive times and traffic congestion and incentivize use of public transit”. Eventually that will seep into the consciousness of the public. I cannot imagine a scenario where this will not create massive blowback. Will the charade end in California when the wind and solar system causes a massive blackout or when Californians are required to pay 85 cents more per gallon, or they are required to give up personal transportation options? Hopefully California will hit the green transition wall soon enough and hard enough that New York policies will change before the impacts seen there inevitably arrive here.

Time for Resets in California and New York

The Breakthrough Journal published an article by Jennifer Hernandez and Lauren Teixeira entitled Time to reset California’s climate leadership that I think is relevant to New York. I have recently argued that because there are so many unanswered questions and unresolved issues that the logical next step for New York is to pause in Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act) implementation until we understand how to decarbonize our electric system without adversely affecting affordability and current reliability standards. Hernandez and Teixeira come to the same conclusion but with arguments that I have not made but are applicable to New York too.

Overview

Responsible New York agencies all agree that new Dispatchable Emissions-Free Resource (DEFR) technologies are needed to make a solar and wind-reliant electric energy system work reliably during periods of extended periods of low wind and solar resource availability. Because DEFR is needed and because we don’t know what technology can be used, I think that the Climate Act schedule needs to be paused. In that light I was interested in this article calling for California to “go back to the drawing board”.

Jennifer Hernandez and Lauren Teixeira are both well versed in California energy policies. Hernandez has practiced land use and environmental law for more than 30 years and has received numerous civil rights awards for her work on overcoming environmentalist opposition to housing and other projects needed and supported by minority communities. Teixeira is a Climate and Energy Analyst with the Breakthrough Institute.

California Climate Leadership

Faced with the election of Donald Trump to a second term, soaring inequality, and a decline in support from the state’s non-white majority, California’s Democratic leaders have begun asking hard questions about the state’s vaunted climate policies. California’s Democratic Assembly leader Richard Rivas opened the new Legislative session signalling a strong focus on meeting voter concerns about housing and the state’s extraordinarily high cost of living, specifically calling out the state’s climate policies: “California has always led the way on climate. And we will continue to lead on climate,” he told his Assembly colleagues. “But not on the backs of poor and working people, not with taxes or fees for programs that don’t work, and not by blocking housing and critical infrastructure projects. It’s why we must be outcome driven. We can’t blindly defend the institutions contributing to these issues.”

Hernandez and Teixeira compared several metrics for California, Florida, Texas, and the United States to determine how successful California’s claim that they lead the way on climate has been. They explained that:

California’s claims to eco-superiority long predate the passage of AB32, the 2006 law that committed the state to ambitious climate targets and established a cap-and-trade system by which to achieve them. Even before this landmark bill, the state’s per capita carbon emissions were far lower than the national average.

Table 1 compares the data from CA, FL, TX, and the US along with New York and the original ten Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI} states. I included the RGGI states because they also claim to be climate mitigation leaders. The authors chose to compare current emissions to 2006 when California’s landmark climate law AB32 was passed. I analyzed Energy Information Administration data and added two other years. I included 1990 because that is the base year for most net-zero transition programs and 2000 because that has been used by New York State in recent analyses. The results show that New York is close to California for most years. Note that compared to the other jurisdictions New York is the worst performer almost every year.

Table 1: Per capita energy-related carbon dioxide emissions

Hernandez and Teixeira explained the reason for the decreases was the same as what I have found in New York:

The reason why states like Texas and Florida were able to reduce greenhouse gas emissions with practically no climate policy to speak of is quite simple: natural gas. Emissions reductions in Texas and Florida were driven by the electricity sector, which had transitioned from coal to natural gas for largely economic reasons. Indeed, by 2017, 41 out of 50 U.S. states had decoupled economic growth from emissions, a phenomenon widely attributed to this transition.

New York politicians were undoubtedly influenced by California’s AB32 because we have similar restrictions on the what technologies were acceptable for reducing GHG emissions:

Along with its climate commitments, California’s political leaders also decreed that further carbon emission reductions in the electricity sector would need to be achieved with a limited suite of renewable energy technologies: solar, wind and battery storage. (Both legacy technologies like hydropower and nuclear, and technologies considered renewable in other states and countries such as biomass, did not meet the state’s narrow definition of “renewable” energy.)

This decision had consequences. Costly renewable energy power purchase agreements, combined with the expense of integrating intermittent resources into the grid, helped to make California’s retail electricity prices the highest in the country (second only to Hawaii). Meanwhile, the state’s remarkable rate of rooftop solar adoption—due to the combination of costly retail electricity, generous state subsidies to often-wealthy homeowners, and rooftop solar mandates—ended up raising electricity prices still further, pushing costs disproportionately onto renters and low-income households who do not have their own rooftop solar.

Given California’s fourteen-year head start I am not surprised that New York’s rates have not shown comparable increases, but double-digit rate case settlements and all the other costs required for the transition will inevitably show similar impacts at some point. The important point made here is that California’s policies have disproportionately increased costs for those least able to afford it. I have always thought that was a likely outcome but here is proof.

Decarbonization at the expense of growth and civil rights?

In the introduction, Hernandez and Teixeira quoted Speaker of the Assembly Richard Rivas who said “California has always led the way on climate. And we will continue to lead on climate, but not on the backs of poor and working people, not with taxes or fees for programs that don’t work, and not by blocking housing and critical infrastructure projects.” The authors also addressed his concerns about effects of AB32 on the economy.

At first glance, California’s impressive economy—the world’s fifth largest, as state officials are fond of reminding the press and populace—would seem to vindicate its climate policy, demonstrating by virtue of its enormity that economic prosperity and deep decarbonization can coexist.

But the state’s wealth masks some troubling trends. While growth in California has significantly outstripped the rest of the country, it has been highly concentrated in just a few high-income places. Since 2001, California’s real GDP has grown by 82%–23 percentage points higher than the U.S. average of 55%. This difference disappears, however, when you take out the three Bay area counties that house Silicon Valley. Bolstered by four of the world’s seven companies with trillion dollar valuations, real GDP in these counties rose at four times the rate of the U.S. average. This remarkable and hyperlocal rise accounted almost entirely for California’s above-average growth:

New York proponents of the Climate Act also trot out New York’s economy relative to the world but don’t mention recent growth. New York does not have the benefit of four massively successful companies so growth is much worse than California. Hernandez and Teixeira note that even with those companies, recent growth is problematic:

But even with massively outsized contributions from Silicon Valley, California’s growth in recent years is not very impressive. Between 2017 and 2023, real GDP in California grew by only 18.5%, slightly above the national average (15.6%), and well behind real GDP in red state competitors Texas (25.7%) and Florida (27.3%).

I dug up some comparable gross state product numbers for New York. Between 2017 and 2023 the gross state product only grew by 10%, well behind all three states and the nation. Hernandez and Teixeira broke down growth by county and showed that the growth was unevenly distributed. They also showed there was a racial disparity to growth. I could not find similar data for New York, but I don’t think it is a stretch to imagine similar patterns are present in New York.

Hernandez and Teixeira also noted that growth is affected by environmental regulations:

California’s strict environmental regulatory regime has not helped to improve this unbalanced state of affairs; in fact, it has likely exacerbated it. Despite abundant natural reserves, the state’s once-mighty oil production industry—a source of well-paying jobs for non-college educated workers—is threatened with terminal decline due to a hostile regulatory environment. After 145 years in California, Chevron is moving its headquarters to Texas.

New York’s ban on hydraulic fracking has certainly limited growth in the same way. The authors addressed other issues raised by Speaker of the Assembly Richard Rivas. In both examples, the situation in New York is identical:

The high cost of living and scarcity of well-paying jobs for the non-college educated have made California an increasingly unlivable place for ordinary people.

People are now voting with their feet: between 2020 and 2023, population fell in 47 of 58 counties, an unprecedented trend that may significantly cut state tax revenues. And according to the Public Policy Institute of California, low income people are now twice as likely to leave as high income people.

Conclusion

Hernandez and Teixeira summed up by making several points:

Considering California’s environmental and economic record since 2006, one can reasonably conclude one of two things: either it is not possible to achieve deep emissions reductions without slowing growth and making economic inequality worse, or California is doing something wrong.

California’s climate policies have contributed to slow economic growth for most of the state and have disproportionately punished the poor and non-college educated workers.

Until the state demonstrates that it can cut its emissions equitably, such that working people once more see the Golden State as a land of opportunity rather than fleeing it, California should not be held up as a model of climate governance.

Expensive policies, supported by high end keyboard economy tax revenue, are simply not exportable to the rest of the country, much less the rest of the world.

Buried somewhere in the Climate Act language is a mandate for New York to consider what is happening at other jurisdictions who are developing their own net-zero transition plans. Typically, California is considered an example of what we should be doing. In this instance I agree with the conclusion of Hernandez and Teixeira that: “While some state leaders may still be tempted to double down on current climate policies, the state, its political leaders, its economy, and the climate will be far better served by going back to the drawing board—as Speaker Rivas has urged.” I also think that New York would be well served by their recommendation: “California’s claims to climate leadership now depend not upon proving that the state is willing to cut its emissions at any cost but rather demonstrating that it can cut its emissions while assuring that home ownership, an affordable cost of living, and good jobs are available to all.”