Author: rogercaiazza

According to the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (Climate Plan) the Scoping Plan will “achieve the State’s bold clean energy and climate agenda” and meet a “net-zero” goal of greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.  At the November 30, 2021 meeting (recording here), Climate Action Council feedback on the draft Scoping Plan was discussed.  A previous post documented the unresolved issues that need to be reconciled before the draft Plan can be released.  Because it was so long, this article discusses the controversial unresolved issues and makes some observations on the status of the implementation process.

I have written extensively on implementation of the Climate Act because I believe the ambitions for a zero-emissions economy outstrip available technology such that it will adversely affect reliability and affordability, risk safety, affect lifestyles, will have worse impacts on the environment than the purported effects of climate change in New York, and cannot measurably affect global warming when implemented.   The opinions expressed in this post 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.

Background

The Climate Action Council is responsible for preparing the Scoping Plan. Starting in the fall of 2020 seven advisory panels developed recommended strategies to meet the targets that were presented to the Climate Action Council in the spring of 2021.  Those recommendations were translated into specific policy options in an integration analysis by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) and its consultants.  An overview of the results of this integration analysis were presented to the Climate Action Council at the two October meetings and has since been updated.  A draft scoping plan has been prepared and distributed to the Climate Action Council but not to the public.

The November 30, 2021 meeting presentation included the following slide describing the next steps. Staff has implemented Council-approved changes to initial draft Scoping Plan but there still are unresolved issues.  In fact, they had to schedule another meeting to reconcile remaining issues so that the revised draft Scoping Plan can be distributed to Council members by December 10.  There is another meeting scheduled for December 20 when there will be a formal vote on the release of draft Scoping Plan for public comment.  The plan is to release the Draft Scoping Plan on January 1 if it is approved at the last December meeting. 

Note that the slide makes the point that the vote will pass based on a simple majority.  They emphasize the point that the vote is “Not an endorsement of any or all strategies and actions contained in the Draft”.  I am troubled by the last point that “Throughout 2022, CAC will discuss and deliberate, and consider public comments, towards a Final Scoping Plan” because that could mean that they will be changing the scoping plan outside the purview of the public participation process.  This post discusses the unresolved issues in the scoping plan draft that I thought were controversial.

Council Membership

It is important to know the makeup of the Council to understand the feedback.  There are 22 members on the Climate Action Council.  Twelve members are agency heads.  The remaining are non-agency “experts”, two appointed by the governor, three each appointed by majority leaders of the Assembly and Senate and one each appointed by the minority leaders of the Assembly and Senate.  Importantly, all but three are “chiefs” with high-ranking titles which presumably means that in order to provide any meaningful responses they have to rely on their staff to provide synopses of the material presented to the Council so that they can make comments and keep up with their other responsibilities.  There are only three “indians” who I expect would have to provide comments based entirely on their own work.

The ultimate purpose of the Scoping Plan is to guide the energy sector’s future consistent with the targets of the Climate Act.  Of the 22 members of the Council only 8 come from energy sector organizations or have backgrounds in the energy sector.  Four of the energy sector members are agency heads, two others represent renewable energy organizations, one an organization that represents both renewable and traditional energy organizations which leaves only one from the traditional energy sector.  Donna DeCarolis is the President of National Fuel Gas and is the only member outside of state agencies that has any responsibility to keeping energy available to customers and who has no ties to the zero-emissions agenda.  On the other hand, there are four appointees and one agency head that are primarily interested in environmental interests.  One of these members also represents environmental justice interests.  Therefore, it is irrefutable that the Council decisions will be biased.

Council Commenting Problems

In addition to the biases of the reviewers, there simply was not a lot of time available for them to give any detailed feedback.  The draft Scoping Plan was sent to the Council members in November and they were asked to provide comments on what was described as an over 300-page document in time so that staff putting together the document could respond before the 11/30 meeting.  Clearly that is insufficient time for a thorough review and considered responses from staff. 

Another issue is who is doing the review.  I cannot help but wonder whether any of the agency heads and leaders of organizations had the time to read the draft scoping plan at all.  I suspect they may have assigned their staff to review the document.  Furthermore, with respect to the 12 State agency I doubt that they would submit any critical comments.

Importantly, given that the Scoping Plan is primarily about the energy system I submit that most commenters are not qualified for this responsibility.  I have always maintained that the Climate Act put the cart before the horse by passing legislation with specific targets without doing a detailed engineering analysis how it might work, whether the technology is available for it to work, and how much it could cost.  It is unreasonable to think that any of the 22 members of the Council could provide meaningful input about the feasibility of the Scoping Plan scenarios in the timeframe they had for review given their backgrounds.  Consequently, it is not clear why the Council should exclude anything from the draft scoping plan or consider choosing a recommended scenario. There is another over-arching problem with this process.  Last summer I described how the precautionary principle is driving the Climate Act based on the work of David Zaruk, an EU risk and science communications specialist, and author of the Risk Monger blog.  In a recent post, part of a series on the Western leadership’s response to the COVID-19 crisis, he described the current state of policy leadership that is apropos to the content of the issues raised:

“The world of governance has evolved in the last two decades, redefining its tools and responsibilities to focus more on administration and being functionary (and less on leadership and being visionary). I have written on how this evolution towards policy-making based on more public engagement, participation and consultation has actually led to a decline in dialogue and empowerment. What is even more disturbing is how this nanny state approach, where our authorities promise a population they will be kept 100% safe in a zero-risk biosphere, has created a docilian population completely unable and unprepared to protect themselves.”

Zaruk explained that managing policy has become more about managing public expectations with consultations and citizen panels driving decisions and that describes the Advisory Panels that provided recommendations to the Climate Action Council.  He says now we have “millennial militants preaching purpose from the policy pulpit, listening to a closed group of activists and virtue signaling sustainability ideologues in narrowly restricted consultation channels”.  I later wrote an article that predicted this would be the likely outcome for panel recommendations.  That is exactly what happened with the advisory panels. Too many recommendations were based on ideology and not reality.  Unfortunately, some of the more vocal members on the Council are also preaching purpose from their policy pulpit and issues raised reflect that dynamic.

Discussion

This discussion of the unresolved issues will focus only on those issues where there are apparent differences of opinion amongst the Council membership.  If I did not think there was any controversy I did not discuss the material presented.  The presentation for the meeting provides an excellent summary of the contents of the Scoping Plan because there is an overview in each chapter.  For the sake of time, speakers skipped the overview and talked about the feedback for key points to incorporate that they thought were not controversial and described the unresolved issues.  In my opinion there were many instances when the key points to incorporate were plenty controversial but that discussion will have to wait until another time.

General Feedback

At 1:13:38 of the video recording,  general feedback contentious unresolved issues were discussed.  The first issue raised was that the Climate Justice Working Group (CJWG) input on implementation strategy recommendations (including rejection of certain recommendations and the need for more robust plans/efforts in transportation and waste) were not integrated well enough in the draft.  Staff authors did not think it was appropriate for them to take items out of consideration so they asked the Council to decide about the recommendations.  Eventually I will have to address the CJWG input process in more detail but that will be a long post.  In brief, my concerns about virtue signaling ideologues with no relevant energy sector expertise making policy are much greater for this group than any other Climate Act group or panel.  They simply do not accept that concerns for energy reliability and affordability have to be balanced against their expectations.  There are Council members that agree with that premise and I believe they made these comments.  However, the recommendations to reject any policies and go even further for other policies are inappropriate simply because there are constraints and concerns that deserve to be addressed with public input beyond the Climate Act echo chamber.  It will be interesting to see if the Council votes to accept these recommendations.

At 1:14:34 of the video recording the second issue raised was a request for an analysis on energy affordability and impacts to consumer pricing as part of the scoping plan scenarios.  Sarah Osgood stated that the who pays aspect goes beyond the scope of the plan document and will be something that is addressed as part of the implementation process.  During the discussion of this topic, it became apparent that the State has not refined their analysis enough to be able to provide this information at this time.  In my opinion cost is a primary feasibility aspect and both industry representatives argued that it was necessary.  I think it is bad enough that the Climate Act itself picked targets without the benefit of a feasibility study but now claiming that the scoping plan will not include those costs either is inappropriate. 

There also were comments (1:15:21 of the video recording) in support of or rejecting specific strategies or actions (e.g., hydrogen, carbon tax) that staff thought appropriate to keep in at this time.  The response stating that this “Requires additional Council discussion to develop a consensus position” portends contentious arguments.  As described above, those arguments will not be based on fundamental understandings of the feasibility and consequences of, e.g., hydrogen or carbon tax, but on the uninformed emotions of Council members.  In my opinion the scoping document should leave all the alternatives in and recommend which one was preferred.  It will be interesting and telling how the Governor’s delegation (a majority of 14 appointed in one way or another by the Governor so whatever she wants she gets) decides to resolve these types of issues.

Gas System Transition

The gas transition system chapter is contentious (1:17:09 of the video recording):.  It is included in a separate chapter because it is controversial and because it covers multiple areas of the energy system.  The key points to incorporate at 1:19:21 of the video recording illustrate the depth of issues.  The one unresolved issue was “How do we balance decommissioning, leak detection, and decarbonization within the Scoping Plan and gas sector?”  This issue is the best example of particular individuals driving New York policy based on their personal ideologies.

It is important for anyone outside of the Climate Act echo chamber to understand that anything to do with natural gas in the Climate Act is based on the out-sized contribution of Dr. Robert Howarth.  He not only helped draft the Climate Act but also now is a vocal member of the Climate Action Council.  Most members of the Council have elevated his status to sainthood and unquestioningly accept whatever he says as gospel and this deference is also apparent in State agency documents.  However, his views are not universally accepted.  For example, the Climate Act requires New York to account for upstream emissions from fossil fuel used in the state because Howarth has claimed in a 2020 paper that “Some evidence indicates that shale-gas development in North America may have contributed one-third of the total global increase in methane emissions from all sources over the past decade (Howarth 2019).”  This paper and other similar papers claim that “methane emissions can contribute significantly to the GHG footprint of natural gas, including shale gas” and form the rationale of the Climate Act vilification of natural gas.

Despite the Climate Act mandate to provide a “detailed explanation of any changes in methodology or analysis, adjustments made to prior estimates, as needed, and any other information necessary to establish a scientifically credible account of change” any contradictory information has been ignored.  For example, there is a high quality, long-term monitoring network that measures methane (Lan et al., 2019) over the period when Pennsylvania shale-gas production increased tremendously.  According to the plain language summary for the report:

In the past decade, natural gas production in the United States has increased by ~46%. Methane emissions associated with oil and natural gas productions have raised concerns since methane is a potent greenhouse gas with the second largest influence on global warming. Recent studies show conflicting results regarding whether methane emissions from oil and gas operations have been increased in the United States. Based on long‐term and well‐calibrated measurements, we find that (i) there is no large increase of total methane emissions in the United States in the past decade; (ii) there is a modest increase in oil and gas methane emissions, but this increase is much lower than some previous studies suggest; and (iii) the assumption of a time‐constant relationship between methane and ethane emissions has resulted in major overestimation of an oil and gas emissions trend in some previous studies.

The fact that the relevant high quality, long-term monitoring network does not show a trend consistent with the work of Howarth is a fatal flaw in Howarth’s claims.  In addition, those measurements unequivocally support another contradictory analysis by Lewan that concludes his ideas, perspectives, and calculations on methane emissions from shale gas are invalid.  The bottom line is that the whole basis of the State’s irrational war on natural gas is based on the flawed analyses of one biased individual.

Electricity

The unresolved issues discussion for the electricity chapter (1:23:42) noted that were four unresolved issues.  The first, that the treatment of nuclear facilities in the draft was not sufficient, is not controversial.  All the other topics will be discussed further in 2022 because they are controversial.  The treatment of hydrogen, a mandate that renewable gas be used in non-distributed, non-combustion end uses only, and consideration of dual-fuel heating solutions that combine gas and electric heating sources as a possible solution to mitigate winter peak demand impacts are controversial and related. Hydrogen is a place-holder technology for the zero-emissions firm dispatch resource but it was not my impression that it had to be a non-combustion source.  Renewable natural gas has been proposed as an alternative source for power and home heating but that is not good enough for some on the Council.

I don’t believe that many of the Council members understand all the myriad issues associated with hydrogen and the implications associated with such an untested technology relative to reliability.  For example, Peter Iwanowicz, currently with Environmental Advocates of New York, is a vocal supporter of non-combustion solutions.  As far as I can tell there is nothing in his education that suggests that he understands the energy system and his experience seems limited to advocacy organizations and environmental agency positions outside of the energy sector.  Consequently, I doubt that he understands the problem trying to address the need for zero-emissions firm capacity resources using hydrogen.  That he wants to limit the use of hydrogen to non-combustion electricity generation (fuel cells) is terrifying inasmuch as there is a chance that it could become state policy.  It is a magical solution unworthy of any consideration for a reliable electric system in the time frame of the Climate Act.

The renewable natural gas and dual-fuel heating solution are opposed by the ideologues that believe methane in any form is unacceptable.  They only hear what they want to hear and disregard anything that does not match that position.  I do not think their position can be reconciled with the need for a resilient energy system because making everything electric forces reliance on a single source of energy that can be shutdown by weather, such as an ice storm. 

Buildings Chapter

Three unresolved issues were discussed (1:30:24 of the video recording) in the buildings chapter.  The first asked why there was no discussion of a dual-fuel path, using hybrid heating systems and existing gas infrastructure, comparable to the NYC pathways study.  This is similar to the dual-fuel electricity issue discussed above.  Staff stated that there isn’t time to do this now and suggested that the Council discuss this next year.  One of the issues with this problem is that the anti-natural gas authors of the Climate Act deliberately gamed the emissions accounting conventions to prevent the use of methane from any source.  Because all emissions have to be reduced, the result is that they need hydrogen for uses where combustion is necessary such as “transportation, industrial purposes, and electricity reliability”. In my opinion the special interest authors snuck this requirement in either deliberating ignoring the impacts or unaware of the challenges introduced with them.  The dupes who voted for the Climate Act had no idea of the consequences so now we are stuck with them.  The Climate Act’s failure to develop a rational, feasible plan is a recipe for reliability crises.

Another unresolved issue is a recommendation to use more ground source heat pumps.  Apparently even the commenters get the point that reliance on air source heat pumps that do not work when the temperature gets really cold is a bad idea so the “solution” is to use more ground-source heat pumps.  In a world where costs don’t matter that might be a solution but the impact to New York State would certainly be increased costs.  Staff proposed to respond with a ground source/district heat pump sensitivity analysis to “explore the system benefits and cost implications of a transition toward a heating appliance sales share dominated by ground source and district heat pumps.” 

One of the big issues with the electric system is the problem that electric loads will certainly go up when everything is electrified.  The ideologues subscribe to a “smart-planning” solution that includes heat pumps, advanced metering infrastructure, time of use rates, and energy storage. This wasn’t particularly controversial but it is another indicator that Council members don’t understand that there are technological limits to what can be done.  The public surely has no idea that not only will their homes have to be completely electrified but their appliances will be monitored and controlled by big brother.

Transportation Chapter

The unresolved transportation issue discussion started at 1:37:05. There was one unresolved where there were opposing views in the comments.  There is debate over the inclusion of low carbon fuels for hard-to-electrify vehicles and equipment, including renewable diesel and hydrogen.  The question proposed to the Council was whether two options for the use of low carbon fuels should be included in the Scoping Plan for public comment or whether the Council should discuss this in 2022 after getting public comment.  In my opinion this should be included in the Scoping Plan.  If it is not included then when can the public provide input? 

Local Government

There were three unresolved local government issues (2:01:50) but only the last two were controversial.  The first controversial issue is that the Council should consider using the state’s permitting and registration powers to avoid fossil fuel development while cities and local governments update their comprehensive plans.  The response stated that “state permitting powers can’t anticipate local government action, this chapter can recommend that guidance on local government moratoriums be expanded to reference fossil fuel infrastructure (e.g., gas stations) during comprehensive plan and zoning updates.”  There is a definite vibe from the Council that because the law says that emission reductions are necessary that it is necessary to stop all new fossil fuel infrastructure now.  I am not sure whether someone on the Council has raised this as problematic but I am sure the general public would question it.  Finally, and continuing with the theme that methane is evil, was a comment that local government strategy should not only prioritize methane recovery from wastewater treatment and landfills but extend beyond just on-site energy production.  The response was to seek direction from the Council regarding multiple scenarios for public comment.

Waste Chapter

There was one unresolved controversial waste chapter issues (2:05:38 of the video recording).   The controversial issue was whether the Climate Act bans the use of waste combustion as a market player or disposal technique. The controversy is whether the 2040 zero-emission electricity requirement bars the use of incineration as a waste management option if the incinerator also produces electricity.  The Staff response stated that the applicability of the zero-emission electricity requirement and the specifics of how it will be implemented, will be addressed by the PSC, including how waste combustion for electricity generation will be handled.  In my opinion it is wishful thinking to believe that the waste stream will be reduced so much that incineration won’t be necessary.  If there is a need to incinerate then not using the electricity seems counter-productive. 

Climate Justice Chapter

There were two unresolved issues but only the second was semi-controversial (2:10:30).  That comment said that the draft should include “a specific discussion on gender and climate and the need to include a gender lens for women, femmes and girls on the front line of the climate crisis”.  Staff asked the Council to discuss this topic and provide guidance.  I think was labeled as unresolved only because it came up so late in the process that it was not discussed.  However, I also believe that there is a concern whether this is in fact a problem in New York.

I believe this comment came from Raya Salter a lawyer representing environmental justice interests on the Council.  I also think that she raised the problem because of a COP 26 United Nations Climate Change conference session stating that women bear the brunt of the climate crisis.  During the call she commented in the chat window that it should not be controversial and the Council ultimately agreed.  However, in my opinion while it is understandable that this is a global concern the UN description of the problem suggests that this may not be a relevant problem in New York.  For example, one of the pictures illustrating the UN webpage reference above shows women carrying their latest rice crop on bicycles in Vietnam.  In New York one of the strategies for emissions reduction is “active transportation” that encourages the use of bicycles.  I cannot help but wonder if the Vietnamese ladies would prefer to have a fossil-fueled truck so they could stop using active transportation.  More importantly the UN concern is for those ladies who spend their days trying to survive in the open, totally at the mercy of weather.  That is not the case in New York.

Conclusion

The Climate Action Council is supposed to develop a plan to “achieve the State’s bold clean energy and climate agenda”.  Based on the issues discussed at this meeting I think there are several dynamics at play, none of which are in the best interest of most New Yorkers. 

The underlying premise of the authors of the Climate Act and dupes who voted for it was that transitioning the New York energy system to net-zero by 2050 was only a matter of political will.  As a result, the targets were chosen without doing a detailed engineering analysis to determine how it might work, whether the technology is available for it to work, and how much it could cost.  Now it is a law and some members of the Council frequently point out that zero-emissions are mandated, period. Whether they don’t understand that could prove to be impossible, don’t want to understand the technological limitations, or are so invested in their personal agenda that they don’t care despite understanding the risks I don’t know, but it is not an appropriate dynamic for keeping the lights on.

The second dynamic is the underlying war on natural gas.  Despite all the many benefits of natural gas, the law and some of the most vocal members of the Council vilify its use.  There is no benign way to make electricity and safely provide energy for today’s society.  If there were options to natural gas that could ensure reliability, maintain affordability, and not have their own set of environmental impacts likely comparable to the use of natural gas, then the irrational war might be in the best interests of New York but, as any unbiased evaluations of all the impacts and risks shows, no such options exist.

The Climate Justice Working Group (CJWG) presents another dynamic.  The Climate Act’s clean energy and climate agenda is not limited to simply transitioning the energy sector to meet the net-zero target.  Equity and environmental justice concerns are also significant aspects of the law.  While there is no question that those are appropriate goals, the problem is that the advocates on the CJWG and the Council appear to be place addressing those goals before the need for a reliable and affordable energy system.  I don’t think that mis-placed emphasis will work out well.

The Scoping Plan will be used to inform the Energy Plan that governs the New York energy system.  It is becoming apparent that the Scoping Plan alone won’t be able to adequately guide the energy sector’s future to meet the targets of the Climate Act because it appears that it won’t address technological and affordability feasibility.  The Hochul Administration has the Council votes to do whatever they want so the decision how this will be resolved is at the Governor’s discretion.  A friend describes the current situation well: these morons are apparently fully at ease with the equivalent of jumping out of a perfectly good airplane without a parachute assuming that the concept of a parachute will be developed, proven technically and economically feasible, and delivered to the imbecile that jumped out of the airplane in time to provide a soft landing. 

According to the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (Climate Plan) the Scoping Plan will “achieve the State’s bold clean energy and climate agenda”.  At the November 30, 2021 meeting (recording here), Climate Action Council feedback on the draft scoping plan was discussed.  This post documents the unresolved issues that need to be reconciled before the draft plan can be released.  Because it is so long there is a separate article discussing the controversial unresolved issues.

I have written extensively on implementation of the Climate Act because I believe the ambitions for a zero-emissions economy outstrip available technology such that it will adversely affect reliability and affordability, risk safety, affect lifestyles, will have worse impacts on the environment than the purported effects of climate change in New York, and cannot measurably affect global warming when implemented.   The opinions expressed in this post 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.

Background

The Climate Action Council is responsible for preparing the Scoping Plan. Starting in the fall of 2020 seven advisory panels developed recommended strategies to meet the targets that were presented to the Climate Action Council in the spring of 2021.  Those recommendations were translated into specific policy options in an integration analysis by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) and its consultants.  An overview of the results of this integration analysis were presented to the Climate Action Council at the two October meetings and has since been updated.  A draft scoping plan has been prepared and distributed to the Climate Action Council but not to the public.

The November 30, 2021 meeting presentation included the following slide describing the next steps. Staff has implemented Council-approved changes to initial draft Scoping Plan but there still are unresolved issues.  In fact, they had to schedule another meeting to address those so that the revised draft Scoping Plan can be distributed to Council members by December 10.  There is another meeting scheduled for December 20 when there will be a formal vote on the release of draft Scoping Plan for public comment.  The plan is to release the Draft Scoping Plan on January 1 if it is approved at the last December meeting.  This post discusses the unresolved issues in the scoping plan draft.

Initial Draft Scoping Plan Feedback Resolution

One of the primary goals of the November 30, 2021 Council meeting was to discuss the revisions necessary to the draft plan needed to get Council members comfortable with issuing it.  The presentation asked whether material was representative of the work that was presented to the Councils and whether that material was presented objectively.  Starting at 1:06:08 of the video recording, there was an overview of the feedback received from 13 chapters and suggestions to address unresolved issues were offered.  This section documents the unresolved issues.  There is a discussion of the contentious issues in another article.

General issues were discussed starting at 1:11:08 of the video recording.  At 1:13:38 four general unresolved issues were discussed.  The Climate Justice Working Group provided input on implementation strategy recommendations (including rejection of certain recommendations and the need for more robust plans/efforts in transportation and waste) that were not integrated well enough in the draft.  Staff authors did not think it was appropriate for them to take items out of consideration so they asked the Council to decide about the recommendations.  There was a request for an analysis on energy affordability and impacts to consumer pricing as part of the scoping plan scenarios.  Sarah Osgood stated that this goes beyond the scope of the plan document and will be something that is addressed as part of the implementation plan.  There also were comments in support of or rejecting specific strategies or actions (e.g., hydrogen, carbon tax) that staff thought were appropriate to keep in at this time.  The response stating that this “Requires additional Council discussion to develop a consensus position” portends contentious arguments at the upcoming resolution meeting.

Gas System Transition

The presentation (1:17:09 of the recording) noted that the natural gas system has to change to meet the targets: “A well-planned transition of the system is needed to ensure the transition is equitable and cost effective without compromising reliability and safety”.  They also noted that the issue was addressed by multiple advisory panels but none covered all the considerations. 

There was only one unresolved issue: How do we balance decommissioning, leak detection, and decarbonization within the Scoping Plan and gas sector?  This is a controversial topic because the Administration and some members of the Council are bound and determined to eliminate the gas system as quickly as possible without much concern about the consequences.  The response was to plan well to protect consumers and address resiliency concerns but this clearly is an issue that the Council will continue to discuss throughout 2022.

Electricity Chapter

The overview of this chapter (1:22:05) noted that by 2030 the 70% of the electricity used will come from renewable sources, that 10 GW behind-the-meter solar and 3 GW energy storage will be installed. 

There were four unresolved issues.  The first is that the treatment of nuclear facilities in the draft was not sufficient. The response is that it will be addressed with a sensitivity analysis for relicensing options.  All the other topics will be discussed further in 2022 so, apparently, they do not plan to resolve them before the draft Scoping Plan is released.  The treatment of hydrogen, a mandate that renewable gas be used in non-distributed, non-combustion end uses only, and consideration of dual-fuel heating solutions that combine gas and electric heating sources as a possible solution to mitigate winter peak demand impacts all directly affect the feasibility of the Climate Act. 

Buildings Chapter

The overview of this chapter (1:26:24) noted that by 2030 heat pumps be used for the majority of new purchases for space and water heating, 1-2 million households will be electrified with heat pumps, and heat pumps provide space heating and cooling for 10-20% of commercial space. 

Three unresolved issues were discussed.  The first asked why there was no emphasis on dual-fuel path, using hybrid heating systems and existing gas infrastructure, comparable to the NYC pathways study.  Staff proposed to that the Council discuss this next year but also noted that the Climate Act language makes this incompatible with meeting the goals.  Staff proposed to push this off for Council discussion in 2022. In this draft, they will discuss the integration analysis scenarios to date and note that even with significant deployment of renewable natural gas (RNG) in the buildings sector, the scope of RNG use throughout the economy is limited due to the Climate Act emissions accounting conventions and the need to mitigate statewide emissions from all sectors, while the highest-value allocation of hydrogen is limited mostly to transportation, industrial purposes, and electricity reliability.  They will also discuss the how to address Con Ed district system which is powered by green hydrogen in the integration analysis scenarios, “resource efficient electrification” in certain building types like large commercial buildings, which likely will phase in electrification over time within a given building thus requiring  a transition period of dual-fuel, and finally some limited role for dual fuel systems in the coldest parts of the state, for a transitionary period. 

Another unresolved issue is a recommendation to use more ground source heat pumps (including community-scale thermal loops) vs. air source heat pumps.  Staff proposed to respond with a ground source/district heat pump sensitivity analysis to “explore the system benefits and cost implications of a transition toward a heating appliance sales share dominated by ground source and district heat pumps.”  However, they also noted that the speed and scale of the transformation needed to achieve NY’s climate goals, suggests that most heat pumps will be air source. 

The final comment said that they need more consideration of the distribution/demand side and to think about integrated system solutions including heat pumps, advanced metering infrastructure, time of use rates, and energy storage. Although there isn’t a lot of controversy with the response, it is just that they don’t have an answer for this draft.

Transportation Chapter

The transportation discussion started at 1:34:56. The overview noted that by 2030 zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) sales of ~100% for light-duty and 40% or more for medium-and heavy-duty vehicles are expected and that personal transportation in urbanized areas will shift to public transportation or other low-carbon modes.  There were two unresolved issues.  The first is a debate over the inclusion of low carbon fuels for hard-to-electrify vehicles and equipment, including renewable diesel and hydrogen. Jared Snyder asked the Council whether they would leave both scenarios in and ask for public comment or take it out of the document. The second was the possibility that utilities could own distributed charging stations as an extension of metered services.  With regards to utility ownership of charging stations they don’t see evidence to date of market failure or of a benefit from utility.

Industry Chapter

The Industry chapter discussion started at 1:39:00.  The 2030 overview says there will be continued energy efficiency investments, switches to low carbon resources, including electrification to a limited extent, and that the heterogeneity of the sector calls for customized solutions to meet needs.  Heterogeneity means there are so many different industries and so many challenges to reducing emissions from all of them that they cannot say much.  There were two unresolved issues.  The first is the question whether the document should make a recommendation or put forward a position on whether the DEC should exercise the alternative compliance option under climate act for particular industries to achieve local emissions reductions through offsets.  The authors propose to add some language saying it might be an option.  The other issue is whether the chapter addresses “concerns of local manufacturing companies that rely on fossil fuels to make sure they will still be comfortable investing in the state”.  The response is that the text will mention incentives.

Agriculture & Forestry Chapter

The discussion of this chapter starts at 1:46:55. The overview for 2030 states the plan is to reduce methane and nitrous oxide emissions in the agricultural sector from livestock operations and cropland management and increase carbon storage and sequestration in agricultural and forestry products through the avoided conversion of farm and forest lands, afforestation and reforestation, improved forest management practices, cropland management practices and harvested wood products.  The only unresolved issue is for a recommendation providing funding to measure methane emissions from NYS farms.  The proposed solution is to mention funding opportunities.

Economy-Wide Strategies

This discussion starts at 1:55:52. The State did not provide the Council with a draft of this chapter so the discussion only provided a summary of what will be included. The overview states the obvious that compliance of with Statewide GHG emission limits requires DEC regulations that shall “[e]nsurethat the aggregate emissions of greenhouse gases from greenhouse gas emission sources will not exceed the statewide greenhouse gas emissions limits.”  The issue of funding has to be a major consideration and the overview states that it is necessary to “establish a source of funding to implement other policies identified in this plan, particularly policies that require state investment or state funding of incentive programs, after accounting for other funding streams”.  It goes on to mention the need to provide a market signal that will yield additional emission reductions as individuals. 

Land Use Chapter

The land use chapter discussion starts at 1:55:48. The overview points out that this is a cross cutting topic with recommendations from Agriculture and Forestry, Transportation, and Land Use and Local Government Panels.  It notes that land use decisions affect the state’s carbon emissions, sequestration, and storage, and that it is necessary to balance the protection and restoration of natural and working lands, development, and clean energy siting.  There will be issues related to the plans to “arrange and design development and conservation” to meet the following:

• Dense and targeted development patterns
• Strategic open space conservation
• Maximize natural and working lands
• Aligned with transportation and infrastructure investments

There were four unresolved issues associated with land use.  Environmental planning dogma states that it is necessary to manage development patterns and there was a suggestion that Incentives based on proximity of generation to current load centers and/or economic development sites would be appropriate.  The authors plan to include the language.  There was a suggestion to add a recommendation placing a moratorium on deforestation for the purpose of renewable energy.  The response claims that even though there is not a moratorium, there already is “a recommendation to mitigate the impact from renewable energy projects on forests” but agreed to add language.   It does add the caveat that “a full moratorium on deforestation could pose challenges to meeting statewide energy goals. However, limiting deforestation of natural, mature forests to prevent high GHG emissions should certainly be considered.”  There was a recommendation to encourage cities to adopt moratoriums while they adopt comprehensive plans and zoning updates that are consistent with the Climate Act and the response was to add language to that effect.  The final issue was to expand funding in the Environmental Protection Fund to allow for the “critical mass of smart growth comp plans and zoning to truly impact development patterns and land use/transportation-based greenhouse gas emissions”.  The proposed solution was to change some wording.

Local Government Chapter

This chapter discussion starts at 2:01:39. The overview lists actions that local governments are expected to do: taking significant action and contributing directly to meeting Climate Act goals; develop partnerships between the State and local governments to help drive rapid adoption, widespread participation, and big impact, lead by example to help increase the priority of clean energy and sustainability for residents, businesses, and institutions and become increasingly engaged in providing education and training, outreach, and technical assistance.

There were three unresolved issues.  Someone on the Council noted that several towns and cities have voted to electrify their buildings or fleets and suggested including those examples and Staff agreed.  Another issue is that the Council should consider using the state’s permitting and registration powers to avoid fossil fuel development while cities and local governments update their comprehensive plans.

The response stated that “state permitting powers can’t anticipate local government action, this chapter can recommend that guidance on local government moratoriums be expanded to reference fossil fuel infrastructure (e.g., gas stations) during comprehensive plan and zoning updates.”  Finally, there was a comment that local government strategy should not only prioritize methane recovery from wastewater treatment and landfills but extend beyond just on-site energy production.  The response was to seek direction from the Council regarding multiple scenarios for public comment.

Waste Chapter

The waste chapter discussion starts at 2:05:33. The overview stated that in 2030 there would be significant increase in organics diversion from landfills, existing landfill emission will be reduced through capping, emissions monitoring and leak reduction, and waste reduction, reuse, and recycling initiatives will be put in place.

There were three unresolved issues.   The first was whether the Climate Act ban the use of waste combustion as a market player or disposal technique. The Staff response stated that the

applicability of the zero-emission electricity requirement and the specifics of how it will be implemented, will be addressed by the PSC, including how waste combustion for electricity generation will be handled.  The second issue noted that the draft should clarify how to address the treatment of the remaining waste for disposal after existing recommendations are adopted.  Staff proposed to explain that DEC will track technology developments to inform further evaluation by the Council in future Scoping Plan review and use the best technologies for limiting emissions of GHGs and co-pollutants.  Finally, there was a request to prioritize regular measurement and monitoring of methane emissions from landfills.  Staff said that new technology will be used when proven.

Climate Justice Chapter

The discussion of this chapter started at 2:08:10. In parallel to the development of the Scoping Plan the Climate Justice Working Group has been working on plans to define disadvantaged communities, how best to direct benefits to disadvantaged communities, and set up community air monitoring programs.  All these are legal mandates of the Climate Act.

There were two unresolved issues.  The first issue is the need agency guidance to prioritize emissions reductions in disadvantaged communities, prevent placing additional burdens on disadvantaged communities, and keep in line with greenhouse gas emissions reductions goals.  Staff suggested that DEC draft guidance could serve as a model for other agencies.  The final issue was that the draft should include “a specific discussion on gender and climate and the need to include a gender lens for women, femmes and girls on the front line of the climate crisis”.  Staff asked the Council to discuss this topic and provide guidance.

Just Transition Chapter

The Just Transition workgroup (starting at 2:10:55) is supposed to advise the Council on issues and opportunities for workforce development and training related to energy efficiency measures, renewable energy and other clean energy technologies, with specific focus on training and workforce opportunities for disadvantaged communities, and segments of the population that may be underrepresented in the clean energy workforce such as veterans, women and formerly incarcerated persons. principles –10 principles in support of a fair and equitable transition.

There were four unresolved issues.  Commenters suggested that the chapter should include a focus on economic development opportunities and the potential to solve multiple challenges at once –like how we can retain and add new economic growth throughout the state.  Staff proposed to use results from the Jobs Study to identify specific sub-sectors and portions of the supply chain especially ripe for growth in New York State and therefore presenting strong economic development opportunities.  Another commenter wanted the chapter to say something stronger on equal pay standards and staff offered to refine language to include strengthened embrace of labor standards. Another commenter suggested the need to engage the business community more to bring forward creative solutions that benefit themselves, have replicable attributes and global implications.  Staff promised to work with members of the Just Transition Working Group to craft augmented language along these lines.  Finally, there was a suggestion that communities with prior plant closures (e.g., coal) should be prioritized ahead of natural gas plant closures given the greater environmental impact and legacy.  Staff said they will add a general/illustrative list of factors that should be taken into consideration.

Health Chapter

The health chapter discussion starts at 2:14:42. The State’s health improvement plan is supposed to improve health outcomes, enable well-being, and promote equity across lifespans.  There wasn’t anything that needed to be resolved

Adaptation and Resilience

This discussion started at 2:18:42. This chapter will discuss preparations for the “impacts of present and future climate change”.  There were no unresolved issues.

Conclusion

I think this website can provide a service to the public by summarizing the material presented to the Climate Action Council on the Scoping Plan that will frame the future energy sector of New York.  Much of the material presented at meetings is full of jargon and needs background to understand.

This post documents the unresolved feedback issues from the Council on the initial draft of the Scoping Plan.  Overall the presentation was useful because there were good summaries of what will be in the scoping plan when it is released. I thought that focusing on the unresolved issues would foreshadow the upcoming debates about the scoping plan.  A forthcoming companion article on the controversial unresolved issues will provide more insight into those issues and the agendas driving the Climate Act Scoping Plan

On November 30, 2021 the New York State Board on Electric Generation Siting and the Environment (Siting Board) granted approval to Trelina Solar Energy Center, LLC (Trelina) to build and operate an 80-megawatt solar farm in the Town of Waterloo, Seneca County.   It is proof positive that the overriding driver of any environmental decision in New York State is support of the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (Climate Act). 

I have written extensively on implementation of the Climate Act because I believe the ambitions for a zero-emissions economy outstrip available technology such that it will adversely affect reliability and affordability, risk safety and affect lifestyles, will have worse impacts on the environment than the purported effects of climate change, and cannot measurably affect global warming when implemented.   The opinions expressed in this post 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.

Trelina Solar Project

The Trelina Solar Project is an 80 megawatt (MW) solar farm in the Town of Waterloo, Seneca County, New York.  The developer, NextEra Energy Resources, has 22 projects in New York.  “It operates primarily as a wholesale power generator, providing power and environmental attributes to utilities, retail electricity providers, power cooperatives, municipal electric providers and large industrial companies. It owns and operates more than 21,000 megawatts of generating assets located primarily in 36 states and Canada as of year-end 2018.” 

According to the press release, “This solar farm and other renewable energy projects currently under development are vital to meet the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act’s aggressive carbon reduction and clean energy targets to combat climate change,” said Siting Board Chair Rory M. Christian. “The Trelina solar farm will benefit all New Yorkers by reducing our reliance on fossil fuels, boosting clean-energy investment, creating clean-energy jobs, and improving our environment.”

The press release touts the benefits of the project. 

According to the developer, the project construction will employ between 85 and 128 construction workers, including onsite labor, electricians, equipment operators, construction managers, and foreperson jobs. Projections for direct local expenditures during project development and construction were approximately $16 million, with construction payroll being the highest at approximately $12.6 million.

Up to 90 percent of the total payroll is expected to be paid to workers in the region. In addition, there will be opportunities for local businesses to supply materials to support construction of the project, and service industry businesses such as hotels, restaurants and entertainment venues will benefit from an increase in worker activity throughout construction.

The solar farm will result in annual payments to local landowners in association with the lease and easement agreements. Payments over 30 years are estimated to total $64.9 million. The facility will be located on 418 acres within a 1,067-acre project area privately leased or purchased land. The solar farm is expected to begin commercial operation in 2022.

During the operation of the project, the developer expects to spend approximately $485,059 in total direct annual expenditures. Trelina expects expenditures for materials and equipment costs will be spent locally. The developer expects that agreements with the town, county and local school districts will provide approximately $10.7 million in additional benefits.

According to the press release, the Siting Board’s decision “follows a detailed review and robust public participation process to ensure that the solar farm meets or exceeds all siting requirements”.  However, upon further review those claims ring hollow.

Agricultural Impacts

Careful reading of the press release reveals the fact that agriculture is not mentioned once.  That is curious because this area is one of the more productive areas of farmland in the state.  That piqued my interest enough to look at the application documentation in more detail.

On April 16, 2021, Michael Saviola, an Associate Environmental Analyst with the New York State Department of Agriculture & Markets (“Department”) submitted his prepared testimony on the Trelina Solar Project application.  His testimony is very interesting. After describing his background, experience and job responsibilities, his testimony stated that the purpose of his review and evaluation of the application was (Page 4, Line 18):

To determine the nature and extent of potential impacts of the proposed Project on agricultural land. More specifically, to determine if the Project as proposed follows the Department’s Guidelines for Agricultural Mitigation for Solar Energy Projects. The Department strives to minimize the permanent conversion of productive agricultural lands, and where not possible, offers technical assistance to reduce and/or mitigate impacts to agricultural land.

He notes that the Department of Ag and Markets does not have an opinion on the need for utility-scale solar generation but (Page 4, line 23):

The Department discourages the conversion of farmland to a non-agricultural use. This effort is in accordance with Section 4 of Article 14 of the 2018 New York State Constitution, which provides for the conservation of agricultural lands, as well as NYS Agriculture and Markets Law (AML), Article 25-AA, §300, which more specifically states:

“It is, therefore, the declared policy of the state to conserve, protect and encourage the development and improvement of its agricultural land for production of food and other agricultural products. It is also the declared policy of the state to conserve and protect agricultural lands as valued natural and ecological resources which provide needed open spaces for clean air sheds, as well as for aesthetic purposes.”.

After acknowledging that the Department is aware of the Climate Act and supports the general initiative, the testimony goes on to state (Page 5, line 16):

The Department understands that although the legislative intent of AML supports the preservation of NYS agricultural resources for agricultural purposes, there is currently no law or regulation acting on such intent. Department policies are in place to act on the legislative intent. In past PSL Article 10 cases, the Department has stated its position with respect to policies pertaining to the conversion of agricultural lands, however, Administrative Law Judges decisions in prior Solar cases have not recognized the policy as a requirement for the proceeding. Despite this fact and considering that the Department is a statutory party to this and other proceedings under the PSL, the Department will continue to protest the conversion of agriculture land to a non-agricultural use.

The following section is very interesting on a couple of levels that I will discuss below (Page 6, Line 3):

Prior to large-scale solar development, the Department has not been associated with PSL Article 10 cases which convert large acreages of agricultural lands to non-agricultural uses. Commercial wind generating facilities generally allow for farming activity to continue once the project is in-service. In comparison, the solar industry arguably eliminates the ability to perform normal viable agricultural operations within, and potentially immediately surrounding the facility. This constitutes a permanent conversion to a non-agricultural use. Due to increasing NYS energy goals encouraging renewable energy development, we see no reason facilities will not be upgraded and re-leased to maintain the growing or static renewable energy demand, in this case, 35 years from energization. The Department further asserts that as long as NYS incentives for the development of renewable energy exists, the complete decommissioning of solar electric energy generation, and full resumption to agricultural use is not likely to occur.

The Department recognizes the financial benefits of participating landowners; however, farm operator(s) lease payments are not viewed by the Department as a benefit to agriculture when agricultural crops, livestock and livestock products are downsized or eliminated.

In response to the question “What Department policies that (sic) are subject to the proceeding”, he responded (Line 20, page 6):

As previously mentioned, The Department discourages the conversion of farmland to a non-agricultural use. However, to support the New York State’s CLCPA initiatives, the Department has developed a siting policy supportive of solar development efforts on agricultural lands if (his emphasis added) the proposed projects are properly sited on lands other than the State’s most productive farmland. The Department’s goal is for projects to limit the conversion of agricultural areas within the Project Areas, to no more than 10% of soils classified by the Department’s NYS Agricultural Land Classification mineral soil groups 1-4, generally Prime Farmland soils, which represent the State’s most productive farmland. Soils classified with the soil groups 5-10 are identified as having soil limitations. The only responsible position the Department can take to stay true to the 7 AML Article 25-AA §300 and to support the NYS CLCPA renewable energy initiative is to ensure the preservation of agricultural areas involving soils classified as soil groups 1-9 for the production for food and fiber, as well as not object to proposed development on lesser productive soils, i.e. agriculture lands comprised on classified mineral soil groups 5-10.

Saviola’s testimony then addressed construction impacts.  That part of the testimony also includes a description of the impact on agriculture of commercial solar infrastructure.  He made recommendations for mitigating impacts during construction. 

The most damning testimony came in response to the question whether the facility layout follows the Department’s Solar Guidelines and does it align with the Department’s siting policy (Line 11, page 11):

In general, access roads should follow field edges and the solar arrays should not be sited in a manner in which agricultural areas become orphaned as described in my testimony above. Additionally, the Department finds the Applications proposed siting is not consistent with the Department’s siting policy because it will occur on more that 10% of active farmland classified as Prime Farmland (Generally, Mineral Soil Groups 1-4) within the proposed limits of disturbance. The Department estimates that greater than 68% of the of the limits of disturbance includes the conversion of farmland classified as Prime Farmland Soil (Mineral Soil Groups 1-4). The Application states that solar panels will cover 325 acres, however areas located outside of fenced areas will likely become fallow or orphaned as a result of screening requirements and setbacks. This will eliminate crop production on much more than 325 acres of agriculture lands for a minimum of 30 years -worth of crop yields from some of the most productive farmland soils in the State. While the Applicant describes the impact to agricultural land and farming, in general, as temporary, a 30-year loss of the production of crops, livestock and livestock products constitutes a permanent conversion to a nonagricultural use. Although a decommissioning plan has been prepared, there is virtually no reasonable assurance that the project will be decommissioned and that the full resumption back to agricultural use will be reestablished.

The testimony includes recommendations for reducing or eliminating agricultural impacts (Line 8, Page 12):

The Department recommends exploring some combination of the following technical mitigation activities to reduce the significance of the agricultural impact within the facility site:

• Reduction in the scope of the Project

• Incorporation of Agricultural Co-utilization

• Density of panels and design changes to reduce the facility footprint

• Alternative siting

The remainder of the testimony addresses issues with engineered drainage features.

Discussion

According to the press release, the Siting Board’s decision “follows a detailed review and robust public participation process to ensure that the solar farm meets or exceeds all siting requirements”.  That statement is demonstrably false. 

The petition for New York Department of Public Service Case Number: 19-F-0366 1001.4 Exhibit 4, Land Use states that the overall Project Area is 1,067 acres and “only approximately 44.4 percent will be used for Project Components within a fenced area of approximately 418 acres to generate 79.5 to 80 MW of renewable energy”.  The Land use exhibit goes on to state:

Additionally, although the Project is sited within mapped Agricultural Districts, the Facility will only occupy 0.3 percent of all lands designated as Agricultural Districts within Seneca County and 9 percent of all lands designated as Agricultural Districts within the Town of Waterloo (Section 4(a)). Finally, of the 474.1 acres of total limits of disturbance proposed, 325.6 acres will occur on land classified as Prime Farmland which is only 4.9 percent of all Prime Farmland within the Town of Waterloo and 0.3% of the Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance within Seneca County (Table 4-1 and Sections 4(r) and 4(w)). Further, of those 325.6 acres, only 10.05 acres will be permanently disturbed by racking support poles, access roads, collection (substation, switchyard, inverter pads), and stormwater management structures (filtration basins, rip rap). The remainder will be restored after construction.

Note, however, that the Ag and Markets testimony notes that “The Department’s goal is for projects to limit the conversion of agricultural areas within the Project Areas, to no more than 10% of soils classified by the Department’s NYS Agricultural Land Classification mineral soil groups 1-4, generally Prime Farmland soils, which represent the State’s most productive farmland.”  It also notes that “The Department estimates that greater than 68% of the of the limits of disturbance includes the conversion of farmland classified as Prime Farmland Soil”.  In other words, there is no way that this project meets the Department’s goal.

The application argues that the project only disturbs 4.9% of all the prime farmland in the Town of Waterloo and presumably would argue that means they meet the intent of the Department policy.  The problem with that is there is no master plan for development and no assurances that other more responsibly sited facilities could not be constructed in the Town of Waterloo that would raise the town total over the 10% goal of the Department.

The Ag and Markets testimony also argues against the claims that only 10.05 acres will be permanently disturbed.  The testimony explains that 474.1 acres will be permanently disturbed because “as long as NYS incentives for the development of renewable energy exists, the complete decommissioning of solar electric energy generation, and full resumption to agricultural use is not likely to occur”.

Conclusion

The fact that the Ag and Markets testimony was ignored proves that primary driver of environmental decisions is whether the action comports with the Climate Act.  I have previously described unintended consequences of the Climate Act solar development land rush on agriculture (here and here).  Until I discovered this testimony, I was under the impression that the Department of Ag and Markets was neglecting this issue.  Now, it is apparent that staff for the Department of Ag and Markets are trying to preserve prime agricultural land.  Unfortunately, the Article 10 permitting process is politically driven and the politicians behind the Climate Act are only concerned with the Climate Act agenda. 

I believe that there is a serious problem with Climate Act implementation inasmuch as renewable development is proceeding without an overall strategy to address all the requirements of the Climate Act and protect the environment and affected sectors.  All the currently proposed industrial solar projects are being developed without overall direction and the Article 10 process intended to ensure that all siting requirements are met or exceeded is not providing that protection.  As a result, it is unlikely that all this will work out in the best interests of the state’s agriculture sector, affected communities, or neighbors to the projects.