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.

DEFR Implications on Solar Power Viability

I recently published an article summarizing a Syracuse Post Standard description of the transition problem by Tim Knauss who described the work done by Cornell’s Anderson Lab headed by Dr. Lindsay Anderson. I submitted a letter to the editor describing the implications of Anderson’s work arguing that pausing renewable energy development would be appropriate.  This post responds to the rebuttal of my letter by Peter Wirth, Vice President, Climate Change Awareness and Action who claims that pausing renewable energy is the last thing we should do.

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 electric system transition relies on wind, solar, and energy storage because of reliability and affordability issues.  I have followed the Climate Act since it was first proposed, submitted comments on the Climate Act implementation plan, and have written over 480 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. 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.  New York Department of Public Service (DPS) Proceeding 15-E-0302 addresses DEFR but there is no schedule for resolving the future plans for DEFR in New York.

My primary reliability concern is the challenge of providing electric energy during periods of extended low wind and solar resource availability.  Experts, including those that are responsible for electric system reliability, agree that a new category of generating resources called Dispatchable Emissions-Free Resources (DEFR) is necessary during those periods.  I have dedicated a page to DEFR which I described in an article that summarized six analyses describing the need for DEFR: the Integration Analysis, New York Department of Public Service (DPS) Proceeding 15-E-0302 Technical Conference, NYISO Resource Outlook, Richard Ellenbogen, Cornell Biology and Environmental Engineering Anderson Lab, and Nuclear New York. 

My Letter to the Editor

On the same day that the Syracuse Post Standard published the Knauss article they published the following letter to the Editor:

The Tim Knauss article on Cornell Professor Anderson’s evaluation of the future New York electric grid is a readable summary of the issues associated with the need for a new dispatchable emissions-free resource (DEFR). 

However, it does not address the implications on current NY energy policy.

The Hochul Administration has finally started its update of the NY Energy Plan.  The draft scope of the plan describes an electric system that relies on wind and solar generation.  No jurisdiction anywhere has successfully developed such a system.  The State agencies responsible for a reliable electric system agree with Professor Anderson that a wind, solar, and energy storage system requires DEFR.  It is prudent to fund a demonstration project to prove that such an electric system will work or, at the very least, complete a comprehensive renewable feasibility analysis to determine whether such a system will maintain affordability and reliability standards.

The most likely DEFR backup technology is nuclear generation because it is the only candidate resource that is technologically ready.  Nuclear power has a proven record for resilient electric production, development would not require changes to the rest of the electric system, it is not limited by weather extremes, it has lower environmental impacts, and when life cycle costs are considered is likely cheaper.   Its use as backbone energy would eliminate the need for wind, solar, energy storage, and new DEFR deployment to meet Climate Act mandates.  Renewable development should be paused until proven feasible because it is likely a dead-end approach.

Rebuttal to My Letter

Two weeks later the Syracuse Post Standard published a rebuttal to my letter by Peter Wirth entitled “Pausing cheap, renewable energy is the last thing NY should do”

Roger Caiazza’s letter, “NY must not rely on wind, solar to meet its energy needs” (Nov. 20, 2024), might make sense if it were written in 1954, when Bell Labs announced the invention of the first silicon solar cell.

Today, solar power is the least expensive form of energy, growing in leaps and bounds and the technology improving year by year.

In 1954, the cell developed by Bell Labs was about 6% efficient at converting sunlight into electricity. Today’s solar cells convert 20% to 22% of sunlight into electricity. Advanced research panels have reached as high as 30% efficiency. Every year the rate of efficiency improves.

Solar energy per kilowatt is cheaper than coal, which is less expensive than gas. Nuclear energy is, by far, the most expensive. In 2019, it was reported that New York utility customers subsidized nuclear reactors in Upstate NY to the tune of $540 million.

Given that solar energy is the least expensive, we should not be surprised that solar power has seen massive growth in the U.S. Between 2000 and 2022, solar capacity increased by an average of 37% per year, doubling every 2.2 years. As of the end of 2023, the United States had nearly 210 gigawatts (GW) of solar capacity installed, enough to power 36 million homes.

Solar energy is the energy of the future!

The study by Cornell Professor Lindsay Anderson does raise valid, serious questions. The grid needs to be upgraded. Storage capacity needs to be increased. Can we bring enough renewable energy on line quick enough? What is the role of nuclear energy in the short run? This is a complex problem with many moving parts.

However, to pause renewable energy — which has a track record of being the least expensive, becoming more efficient every year and emitting no greenhouse gases, the cause of climate change — is the last thing we want to do.

My Response

There are two problems with Wirth’s response.  If the consumer cost for delivered energy is considered, then solar is not the “least expensive”.  Secondly, Wirth did not acknowledge that until the feasibility of DEFR technology is resolved solar and wind resources may not be viable.

First, I will address the Wirth claim that the “solar energy per kilowatt is cheaper” than coal or natural gas which are both cheaper than nuclear.  I agree that is true.  For example, in this Energy Information Agency analysis the total overnight cost (2022$/kW) states that nuclear is 5.8 times more expensive than solar.  However, I think most consumers care about the cost of getting electric energy delivered to their homes on a kilowatt-hour basis which is what we pay for.  When that metric is used solar is not cheaper than nuclear

For starters in 2023 the New York Independent System Operator reported in the  2024 Load & Capacity Data Report that the energy produced by all the New York utility-scale solar facilities relative to the maximum they could have produced was only 16.6% whereas the nuclear facilities generated 92.5% (Table 1).  Using the two years of data available it is reasonable to say that the ratio between nuclear capacity and solar capacity is around five.  That means to get the same kilowatt-hour production you need five times as much capacity. 

Table 1: Comparison of New York Nuclear and Solar Capacity Factors

Wind and solar resources are intermittent, and energy storage must be included to address that.  Nuclear units operate at full load for months at a time.  Solar only works during daylight.  The cost of energy storage for diurnal variations and seasonal variations must be included in the costs to deliver energy to our homes.  The implication of the study by Cornell Professor Lindsay Anderson is that DEFR is also needed beyond the short-term energy storage capacity. 

Consider the Scoping Plan projected capacity of different resources shown in Table 2.  In 2040 the Climate Act mandates that all electricity generated be 100% “zero emissions”.  The Scoping Plan projects that 40,860 MW of solar capacity and 26,580 MW of wind from various sources will be required.  To back that up an additional 15,388 MW of battery storage and 17,868 MW of zero-carbon firm resource, aka DEFR, are needed.  The cost of the solar share of the backup sources need to be considered for a “apples to apples” comparison of the cost of solar relative to nuclear.

Table 2: Scoping Plan Mitigation Scenario Summary Fuel Mix (Capacity)

But wait there is more.  The life expectancy of solar panels is on the order of 25 years whereas nuclear is at least 50 years.  Solar facilities are spread out and require transmission development. There are additional ancillary support services provided by nuclear that are not provided by solar so there are additional costs there as well.

To sum up, the solar capacity needed to produce the same capacity as nuclear is five times larger.  It is reasonable to assume that the short-term energy storage costs needed for solar and the DEFR requirement will another doubling of capacity costs.  Solar lasts half as long as nuclear so over the long-term, so there is another doubling of capacity costs.  I have no idea what the costs to provide ancillary support services would be or how much the additional transmission development would cost so I won’t include them in the total.  Overall, the long-term cost of solar power is roughly 15 times as much as nuclear power.  Even if solar energy per kilowatt is six times less than nuclear power, the delivered cost over the long term is 2.5 times higher than nuclear.

It is more disappointing that Wirth missed the point I tried to make about the implications of DEFR feasibility on the viability of solar.  Assuming that the reason was my poor description, let me try another way to explain that DEFR is a necessary requirement for renewables deployment as envisioned by the Climate Act.

Anderson and responsible agencies all agree that new DEFR technologies are needed to make a solar and wind-reliant electric energy system work reliably.  No one knows what those technologies are.  I believe the only likely viable DEFR backup technology is nuclear generation because it is the only candidate resource that is technologically ready, can be expanded as needed, and does not suffer from limitations of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. I do concede that there are commercial issues that need to be resolved. 

Here is the key point, if the only viable DEFR solution is nuclear, then the wind, solar, and energy storage approach favored by Wirth cannot be implemented without nuclear.  I estimate that 24 GW of nuclear can replace 178 GW of wind, water, battery storage, and DEFR which eliminates the need for a huge DEFR backup resource and even more massive buildout of wind turbines and solar panels sprawling over the state’s lands and water.  I suggested that it be prudent to pause renewable development until a DEFR technology is proven feasible because the choice and even the viability of any DEFR technology will affect the entire design of the future electric structure necessary to meet the Climate Act net-zero energy system.  Throwing money at renewable energy is the last thing we should do because New York cannot afford to invest in “false solutions”.

Conclusion

Over the years I have had many conversations with people who understand the electric system.  Universally they all agree that the wind, solar, battery storage, and DEFR electric system will never work.  Most also agree that the momentum of the political mandates for this approach will only be checked when there is a catastrophic blackout caused by over-reliance on renewable resources.  I have no doubt that advocates like Wirth will argue that such a blackout was caused by industry not transitioning to renewables correctly despite evidence to the contrary. 

In a recent meeting, someone from the New York State Energy Research & Development Authority suggested that there would be a five-year plan to address DEFR technologies.  In a rational world, the fact that New York is proceeding to implement a “zero emissions” electric system by 2040 that requires a new technology to be developed, tested, and deployed in that time frame would concern the Hochul Administration enough to pause implementation until a DEFR technology is proven feasible in the suggested five year plan.  The fact is that without such technology the renewables approach cannot work, and  if nuclear power is determined to be the only viable DEFR technology, then renewable investments are not needed.

Commentary on Recent Articles December 8, 2024

This is an update of articles that I have read that I want to mention but only have time to provide a brief summary.  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.

California Transition

Ron Stein describes Governor Newsom’s “obliviousness to the reality that the so-called energy transition is only an electricity transition”.  California is further down the road than New York so this problem is not evident in New York yet.  Stein explains:

Governor Newsom has no comprehension that wind turbines and solar panels can only generate electricity occasionally. Wind turbines and solar panels cannot make any of the more than 6,000 products now made from crude oil, or fuels for all forms of transportation.  The Governor does not comprehend that wind turbines and solar panels are themselves 100% made from the products from oil derivatives manufactured from crude oil! Further, electricity CANNOT exist without crude oil as all the parts and components of every electricity generation system (coal, natural gas, nuclear, hydro, wind, and solar) are also made from the oil derivatives manufactured from oil.

He concludes that “It is appalling that wealthy California, with its ‘green mandates,’ continues to burden its residents with humongous costs to transition to just electricity and support unethical, immoral, and hypocritical actions to obtain exotic minerals and metals from poorer developing countries to achieve that electricity transition.”  New York is headed down the same path.

Carbon Credit Markets

Recall that New York hopes to reach “net-zero” by 2050 and that means that carbon credits will be needed.

Carbon credits are created from projects that avoid the generation of GHG emissions or that remove GHGs from the atmosphere. These projects include “nature-based solutions,” such as reforestation and regenerative agriculture efforts, and “engineered solutions,” such as combusting methane emitted from landfills to generate electricity and direct air capture.

Many climate activists including the most vocal Climate Act proponents insist upon stringent limits on the use of these credits in New York.  I believe they oppose all but the “nature-based” solutions and want stringent limits on those. 

Irina Slav has a knack for making me laugh when she describes idiotic climate transition policies.  In this post she describes the latest climate policy meeting (the Conference of Parties) created a global carbon market.  In theory this would enable countries around the world will be able to buy and sell carbon credits. 

Could they have put it in an even more needlessly complicated way? Probably, but they must have been in a hurry to make their contribution to global carbon market efforts, as in, subvert these efforts by arguing one side of the carbon trading equation is actually a trick and it should not be included in said equation until we make it a lot more complicated because it is clearly nowhere near complicated enough. We all know what sort of people like to make things complicated, don’t we? That’s right — the smart, confident erudites who work to make the world a better place for all of us with no thought of personal gain.

Many of the loudest voices in Climate Act debates are the erudites mentioned by Slav.

CO2 and Temperature

Thomas Shepstone describes an analysis by William Kininmonth, the former head of Australia’s National Climate Centre, that asks the question whether CO2 is really raising temperatures. He published the short paper raising and answering a key question: Does warm air warm the oceans or do warm oceans warm the air.  Kinimonth points out that the air temperature in the tropics is regulated by the temperature of the ocean.  He argues that the only physical mechanism for increasing concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide to impact on tropical ocean temperature is through an increase in temperatures due to the greenhouse effect.  He concludes that “Recent global warming has its origins in ocean warming, is natural, and has nothing to do with changing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations.” 

This issue is one of the reasons why I am skeptical of the claims that observed warming is caused by GHG emission.  I don’t know why anyone would expect that warmer air over oceans would heat the water. Last time I boiled water I made sure the heat source was under the pan. On the other hand, changes in cloud cover and the amount of sunlight reaching the ocean sure as heck could warm the oceans. Cycles in cloud cover are not understood nor are the natural ocean cycles. Given that we do not understand natural variability claiming GHG changes are causing warming is baloney.

Weather is Not Climate

Weather is not climate – two examples.  The first example of the mainstream media mistakenly claiming an extreme weather event is caused by climate change was written by Dr. Cliff Mass.  He is a fellow of the American Meteorological Society and professor of Atmospheric Sciences at the University of Washington.  He explained that when the press has reached out to him for comments about the recent extreme weather events in the Pacific NW, he refuted their claims that bomb cyclones and atmospheric rivers have become either more frequent or more powerful. “The data just doesn’t support such claims.”   

Roger Pielke, Jr. describes an instance where the Washington Post pushes the same narrative that extreme weather events are incontrovertibly exacerbated by climate change.  His article includes quotes from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that say there is no evidence of trends and then presents data supporting that conclusion.  He also shows how the choice of data used can lead to a different answer.  He notes:

The Post’s reporting reminds us that there is a lot of misinformation out there related to climate, and hurricanes in particular. With The Washington Post and an IPCC author apparently willing to misrepresent what the IPCC concluded on hurricanes in service of a political hit, it can be very difficult for curious non-experts to know what’s what.

Follow the Money

Daniel Greenfield points out that the 2024 United Nations Climate Change Conference of Parties 29th edition held in Baku was all about money. 

In accordance with demands from Azerbaijan, Saudi Arabia and other Muslim oil states, COP29, as the UN conference is known, didn’t actually agree to move away from oil and gas.

It did however agree to give third world countries a whole lot of money.

The Biden-Harris administration had started out by offering $200 billion to third world kleptocracies. Azerbaijan demanded $250 billion. The Saudis called for a $500 billion payout. Eventually a deal was set at $300 billion: far short of the $1.3 trillion the third worlders wanted.

He concludes that “COP29 has demonstrated that the only purpose of the UN climate conferences is wealth redistribution from the first world to the third.”

In another example, Project Veritas notes that EPA is getting money out for climate change things before the Trump Administration comes in.  Key Quotes from Brent Efron, Special Advisor for Implementation, Environmental Protection Agency:

“Now it’s how to get the money out as fast as possible before they [Trump Administration] come in … it’s like we’re on the Titanic and we’re throwing gold bars off the edge.”

“Over the last year we’ve given out $50 billion dollars for climate things…so to go work for one of these places would be really cool.”

“We gave them [nonprofits] the money because… it was an insurance policy against Trump winning. Because they aren’t [a government agency], they’re safer from Republicans taking the money away.”

The Physics of Net Zero

Richard Lyon describes the underlying reason why Great Britain cannot run on “renewable energy”.  I think he does a good job giving examples of the concepts that he uses to make his argument that even though there is a massive quantity of wind and solar energy available it does not matter.  “But while energy quantity is necessary, it’s not sufficient.”  He explains that to do work we need a change in energy from one place to another. It might be the difference in gravitational energy between the top of a hill and the bottom. Or in chemical energy between a battery and a toy.  He notes that the energy gradient is created by a difference in energy density and defines energy density as the amount of energy stored per unit of “stuff”.  He concludes that “It’s this energy density that limits the usefulness of an energy source.”  Through the use of examples he explains an important physical reality that shows that no jurisdiction can ever run on renewable energy.

EPA’s “Insurance Policy” Against Trump

I saw this article earlier this week and think it raises an important issue  EPA Advisor: Agency Is Funneling Billions To Climate Cult Groups As “Insurance Policy” Against Trump.  This post links to work by Project Veritas who “investigates and exposes corruption, dishonesty, waste, fraud, and other misconduct in both public and private institutions to achieve a more ethical and transparent society”.  On occasion they tape an interview with someone with inside knowledge.  This post reproduces their article describing a chat with Brent Efron, a special advisor implementing Biden’s climate agenda.  It ticks most of the boxes of the Project Veritas mission statement. 

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 electric system transition relies on wind, solar, and energy storage because of impacts on reliability, affordability, and the environment.  I have followed the Climate Act since it was first proposed, submitted comments on the Climate Act implementation plan, and have written over 480 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. 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. 

One of the mostly unremarked aspects of net-zero transition legislation is that many laws incorporate  Progressive “Green New Deal” components to achieve other social aims like job creation, economic growth, and climate justice.  They are more than just emission reduction programs.  For example, New York’s Climate Act goes to great lengths to address environmental justice (EJ) issues.  The law mandates that at least 35% of the benefits of spending must be directed to disadvantaged communities.  The Climate Justice Working Group works “to ensure that while we move the State toward a carbon neutral economy, all New Yorkers will reap the economic and environmental benefits of our nation-leading transition.”

Project Veritas Article – The following is a copy of the article

It’s a turbulent time at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), according to a current staffer, with morale at an all-time low. As President-Elect Trump readies to take office, gloomy EPA employees are scrambling to distribute funding for their favored climate change initiatives. Brent Efron, a special advisor implementing Biden’s climate agenda, told Project Veritas the agency is frantically shoveling billions in grants to nonprofits, making sure that the Biden administration’s climate projects stay afloat — no matter who’s in charge.

“Now it’s how to get the money out as fast as possible before they [Trump Administration] come in … it’s like we’re on the Titanic and we’re throwing gold bars off the edge.” – Brent Efron, EPA Advisor

Efron spoke to a Project Veritas investigative journalist about his role in doling out over $100 billion in grants to nonprofits under Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act, which he dubs “Biden’s climate law.” The EPA’s website describes these grants as part of their mission to advance “environmental and climate justice.”

Efron even admits that the EPA is scrambling to push money out the door for projects originally designed for a Kamala Harris presidency.

“The thing that we haven’t funded yet are [sic] the local nonprofit program that was going to be an inter-Kamala Harris administration program… so now we’re getting it [funding] out as quick as possible. It’s like two billion at this point, we’ve got most of it out – like 90%.”

So committed are these staffers, Efron confesses, that they plan to work right up until the final moments on inauguration day, rushing to ensure that every possible tax-payer dollar is disbursed before a Republican administration can turn off the spigot.

“It’s until the Trump people come in and tell us we can no longer give out money. That’s at the very earliest the 20th [January 2025]. But it’s probably a little bit after because they have to get in the building and tell people what to do.”

Efron predicts that the Trump administration will swiftly issue an order to block all grants, with Congress potentially trying to claw back the EPA’s funding. Anticipating this, he reveals that the EPA has been working to funnel money to aligned nonprofits capable of implementing climate change policies at the local level, viewing it as an “insurance policy” against the upcoming Trump presidency.

“We gave them [nonprofits] the money because… it was an insurance policy against Trump winning. Because they aren’t [a government agency], they’re safer from Republicans taking the money away.”

Efron openly admits how the EPA uses nonprofits as a political buffer against Republican administrations—and reveals how he could later reap personal rewards with a cushy job at one of the nonprofits he helped fund during his tenure.

“Over the last year we’ve given out $50 billion dollars for climate things…so to go work for one of these places would be really cool.”

Indeed, the EPA’s website lists several pass-through nonprofits, each awarded between $50 million and $100 million, with the responsibility of distributing subgrants to other nonprofits—ensuring that Biden’s climate agenda keeps rolling, even after his presidency ends.

Efron and his colleagues are working feverishly until the shakeup.

“We’re throwing gold bars off the Titanic. We’re getting the money out.”

The Project Veritas article notes that

Utah Senator Mike Lee responded to Project Veritas’ investigation on X stating, “The U.S. government is actively working to undermine the American people. We’ve empowered Washington to the point that it’s become dangerous and destructive. It’s too big, too expensive, and too powerful. We must return to constitutional government.”

Commentary

The University of California Center for Climate Justice notes that Climate Justice recognizes “the disproportionate impacts of climate change on low-income communities and communities of color around the world, the people and places least responsible for the problem” and “seeks solutions that address the root causes of climate change and in doing so, simultaneously address a broad range of social, racial, and environmental injustices.”  There is no question that disadvantaged communities have suffered and continue to suffer disproportionate environmental impacts, but it is important to understand what causes the harm, and balance expectations and potential solutions. 

In addition to the obvious dishonesty, waste, fraud, and other misconduct evident in these revelations,

the problem is that the non-profits targeted for the EPA “insurance” funds have no reason to balance expectations and potential solutions.  They will never be satisfied because that ends the funding stream.  It also gives politicians and regulators a dependable demographic to support ever more stringent regulations.  I am also concerned that “Scrambling to push money out the door” is an invitation for poor oversight and management.   

For a pragmatist like me who was involved in environmental permitting before retirement, the deference given to the EJ activists is bewildering.  New York agencies bend over backwards to appease these activists so much so that I wonder how many projects can be permitted because these activists demand zero impacts to disadvantaged communities.  No mind that facilities meet all the emissions requirements and do not contribute to violations of ambient standards, if they emit anything that is unacceptable.  It has also been a source of wonder that myriad EJ organizations manage to fund slickly produced analyses that support their narratives.  I knew that EPA funding was part of their funding streams but was unaware of the magnitude of Federal largesse until reading the Project Veritas article.

Finally, I cannot help but wonder how many of the gold bars thrown off the allegorical sinking ship are aimed at New York’s Climate Act programs.  The Hochul Administration still has not acknowledged how much implementation will cost claiming that they need to know how much money will come from the Federal government.  This uncertainty may explain the delay of the release of pending regulations.

Keith Schue: New York Needs Nuclear

Keith Schue alerted me to his piece for the Empire Report titled New York Needs Nuclear, a Balanced Approach to Clean Energy.  I am always happy to publish pragmatic discussions of New York energy policy so I am re-publishing his article in this post.

Keith Schue is an electrical engineer and technical adviser on energy policy. Schue has been engaged in New York energy policy since 2010 and currently volunteers as a technical advisor for several organizations, including New York Energy & Climate Advocates. Before moving to New York, he was employed with the Florida chapter of The Nature Conservancy.  He recently co-authored a commentary in the Albany Times Union with climate scientist James Hansen, making a persuasive case for using nuclear in the future. 

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 GHG reduction target of 40%. Two targets address the electric sector: 70% of the electricity must come from renewable energy by 2030 and a requirement that all electricity generated be “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 quantifies 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. 

I recently published Schue’s summary of draft documents that covered three of these implementation initiatives.  In this article he references the New York Power Authority (NYPA) Draft Renewables Plan.  He noted that the Build Public Renewables Act adopted last year now forces NYPA to try installing solar, wind, and batteries even faster than the private sector is already doing with subsidies.  He suggested that comments on the NYPA renewables plan should say:

Achieving carbon-free electricity requires firm reliable power. Therefore, throwing more public money and resources at intermittent generation not only jeopardizes reliability and affordability, but also ensures that NY will remain dependent on fossil fuels. Instead of focusing on solar panels and wind turbines that the private sector can install on its own, NYPA should do what it has historically done best by working on reliable public projects for the common good, like nuclear energy, hydropower, and utility infrastructure.

In the following section I present Schue’s article that first appeared in Empire Report in its entirety.

New York Needs Nuclear, a Balanced Approach to Clean Energy

Global warming is real, as is the urgency for action to address it. However, New York will only make good on its promise of tackling the climate crisis if it pursues solutions that work in the real world.

Unfortunately, the strategic plan recently drafted by the New York Power Authority (NYPA) falls short of what’s needed—not because it fails to install enough solar panels, wind turbines and batteries, but because that is all it proposes to do.

For decades, NYPA has spearheaded vital energy projects that serve the public good. From the construction of large hydroelectric plants to positioning New York as a leader in nuclear power, the authority has consistently delivered electricity that is reliable, clean, and affordable to communities and business upstate. Indeed, NYPA is the reason why New Yorks’ upstate grid is already 90% carbon-free.

Yet, instead of building upon that impressive legacy, the plan currently proposed threatens grid stability by marginalizing firm resources and focusing on those that are fragile, intermittent, and incredibly land-intensive. It is an approach that jeopardizes greenhouse gas reduction, perpetuating dependence on fossil fuels while making electricity less reliable and more expensive.

It is also an approach that reflects outdated politics of the past.

Today, there is overwhelming consensus among engineers, industry leaders, the business community, and labor unions that a diverse mix of resources—including advanced nuclear power—will be essential to decarbonize while providing ample energy for a growing economy and workforce. Even Governor Hochul emphasized this reality at her recent Future Energy Economy Summit in Syracuse. Micron’s semiconductor manufacturing operations alone are expected to surpass the electricity demand of Vermont and New Hampshire combined. However, in addition to accommodating unprecedented growth, a zero-emission grid must be robust. Dispatchable Emission-Free Resources (DEFRs) capable of serving demand when renewables cannot are essential.  Moreover, DEFRs that operate a lot more than 2% of the time will be needed in the real world to avoid retaining large amounts of fossil fuel capacity. Batteries and hydrogen simply won’t suffice.

Rather than focusing on sprawling intermittent sources that cannot go the distance, the state should pursue compact solutions that will. NYPA should leverage its technical and financial expertise to support the Governor’s vision of integrating flexible advanced nuclear into New York’s grid. There are communities eager to embrace it. Where possible, responsible hydropower expansion can also be explored, like collaborating with the Green Island Power Authority to increase generation capacity on the Hudson River. Infrastructure improvements should be pursued as well, but in a manner that respects communities.

One thing is certain: New York’s energy strategy must change. Communities are under attack from the Office of Renewable Energy Siting, businesses are questioning whether they can survive in the state, industry is asking whether there will be energy to expand, and skilled labor is wondering if the only jobs left for them will be unpacking solar panels from China.

A successful strategy will require compromise. With a balanced expansion of solar, wind, and firm nuclear power, the state can meet its energy goals. However, NYPA’s leadership in needed more than ever to forge pragmatic solutions that work. The future of New York hinges on its ability to adapt and champion a diverse, reliable, and sustainable energy portfolio. NYPA should be a guiding force in that critical transition.

Commentary

I was happy to re-publish Keith’s article because I agree with him that nuclear power is necessary and that NYPA should be considering it along with solar and wind in the Draft Renewables Plan.  I have one minor point of emphasis difference because I think balanced expansion with wind and solar development is a dead end.  I have come to the conclusion that reliance on those resources will do more harm than good because of reliability and affordability risks.  Importantly, consider that the State agencies responsible for a reliable energy system agree that a wind, solar, and energy storage system needs a new dispatchable emissions free resource (DEFR) to account for low resource availability during periods of extended light wind and cloudiness.  At some point, New York must do a feasibility analysis to determine which DEFR technologies should be used in New York.  I believe that analysis will find that the only viable candidate for DEFR is nuclear power.  That means that a wind and solar energy system must include nuclear power as the DEFR backup technology.  However, economics suggest nuclear resources should be used as much as possible instead of as a backup. Using nuclear as the backbone of the electric system eliminates the need for the massive wind, solar and energy development proposed and addresses my concerns about reliability and affordability.

September New York Dunkelflaute or Wind Lull

I have been meaning to write this article for several months.  In September Parker Gallant noted that industrial wind turbines (IWT) in Ontario “show up at the party, almost always, after everyone has left” in a post that described poor performance of the province’s wind turbines over a five day period in September.  I looked at New York data, found that wind data was also poor in the state at the same time, and planned to do a post.  Other issues came up but a recent Dunkelflaute wind lull in Germany has spurred me to complete the post.  Better late than never, here it is. 

I have followed the Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act) since it was first proposed, submitted comments on the Climate Act implementation plan, and have written over 470 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. 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.  Unfortunately implementation efforts to date have short-changed addressing issues that have been identified.

Dunkelflaute

The German description of a wind and solar resource lull is Dunkelflaute.  Iowa Climate Science Education explains that the term refers to “dark doldrums”.  A large high pressure system has recently affected wind and solar resources in Europe.  Daniel Wetzel notes that:

At 5 p.m. on Wednesday, solar power was only supplying a single megawatt hour. The 1602 offshore wind turbines in the North and Baltic Seas – each one the size of the Eiffel Tower – were at a complete standstill. Zero electricity production.

Earlier in the week the British electric system faced a similar situation.

Ontario Dunkelflaute

Parker Gallant’s article provided a great example:

Looking at the following IESO Power data chart from September 13th to late in the day on September 18th it is evident Ontario Demand (solid green line) clearly demonstrates the daily swings in Ontario demand during those “summery” days. It is evident, demand fluctuates by almost 6,000 MW from the middle of the night to later in the day!  Those swings in demand are even higher when you examine the data in respect to “market demand” (blue line) which reflects our imports and exports via our intertie connections with our neighbours.

From the top of the chart:  the tiny “red” represents biofuel generation and “yellow” represents generation supplied by solar panels. The “green” tells us what those industrial wind turbines are generating hourly! The “dark blue” is generation from our natural gas plants and the “light blue” is power being supplied by our hydro generation stations some of which are classified as “baseload”! The solid unwavering “orange” represents what our baseload nuclear plants provide us with!

He describes the charts:

Looking at the six days illustrated, the highest peak demand occurred September 16th reaching 21,547 MW at Hour 17 (hour ending at 5 PM) and the lowest peak demand was September 14th reaching 19,288 MW at Hour 17! Interestingly Hour 17 was the peak hour on all six days.

As the Supply chart clearly demonstrates those natural gas plants (dark blue) fluctuated widely as needed to ensure we were able to avoid blackouts each and every day by either ramping up or ramping down as required! Hydro generation also played a role by also modestly, ramping up or down in addition to supplying some of the baseload.

Gallant went on to describe how the IWT performed:

Well, the high for generation by those IWT occurred at Hour 24 (ending at midnight) September 14th when they generated 2,199 MWh or 44.8% of their capacity and the low generation occurred at Hour 11 on September 13th when they only managed to generate 22 MWh or 0.5% of their capacity. Interestingly at Hour 24 on September 14th IESO reported our net-exports were 2,956 MWh at the low price of $24.07/MWh so we apparently didn’t need that power and were forced to sell it off for a cheap price! Also IWT over the six days hit their peak generation at Hours 23, 24 or Hour 1 when peak demand is always near its lowest for each and every day! Coincidently their low generation over the same  6 days occurred at either Hours 10 or 11 when demand is accelerating!

New York Wind Data

I attempted to access the Ontario IESO generation data for the period but could not find it.  On the other hand, the New York Independent System Operator (NYISO) provides access to their data.  New York fuel-mix load available at the NYISO Real-Time Dashboard where there is a link to historical data.

The Real-Time Fuel Mix panel includes links to current and historical five-minute generation (MW) for energy generated in New York State.  I processed that data to calculate hourly averages.  The generator types include “Hydro” that includes pumped storage hydro; “Wind”, mostly land-based wind but does include 136 MW of offshore wind; “Other Renewables” that covers solar energy (394 MW of “front-of-the-meter solar”), energy storage resources (63 MW), methane, refuse, or wood; “Other Fossil Fuels” is oil; “Nuclear”; “Natural Gas”; and “Dual Fuel” which are units that burn both natural gas and oil. As an aside, oil capability is maintained as a reliability measure.

The following graph shows the hourly fuel type generation throughout the period.  Note that there are similarities with the Ontario data.  New York does not have as much nuclear, but both control areas use it as solid, unwavering baseload power. New York hydro has more diurnal variation because there are pumped storage hydro facilities used for load following.  In both control areas natural gas is relied on to provide power when needed.  New York has dual-fuel units that probably burned natural gas during this period.

The focus of this article is the Dunkelflaute, so the wind data are of most interest.  The following figure lists the wind data only.  Because I could not combine data sets, we can only consider a qualitative comparison between New York and Ontario.  The wind output is the similar – low when needed most and picking up when demand drops.

Because I have access to the actual data, I can summarize just how bad the wind was over this 192-hour period.  New York has 2,454 MW of wind capacity.  The maximum wind capacity occurred on 19 September at hour 21 when 502 MW of wind power was generated, an unimpressive 20.5% of the total capacity.  The minimum wind capacity occurred on 13 September at hour 12 when 0.2 MW of wind power was generated.  I summarized the hourly totals by category in Table 1.  There were 96 hours representing half the period when the capacity of all the wind generation in New York was less than 5%.  All but one of the hours had a capacity factor of less than 20%.

Table 1: Categorial Hourly Totals for New York State Wind Power from 12 September 2024 hour 0000 to 19 September 2024 hour 2300

The NYISO Operations Report for September 2024 Wind Performance Figure shows daily wind production over the entire month.  Those data show that the daily capacity factor was less than 10% from 9/10/24 to 9/20/24. 

Discussion

In my opinion, climate scientists tend to over-emphasize potential global warming drivers when explaining weather observations.  For example, I saw a news segment where a climate scientist claimed that warmer temperatures associated with global warming increased the rainfall associated with Hurricane Helene in western North Carolina by 15 to 20% exacerbating the flooding.  Baloney, I say.  The supposed rationale is that warmer weather increases the amount of moisture that the atmosphere can hold and climate change models are used provide numbers for these attribution statements.  I addressed the Helene hype claims earlier.  Given that there was a storm in 1916 that produced higher flood levels I don’t think that moisture content was the primary driver for the flood.  Instead, I believe that an unusual weather pattern caused the storm to stall over the region.  Even if there was some greater water capacity effect, it was small relative to the weather pattern impact.

My whole diatribe was a lead-in to make a point about weather patterns and the observed data in September 2024.  Light winds over 11 days are only possible if there is a large, slow-moving high-pressure system.  I have never seen any observational analyses claiming that they are trends in this kind of weather pattern.

More importantly, there are implications of these observations relative to the Climate Act transition to an electric system that relies on wind, solar, and energy storage capacity.  The fact that all of the New York wind generation only produced 0.2 MW during one hour must mean that the stagnant high pressure system was at least as big as New York including the offshore wind facility south of Long Island. It is hard to conclusively pick out the Ontario wind generation during the worst hour but it appears that there is very little wind generation at that time.  I maintain that to fully understand the geographical implications that a detailed analysis of meteorological data and expected wind and solar generation for New York and all the adjoining electric system control areas is necessary.  Lastly, I believe that the weather pattern that caused this wind lull could occur at any time of the year.  It may be more likely during certain times of the year but there is no reason that similar conditions could occur anytime.  This exacerbates the problem because the high-pressure systems that cause light winds often are accompanied by the most extreme temperatures which are when the observed peak loads occur.

My primary reliability concern is the challenge of providing electric energy during these periods of extended low wind and solar resource availability.  This period perfectly exemplifies this kind of extended wind lull period.  To address this problem the organizations responsible for New York State electric system reliability agree that a new Dispatchable Emissions-Free Resource (DEFR) is need as described here.  In addition to the geographical considerations noted above, planning for must evaluate as long a period as possible.  That work must consider when wind and solar can charge energy storage capacity and when short-term energy storage must be discharged to meet system requirements.  The challenge of that analysis is obvious when looking at these wind output graphs.

Conclusion

The Dunkelflaute wind lull phenomenon occurs worldwide.  The comparison of Ontario and New York data shows that these conditions can cover both jurisdictions.  The New York data show the severity of the wind lull.  It is essential that electric system planners consider the impacts of the Dunkelflaute.  I believe that New York is addressing this issue.  However, I will only feel comfortable that they have considered the worst-case situation when they assess a longer period of data covering adjacent electric system control areas.

Unfortunately, clean energy advocates continue to dismiss the extent of the problem.  Even worse, some do not acknowledge that wind, solar, and energy storage cannot be relied on during those periods and that when the power is needed the most it is most likely to be in a resource lull.  These advocates are simply wrong and should be ignored.

Attention New Visitors

The articles on this blog reflect my background as an environmental and energy analyst in the electric utility business.  Writing on behalf of industry requires documentation and backup for anything submitted as part of a regulatory proceeding.  Articles here provide that information so that readers have enough information to decide whether what I say is and is not true. .  However, it also means the posts can be dense, long, and include technical jargon. 

If you are interested in the material but do not want to wade everything in the posts, there is an alternative.  I prepare a fortnightly summary of posts that describes my recent posts with minimal technical jargon and includes links if you want to read the entire post.

If that is of interest there are two options.  For an email edition you can sign up by contacting me via the contact link at the top of this page or by sending an email to NYpragmaticenvironmentalist@gmail.com . The other option is to subscribe to my Substack where I publish a copy of the summary.  Click on this summary and there is an option to subscribe to future summaries.  

NYCP – Get Charged Up for the New York State Energy Plan

On September 9, 2024 the Hochul Administration initiated the development of the State Energy Plan announcing the release of a draft scope of the plan.  On November 15 New Yorkers for Clean Power (NYCP) sponsored a related webinar titled “Get Charged Up for the New York Energy Plan”.  My first post on this webinar described the response to my question does New York need a Climate Act feasibility analysis. This post addresses the presentation of one of the speakers.

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 electric system transition 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 470 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.

Takeaway Message – If you don’t have ~15 minutes to read the whole thing

This article describes the presentation by Janet Joseph who was deeply involved in the development of the Scoping Plan.  She noted that issues associated with reliability and affordability are real problems that the advocacy community must address. The insurmountable problem with that is reality bats last. 

Her presentation and the others in the webinar did not provide solid support for the listeners to address the reliability and affordability problems. In my previous post about this webinar I documented that the claim by Dr. Robert Howarth that no new technology is necessary is contradicted by the agencies and organization responsible for electric system reliability.  Janet Joseph’s presentation disparaged those professionals so I expect that will be the essence of advocate comments.   Her presentation also argued that the energy plan should align with the Scoping Plan ignoring the fact that there hasn’t been a response to critical comments on that document.  Worse, the Hochul Administration has never proven that the list of strategies in the Scoping Plan are feasible. 

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. 

Although related, the Energy Plan should not be confused with the Scoping Plan.  Every several years the New York Energy Planning Board is required to update its overall energy plan for the state. The process begins with an initial document that identifies a “scope” of work–meaning the set of things to be evaluated in the plan with a defined planning horizon of 2040. This makes the Climate Act’s 2040 goal of carbon-free electricity particularly relevant. That plan is to rely on wind, solar, and energy storage.  In my opinion, the Energy Plan must prove this will work.

Key Takeaways from the Event

The description of the New Yorkers for Clean Power sponsored a webinar titled “Get Charged Up for the New York Energy Plan” stated:

on November 15th. We are electrified by the demonstrated interest and information shared to support New York’s climate goals through the development of an ambitious and equitable State Energy Plan. To recap, our featured speakers were:

  • Janet Joseph, Principal, JLJ Sustainability Solutions (Former VP of Strategy and Market Development, NYSERDA
  • Dr. Robert Howarth, Member, New York’s Climate Action Council, and David R. Atkinson Professor of Ecology and Environmental Biology at Cornell University
  • Christopher Casey, Utility Regulatory Director for New York Climate and Energy, Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)

We’re excited to share the recording and slideshow from the event: Here is the recording of the event and check out the Presenters’ slides here.

Key Takeaways from the Event

  • Energy Plan is foundational to achieving New York’s climate and energy goals, aligning policies with the CLCPA.
  • Engagement from advocates, community members and developers is critical for ensuring equitable and actionable outcomes.
  • Challenges like building decarbonization and system reliability require innovative solutions and statutory changes.

This post addresses the presentations of Janet Joseph with respect to my concern that transitioning the New York electric grid to one that relies primarily on wind, solar, and energy storage will adversely affect reliability and affordability. 

Janet Joseph Presentation

The introduction for Janet Joseph notes that before her present gig with her own consulting firm she worked at the New York State Energy Research & Development Authority (NYSERDA).  In that role she was involved in the development of the Scoping Plan and earlier iterations of the Energy Plan.  Her

presentation noted that now that she is on her own, she can say what she “really thinks” about the transition dictated by the Climate Act.

One of my issues with New York’s unilateral net-zero transition is that we are such a small player in this global problem that whatever we do really cannot make a difference.  Joseph argued the opposing view that New York’s climate agenda is important.  She believes that New York needs to lead the way showing other jurisdictions how decarbonization can be accomplished.  “Mother nature’s accounting system is the only one that matters means we have to push for things that can be replicated in other regions”.  She did note that political accounting means we must push for policies that provide real co-benefits.  There were many things stated during the webinar that I take exception to, and this is one of them.  The calculation of co-benefits is largely a values judgement exercise that the Scoping Plan has biased by over-estimating benefits and ignoring disbenefits.  I could go on, but this is a minor issue relative to the Energy Plan.

Joseph explained the differences between the Energy Plan and Scoping Plan.  Her description of the Energy Plan concerns me.  She stated that the energy plan is the original place where NY’s “progressive energy policies and practices originated” due to the energy crisis of the 1970’s.  In my opinion one of the major tenets of progressivism is the preference for equity over equality which I believe adds unnecessary risks to electric system planning.  Note that the NYCP takeaways include the desire for “equitable and actionable outcomes”.  Joseph also said that the Energy Plan is “the vehicle used to push many progressive policies in New York”.    Equity “recognizes that each person has different circumstances and allocates the exact resources and opportunities needed to reach an equal outcome”.  On the other hand, “equality means each individual or group of people is given the same resources or opportunities”.   Translating that difference into electric system planning is a distraction for safe and adequate power for everyone.

Jospeh’s presentation notes that policies like renewable portfolio standards, energy efficiency, solar and storage issues all came from the energy plan.  I am disappointed by her remarks related to renewable energy.  She stated that “In the 1990’s, get this, we were debating 300 MW of renewable energy” because the opposition at the time said, “it would bring the system down”.  She concluded “Same arguments and same barriers in different decades” insinuating the proposed transition is simple.  In the first place, the scale of the renewable development is different – in 2030 wind and solar is expected to be over 100 times greater than 300 MW.  I think it is irresponsible to demonize the people who are responsible for keeping the lights on by anyone who will suffer no consequences by being wrong.  The biggest issue is that we are now debating whether the existing electric system of New York can be converted to one that relies on renewables even though no jurisdiction anywhere has successfully done so.  Disparaging New York’s electric experts gives the advocates who listened to the presentation false security and hope.

Joseph noted that while we have a comprehensive climate plan, we still must do the energy plan.  This is another point of disagreement.  In my opinion, the Scoping Plan is not comprehensive, it is just an outline of strategies that the Integration Analysis claims will comply with the Climate Act mandates. There has never been any responses to critiques raised during the Scoping Plan comment process but, more egregious from my perspective, there has never been a feasibility analysis. 

In the presentation she said that there were five things advocates should be looking  to be included in the Energy Plan but in her presentation she only described four things.

She said that the first aspect that needs to be included in the Energy Plan is alignment between the scoping plan and the energy plan.  Joseph argued that confusion and conflict between the two documents would cause delays, and we do not have time for that.  She wants “at a minimum, high level alignment, and ideally all the way down to perfect synergy of these documents”. In my opinion, the presumption made by the presenters that the Scoping Plan is feasible is simply crossing our fingers and hoping.  I raised many issues in my Draft Scoping Plan comments that were not addressed by the Climate Action Council and remain unresolved to this day.  Therefore, the Energy Plan offers the opportunity to correct the oversights and errors in the Scoping Plan.  It is inappropriate to assume alignment of the documents is appropriate.  We need to determine feasibility.

The second aspect raised was that the Energy Plan is a medium range plan from 2025 to 2040.  Her presentation urged the advocates to not debate how we will achieve the last 20%.  Joseph said that her experience has led her to believe we should focus on what we need to do to achieve the next 20% of reductions.  I disagree with this concept because it is likely that when the technologies for dispatchable emissions-free resources are selected nuclear power will be the best choice.  If that is the case, then renewables are not needed, making the current approach a costly dead end.

The third item she mentioned was that the Energy Plan has its roots in system reliability.  She said opponents to the renewables approach will be harping on reliability and affordability.  She admitted that those issues are real and that they will resonate politically.  Then she said that “the advocacy community must be armed to fight that battle and address the impact on reliability and affordability as best you can.”  She went on “System reliability issues will be the primary lenses through which recommendations will be filtered.”  Then she gave an example where the Urban Green Council partnered with a utility and a “credible analytical entity” to determine where reliability issues would not be an issue for New York City residential building electrification.  This is a common advocacy approach where “results for hire” consultants develop an analysis that supports the pre-conceived conclusions of funding organizations.  In my previous post on this webinar I documented that a similar targeted analysis that runs contrary to the findings of all the agencies of responsible for New York electric system reliability is being used to support renewable development.  In my opinion, the only way to refute concerns about reliability issues associated with renewables is to cherry pick analyses and ignore reality.

The fourth aspect energy plan she made is particularly concerning.  She said that (my transcript):

We have to evolve and expand from a narrow technocratic focus on the engineering requirements that keep the fuel flowing and the lights on to one that considers how our system, our infrastructure, and our practices need to change to increase the resiliency of human beings to survive within the new energy system dynamics and new climate extremes.

This aspirational baloney is difficult to interpret.  The interpretation and weighting of the proposed energy plan effects on “new energy system dynamics” and “new climate extremes” makes all the difference in the interpretation of her comments.  When advocates ignore the difference between weather and climate to ascribe every extreme weather event to climate change then the concept that everything needs to change to deal with the supposed existential threat is necessary.  She could be arguing that the Energy Plan must address this effect.  On the other hand, the reference to “new energy system dynamics” could be a tacit acknowledgement that relying on weather-dependent resources is an inherently less reliable approach.  I believe that relying on weather-dependent resources will inevitably mean that someday electricity will not be available when needed most.  She goes but does not clarify this distinction in my opinion:

“In short we need more focus not on just system reliability in this energy plan but resiliency.  We cannot be afraid to talk about what happens when the lights go out and how people remain safe in that event.  We will have storms, we will have downed power lines, and the lights will go out.  We need to think through this.  It is not just a New York issue.  This is a certainly a global issue.  We will have extreme weather that will affect the totality of our infrastructure. 

This is bigger than an emergency preparedness plan.  Our future energy and related infrastructure policies and practices need to be shaped with these considerations in mind.  Here too, I sat in too many conversations over the years where people are debating – That shouldn’t be in an energy plan – it should be in an adaptation plan.  “That’s not a climate plan – it should be in a resiliency plan”.  It doesn’t matter where it is folks.  We have to start thinking through the weather extremes that we will be faced with, this rapidly changing energy system and how it affects people.  We need more focus on resiliency. 

She then threw out some ideas to “make it real”.  She suggested both heating and cooling capabilities should be mandated for landlords in our future climate.  She recommended more “community resiliency facilities with backup power”.  She also suggested that home designs should include “climate-safe zones” and maybe “requirements for solar and storage on every new home and subsidies for those who can’t afford it”.  She recommended weatherization to increase passive survivability in the event of a power outage.    She admitted that we have “GW of solar that is “not going to help us from a resiliency standpoint” and concluded that we need to determine what to do to improve upon this.

She concluded that:

I think that we have made tremendous progress in New York State in the Climate Scoping Plan developing really comprehensive GHG mitigation strategies.  I am proud to have participated in that activity.  But I don’t think we really have moved the needle on policies and practices that would develop a more resilient system at the central community and local level.  Just to be clear

I am not in the camp of those people who think every change we are making to reduce GHG emissions and increase renewables is going to take the system down.  I am in the camp that we have to think through this and make sure we are building in resiliency all the way down to the local level.  So I am hopeful that this energy plan will pick up on those hard resiliency discussions in a very meaningful and substantive way.  These are hard conversations but we have to start having them. 

The interpretation of which factors affecting resiliency she is concerned about is important.  She has enough experience and background to know that the new energy system dynamics have real risks.  I have no doubt that she sincerely believes that “new climate extremes” is a real thing.  If she believe that the primary resiliency driver is more extreme weather, her suggestions boil down to whether the emphasis should be on mitigation or adaptation.  On the other hand, she could be admitting that the new energy system dynamics are a real concern that could be addressed by accepting less reliability and just dealing with blackouts better.  That is not outside the realm of possibility because I have read climate advocates who have argued that it is appropriate.  However, that response is antithetical to New York electric resource planning doctrine and I think most electric users in the state would not accept more frequent and longer blackouts as an acceptable risk for reducing GHG emissions.

Conclusion

It was interesting that Janet Joseph recognized that reliability and affordability are real.  Then she said that “the advocacy community must be armed to fight that battle and address the impact on reliability and affordability as best you can.”  The insurmountable problem with that is reality bats last.  I have three related concerns about presentations at this webinar.

The presentations gives Climate Act proponents false confidence that the proposed transition to an electric system that relies on wind, solar, and energy storage has few risks.  In my previous post about this webinar I documented that the claim by Dr. Robert Howarth that no new technology is necessary is contradicted by the agencies and organization responsible for electric system reliability.  Janet Joseph’s presentation disparaged those professionals inappropriately in my opinion.

Joseph’s remarks also argued that the upcoming Energy Plan must align with the Climate Act’s Scoping Plan.  I do not think that the Scoping Plan proved that its proposed strategies would maintain system reliability standards or that it would be affordable.  In her leadership role on the Energy Efficiency and Housing Advisory Panel she never responded to related comments and questions on the Draft Scoping Plan.  That lack of acknowledgement of criticism was true of all the critical comments made.  As a result, I think the Scoping Plan is flawed and must not be used as the template for the Energy Plan.

Finally, I disagree with the Joseph’s support for progressive equity concepts relative to the electric system.  That approach would require treating the availability and affordability of electricity differently to certain constituencies.  That is anathema to me because I think there will be serious unintended consequences.

My Comments on the NYPA Draft Strategic Renewables Plan

The 2023-24 Enacted State Budget authorized and directed the New York Power Authority (NYPA) to advance renewable energy and support other state priorities.  Last month NYPA published its Draft Renewables Strategic Plan (Dreft Plan) which describes how NYPA will “operationalize our renewables work, along with our continued and critical obligations to our existing generation, transmission, customer, and community commitments.”  This article describes my comments on the Draft Plan.  I encourage New Yorkers to also submit comments.

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 electric system transition relies on wind, solar, and energy storage.  I have followed the Climate Act since it was first proposed, submitted comments on the Climate Act implementation plan, and have written over 480 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. 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.  The Build Public Renewables Act (BPRA) is an legislation example.

Draft Renewables Strategic Plan

The Executive Summary states:

The Power Authority of the State of New York (“NYPA” or the “Power Authority”) is pleased to publish for public comment and hearings its inaugural draft Strategic Plan for developing new renewable energy generation projects to supply New Yorkers with affordable, reliable, and emissions-free electricity.

The main point in my comments is that there is no evidence that renewable energy generation projects can provide affordable and reliable electricity so that presumption must be addressed first.

The 2023-24 Enacted State Budget authorized and directed the Power Authority to engage in the largest expansion of our responsibilities in decades to advance renewable energy and support other state priorities. This expanded authority will enable NYPA to accelerate the development of renewable energy, support workforce training for jobs in the renewable energy sector, and to establish the Renewable Energy Access and Community Help (REACH) program to provide bill credits for low- and moderate-income ratepayers in disadvantaged communities served by New York’s investor-owned utilities.

The Climate Act is a Progressive “Green New Deal”.   Addressing climate change is just a front to achieve other social aims like job creation, economic growth, and environmental justice.

In the time since Governor Kathy Hochul signed the State Budget into law on May 3, 2023, NYPA has made major progress toward the development of new renewables. This progress includes establishing the business structures, filling key personnel roles, and garnering other necessary resources to carry out our new missions, all while advancing the first tranche of projects.

Like any bureaucracy, NYPA’s primary business goal is to get bigger, and this is a golden opportunity for growth.  However, when the costs to comply with the Climate Act goals are totaled, I guarantee that the bureaucratic expenses for these resources will never be included. 

With the opportunity to become a leader in responsible development of new renewables, NYPA aims to expeditiously build affordable projects, staying grounded in our commitment to the communities in which we operate now and, in the future, all while ensuring fair and family-sustaining worker wages.

One of the worst outcomes of the Climate Act implementation has been the destruction of “home rule” whereby local governments have “the ability to craft ordinances and make decisions based on local needs, rather than having to follow a one-size-fits-all state code that’s decided by state legislators.”  State generation permitting rules and transmission siting rules have been modified specifically to enable a faster buildout of renewable energy facilities short circuiting the ability of affected towns to object.  This law adds to that problem because now projects that are not privately feasible will be pushed ahead by NYPA.

We are proud to present this inaugural NYPA Renewables Strategic Plan, which describes how the Power Authority will operationalize our new renewables work, along with our continued and critical obligations to our existing generation, transmission, customer, and community commitments.

My Comments on the plan also raise three points all related to the inanity of politicians thinking they should dictate energy policy.  The overarching problem is the feasibility of a renewables-based electric system was the first concern addressed.  I responded to one of the specific political components in the BPRA the mandate to shut down NYPA’s peaking power plants in New York City.  Finally, state officials have a way of overlooking inconvenient aspects of their programs which I addressed with respect to solar siting.

Feasibility

This has been a recurrent theme at this blog since the beginning but the last few months the necessity of a pause in implementation to determine whether New York should be planning to rely on wind, solar, and energy storage has become clear.  As a result, I have been saying the same thing repeatedly which must bore regular readers.  Bear with me in this section.

The authors of the Climate Act believed that no new technologies are needed to implement their aspirational electric system mandates.  That is wrong.  The experts responsible for electric reliability planning in New York and independent experts capable of refined analyses of the electric grid agree that during periods of extended low wind and solar resource availability a new category of generating resources called Dispatchable Emissions-Free Resources (DEFR) is required.  The problem is that there is no commercially available DEFR technology that can be expanded as needed to support projected wind and solar resources necessary to comply with the 2040 “zero-emissions” mandate.  I maintain a feasibility study to address this requirement is necessary.

In my opinion, the most promising DEFR backup technology is nuclear generation because it is the only candidate resource that is technologically ready, can be expanded as needed, and does not suffer from limitations of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. If the only viable DEFR solution is nuclear, then renewables cannot be implemented without it.  But nuclear can replace renewables, eliminating the need for a huge DEFR backup resource and even more massive buildout of wind turbines and solar panels sprawling over the state’s lands and water.  Therefore, it would be prudent to pause renewable development until a proven DEFR technology is proven feasible because nuclear generation may be the only viable path to zero emissions.  That would make any further renewable investments a bad choice.

Peaking Power Plants

The authors of the enabling legislation for the NYPA renewables responsibilities also included a specific mandate for New York City peaking power plants owned by NYPA.  Environmental justice advocates like the Peak Coalition, have convinced state officials that New York City peaking power plants are “perhaps the most egregious energy-related example of what environmental injustice means today.”  The enacting law for the Draft Plan specifically directed NYPA to publish a plan by May 3, 2025, to end generating electricity with fossil fuel at its 11 small natural gas power plant (SNGPP) units located at seven sites in New York City and on Long Island by the end of 2030 if reliability and environmental requirements are met.  I have documented that 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. In brief, the continued operation of these facilities will have no discernable impact on local neighborhood air quality and shutting them down is solely political virtue-signaling.  On the other hand, these facilities serve specific reliability needs that are not easily replaced. 

Someday, someone in the Hochul Administration is going to have to confront the advocacy organizations and explain that tradeoffs are often required to balance different societal needs.  In this instance it is the tradeoff between the desire for zero pollutant impacts against the need to keep the lights on.  At least in this instance the law does mandate that a feasibility analysis is necessary before the plants get shut down because the law states they can only be shut down “if reliability and environmental requirements are met.”

Solar Development

It is very frustrating to me that New York utility-scale solar development has no requirement to protect prime farmland.  In my draft Scoping Plan  comments I called for a moratorium on solar development because the Hochul Administration has not required solar developers to adhere to all the NYS Department of Agriculture and Markets (NYSDAM) guidelines protecting prime farmland.  As of November 25, 2024, my Solar Project Scorecard shows that  3,414 MW of solar projects have been permitted on project areas of 46,981 acres. These projects will take 7,588 acres of prime farmland out of production.  Of the 21 solar projects permitted only 8 meet the NYSDAM guidelines.  NYPA solar projects should meet the NYSDAM guidelines.

There are two other solar deployment issues that the Draft Plan should address.  The Integration Analysis projections for solar capacity presume that the facilities use tilting axis solar panels to maximize production.  However, the Hochul Administration has not made that a requirement so there are facilities being subsidized that will produce less energy than expected.  This means that the Scoping Plan projections for capacity and costs are underestimated.  NYPA solar projects should use tilting-axis panels.  Finally, a simple constraint to maximize availability when needed the most should be included.  Specifically, subsidizing solar panels that lay flat on rooftops should not be supported by NYPA because they could be covered by snow when temperatures are lowest and loads highest.

Discussion

New York State residents who read this can comment on the Draft Plan until December 8. 

The New York Power Authority welcomes your views on how we can most effectively and equitably build new renewable resources to support the State’s efforts to advance its ambitious renewable energy goals. If you have feedback or comments, please contact us using the form here. 

I suggest that you make the following points:

  • No jurisdiction has successfully built an electric system that relies primarily on wind, solar, and energy storage without fossil fuel backup.
  • The agencies that are responsible for electric system reliability agree that a new resource is required for periods of prolonged poor wind and solar availability.
  • Therefore, an analysis to identify technologies that can maintain current standards of affordability and reliability must be completed before NYPA provides funding to support renewable projects.

Conclusion

In my opinion, experts who understand the electric system agree that the wind, solar, and energy storage system envisioned by the authors of the Climate Act needs a new technology.  I believe experts agree with me that the only feasible DEFR technology is nuclear power and that cannot be deployed fast enough to meet the aspirational schedule of the Climate Act.  There is tremendous pressure for agency experts and responsible organizations to not speak out against the politically correct façade that renewables are the solution for decarbonizing New York’s electric system.  I understand why they do not speak out but it is frustrating.  I only hope that in private conversations with responsible public officials the experts are recommending a feasibility study. 

The more people who say “Please provide evidence that the enormous changes to the existing system proposed in the Climate Act can work” the better.  Climate Act proponents have never provided well-documented cost estimates to reach net-zero from a base case where decarbonization is not considered.  The requirement to develop, test, and deploy sufficient wind, solar, energy storage, and DEFR by 2040 is a tremendous challenge to reliability.  It is also fair to ask for an environmental assessment of the cumulative impacts of all the resources needed for the wind, solar and energy storage system proposed.  All those concerns should be considered against the backdrop that the climate change issue is a global problem and our contributions are negligible.

Commentary on Recent Articles November 28, 2024

This is an update of articles that I have read that I want to mention but only have time to provide a brief summary.  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.

Northeast Wildfires

Under the category of yet another instance where those who do not understand the difference between weather and climate the recent wildfires in New York and New Jersey are being blamed on climate change.  In brief, climate is what you expect, and weather is what you get.  In the context of climate because wildfires have occurred many times in the past the observed wildfires are due to weather.  A post at Climate Realism documents the history of wildfires in New Jersey,  provides a reference to the New York wildfire data, and shows that the trend of national wildfire data “shows the acreage lost to wildfires in the United States has declined sharply since the early part of the 20th century.”

Climate Scam Terminology

Chris Martz interprets climate terminology in this post.  He argues that anthropogenic global warming is not a “hoax” or “scam” because there is a legitimate underlying scientific basis.  He points out that there is general agreement on the following points:

Global mean surface temperature (GMST) has risen about 1.2°C since 1850. The warming since 1980 is about as equal in magnitude and rate as the early 20th century warming from 1910 to 1945. In general, it has been warming for >250 years.

Burning of coal, oil and natural gas for energy has increased atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO₂) levels by ~51% since 1850. We know this because there is an isotopic fingerprint in the decrease of C13/C12 ratios. While this is not uniquely indicative of anthropogenic origin, it is a pretty solid indicator.

Earth’s average surface temperature is a function of energy gain versus energy loss. Given there is a radiation spectrum on CO₂ in the infrared (IR) band of the electromagnetic (EM) spectrum, all else constant, adding more of it to the atmosphere should reduce the rate of cooling by emission of IR to space. In effect, it induces a cooling tendency in the stratosphere and a warming tendency in the troposphere. This has in fact been observed.

However, he explains that there is no agreement on how much of the observed warming is man-made, the equilibrium climate sensitivity, whether warming is dangerous or beneficial, and the best measures for adaptation and mitigation.

For what it is worth I concur with the three points of agreement.  I also believe his conclusion is correct, especially his description of the real scam below:

So, there is in fact a legitimate scientific basis behind global warming theory. The basics are pretty well understood; the devil is in the details and the science is far from settled.

The case isn’t closed. That book remains wide open on the table.

However, what is indeed a scam is the push for “Net Zero” CO₂ emissions by 2050.

A legitimate scientific issue has become captive of a Malthusian religion by power-hungry elected officials and unelected bureaucrats. Climate policy is an anti-capitalist, anti-human movement. These people push for one-world governance where you are told what you can and cannot eat, what appliances you can and cannot buy, where you can or cannot travel and want to force us to adopt a carbon credit cap and trade system in a cashless society. The policy is the scam, not the basic underlying scientific theory. 

Home-Based Battery Storage Fantasy

One of the “solutions” of clean energy fanatics is that we don’t need to rely on utility-scale energy storage or need to make transmission upgrades if grid operators can tap into electric vehicle batteries and home storage batteries.  The Manhattan Institute rightly calls that electricity “magical thinking.”

Jonathan Lesser eviscerates a recent article in the Conversation that makes such a claim.  He argues that the need for more solar and wind means that transmission will be needed to get that energy to where it is needed, and local distribution networks will have to be upgraded when everything is electrified if using home batteries is to work.  Then he estimates how much this magical solution would cost – on the order of $3 trillion just for the batteries.  His conclusion is right on the money:

Ignoring physical and economic realities may be fashionable, but reality always wins in the long run. The electric grid and its components form a complex system which most of us take for granted, which enable misleading claims regarding the simplicity of electrifying everything and powering it all almost exclusively with wind, solar, and batteries. Electric utilities and planners can provide a public service by explaining why this scenario, given today’s technology, isn’t possible.

Disinformation Censorship

Charles Rotter addresses a big concern of mine. 

In yet another chilling example of Orwellian overreach, the G20 Summit in Brazil has unveiled a new international effort to stifle dissent under the banner of “fighting disinformation.” This latest scheme, dubbed the Global Initiative for Information Integrity on Climate Change, is spearheaded by the United Nations and UNESCO. With a financial war chest provided by nations like the United Kingdom, France, and Sweden, this initiative isn’t about “truth” or “science”—it’s about control.

I agree with his description:

Let’s call this what it is: a blatant attempt to silence anyone questioning the so-called climate crisis narrative. Under the guise of combating “misinformation,” these global bureaucracies aim to crush free thought and erase critical voices from the public square. This isn’t just an attack on skeptics—it’s an assault on open discourse itself.

Ron Clutz published a related article “Misinformation” Means “Shut Up”.  Clutz excerpts an article by Daniel B. Klein that reveals the power play currently destroying our civil discourse.  There is a quote defining disinformation as meaning:

‘Shut up, peasant.’ It’s a bullet aimed at killing the conversation. It’s loaded with hostility to reason, evidence, debate and all the stuff that makes our democracy great.

When the Climate Act Scoping Plan was being discussed misinformation accusations were thrown about whenever advocates responded to things they did not want to hear.  Don’t be surprised when you hear it used again when experts inevitably point out the Climate Act wind, solar, and energy storage approach is impossible.

Energy Transitions Don’t Happen on Command

Bud’s Offshore Energy explains why many who think it might be possible to transition to zero carbon understand that a politically motivated schedule is a disaster waiting to happen.  He includes graphics by Bjorn Lomborg and Alex Epstein that show the energy transition is not happening according to plan. 

Videos

Gerard Holland lays out the staggering cost of renewable energy at Alliance for Responsible Citizenship Australia.  Rich Ellenbogen notes:

The video is about 14 minutes long and it is well worth watching.  It discusses the staggering costs of the energy transition in Australia.  If the video sounds familiar, it is because he is bringing up the same issues that we have been beating the drum on, except he is primarily discussing costs.  The reason for the cost discussion is because of Australia’s incredibly favorable renewable landscape.  Their technical issues are a fraction of those that NY State will face.  In NY State, we will not only have the economic hurdles that he mentions but we will also have an incredibly challenging technical landscape to address also. The speaker claims a cost of $95,000 per person.  Because of the higher population densities and the lower capacity factors for the energy in NY State, it will cost far more to site, install, and wire the transmission for the renewable generation.  In addition, Holland notes that the burden of the costs will disproportionately be on the backs of the poor.  The same will be true in NY State and that is already occurring but that is what the CLCPA is doing in the name of “Climate Justice

Debate: Is Decarbonization Worth the Cost  

Note that this link takes you to the end of the video.   I had intended to do a post on this debate, but other issues prevented that.  Tom Shepstone summarized the debate here.  The closing statements of the debaters is worth a listen.  Four key points from those that argue the decarbonization is worth the cost: we can’t do 100% as net-zero programs like the Climate Act demand, we need to do research, we must learn adaptation, and decarbonization using nuclear works.

Washington State Goes One for Three on the Pragmatic Climate Scale…Maybe

One of the things that makes my blogging obsession worthwhile is meeting people across the world in connection with my posts.  It varies from people who comment on my work in the comments section of posts to people who have corresponded directly.  The direct contacts have provided insights into their own experiences that are helpful to me.  There also are a few who write with material that I use for guest posts.  Paul Fundingsland is one of the latter who has provided information for posts about his experiences in Washington State with their net-zero plan.  This post annotates the article (Washington State Goes One for Three on the Pragmatic Climate Scale…Maybe) that I edited for him to post at Watts Up With That.

Paul describes himself as a “Free Lance writer with a two decade long obsession with all things climate change.”  Although he is a retired professor, he has no scientific or other degrees specific to these kinds of issues that can be cited as offering personal official expertise or credibility. What he does have is a two-decade-old avid, enthusiastic, obsession with all things Climate Change related. 

In this article he described three climate related initiatives that were decided in Washington recently.  Initiative 2066 was a referendum to repeal laws and regulations that discourage natural gas use and would require current natural gas customers to switch to electric heating.  Initiative 2117 was another referendum to repeal the state’s commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 95% by 2050 in the Climate Commitment Act.  Finally, the Horse Haven Wind, Solar and Battery Complex permit was approved.

Initiative 2066

I am envious that Washington State has a way for citizens to demand a referendum to put a law up for a vote of the people.  This was one of two recall referendums.

The bright spot was the successful passage of Initiative 2066 which ensures access to natural gas in homes and other buildings and repeals a state law requiring plans to transition from the use of natural gas to electricity. The final tally was 52% yes, 48% no. 

Washington is basically a one-party blue state – Kamala Harris won by a lopsided 58% of the presidential vote. Even though only a third of the residents rely on natural gas with the bulk of the populace (58%) using electricity, the “yes” vote prevailed in a surprising outcome given the political demographics.

I think there were several reasons for the outcome.  The main issue that resonated with all the gas users was the extreme cost of a switch over from gas appliances to all electric they would be expected to finance almost entirely by themselves.  Since Washingtonians have been using gas with no significant identifiable adverse effects for decades, it was hard to convince them that demonizing the use of gas was now all of a sudden, a threat to their health and wellbeing. There also may have been a fair number of the electric heat users who preferred using gas for cooking and in their fireplaces.

The “vote no” people took the main tack that using gas was a pollutant, a health hazard and would prevent the State from achieving its Climate Commitment Act goals.

It is only a matter of time until a similar law is passed in New York that forbids natural gas use because the Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act) mandates building emission limits that can only be met if natural gas is prohibited.  The New York Home Energy Affordable Transition Act (NY HEAT) puts some limits on natural gas use but stops short of the Washington law I think.  Fundingsland goes on to point out that litigation of the referendum result is still possible.

Despite the result there still is a maybe part of the passage of this initiative.  The “no vote campaign” intends to take this issue to the State Supreme Court. They are claiming it should be voided because it violates the State rule that an initiative should not embrace more than one subject. They have deep pockets to fight this vote of the people.  The sore losers include the Sierra Club, Statewide Poverty Action Network, Front and Centered, plus “unnamed” renewable energy groups (no surprise there).

The “yes” campaign claims the initiative was written very carefully expecting successful passage to be challenged in court. The “no” campaign started putting their challenge together months before the final vote just in case it passed.

It will be interesting to see if passage of I-2066 by the voters is brought before the State Supreme Court. Voiding the obvious majority of the people on some sort of technicality could prove problematic in coming elections by raising rational voter ire. That might give the “no” campaign second thoughts as to how this may play out in the long run if they pursue this avenue of opposition.

Initiative 2117

The referendum on the funding approach for the Washington version of the Climate Act is timely vis-à-vis New York.  The Hochul Administration is supposed to propose rules for the New York Cap-and-Invest program that will put a cost on carbon emissions.  That regulation is late, undoubtedly because of political fears that the costs are too high.  I was disappointed that a state that has seen a sharp increase in gasoline costs voted down repealing the Washington version.

On the losing side of the “one for three” pragmatic climate issues was voting down Initiative 2117 which would have essentially ended funding for the State’s Climate Commitment Act (CCA) resulting in lower gas prices at the pump. It really did not have a chance of passage once the big money came rolling in advertising against it. 

The five biggest donors against passage were all essentially billionaires. They included Steve and Connie Ballmer, Bill Gates, Microsoft (the company) and the 4-billion-dollar Nature Conservancy. Their media ads were very slick, very professional and appeared all over the TV channels at all times of the day and night but especially during the evening news, sports (football, soccer etc.). They were even on the Fox Business News channel. 

It really didn’t matter what time of day or what channel you were watching, there would be an ad to defeat this measure that would show up. The amount of money spent to defeat this measure must have been eye-popping.

The main selling point was that voting for I-2117 would cause unclean air, unclean water, worse wildfires, a dirtier environment with worse roads and transportation. Voting it down would mean cleaner air, cleaner water, better wildfire management, a cleaner environment, and even better roads and transportation. There was, of course, no mention of just how much less global warming would result from a no vote. 

One of the ads featured individuals wearing their respective professional garbs advocating voting no (doctor, fireman, construction worker, forest ranger, Tribal member, etc.) An observation was that these are the very same special interest groups who have recently been getting money from the CCA fund so of course they don’t want to see those funds go away.

One of the ads accused the promoter of this measure (and three of the other measures) of being just a greedy millionaire out for himself. Never mind the billionaires who funded the campaign against it and how or whether they might benefit somehow from it being defeated.

It was obvious the campaign for passage of I-2117 did not have the requisite funding to successfully get their message across with the necessary effective media advertising. The ads were spread too thinly between several issues. The ads were somewhat rudimentary, lacking a professional look, and they appeared sparsely. They just didn’t have the money and the focus to get their message across.

My personal opinion is that had the “yes” ads concentrated on the fact that no matter how much you were paying for a gallon of gas (whether a high price or low one) $10 would be going to the state for every 20 gallons of gas they bought. I think that would have made a much bigger impact on the voters by helping them understand just how much they were sending to the State every time they filled up.

Sadly the billionaires won this one. 

There still is hope because the costs, due to the law will only increase over time.

There is a chance this issue could be brought up for a statewide vote again at a later date, perhaps when Washington surpasses California for the cost of gas at the pump which may not be all that far off. If it is brought up again, the people behind it now know what they are up against and will have to adjust accordingly, being a lot more clever with their focus and their financing.

Horse Haven Wind, Solar, and Battery Complex

The other initiative was the approval of a massive renewable energy complex.  Nobody has proposed a single project this big in New York yet.

The other one of the three climate-related issues is our Governor’s final approval of the “Horse Haven Wind, Solar and Battery Complex” in Eastern Washington. It’s a huge complex stretching 24 scenic miles long and 8 miles wide covering 72,000 acres with 5,000 of those farmland acres surfaced with solar panels. The final proposal is to have either 172 five-hundred-foot towers or 113 six hundred seventy foot tall towers. The battery complex is yet to be determined as to size and placement.

A valiant opposition movement (here) of Benton County residences, tribal members and wildlife advocates has been so far unsuccessful in stopping this monstrosity from happening. The Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council confirmed the Governor’s approval in a 4-3 vote. There is now only one more avenue to pause or stop the building of this grotesque complex…the court system.

And that is exactly what has just happened. Benton county has filed suit against the state over this project.

One other long shot outside possibility that might stop this atrocious wind project from being built could be when the new national administration takes office in January. Indications are that the new administration intends to terminate subsidies for wind and solar projects. If that does happen, it is likely the Horse Haven Wind Farm may become unprofitable to build. 

Washington prides itself on being an enlightened, leading energy progressive state. This wind/solar/battery complex is anything but progressive. It is an exorbitantly expensive energy system at $1.7 billion (2021 estimate and counting) for the amount of intermittent power it can produce. It regressively degrades and seriously threatens the reliability of the existing electric grid by providing only non-dispatchable erratic weather dependent electricity. 

Nuclear Power

I am convinced that the wind, solar, and energy storage approach epitomized by the kind of project will do more harm than good.  I also believe that the only rational way to decarbonize the New York electric system is to deploy nuclear resources.  Fundingsland agrees as shown in the following.

A leading enlightened progressive State would be planning on installing a small modular nuclear system such as NuScale’s Voygr-12 module complex of SMRs. The NuScale SMR system was developed in Oregon and is the only one so far to receive design approval by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Or the State could support the expansion or duplication of Amazon and Energy Northwest’s planned Central Washington installation of X-energy’s 12 module system. 

Ironically, Energy Northwest is headquartered in Richland Washington. Their potential SMR site is a mere 50 miles from the planned wind farm next to the Columbia Nuclear Generating station (Washington’s only functioning nuclear plant). This gives their planned site close, easy access to the electrical grid. 

Both SMR systems can deliver dispatchable electricity under all weather conditions 24/7365. They are CO2 free and can generate approximately 924 actual nameplate MWe where as the wind system will be lucky to generate 40% of its nameplate. And that energy will be erratic and intermittent grid destabilizing energy that requires storage. Their respective footprints use only a miserly 0.06 square miles of land in contrast to the wind farm’s approximately 100 square miles. Their environmental footprint is small, scenically unobtrusive, and non-threatening to birds of prey.

Both SMR products have a passive safety system so they cannot melt down or blow up. Each one of the 12 SMRs composing either company’s modular complex are built in a factory and can be delivered by truck, rail or barge in three sections. 

There is a serious disconnect between the “Energy Magical Thinking” flowing from the Capitol in Olympia versus pragmatic, modern, non-invasive solutions available. This is especially disconcerting considering Portland Oregon (the headquarters of NuScale) is only 114 miles away from the capitol building in Olympia. 

On the Washington boarder to the east, the state of Idaho is embracing and promoting nuclear with it’s Idaho National Laboratory Frontiers Initiative. 

In their words: 

“Eight states are developing economic development plans focused on advanced nuclear energy deployment with the help from Idaho National Laboratory’s (INL) Frontiers Initiative.

Frontiers was established in 2021 to help stakeholders identify and capitalize on key economic  opportunities afforded by early adoption of advanced nuclear energy. The initiative also helps stakeholders leverage advanced nuclear to capture emerging global market opportunities in low-emission industries.

The 2024 Frontiers Initiative Impacts Report, released today, (Oct. 24) highlights the initiative’s impacts on first-mover states identified as actively pursuing advanced nuclear energy to encourage economic development.

We have strengthened our partnerships with stakeholders in first-mover states – Idaho, Utah, Wyoming and Alaska – while adding engagements where increasing interest in advanced

Nuclear energy intersects industry needs, including in Louisiana, Montana, North Dakota and South Carolina,” said Steven Aumeier, senior advisor at INL.” 

One of the advantages of publishing at Watts Up With That is that there is much wider exposure than at this blog.  As a result of the wider exposure there are more comments.  Sometimes that is not so good but more often there are valuable insights.  For example, in the comments to his article Beta Blocker provided links to several presentations and reports published in recent months concerning energy reliability in the US Northwest and described a hypothetical wind and solar expansion.  There is an enormous amount of useful information in those two comments.

Fundingsland also recommended a movie is called “Nuclear Now”.

It is by Oliver Stone and was released just last year (2023). It is an extremely thorough movie about the development of nuclear power from the very beginnings to the present day. It basically covers all the various aspects of nuclear. This includes the past massive demonstrations against its use in the 60s-70s as well as the three scary nuclear power plant accidents and why those issues mislead and continue to color the modern deployment of nuclear power.  It ends with a fairly thorough review of the modern nuclear systems, which countries are developing them (Russia, China, US) and how far along they are. And then it mostly concludes focusing a lot on SMRs.

Discussion

Fundingsland’s article argued that Washington is more talk than action.  Given that I think nuclear is the rational approach I would argue that New York should be trying to emulate Tennessee rather than California.   

transition, shamefully Washington State is not among these “first-mover states”.

If Washington was serious about being a modern enlightened energy progressive state, they also might want to look at what is happening in Tennessee. Their General Assembly created a $60 million fund (The Tennessee Nuclear Energy Fund) that has attracted four projects in the last six months headed by Orono USA, a company specializing in: “Uranium. Mining/conversion/enrichment, used nuclear fuel management and recycling, decommissioning shutdown nuclear energy facilities, federal site cleanup and closure and developing nuclear medicines to fight cancer”

Oak Ridge is determined to become “the place the nation is looking for to lead the next nuclear race”. Oak Ridge and Knoxville are now home to some 154 nuclear companies.

Oregon, Idaho and Tennessee have blown past Washington in the enlightened pragmatic electric energy transition. It leaves our state in the dustbin of yesterday’s expensive, environmentally invasive, dysfunctional grid threatening Wind/Solar/Battery energy systems. 

Fundingsland concluded

The jury is still out on whether Washington residents can hold on to their current right to use the energy of their choice for heating/cooking. And whether an out-of-date, environmentally destructive dysfunctional grid threatening Wind/Solar/Battery system gets installed against the wishes of the impacted citizens.

The state seems most focused on keeping money from it’s CCA (Climate Commitment Act) flowing from the hike in gas prices at the pump this act has caused. The state needs the money given that it was just announced it is currently around $10 billion in debt. My cynical side wonders just how much of that CCA money is going to end up being diverted towards reducing that debt rather than “fighting “Climate Change” as it was advertised to be used for. 

Washington state has many enlightened social programs to be proud of. There is a rational, pragmatic program supporting parents (both wife and husband) of newborns with a generous paid leave time so they can tend to their new child. A State sponsored long term care program has just been enacted designed for those elderly who do not have such means helping them towards the end off their days.  

But when it comes to the State’s energy policy, it’s a whole different story. “Magical Thinking” prevails forcing rationality and pragmatism to go right out through the ozone hole.

So much for Washington leading the nation with a modern, clean, reliable, environmentally friendly electrical energy transition path. It’s much more enlightening to watch what states like Idaho and Tennessee are doing to find out where the future of rational, pragmatic energy systems are going.

I expect that New York’s experience with Climate Act implementation will be the same as Washington State’s experience.  Thanks to Paul Fundingsland for sharing his experiences.  Now we just need to wake up the citizenry to stop the nonsense.