Author: rogercaiazza

On July 18, 2019 New York Governor Andrew Cuomo signed the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA), which establishes targets for decreasing greenhouse gas emissions, increasing renewable electricity production, and improving energy efficiency.  It was described as the most ambitious and comprehensive climate and clean energy legislation in the country when Cuomo signed the legislation.  In the past year strategies to implement this legislation have started to take shape and this post summarizes the strategies presented to the Climate Action Council at the last two meetings in 2020.  This is an overview post that puts the strategy material in one place. I will address the specific advisory panel strategies as time permits.

I am following the implementation of the CLCPA closely because its implementation affects my future as a New Yorker.  Given the cost impacts for other jurisdictions that have implemented renewable energy resources to meet targets at much less stringent levels, I am convinced that the costs in New York will be enormous and my analyses have supported that concern.  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

I have summarized the schedule, implementation components, and provide links to the legislation itself at CLCPA Summary Implementation Requirements.  Section § 75-0103 in the CLCPA establishes the New York state Climate Action Council (CAC). The CAC is charged with planning responsibility:

“The council shall on or before two years of the effective date of this article, prepare and approve a scoping plan outlining the recommendations for attaining the statewide greenhouse gas emissions limits in accordance with the schedule established in section 75-0107 of this article, and for the reduction of emissions beyond eighty-five percent, net zero emissions in all sectors of the economy, which shall inform the state energy planning board’s adoption of a state energy plan in accordance with section 6-104 of the energy law. The first state energy plan issued subsequent to completion of the scoping plan required by this section shall incorporate the recommendations of the council. “

In order to “provide recommendations to the council on specific topics, in its preparation of the scoping plan, and interim updates to the scoping plan, and in fulfilling the council’s ongoing duties”, the CAC (§ 75-0103, 7) “shall convene advisory panels requiring special expertise and, at a minimum, shall establish advisory panels on transportation, energy intensive and trade-exposed industries, land-use and local government, energy efficiency and housing, power generation, and agriculture and forestry”.

CLCPA implementation was proscribed by the legislation.   In order to “provide recommendations to the council on specific topics, in its preparation of the scoping plan, and interim updates to the scoping plan, and in fulfilling the council’s ongoing duties”, the CAC (§ 75-0103, 7) “shall convene advisory panels requiring special expertise and, at a minimum, shall establish advisory panels on transportation, energy intensive and trade-exposed industries, land-use and local government, energy efficiency and housing, power generation, and agriculture and forestry”.  Once the process started it became clear that another panel covering waste would be needed.

Strategies

During the last two Climate Action Council meetings the transportation, energy intensive and trade-exposed industries, land-use and local government, energy efficiency and housing, power generation, and agriculture and forestry advisory panels presented their strategies. Each strategy was presented in a slide that listed the rationale, equity considerations, potential implementation challenges, issues to explore, and additional thoughts. The waste panel started late and did not present a strategy in the same format.

In the following I list the strategies for each panel and link to an extracted copy of their presentation to the Climate Action Council.  You can also listen to their presentations and get the meeting power point slides for the 24 November 2020 and 15 December 2020 meetings where these strategies were presented.

Land Use and Local Government Advisory Panel

This advisory panel presented ten strategies from three subgroups.

• • • Land Use Strategies
      • • Promote and facilitate county and inter-municipal smart growth planning efforts, including focusing development in priority growth centers
        • Build capacity at the regional level and provide support to municipalities to promote smart growth, facilitate clean energy siting, and reduce vehicle miles traveled
        • Promote coordinated regional approaches to meet climate goals while integrating transportation, housing, and land conservation needs
        • Streamline and incentivize Smart Growth project review
        • Coordinate State planning funds/activities/entities to ensure that transportation, housing, and conservation actions are not in conflict and achieve VMT, clean energy, and equity goals
    • Clean Energy Strategies
      • • Establish statewide higher energy codes, benchmarking, building performance mandates, and PACE Financing to avoid a patchwork of policies.
        • Encourage local governments to initiate CCA programs and community campaigns to increase local access to clean energy products and services.
        • Overcome legal, financial, regulatory, and technical barriers to greening municipal building, facilities, and fleets
    • Adaptation and Resilience Strategies
      • • Develop policies, programs and resources to reduce risks associated with acute climate hazards
        • Seek to ensure State and local investments assess climate change and resiliency impacts of projects

Energy Efficiency and Housing

This advisory panel presented 16 strategies in six categories.

• • • Mandates that require energy efficiency improvements and on-site emissions in building and appliance with dates as market signal
      • • Expand State energy & building codes (w/date signals) -> transition to electrification & building efficiency;
        • Modify State Appliance Standards (e.g. ban fossil fuel appliances sale/install.). Consider building performance standards for large buildings to meet 2050 & interim targets –focus on onsite emissions.
    • Financing and incentives for building efficiency and electrification at scale
      • • Inducing market/behavioral change (e.g. taxes, registration fees, carbon levies) that incentivize market providers (owners, developers, lenders etc.) & residents to reduce emissions & transition to electrification;
        • Shift lenders to quantify energy efficiency in single/multifamily/commercial (e.g. underwriting to savings);
        • Financial incentives for owners, developers and residents (e.g. cash incentives, pay as you save, low-interest financing, more agile of existing programs to get to 2050 and interim targets, etc), with emphasis on LMI.
    • Training and education of building decarbonization to improve behavior and operations for health and comfort and build workforce (enabling strategy)
      • • Workforce development to provide skilled pros to design, build, operate, & enforce decarbonized building stock;
        • Education -owners, developers, design professionals and other stakeholders: resources on capital planning, all-electric buildings, electrification-ready, etc. Mandatory energy performance disclosures & building consumption data (public facing); certified product declarations for materials/equipment; etc.
        • Education-residents/businesses: performance, econ., environmental quality, O&M for low-carbon tech.
    • Technology innovation and demonstration to drive better performance, reduce costs, and increase customer confidence
      • • R&D to improve cost/performance of solutions for all-electric buildings (e.g., cold climate heat pumps, geothermal, etc.)
        • R&D & demon. for hard-to-electrify buildings (e.g., on district steam, steam-heated, hydronic distribution) & advance scalable solutions & potential cost reductions (e.g., community geothermal, industrialized fabric/modular, virtual tools);
        • De-risking demos to help critical customer groups who make lack access to resources/info (e.g., coops/condos);
        • Approaches to reducing embodied carbon (e.g. new tech to reduce GHG emissions from materials/construction/transp.)
    • Resilience and climate adaptation strategies for all-electric building, hazard mitigation planning and building retrofits
      • • Supporting/coordinating improved resiliency solutions for all-electric building & resilient spaces for vulnerable pops.;
        • Grid and transmission resilience and independence;
        • Electrification paired with supplemental heating sources;
        • Improving building stock to withstand the impacts of climate change.

Agriculture and Forestry

This advisory panel presented 12 strategies in six categories.

• • • Livestock/Dairy Management
      • • Alternative Manure Management
        • Precision Feed Management
    • Soil Health and Nutrient Management
      • • Nutrient (Fertilizer) Management
  • Soil Carbon Sequestration
    • Agroforestry
      • • Silvopasture, Alley Cropping, and Riparian Forest Buffers
    • Land Conversions
      • • Agricultural Protection and Access
        • No Net Loss of Forestland
    • Forestry:
      • • Urban Forestry
        • Statewide Afforestation/Reforestation Efforts
        • Improved Forest Management
        • Increase Manufacture and Use of Harvested Wood Products
    • Bioeconomy
      • • Support opportunities to substitute fossil fuels

Transportation

This advisory panel presented six strategies in four categories.

• • • Transportation Electrification
      • • Adopt regulatory approaches and supporting policies to increase the sale of M/HD ZEVs to 30% by 2030 and the sale of LD ZEVs to 100% by 2035, and require greater use of ZEV non-road vehicles.
    • Clean Fuels
      • • Adopt a market-based approach and supporting policies to increase the availability and affordability of clean transportation fuels (renewable biofuels, green hydrogen, electricity) in NYS.
    • Public Transportation
      • • Identify policies and programs that would double the availability/accessibility of upstate and downstate suburban public transportation services statewide by 2035;
  • Identify policies and programs to support system reliability/network expansion projects identified by MTA in their twenty-year needs study.
    • Smart Growth and Transportation System Efficiency
      • • Transportation-Oriented Development—Align roadway, residential and commercial development to be proximate and accessible to public transportation and consider holistic GHG emissions in smart growth developments;
        • Low-and Zero-Carbon Transportation Modes—Expand access to low-or zero-carbon transportation modes (biking, walking, carpooling) for first mile/last mile connections to transit and destinations.

Power Generation

This panel presented ten strategies in four categories

• • • Equity
      • • Community Impact–Develop recommendations to identify and proactively address community impacts relating to health concerns, access to renewables and energy efficiency, and siting
        • Access and Affordability for all (Enabling) –Develop recommendations to ensure New Yorkers have access and can afford to participate meaningfully in NYS’s clean energy future
        • Workforce Development (Enabling) –Develop recommendations to enable an equitable clean energy workforce
    • Barriers
      • • Clean Energy Siting
        • Energy Delivery & Hosting Capacity
    • Solutions for the Future
      • • Technology and Research Needs
        • Market Solutions –Maximize the market participation of different technologies in a way that adds to system efficiency & send correct price signals to resources over time
    • Resource Mix
      • • Growth of renewable generation and Energy Efficiency
        • Effectively Transitioning away from Fossil Fuel Energy Generation
        • Deploying Energy Storage and Distributed Energy Resources (DERs)

Energy-Intensive and Trade-Exposed Industries

This panel presented 12 strategies in six categories.

• • • Provide financial incentives and technical assistance for the decarbonization of the EIETE sectors
      • • Provide technical assistance to help identify economically viable decarbonization pathways and to provide comprehensive energy management planning
        • Provide financial incentives for decarbonization projects
        • Refer economic assistance recipients to resources that will result in lower-emitting projects
        • Leverage low-cost hydropower to provide support for industry
    • Create incentives for business to capitalize on low-carbon economy opportunities
      • • Create preferential standards for the public procurement of low-carbon building materials
    • Identify and support technological innovations to enable deep industrial decarbonization
      • • Develop a comprehensive Innovation Roadmap to address knowledge gaps and to guide key priorities for deep decarbonization investment in the areas of carbon-tech, low-carbon fuels, and carbon removal
        • R&D funding for early stage decarbonization technologies
        • Demonstration pilot funding for high impact solutions in coordination with private market
        • Identify potential for innovation clusters to leverage supply chains and infrastructure for novel solutions
    • Workforce development training to support energy-intensive and trade-exposed industries
      • • Provide workforce development on existing and new innovative emission reduction technologies that effect EITE industries
    • Increase the available data on industrial GHG emissions to help prioritize efforts and monitor progress
      • • Expand the universe of industrial facilities that are required to report on their GHG emissions.
    • Provide economic incentives to grow the green economy
      • • Leverage the State’s climate policies to develop an in-state supply chain of green economy companies by engaging in business development discussions and offering incentives through programs such as NYSTAR, NY Ventures and Excelsior Tax Credits.

Summary

Now the implementation work begins.  There is an enormous amount of information in these strategies.  In the first place consider that the six advisory panels presented a total of 66 strategies in 29 categories:

• • • • Land Use and Local Government Advisory Panel: ten strategies in three categories
      • Energy Efficiency and Housing: 16 strategies in six categories.
      • Agriculture and Forestry: 12 strategies in six categories.
      • Transportation: six strategies in four categories
      • Power Generation: ten strategies in four categories
      • Energy-Intensive and Trade-Exposed Industries: 12 strategies in six categories.

Given that many strategies I believe the first task is to start to rank the importance of the strategies.  But in order to do that the Climate Action Council has to establish its priorities.  Is it to maintain reliability and affordability of the energy supply, is it meet the CLCPA emission reduction targets, or is it equity for all?

Someone, somewhere will need to summarize these strategies so they can be ranked by the importance criteria established by the Council.  Despite the massive amount of information there still are many things missing.   For example, technological feasibility, GHG reduction potential, and most importantly to me, costs are all will be needed.  Stay tuned.

A summary description of two reports prepared by Gordon Hughes, School of Economics, University of Edinburgh, Wind Power Economics – Rhetoric and Reality for the Renewable Energy Foundation should be required reading for anyone associated with implementation of New York’s Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act.  Professor Hughes has evaluated the wind industry performance in the United Kingdom and Denmark.  His findings are directly related to New York’s plans and should be considered in the implementation process.

My thanks to the Stop These Things blog where the article, Starry-Eyed Dreams v Economic Reality: Why The Wind Industry’s Numbers Can Never Stack Up, alerted me to these analyses.  I am following the implementation of the CLCPA closely because its implementation affects my future as a New Yorker.   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

On July 18, 2019 New York Governor Andrew Cuomo signed the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA), which establishes targets for decreasing greenhouse gas emissions, increasing renewable electricity production, and improving energy efficiency.  I have summarized the schedule, implementation components, and provide links to the legislation itself at CLCPA Summary Implementation Requirements.  In this instance the relevant targets are 70% renewable energy for electric production by 2030 and 100% carbon-free electricity by 2040.  Incredibly, at the same time the State is mandating the shutdown of 2,000 MW of existing nuclear generating capacity.  The bottom line is that wind and solar are projected to provide most of the carbon-free electricity.

Off-shore wind is a prominent part of the CLCPA.  The press conference when Governor Cuomo signed the legislation announcing the “most ambitious and comprehensive climate and clean energy legislation in the country” lead not with that news but with the news that the state had “executed the nation’s largest offshore wind agreement and the single largest renewable energy procurement by any state in U.S. history – nearly 1,700 megawatts -with the selection of two offshore wind projects”.  The legislation itself mandates 9,000 MW of offshore wind by 2035.  At this time the Climate Action Council is developing the Scoping Plan that will outline “recommendations for attaining the statewide greenhouse gas emissions limits in accordance with the schedule established” by the law.  Estimates of the wind resources necessary have not been published yet.

The New York Independent System Operator (NYISO) is doing its own evaluation of the resources needed for the CLCPA.  On September 10, 2020 the Analysis Group presented a discussion of draft recent observations as part of the NYISO Climate Change Phase II Study.  That work etimates that the state will have to develop all the technically feasible wind resource potential projected by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory: 35,200 MW of onshore wind and 21,063 MW of offshore wind.

Wind Power Economics Approach

Professor Hughes presentation describes two  new reports he prepared for the Renewable Energy Foundation:

Wind Power Costs in the United Kingdom  – and

The Performance of Wind Power in Denmark

Professor Hill’s main academic field is applied statistics and economics, but much of his work has been on the interface between economics and engineering. He has written or co-written several studies of adaptation to climate change.

His presentation explains that both European policymakers and investors have “accepted the claims

of dramatic improvements in costs and performance made by wind operators for new

projects now and in the future”.   However, he points out that “Unfortunately, the propensity of both governments and companies to understate the costs and overstate the performance of new projects has a history that is long and inglorious.”

The presentation explains that he did not rely on the claims made by wind proponents.  Instead: “My starting point is the actual data reported by companies in their accounts over the last two decades. This is possible because the standard commercial arrangement is that solar, wind and other projects are operated via legal entities known as Special Purpose Vehicles whose accounts are usually audited and are filed with Companies House. I have collected data for more than 350 SPVs responsible for wind projects that have filed accounts since 2005. The dataset is unique and provides the basis for a detailed analysis of the actual costs of wind power.”

I believe that this is the appropriate approach to evaluate the potential of wind energy.  Observations always trump projections.  It would be foolhardy for New York to dive into an electric system that depends on wind energy without checking to see if there is water in the pool be evaluating what has happened elsewhere.

Using the wind project accounting documents, Professor Hughes developed data that provides the basis for a unique and detailed analysis of the actual costs of wind power.  Contrary to the narrative, he shows that the capital expenses have increased over time rather than decreased.  He explained that this is due to installations in increasingly more difficult locations and building bigger turbines.  Unfortunately, that is not the worst news.  The operating expenses also increased over time due for both onshore and offshore projects. 

Offshore wind operating expense is a particular issue.  Using data from 6,400 turbines in Denmark he found (His Figure 6 below) that the reliability of 2+ MW turbines, like the ones proposed for New York offshore wind, deteriorates over time so that risk of failure increases sharply once they have been operating more than ten years.  In both Denmark and Great Britain, the new generation of these larger turbines were accompanied by steep learning curves for organizations that had experience with smaller turbines.  New York proposes to skip the smaller turbine step which does not portend well. 

Finally note that there was a distinct decline in load factor with age.  The high capacity factors claimed by the offshore wind developers were not maintained over ten years.  As output decreases the operating expense ratio becomes less favorable.  He notes that:

“If wind farms do not receive offtake prices that are higher than the market price – or very much higher in the case of offshore wind – their expected revenues will not cover opex costs after 12 or 15 years. Operators will either cease production or drastically cut operating costs leading to closure within a relatively short period. There is no way out of this trap because opex costs are linked to reliability; the decline in reliability with age means that high opex costs must be incurred to maintain production. The consequence is that the assumption made by BEIS and many investors that the expected operating life of new wind farms will be 25 or 30 years is completely at odds with the underlying economic reality. Few modern wind turbines operate for more than 20 years and many offshore wind turbines are likely to be decommissioned before they reach an age of 20 years.”

I am not surprised by these results.  Offshore conditions are not friendly to any machinery, particularly electronics.  The tips of wind turbine blades are going to be going pretty fast relatively close to the water so there will be direct erosion effects.  Salt water is corrosive so all the electronics have to be protected.  The massive rotors have to spin on bearings that must also be protected but still allowed to rotate.  Finally, these are all chronic problems.  What happens when a major hurricane like the 1938 “Long Island Express” brings sustained winds of 121 miles per hour to New York’s offshore wind facilities?

Wind Power Economics Conclusions

I provide italicized context and commentary on the general lessons provided by Professor Hughes in the following:

In stark terms a significant portion of wind output is expensive to produce and of no value in terms of its contribution to national wellbeing. Other than sheer ignorance there is no excuse for policymakers tolerating, let along promoting, this outcome.  I will conclude with some general lessons from the study:

1. Stop pretending! The projections of the costs of achieving Net Zero put out by government bodies and many others rely on cost estimates that are just wishful thinking. They have no basis in actual experience and a realistic appraisal of trends in costs. As a very broad brush calculation the cost of meeting the Net Zero target by 2050 is much more likely to be 10+% of annual GDP than the claimed 1-2% of GDP.
   1. Great Britain became the first major economy to pass a  net zero emissions law by 2030 so their target is even more ambitious than the CLCPA.  New York is smaller, 54,555 square miles, than Great Britain 80,823 square miles.  New York’s GDP is $1.44 trillion USD and Great Britain is $2.87 trillion USD but the GDP per capita for New York is $72,742 compared to Great Britain’s $42,202.
2. Accelerating arbitrary targets is very expensive. If the Government persists with the goal of building 30 GW of extra offshore wind capacity by 2030 the costs discussed here are likely to be significant under-estimates. This will be reinforced by the adoption of similar targets elsewhere in NW Europe. The offshore wind sector does not have the capacity to build new projects at a rate of 3 to 4 times the last decade. Any familiarity with the history of offshore oil & gas and other energy projects tells us that the consequence will be a gold rush. It is plausible to assume that capex and opex costs will rise by a minimum of 20% and probably closer to 50% above the already high costs that we observe in the audited accounts. 
   1. New York has to build its offshore wind support infrastructure from scratch.  Even though the goal of 9 GW by 2035 is smaller there is a similar concern about the buildout of projects.  Given that projected costs have always been lower than the actual costs only time will tell for New York implementation.
3. Bailouts of wind farms and financial institutions are inevitable. The Government is creating a situation in which it will have no option other than to bail out failed and failing projects simply to ensure continuity of electricity supply. There will be a game of pass the parcel over how the losses will be distributed but ultimately they will fall largely on taxpayers and energy customers. Any business investor outside the renewable energy sector should plan on the basis that electricity prices in 2030 will be 3-4 times in real terms what they are today.
   1. There is no reason to expect that the New York situation will be any different.
4. Remember that not everyone has the same priorities. The UK and the EU are very minor bit players in what happens about climate change. The outcome will depend on choices made in China, the US and India. Focusing on China and India, they are only interested in options that are consistent with both economic growth and other environmental goals. Offshore wind is expensive and of limited interest in most of Asia.
   1. New York is also a minor bit plyer in what happens about climate change. 
5. As a rich country, the UK can afford Net Zero by 2050 at the aggregate level. However, it will mean allocating the proceeds of 10 or 15 years of economic growth to that single goal. Past experience shows that the UK’s political system cannot handle the structural and redistributive consequences of following that path. A strategy that acknowledges the real economic costs and difficulties of trying to make the transition too quickly is much more likely to be accepted and implemented.
   1. I have no reason to expect a different outcome for New York.

Conclusion

Professor Hughes has prepared an important warning for New York.  While I have little hope that the lessons will be heeded, I hope that they are at least considered during the implementation of the rule.  I will submit a comment to the Generation Advisory Panel alerting them to this work.

I conclude with his summary:

“The theme of my talk is the disparity between predictions about the future costs and performance of wind power (especially offshore wind) – the Rhetoric – and the actual evidence that is available on what it costs to build and operate wind farms and the amount of power they produce over their lifetime – the Reality. The reality of what will happen to the costs of key renewable energy and other low carbon technologies is critical. The UK Government’s strategy for meeting its Net Zero target at an affordable cost rests on the core assumption that the costs of wind power have fallen – and will continue to fall. There is, however, a major problem with all of the projections produced by official agencies, academics and other organisations. Put bluntly, they are the product of wishful thinking applied to notional projects in the future with little or no connection to commercial reality.”

This post summarizes the comments I submitted on the draft regulations proposed by the New York Office of Renewable Energy Siting to implement the Accelerated Renewable Energy Growth and Community Benefit Act.  This is part of the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act which mandates that New York electric system generation be zero-emissions by 2040.  In order to meet that requirement, the state envisions a vast build out of wind and solar generation.

I am following the implementation of New York’s climate mitigation efforts closely because its implementation affects my future as a New Yorker.  One environmental success story in the past 20 years is the resurgence of the bald eagle population.  It was not that long ago that a highlight of a trip to Alaska was seeing bald eagles and the thought of seeing one locally unimaginable.  Now, while it still remains a thrill, I routinely see them from my backyard or driving along the I-90.  As show below I fear that this proposed rule threatens New York’s bald eagle population.  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

On July 18, 2019 New York Governor Andrew Cuomo signed the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA), which establishes targets for decreasing greenhouse gas emissions, increasing renewable electricity production, and improving energy efficiency.  It was described as the most ambitious and comprehensive climate and clean energy legislation in the country when Cuomo signed the legislation.  I have summarized the schedule, implementation components, and provide links to the legislation itself at CLCPA Summary Implementation Requirements.  In early April 2020, NYS passed the Accelerated Renewable Energy Growth and Community Benefit Act (AREGCBA) as part of the 2020-21 state budget.  This legislation is intended to ensure that renewable generation is sited in a timely and cost-effective manner.   I previously discussed my concerns that these laws do not include feasibility studies to determine whether this can work.

AREGCBA established the Office of Renewable Energy Siting which according to their website has the following objectives:

• • • Establish a first-of-its-kind Office of Renewable Energy Siting to implement the timely consolidated review and permitting of major renewable energy facilities in a single forum that takes into consideration local laws, public health and safety, environmental, social and economic factors pertinent to the decision to permit such facilities.
    • Streamline and expedite the siting of major renewable energy projects and associated transmission facilities to help achieve the State’s clean energy and climate goals, while maintaining the State’s strong environmental and public participation standards.
    • Ensure that renewable energy projects deliver economic benefits to the local communities where they are built.

The Office of Renewable Energy Siting (ORES), housed within the Department of State, will “consolidate the environmental review of major renewable energy facilities and provide a single forum to ensure that siting decisions are predictable, responsible, and delivered in a timely manner along with opportunities for input from local communities”.  All large-scale, renewable energy projects 25 megawatts or larger will be required to obtain a siting permit from the Office of Renewable Energy Siting for new construction or expansion. ORES has the authority to issue a single permit for the construction of major renewable energy facilities from both a state and local law perspective, but applicants will still be required to obtain any approvals necessary under federal law, including federally-delegated permits.

New York’s Article Ten process defines the permitting requirements for all large-scale electric generating new construction or expansion and was previously used for renewable projects.  It includes extensive and time-consuming public notification and participation requirements.  The 2011 revisions to the Article Ten law were intended to speed things up but were largely ineffective in that regard.  The AREGCBA application requirements are intended to primarily speed the process up.  ORES has 60 days from the date of its receipt of a permit application to make a completeness determination. An application will not be complete without proof of consultation with the host municipalities and communities but the public notification requirements are much reduced relative to Article Ten. After a completeness determination, draft permit conditions will be issued by the Office of Renewable Energy Siting for public comment. The Office of Renewable Energy Siting must issue a final decision on the siting permit within one year of the date on which the application is deemed complete and within 6 months if the facility is proposed to be located on brownfield, former commercial or industrial, landfill, former power plant, and abandoned or underutilized sites.

Shortcoming Comments

My comments addressed three shortcomings in the proposed regulation.  The greatest deficiency of the CLCPA and AREGCBA is the failure to consider the cumulative environmental impact of the wind and solar resources necessary to replace the fossil-fired electric generating capacity of New York.  Recent studies indicate that the National Renewable Energy Lab projected total technical potential land-based wind capacity of 35,000 MW will be needed.  Assuming three MW wind turbines that means 10,000 turbines!  Unless a cumulative impact analysis is done by the Office of Renewable Energy Siting the public welfare and environment could be threatened.

I am particularly concerned about bald eagles.  There are actions necessary within a quarter of a mile from a bald eagle nest but to assume that will eliminate interactions with the birds who must fly further than that on a routine basis is a stretch.  While some argue that on an individual or even facility basis that most environmental impacts are generally acceptable, the impact of 10,000 turbines is different.  As it stands there is nothing to say that wind farms could surround the Montezuma National Wildlife Refuge as long as there are more than a quarter mile away.

It may be a misunderstanding on my part but I did not see any provision to require applicants to provide capability information in the applications.  It is not enough to just say that there will be 10 three MW turbines for a total of 30 MW, applicants also need to provide the expected energy (MWh) output.  That information is absolutely necessary so I argued it should be specified.  I don’t think it is appropriate to short-change local participation and environmental issues for renewable facilities that will not provide renewable energy credit to New York so I recommended that if a facility cannot prove that the renewable energy credits generated by the facility will be used to meet New York’s goals that they be required to go through the existing Article Ten process.

Inadequacy Comments

I raised issues with this accelerated approval schedule.  I don’t think that there are enough safeguards in place to ensure that locally affected residents will be notified of the project early on in the process.  It is particularly troubling that the law includes deadlines for the agency staff reviewing the applications.  If they don’t respond on time the submittals are deemed complete.  ORES is a new organization and has no staff, procedures, or operating history.  Moreover, it is entirely likely that there will be many applications to process.  I recommended that a safety valve be included if the reviewing staff is over-whelmed.

I raised a couple of concerns about communications and references.  There is a discussion of the impact of wind turbines on weather radars.  My primary concern with 10,000 wind turbines is that false echoes from turbines across the landscape will make accurate tracking of the relatively small, low-level, and possibly intense lake-effect snow bands in downwind areas more difficult and affect the safety of local residents.  This issue should be addressed and not simply ignored.  I pointed out that the most recent  World Health Organization Guideline on community noise was not used  The fact that more recent guidance is not being used is disappointing.  That the more recent guidance inconveniently indicates that more restrictive limits on wind turbines are necessary to protect public health and welfare suggests that this may have been more than a simple oversight.

Conclusion

I cannot over-emphasize my belief that the lack of a cumulative environmental impact analysis is a danger to the environment of New York.  The number of wind turbines and solar panels needed to meet the CLCPA goals is staggering.  The idea that 10,000 wind turbines might not have an environmental impact that deserves analysis is absurd.

Overall, I do not think this regulation as proposed is in the best interests of anyone near a proposed renewable energy facility.  Without the thorough public participation requirements of Article Ten and with the threat of over-ruling any home rule limits on renewable energy development, the AREGCBA result may be New York’s first climate refugees.  The first Dutch climate refugees are a fact because local residents cannot cope with the noise of wind farms.

One of the reasons we have a dog is that I cannot avoid the need to take him out for a walk every day.  I don’t take along an audio system so the walk is a time for reflection and observation.  This morning’s observation is that when the frost is on the roofs you can tell who has good insulation and who doesn’t.  That lead to the thought that maybe I could do a “study” to determine how many houses in our neighborhood appear to be energy efficient and how many are not.  One of the primary presumptions of the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act Energy Efficiency and Housing Advisory Panel is that the deep de-carbonization goals can be met by reductions in energy service demand by more efficient building shell and weatherization measures.  Those measures have been targeted for years so I have always wondered how many homes still could be updated to get the biggest demand reductions for the investments.

Background

On July 18, 2019 New York Governor Andrew Cuomo signed the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA), which establishes targets for decreasing greenhouse gas emissions, increasing renewable electricity production, and improving energy efficiency.  It was described as the most ambitious and comprehensive climate and clean energy legislation in the country when Cuomo signed the legislation.  I have summarized the schedule, implementation components, and provide links to the legislation itself at CLCPA Summary Implementation Requirements. 

I am following the implementation of the CLCPA closely because its implementation affects my future as a New Yorker.  Given the cost impacts for other jurisdictions that have implemented renewable energy resources to meet targets at much less stringent levels, I am convinced that the costs in New York will be enormous and my analyses have supported that concern.  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.

Energy Efficiency and Housing Advisory Panel

The Climate Action Council (CAC) is charged with preparing a scoping plan to achieve the goals of the CLCPA.  The CLCPA mandates that in order to “provide recommendations to the council on specific topics, in its preparation of the scoping plan, and interim updates to the scoping plan, and in fulfilling the council’s ongoing duties”, the CAC (§ 75-0103, 7) “shall convene advisory panels requiring special expertise and, at a minimum, shall establish advisory panels on transportation, energy intensive and trade-exposed industries, land-use and local government, energy efficiency and housing, power generation, and agriculture and forestry”.  Since the start of the implementation process the CAC realized that another advisory panel specifically addressing waste was appropriate.  You can follow the progress of this work at the State’s Climate Act webpage.

The Energy Efficiency and Housing Advisory Panel is, in my opinion, doing the best job addressing issues associated with their objective to “develop recommendations specific to the buildings sector for emissions reducing policies, programs, or actions that contribute to achieving the statewide emissions reductions established in the CLCPA, for consideration by the Climate Action Council for inclusion in the Scoping Plan”.  The Panel’s target is to “develop buildings sector-focused recommendations for emission-reducing policies and actions to achieve approximately 31-39% emission reduction in buildings by 2030 (and 85-93% emission reduction by 2050), from 2016 levels”.  (As an aside, these emission rate targets are subject to refinement because the CLCPA has its own unique emissions accounting approach and they have not made up the numbers yet.)

The following slide is an overview of the residential housing sector profile of New York prepared by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA).  It was included in the Energy Efficiency and Housing panel presentation on October 16, 2020.

Citizen Science Survey

The hypothesis of this citizen science experiment is that it is possible to categorize building shell and weatherization effectiveness by comparing the appearance of frost on the roofs of similar homes to give a first order estimate of the potential for additional energy savings in this sector.

The following picture illustrates the difference between one home that appears to have better weatherization and insulation than another home.  This photo was taken at 8:09 AM on November 13, 2020.  A New York State Mesonet meteorological monitoring site several miles south showed that the temperature went below freezing about 9:00 PM the previous evening and that the temperature went above freezing around 7:00 AM.  By the time I got home around 8:15 AM there was a noticeable difference in the frost on my own home due to melting.  I categorize the house on the left as one that has inadequate insulation and weatherization.  Note that the entire roof is mostly frost free.  You can see under the roof over the garage and the area along the eaves has frost.  The house on the right appears to have adequate insulation and weatherization.  The entire roof has an even layer of frost.

One of the notable things about this survey was there was a third category as shown in the following picture.  My assistant Gus points to the one-story section of the house that has much less frost than the two-story section.  My own home showed  two different frost patterns too.  Unfortunately, I did not take a picture of my house because the frost had melted too much but the frost-free zone is located over my front porch.  I did not put insulation there because it was not enclosed but the roof pattern shows that something should be done there to improve the house energy efficiency.

The homes in this neighborhood were all built in the 1960’s which puts them right in the middle of the central age sector of the NYSERDA residential building survey shown above.  We surveyed 70 home roofs this morning.  Seven homes were in the inadequate insulation and weatherization category with roofs that were generally frost-free, 35 additional homes had uneven patterns of frost that indicate that improvements could be made to the insulation and weatherization, and the remaining homes had an even pattern of frost that indicates adequate insulation and weatherization.

Conclusion

I have the impression that advocates for insulation and weatherization to reduce home energy use base their estimates of future improvements from a baseline of uninsulated homes.  Ever since we purchased our first home in 1977 there have been many state and federal programs subsidizing insulation and weatherization.  For my home we meet the insulation standards for the attic, the exterior walls have been insulated, all the windows and doors have been upgraded, and we had a company come and do a leak check.  They noted the problem with porch, put in a barrier and resolved a couple of other issues.  Nonetheless, there still is an issue that needs to be addressed but the relative benefit for the cost will mean a small incremental reduction in energy usage.

These survey results suggest that there are limits on the potential energy savings reductions because many home owners have already implemented insulation and weatherization measures.  Only 10% of the homes in this neighborhood appear to have large potential reduction where the investments will produce the greatest reductions.  Half of the homes apparently could use more measures to improve energy efficiency but those investments will not have as large a cost benefit ratio.  It may be that there is a reason that there isn’t as much insulation in the roof.  For example, the house in the last picture may have cathedral ceilings which are much costly to insulate.  This problem occurred over the garages of most of the homes in this neighborhood with this problem showed up and that is another more complicated and costly problem to resolve.  For the remaining 40% of the homes, any further energy efficiency improvements will likely show much less potential for reductions at much higher costs.

Finally, I want to suggest that this is a methodology that shows promise for quick, broad survey results of actual energy efficiency potential.  The visual appearance of residential homes clearly indicates the insulation and weatherization standards.  Importantly, it is not just frost that could be used as the visual marker..  Light snow probably is a better indicator because frost patterns can be influenced by over-hanging trees.  Another indicator is icicles.  Moreover, this is simple enough that anyone can collect the data.  All you need is a camera, a car and the right conditions to target homes that could provide the greatest energy efficiency improvements.