Category: Climate Act Comments Submitted

The Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (Climate Act) has a legal mandate for New York State greenhouse gas emissions to meet the ambitious net-zero goal by 2050.  The comment period for the Draft Scoping Plan that outlines how to meet that goal recently ended.  Here I describe comments submitted by the New York State Independent System Operator (NYISO). 

Everyone wants to do right by the environment to the extent that they can afford to and not be unduly burdened by the effects of environmental policies.  I submitted comments on the Plan and have written extensively on implementation of New York’s response to that risk because I believe the ambitions for a zero-emissions economy embodied in the Climate Act outstrip available renewable technology such that this supposed cure will be worse than the disease.  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.

Climate Act Background

The Climate Act establishes a “Net Zero” target (85% reduction and 15% offset of emissions) by 2050. The Climate Action Council is responsible for preparing the Scoping Plan that will “achieve the State’s bold clean energy and climate agenda”.  They were assisted by Advisory Panels who developed and presented strategies to the meet the goals to the Council.  Those strategies were used to develop the integration analysis prepared by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) and its consultants that tried to quantify the impact of the strategies.  That material was used to write a Draft Scoping Plan that was released for public comment at the end of 2021. The Climate Action Council states that it will revise the Draft Scoping Plan based on comments and other expert input in 2022 with the goal to finalize the Scoping Plan by the end of the year.

New York State Independent System Operator

The predecessor organization to the  NYISO was created after the Northeast Blackout of 1965.  New York’s seven investor-owned utility companies established the New York Power Pool (NYPP), to address the reliability problems exposed by the blackout.  In the 1990s New York’s electric system was de-regulated and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) recommended the formation of independent entities to manage energy transmission and generation and the NYISO was established to replace the NYPP.  Because the change to the wholesale electricity market is the reason for their existence, the NYISO unquestioningly supports market driven responses to any problem.  This is evident in their Draft Scoping Plan comments.

The NYISO manages the electric system.  They have to balance the instantaneous supply of electricity between the generators and customers across the state in the de-regulated electricity market.   They manage the supply of power and maintain the frequency across the state and with their connections to other operating systems.  In addition, the NYISO has to plan for future changes to the system.  At this time the biggest factor for change is the Climate Act so their comments are important to understand.

Comments on Draft Scoping Plan Recommendations

The NYISO comments included comments on four aspects of future power generation strategies:

• Fossil Generator Retirements Must Be Coordinated with Replacement Resources,
• Accelerate Growth of Renewable Generation and Other Resources,
• Storage Provides Value and Must Work in Concert with Generation, and
• Interconnection Process Improvements

The NYISO comments emphasized that the drive to retire fossil-fired generating units has to be coordinated with replacements. They explained (their emphasis added) that:

A sufficient fleet of new generation resources that satisfy the CLCPA, with the appropriate reliability attributes, must be available before the existing, traditional generators retire voluntarily or are forced out of service. An essential step to facilitate the orderly transition from traditional generators to emission-free electricity is promulgation of environmental regulations with defined milestones and ample lead time for new resource development. For example, firm regulatory milestones that define emission limits to be achieved on specified dates and compliance plan obligations that require generators to describe their approach to compliance give the NYISO planning processes essential information to consider and share with stakeholders.

NYISO is very concerned that Administration policy appears to build as many renewables as possible and shut down as much fossil infrastructure at the same time without a strategic plan.  The comments stated:

Proposing environmental regulations with defined milestones to facilitate the CLCPA mandates would help protect electric system reliability by allowing the existing reliability processes to more accurately review and evaluate reliability needs. The Draft Scoping Plan provides that the DEC should assess regulatory options to reduce emissions from fossil generators to the maximum extent practicable to achieve the requirements of the CLCPA while maintaining electric system reliability. The DEC should examine all potential regulatory options, including new regulations and/or permit requirements or amendment of current regulations and/or permitting requirements, to determine the most efficient, effective, and enforceable format to achieve the determined emissions reduction targets and the CLCPA requirements. The process should include effective mechanisms for input and comments from stakeholders prior to a formal proposal under the State Administrative Procedures Act, similar to the process used in promulgating the DEC “Peaker Rule,” 6 NYCRR Subpart 227-3

The NYISO strongly encourages the DEC and other state agencies to pursue new or amended regulations to implement emissions reductions in an orderly, predictable manner. The process should include effective mechanisms for input and comments from stakeholders prior to a formal proposal. This exact approach proved effective when the DEC developed the Peaker Rule in 2018-2019.

NYISO commented on the pace of accelerated growth of renewable generation and other resources necessary to meet the timeline and targets of the Climate Act. 

New resources will be necessary to serve load and provide reliability services in place of the generators that will retire. The Draft Scoping Plan contemplates accelerating the growth of large-scale renewable generation, offshore wind generation, distributed generation, and distributed energy resources. This growth is envisioned, in part, through recommendations that the state accelerate adoption of innovative technologies and programs that increase hosting capacity such as flexible interconnection, hybrid systems, and coupling resources with energy storage or controlled load.

NYISO makes the point that even the Draft Scoping Plan recognizes that wind, solar, and energy storage are inadequate to meet the requirements of a zero emissions electric system in 2040.

The Draft Scoping Plan also correctly observes that dispatchable and emissions-free resources, with operating characteristics similar to fossil generators, will be equally, if not more important, to protect consumers from electric service interruptions. It states:

“The current system is heavily dependent on existing fossil fueled resources to maintain reliability. To ensure reliability and that generation is available when needed, dual fuel capability currently provides oil back up during periods of high gas and electric demand. To replace these units, dispatchable and emissions-free resources will be needed to balance the system and must be significant in capacity, be able to come on-line quickly, and be flexible enough to meet rapid, steep ramping needs. The importance of developing large amounts of dispatchable generation is echoed in the Power Grid Study, Pathways Study, and NYISO Grid-in Transition and Climate Change Study.”

There is an additional complication that is often overlooked outside of the industry.  NYISO not only has to figure out how the infrastructure has to be changed to meet the Climate Act requirements they also have to design market mechanisms that will induce the development of the required infrastructure.

The NYISO supports the State’s consideration of how the wholesale markets can work in conjunction with financial incentives, e.g., Clean Dispatch Credits (“CDC”) or a renewable energy credit (“REC”)-like product, to increase the number of new flexible resources interconnecting to the electric grid. Such salable attributes could encourage new technologies that run on storable fuels, as opposed to wind or solar energy. Incentives could also encourage storage resources to possess the capability to charge from the grid, regardless of whether they are coupled with generation or load resources. The option, or technical capability, to charge from the wholesale electric grid improves provision of reliability services by increasing the overall ability of resources to inject or withdraw energy from the grid and lowers overall prices for consumers when the storage resource charges at a lower cost.

The NYISO commented that storage provides value and must work in concert with generation.  Their comments stated:

The Draft Scoping Plan observes that a portfolio of energy storage technologies will be needed to support balancing the intermittency of energy production as more weather-dependent renewable energy generation connects to the grid. Existing and newer, long-duration, storage will be needed to maintain reliability as the state approaches 2040. This suite of storage technologies, however, will be needed well before 2040 to reach the State’s energy policy goals.

The comments also provide an explanation why storage requirements are complicated.

While storage is a critical part of the future resource fleet, it is only capable of being part of the solution. The electric system will require electricity production to reliably meet demand across a wide range of conditions, every day of the year. Battery storage resources can help to fill in short term reductions in renewable resources output, but extended periods of low- or zero-renewable resource output will rapidly deplete the short duration storage capabilities of existing battery technologies. The resource fleet must include generators that operate on storable fuels in addition to renewable resources and batteries. At times, renewable resource production may be insufficient to serve other load and to provide the charging capability needed for the large levels of storage expected to enter the system.  These circumstances could extend the periods when storage resources are unable to supply energy to serve load. A successful transition requires replacing the reliability contributions of the existing fleet of generation as their performance capabilities will be no less essential in a future grid than they are today.

The concerns about market mechanisms for energy storage devices are also included in the comments:

The NYISO seeks the lowest production costs for consumers. To allow the markets to seek the lowest production cost, all technologies that can support the system needs must be able to participate. The NYISO regularly reviews market rules to accommodate participation of new and emerging resources, such as energy storage resources through market participation. When the capabilities of a particular technology require changes to existing market rules, the NYISO has evolved its markets and its Tariffs to accommodate participation along the lines of the Draft Scoping Plan description of expanding wholesale market eligibility participation rules for new policy resources. For example, in 2020, the NYISO implemented a participation model for energy storage resources (“ESRs”) and, in 2021, the NYISO expanded the participation model to accommodate co-located resources consisting of a combination of storage and other generating technologies, such as wind or solar. The NYISO integrated ESRs as supply resources in both instances, not as providers of transmission service.  Although ESRs, like other resources, can be dispatched to prevent an overload of a transmission facility, they do not change the thermal capability of a transmission facility and, therefore, do not change the ratings of transmission facilities. Like other types of suppliers, ESRs can provide dispatchable services to help mitigate transmission constraints and can serve load to meet local reliability needs and defer infrastructure investments.

The electric grid has been described as the world’s largest machine because the generators and users are all connected. The NYISO comments address interconnection process improvements:

To support development of new generation resources, the Draft Scoping Plan recommends that the state speed up the pace of processing interconnection applications and emphasize the need for right-sizing human resources at utilities to mitigate delays in application processing. Interconnection rules that support grid reliability, along with siting and other regulatory processes that facilitate timely review and consideration of projects, are necessary to effectively respond to the rapid growth of projects being developed in response to the state’s clean energy policies. The NYISO is committed to continue working with stakeholders to assess how its processes can be enhanced to better manage the increasing volume of resources while still providing the critical reliability analysis needed.

An underlying premise of the NYISO comments is the insinuation that there are significant logistical issues associated with schedule.  The comments describe changes to the process for connecting new generating sources to the grid:

The NYISO’s generation interconnection study process identifies potential adverse reliability impacts associated with new resources interconnecting to FERC jurisdictional distribution and transmission. The process, which requires significant coordination among the NYISO, facility developers, and affected transmission owners, identifies necessary system upgrades and their estimated costs to protect electric system reliability. This allows investors to make more informed investment decisions. To facilitate the dramatically increasing number of interconnection requests, the NYISO has been working with stakeholders to implement improvements to the interconnection study process. NYISO completed a comprehensive redesign of the interconnection study process in 2019. The redesign offers greater flexibility and expedited study options to developers seeking the necessary information to interconnect to the grid. The enhancements have proven effective in accelerating the interconnection study process.

The numbers for new projects are notable:

The improvements were applied for the first time to the Class Year 2019, the largest in the NYISO’s history, with 66 projects representing 7,254 MW of capacity, and helped the NYISO to bring the Class Year process to closure in record time. Since 2019, the number of new interconnection requests has continued to increase, reaching 197 requests per year and 387 projects with ongoing interconnection studies at the end of 2021.

Nonetheless, more changes are needed:

The NYISO continues to review and improve its interconnection process, including a current initiative under discussion with stakeholders regarding improved coordination between the various interconnection processes. In addition, the NYISO anticipates significant additional interconnection process changes will be required in later 2022 and 2023 prompted by FERC’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking regarding Improvements to Generator Interconnection Procedures and Agreements (Docket No. RM22-14-000). Given the volume of interconnection requests it is imperative to further streamline interconnection processes.

My primary concern is generation but of course the NYISO has to also worry about transmission and distribution strategies for the use of diffuse renewable resources.  The NYISO comments described their concerns:

The Draft Scoping Plan recommends that the state expand electricity transmission and distribution systems to support energy delivery, and, building on the Power Grid Study, continue research, development, and demonstration (“RD&D”) and rapid deployment of advanced grid technology. The transmission-focused efforts should strive to alleviate transmission system bottlenecks to allow for better deliverability of renewable energy throughout the state and unbottle constrained resources to allow more hydro and/or wind imports and the ability to reduce system congestion. In addition, the Draft Scoping Plan encourages optimized utilization of existing transmission capacity and rights of way by utilities to accelerate investments in their local systems. These actions will facilitate renewables development and enhance the electrification of transportation and grow safety and resiliency.

The rest of the comments described the planning processes used.  I mentioned the NYISO’s unwavering support of market mechanisms to solve any electric system issue.  There are descriptions how public policy requirements are addressed with public planning.  Similarly, they address economic issues associated with transmission constraints. 

Relative to the Climate Act the most important planning process is related to reliability.  There is a good summary of the process that they use.

NYISO reliability planning processes evaluate reliability needs that are arising due to a shifting resource mix, as higher-emitting, controllable fossil generators deactivate and new renewable, intermittent generation, and other clean energy supply resources enter service. The NYISO’s reliability processes form a baseline system that identifies transmission and resources expected to enter into service, and transmission that is needed to maintain reliability. Additional transmission infrastructure needed for public policy requirements, like the CLCPA, build on these reliability analyses and solutions.

The NYISO comments seems to be satisfied that the Draft Scoping Plan adequately addresses the NYISO reliability planning process:

The Draft Scoping Plan recommends that the State conduct established biennial evaluations to assess the state of bulk power system reliability in consultation with the NYISO and the New York State Reliability Council. The NYISO supports this recommendation and agrees that ongoing evaluations and transmission system reliability planning are critical to maintaining an energy secure and sustainable system for New York. The NYISO has established processes that should be used to support the Draft Scoping Plan recommendation. The NYISO’s reliability planning processes identify reliability risks and, if found, include actions such as solicitations of transmission and resource solutions needed to maintain reliable electric service. These processes are designed to provide the baseline reliable system on which to build the grid of the future, integrating renewable resources and storage to attain the requirements of state climate change laws. The frequency and structure of these planning studies allow the NYISO and stakeholders to regularly review study assumptions and scenarios based on up-to-date operational experience. Review of the State’s power system performance in conformance with established operations requirements will be critically important throughout the clean energy transition.

The reference for this commitment (footnote 37) is:

Draft Scoping Plan at p. 171 (“Continual Evaluation: The State should conduct established biennial evaluations to assess the state of bulk power system reliability in consultation with the federally designated electric bulk system operator (NYISO) and the State and federally jurisdictional entity the New York State Reliability Council. These evaluations should ascertain if any program adjustments are needed to ensure continued safe and adequate electric service. They should be informed by the review of the State’s power system performance in conformance with established operations requirements and by relevant studies including the NYISO’s Reliability Needs Assessment”). 

There are two issues related to this continual evaluation requirement.  First and foremost, I believe that this evaluation should be a prerequisite for any implementation regulations. Once the Scoping Plan is complete it is the guideline for the New York’s energy planning but regulations have to be developed to implement the changes.  It is inappropriate to start implementing rules if the organization responsible for reliability has reservations about continued safe and adequate electric service. Secondly, I am not privy to the discussions between the NYISO and the Administration and neither are most members of the Climate Action Council.  To this point no one on the Council has spoken up to reign in the loudest ideological voices who believe the reductions have to be instituted no matter what, that the intent of the Climate Act is to ban all combustion sources, and that there are no reliability issues related to an electric system that depends upon renewable energy.

The NYISO resource adequacy comments are at odds with the vocal ideologues.  The comments emphasize that all options have to be considered at this time:

The Draft Scoping Plan recommends that the State and the NYISO examine all resource adequacy options and continue to improve compensation for resource adequacy contributions. It specifically calls for the state to continue working with the NYISO “on market enhancements that facilitate the resource transition, support investment, minimize costs to consumers, eliminate buyer- side mitigation (BSM) for Climate Act resources, and meet reliability.” The NYISO is continuously evaluating the accuracy and robustness of its underlying resource adequacy models, reliability metrics and probabilistic tools, and updating them to incorporate changing characteristics of the power system and resource fleet. The NYISO welcomes the opportunity to continue working on these efforts with the state and to build on the recent success of the comprehensive mitigation reform effort.

The only concession made by the Climate Action Council to the reliability concerns of the state’s experts and organizations who are responsible for keeping the lights on was a listening session last summer.  The NYISO comments summarize the issues:

The combination of solar, wind, and today’s battery storage technologies are not sufficient on their own to provide the services necessary to support reliability on the power grid. The resource adequacy challenge becomes attracting and retaining sufficient resources, including flexible resources, to maintain reliable service. The NYISO-administered energy and ancillary service markets alone do not provide enough revenue to attract sufficient investment to maintain adequate resources for system reliability. Thus, capacity markets provide and will need to continue to provide an additional revenue stream to support adequate investment to maintain the required levels of resource adequacy. As the fleet transforms and new challenges emerge, ongoing efforts will be needed to ensure that together the energy, ancillary service, and capacity market designs continue to support adequate investment.

The final comment I want to mention discusses the markets that are critical to achieving the Climate Act.  It is only possible to fully comprehend the magnitude of the challenge of a zero-emissions electric system if you understand the markets described.  I have seen no indication that the majority of the Council members have that knowledge.

The NYISO supports reliability primarily through three complementary markets: energy, ancillary services, and capacity. Wholesale electricity markets have successfully delivered efficiency gains on the grid and cleaner energy production, making them an effective platform for reflecting public policy and technological influences efficiently and reliably. In these markets, energy, regulation, and operating reserves are simultaneously procured to meet demand while respecting transmission limits. The NYISO has a proven record of enabling the entry of new technologies into the state’s competitive wholesale electricity markets consistent with state public policy objectives. The NYISO-administered wholesale energy markets are critical to successfully fulfilling the mission and goals of reliability and economic efficiency while also shifting investment risk from ratepayers to asset owners and serving as an effective platform for achieving New York State environmental objectives. As such, the NYISO is actively engaging stakeholders and policymakers in developing plans to meet the future challenges expected to arise from a grid characterized with high levels of energy supply from intermittent renewable and Distributed Energy Resources (“DER”).

Conclusion

It is telling that the NYISO comments had to emphasize the point that it is not good policy for the state to force fossil generator retirements until appropriate replacement generating resources are available.  Unfortunately, state agencies are promulgating policies that are not consistent with this obvious point.  The NYISO comments state the obvious point that an enormous quantity of renewable resources is going to have to be developed and point out that energy storage will be needed.  The comments also point out that dispatchable and emissions-free resources will be needed to balance the system.  Unfortunately, the comments do not explain the difficulty and challenge of developing this new resource and the risk of relying on this technology for a future electric system.

Never forget that the Climate Act is all about politics. It is evident that there are reliability concern disconnects between the public face of the Administration, the Climate Action Council scoping plan development, and the NYISO.  In order to address the problems raised by the NYISO the Administration is going to have to burst the bubbles of one or more of the pet positions of some of the Climate Act’s fervent supporters and their organizations.  The alternative is putting the state’s residents at unacceptable reliability risks.

The Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (Climate Act) has a legal mandate for New York State greenhouse gas emissions to meet the ambitious net-zero goal by 2050 and the comment period for the Draft Scoping Plan that outlines how to meet that goal recently ended.  Here I describe comments submitted by New York Energy and Climate Advocates.

Everyone wants to do right by the environment to the extent that they can afford to and not be unduly burdened by the effects of environmental policies.  I submitted comments on the Plan and have written extensively on implementation of New York’s response to that risk because I believe the ambitions for a zero-emissions economy embodied in the Climate Act outstrip available renewable technology such that it will adversely affect reliability, impact affordability, risk safety, affect lifestyles, and will have worse impacts on the environment than the purported effects of climate change in New York.  New York’s Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions are less than one half one percent of global emissions and since 1990 global GHG emissions have increased by more than one half a percent per year.  Moreover, the reductions 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.

Climate Act Background

The Climate Act establishes a “Net Zero” target (85% reduction and 15% offset of emissions) by 2050. The Climate Action Council is responsible for preparing the Scoping Plan that will “achieve the State’s bold clean energy and climate agenda”.  They were assisted by Advisory Panels who developed and presented strategies to the meet the goals to the Council.  Those strategies were used to develop the integration analysis prepared by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) and its consultants that tried to quantify the impact of the strategies.  That material was used to write a Draft Scoping Plan that was released for public comment at the end of 2021. The Climate Action Council states that it will revise the Draft Scoping Plan based on comments and other expert input in 2022 with the goal to finalize the Scoping Plan by the end of the year.

New York Energy and Climate Advocates

 New York Energy & Climate Advocates (NYECA) is a non-profit, volunteer-based organization of scientists, engineers, environmentalists, business professionals, and advocates for social justice who understand the reality of climate change and the moral imperative for timely action employing effective solutions that work in the real world.  Keith Schue, Technical Advisor, MS Electrical Engineering, and Leonard Rodberg, PhD Professor Emeritus of Urban Studies Queens College/CUNY, Co-Director Community Studies of New York, Inc. submitted an impressive set of comments. 

The comments are organized into six sections:

1. An unrealistic approach to a very real problem,
2. System-level realities of grid decarbonization,
3. Errors and oversights,
4. Consequences of failure,
5. Designing a decarbonization plan that works , and
6. Recommendations

The cover letter summarizes the comments:

We acknowledge the substantial effort which has gone into adoption of the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA), analysis that has been performed by NYSERDA, and numerous meetings that have been convened by the Climate Action Council and various working groups. We are also grateful for the public hearing process which has allowed interested parties to provide comment. However, our organization is deeply concerned that the scoping plan drafted by the Council will not meet the CLCPA’s aggressive goals. As we will demonstrate, the unrealistic and technically flawed plan which has been proposed sets New York up for failure with respect to its decarbonization objectives, ultimately perpetuating the state’s reliance on fossil fuels. In doing so, it also threatens to prolong the exposure of environmental justice communities to pollution, unduly burden ratepayers, and hurt the state economically.

Respectfully, our concern stems from the fact that NYSERDA and the Climate Action Council have cast aside important “tools in the toolbox”, thereby turning a difficult task into one that, from a practical standpoint, becomes impossible. No form of energy is without impact and the technical potential of some carbon-free sources are limited. However, addressing the climate crisis requires an unbiased, science-based review of all viable technologies without prejudice. The draft plan fails to do this.

As we discuss, by downplaying the value of New York’s reliable fleet of nuclear plants and ignoring the potential of expanding nuclear power in state (and to a lesser degree hydro), the draft is left contemplating implausible scenarios—constructs which rely on unrealistic amounts of intermittent generation, massive battery storage, and an unbelievable network of hydrogen-based firm backup capacity, comparable to the total capacity of fossil fuel plants in the state today. Further, by relying on substantial amounts of imported electricity, a dubious exchange of energy with other regions to meet real-time demand, and copious amounts of materials produced elsewhere in the world, the draft plan undermines claims that its proposed approach serves as a model of sustainability for the nation or world. Perhaps most concerning is that the draft scoping plan turns a blind eye to clear warnings of how the strategy it has put forth—as seen in both California and Germany—falls apart in practice, and the danger which that failure poses to New York’s environment, its economy, and energy security.

To be clear, we support the state’s goal of carbon-free electricity by 2040. We also believe that it is achievable—but not with the plan which has been proposed.

This article summarizes the sections of NYECA’s comments.  The overall theme is that making nuclear power a significant contributor to New York’s total electricity portfolio will be the only credible way forward for decarbonization.  The summaries are brief and I recommend checking out the document itself because the presentation was outstanding. 

An unrealistic approach to a very real problem

The comments focus on the electric sector because “the burning of fossil fuels for electricity is a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions, and because—as the Council and NYSERDA admit—successful decarbonization will require the beneficial electrification of other sectors, which in turn requires generating even more electricity.”  This section describes the challenge by showing where the current electrical energy comes from and how much is needed.  In the future the load is going to grow and all the energy generated using fossil fuels (around 40%) will have to be replaced by zero-emissions generating resources.

I liked the way the Draft Scoping Plan approach was described.  They presented the following figure that shows the proposed deployment of generating resources.

NYSERDA Scenario 3 Electricity Generation Capacity (MW)

The comments explain:

As seen above, NYSERDA’s plan relies upon a very rapid and dramatic expansion of generation capacity and storage. Whereas NYSERDA predicts a doubling of demand between 2020 and 2050, the amount of carbon-free capacity to meet that demand—which translates into physical equipment that must be built and deployed—would need to increase nearly nine-fold. The fundamental reason for this is because the Climate Action Council’s draft plan relies overwhelmingly on underperforming resources with low capacity factors. The DC capacity factor of photovoltaic solar panels within upstate New York is only about 14%-16%. Likewise, onshore wind in the state has an average capacity of only 26% based on NYISO data.

Then this section describes the issues associated with the wind and solar resources projections:

NYSERDA’s assumptions about capacity factor and other flaws in the plan are discussed in the next section of these comments. However, even if one ignores those issues, at face value the agency’s own figures reveal that the scale and pace of deployment for solar, wind, and other necessary support infrastructure being contemplated defies reality, exceeding rates anywhere on the globe. Neither NYSERDA nor DEC attempt to quantify the physical impacts of such an endeavor, including the amount of land conversion involved, material requirements, transmission, or the logistics of supply chains and construction. Nevertheless, as discussed below, NYSERDA’s estimates of required capacity are sufficient to gauge whether the proposed plan passes the straight-face test. It does not.

I could not agree more.  The rest of this section provides examples of the proposed deployment resources that are worth a look.  It concludes: ”By relying overwhelmingly on low-capacity-factor intermittent sources, which in turn require massive amounts of storage, backup generation, and transmission, the proposed plan not only invites failure, but also puts New York’s economy and ratepayers at risk while maximizing harm to the environment.”

System-level realities of grid decarbonization

This section emphasizes the importance of having dispatchable resources available to keep the lights on.  I have found it hard to make this complex concept user-friendly and I think the authors did a good job on it. 

The section defines the required resource as ““Firm” generation, meaning baseload or dispatchable generation capable of delivering electricity whenever needed, is a primary component of every electric grid on Earth, whether it has a high-carbon, low-carbon, or zero-carbon content.”  It goes on to show that the places that have successfully decarbonized have done so using nuclear power or hydropower, both sources of “firm” generation.

The comments then explain that grid instability is an issue with intermittent resources.  As the penetration of these resources increases an entire additional layer of facilities and infrastructure to make, store, and transport energy is needed.  This is the dispatchable, emissions-free resource (DEFR).  The case is persuasively made that nuclear energy reduces costs for deep decarbonization programs. 

The comments then use the findings of the New York Independent System Operator (NYISO) Phase II Climate Change Impact and Resilience Study to highlight issues with the Draft Scoping Plan.  My comments made the same point that “It is concerning that NYSERDA’s analysis differs so much from that of NYISO, the entity charged with maintaining the state’s electric grid. We believe NYSERDA must reconcile its work with NYISO’s Phase II report and provide a substantive explanation of differences to the Climate Action Council and public.”  This section explains that “NYISO leaves no doubt about the difficulties created by relying so heavily upon intermittent sources” using three examples.

Errors and oversights

This section described six issues that describe specific errors, oversights, and omissions which prevent it from serving as dependable framework for the ultimate scoping plan. I hope that the Climate Action Council reads this section because it describes the problems well and they are issues that should be addressed in the revisions for the Final Scoping Plan.  I believe that these issues are important and if the Council blows them off that it will prove that the public stakeholder process is no more than a token process to create the appearance of accepting public input pursuant to the Climate Act  instead of an earnest attempt to incorporate public stakeholder recommendations.

The six issues described are:

1. Dubious use of imports/exports
2. Unrealistic capacity factors
3. Necessary replacement of renewable infrastructure
4. Transmission
5. Curtailment
6. Inefficient backup generation

The first three all affect the projections of the resources needed.  Imports are used as a resource that fills in where needed but the comments explain the weaknesses in their assumptions.  The capacity factor is a measure of the availability of a generating resource and the Draft Scoping Plan assumes unrealistically high values.  It is assumed that no renewable infrastructure constructed before 2050 needs to be replaced, but that is unrealistic.  The end result from these issues is that the Draft Scoping Plan underestimates the resources needed and thus the costs.  The comments also point out that wind turbines and solar panels are more susceptible to extreme weather than nuclear power plants so there is a huge risk incurred by depending predominantly upon them.

The comments note that “Other than stating frequently that transmission improvements are needed, the draft scoping plan provides no substantive discussion of how much or what kind of new transmission infrastructure must be built”.  The comments go on to note that the documentation for the Draft Scoping Plan “does not address major transmission upgrades and new corridor projects that will be necessary between zones, including long-range transmission to bring electricity downstate from upstate wind and solar projects, or into the state from outside New York”.

The particular curtailment problem described in these comments refers to periods of time when the output from wind and solar resources are greater than the power needed on the grid and has to be cut back to reduce stress on the grid.  The comments explain that the NYISO has determined that in order reduce wasting this power more transmission has to be built.  The Draft Scoping Plan “essentially ignores the problem and broadly assumes that all ‘excess’ electricity from renewables can be directed to the operation of electrolyzers for hydrogen production.”  The problem is that they just assume that can be done and don’t prove it is feasible. 

The final issue raised is inefficient backup generation.  The comments note:

An issue often overlooked by energy models is the extent to which the inefficient “partnering” of intermittent sources with dispatchable generation affects emissions in a dynamic system. One cannot simply subtract new renewable generation on a watt-hour basis from prior fossil-fuel generation and assume that carbon-emissions decline proportionally.

The comments explain that relying on intermittent renewables may require partnering with simply-cycle generators that respond rapidly but are less efficient than combined-cycle plants, or running gas plants in “hot-standby”. In the real world, these techniques can erode the carbon-reducing benefits of having renewables in a system.

Consequences of failure

The main point of this section is that there is plenty of evidence that “demonstrate that decarbonization plans which are over reliant on intermittent generation are least reliable, least affordable, and most likely to fail.”  In my comments I made the point that there is specific language in the Climate Act that requires the Council to consider what is happening at other jurisdictions.  This section shows that in California and Germany where renewables have been promoted at the same time nuclear power is being phased out higher costs and lower reliability have resulted. 

The comments go on to show that we are already seeing similar issues subsequent to the retirement of 2,100 MW of zero-emissions at Indian Point over the last several years.  The following figure shows how the energy produced at Indian Point was mostly replaced with fossil fuels and net imports.  The claim that renewable energy and efficiency has made up for the retirement is false.

New York Electricity Generation including Behind-the Meter Solar (TWh)

May 2019 – April 2020 / May 2020 – April 2021 / May 2021 – April 2022

The comments go on to show that emission rates have increased commiserate with the use of more fossil fuels.  In addition, costs have gone up too.  The conclusion to this section sums it up:

The inconvenient truth is that in the three years since adoption of the CLCPA, New York took an enormous step backwards on fighting climate change and environmental justice. We can expect the same to occur if the licenses of New York’s upstate nuclear plants are not renewed. New York should learn from past mistakes, not repeat them.

Designing a decarbonization plan that works

I agree with these comments that argue that the Draft Scoping Plan as proposed cannot realistically succeed.  The NYECA plan emphasizes proven technology so it has a much better chance of success.

The following quote is a good summary:

Solar and wind pose two fundamental problems: (1) low energy density, which affects the sheer volume of materials, land, and infrastructure required to produce electricity; and (2) intermittency, which interferes with the delivery of energy when it is actually needed, making the integration of such sources into the grid increasingly difficult as more are deployed. The greatest mistake that New York can make is to underestimate the difficulty that these two factors present. An effective solution will be one that avoids them.

This section points out that “rather than assembling a multitude of intermittent low-capacity-factor generators plus massive battery storage in an effort to provide most of this aggregate continuous energy, a far more efficient use of generating capacity would be to incorporate a much smaller set of firm generators with high-capacity-factor that are capable of running continuously, or nearly so.”  They go on to point out that nuclear and hydropower work well for this purpose. 

Instead of relying on firm generation as merely “backup” to intermittent wind and solar, NYECA proposes making advanced nuclear power (in addition to existing nuclear and hydropower) the backbone of a reliable carbon-free electric grid. Wind, solar, and storage would also be part of their strategy, although at more modest, realistically achievable levels.

Their approach has two big advantages over the Draft Scoping Plan:

• “It avoids an excessive, unrealistic, and unwelcomed buildout of solar and wind, massive battery plants and imposing new transmission infrastructure—thereby saving farmland and nature”.
• “It avoids a tremendous amount of additional dispatchable zero-emission capacity for “backup” generation.”

The remainder of the section fleshes out details of their decarbonization strategy, including an example of how the total amount installed capacity in the future could be significantly reduced by deploying advanced nuclear power starting in the 2030’s instead of industrial-scale solar. Further information about issues associated with trying to use hydrogen, biogas and carbon sequestration are included. Finally, there is a very nice summary of the current state of nuclear technology options available, life-cycle impacts of nuclear compared to other generating technologies, and safety and human health.  I think it is a very persuasive argument that not only should existing nuclear be included in the Final Scoping Plan but that it should also include new nuclear.

Recommendations

There are six recommendations in these comments.  I will briefly summarize them below but strongly recommend reading the comments themselves.

1. “Remove prejudicial bias against zero-carbon solutions” explains why it is important to eliminate the bias against nuclear power that is present in the Draft Scoping Plan.
2. “Consider Alternative Scenarios with greater role for firm carbon-free generation, including the comprehensive analysis of impacts” makes the point that when all the impacts and costs are considered that nuclear deserves a bigger role in the Final Scoping Plan.
3. “Provide explicit support for sustaining existing firm carbon-free resources, including nuclear power” is a direct response to the irrational demands of some members of the Council to shut down existing nuclear.
4. “Invest in new technology, including nuclear power” suggests that given the promise of new technology, including nuclear that additional funding is entirely appropriate.
5. “Establish an effective structure for climate action” recommends that adjustments to the membership of the Council be made because of parochial biases of some of its members preclude a fair treatment of these recommendations. The comments also recommend improvements to the process moving forward
6. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation recommends a better assessment of cumulative environmental impacts and specific mitigation measures to limit the sprawl of wind and solar projects.

Pragmatic Comment

One of the advantages of these comments is that they are consistent with the zero-emissions mandate of the Climate Act.  I personally don’t think that getting to “zero” emissions is a good thing because it adds so much cost, complexity, and risk that the disadvantages outweigh the advantages. 

In order to be consistent with the Climate Act insistence on “zero” emissions these comments preclude the use of natural gas.  I started working for the Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation in 1981 and I found a spreadsheet that lists the 1984 emissions for the four generating plants at Dunkirk, Buffalo, Oswego, and Albany.  In that year the totals from those four plants were: sulfur dioxide emissions totaled 136,684 tons at a rate of 2.0 lb per mmBtu, nitrogen oxide emissions totaled 37,221 tons at a rate of 0.56 lb per mmBtu and carbon dioxide emissions totaled 12,530,220 tons at a rate of 187 lb per mmBtu.  In 2021 the statewide total emissions were sulfur dioxide emissions totaled 1,570 tons at a rate of 0.01 lb per mmBtu, nitrogen oxide emissions totaled 8,718 tons at a rate of 0.04 lb per mmBtu and carbon dioxide emissions totaled 28,550,157 tons at a rate of 118 lb per mmBtu.  Those reductions occurred because coal and residual oil generation has been replaced by natural gas generation.  I submit that those reductions are close enough to zero that all the wind, solar, energy storage, and zero-emissions dispatchable resource infrastructure necessary to go to zero are unwarranted. 

If it were up to me, the pragmatic future energy system would go all in for natural gas with one important restriction.  Natural gas has so many unique and useful characteristics that make it so valuable that using it for baseload electricity production is inappropriate.  Thankfully there are two proven technologies that have zero emissions that can be used for that purpose.  Of course, I am talking about nuclear and hydro.  I should also point out that until such time that someone can show me the health impacts associated with the observed reductions in emissions and ambient air quality that occurred over my career are proportional to the projected impacts used to demonize natural gas, then I remain unconvinced that eliminating natural gas use is warranted.

Conclusion

NYECA comments make a convincing case that the proposed plans have serious issues.  They explain why a system that relies on wind, solar, and energy storage and excludes nuclear as a major component hasn’t worked elsewhere and won’t work here.  Fatal flaws in the Draft Scoping Plan recommendations and documentation are described.  However, they do present an alternative consistent with the Climate Act targets that addresses many of those problems using proven technology.  The NYECA comments conclude: “If New York’s Climate Action Council is serious about decarbonizing the electricity sector in the next seventeen years, it will embrace “firm” carbon-free power, not just as “backup” to a bloated buildout of underperforming intermittent generators, but as a significant contributor of energy to the state’s electric portfolio.”  I agree completely with that conclusion.

The Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (Climate Act) has a legal mandate for New York State greenhouse gas emissions to meet the ambitious net-zero goal by 2050.  This brief article describes a comment I submitted that was based on a post from last March.  The comment was trivial but raised some general issues relative to the way the Council is addressing comments.

Everyone wants to do right by the environment to the extent that they can afford to and not be unduly burdened by the effects of environmental policies.  I have written extensively on implementation of New York’s response to that risk because I believe the ambitions for a zero-emissions economy embodied in the Climate Act outstrip available renewable technology such that it will adversely affect reliability, impact affordability, risk safety, affect lifestyles, and will have worse impacts on the environment than the purported effects of climate change in New York.  New York’s Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions are less than one half one percent of global emissions and since 1990 global GHG emissions have increased by more than one half a percent per year.  Moreover, the reductions cannot measurably affect global warming when implemented.   This page documents all the comments that I submitted as part of the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act implementation process. 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.

Climate Act Background

The Climate Act establishes a “Net Zero” target (85% reduction and 15% offset of emissions) by 2050. The Climate Action Council is responsible for preparing the Scoping Plan that will “achieve the State’s bold clean energy and climate agenda”.  They were assisted by Advisory Panels who developed and presented strategies to the meet the goals to the Council.  Those strategies were used to develop the integration analysis prepared by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) and its consultants that quantified the impact of the strategies.  That material was used to write Draft Scoping Plan that was released for public comment at the end of 2021. The Climate Action Council will revise the Draft Scoping Plan based on comments and other expert input in 2022 with the goal to finalize the Scoping Plan by the end of the year.

Comments

The comment itself is a technical comment on a trivial problem and has no major bearing on Climate Act implementation.  However, it raises a pervasive issue that needs to be addressed.  All indications from the Climate Action Council meetings this year are that the plan for public involvement is simply going through the motions. There was no attempt to start identifying comments as they were submitted to determine if they rose to the level where the Council would have to address them specifically.  Instead, Council leadership has insisted that they can only respond once the comment period closes.   In addition, there is no provision for the kind of discrepancy documented here to be reconciled.  While this problem is not a big deal, the terrifying prospect is that the issues associated with reliability raised at last summer’s Reliability Planning Speaker Session could possibly be treated the same, that is to say ignored. 

Every time I have dug into the numbers, the Draft Scoping Plans numbers are not a reasonable estimate compared to my work. I have consistently found that the Scoping Plan costs estimates are biased high and the benefits proposed are biased low.  This is a specific example that shows that one of the conclusions for Scenario 4 is not correct.

In particular, this comment evaluated the transportation sector vehicle miles traveled difference between Scenarios 2 and 3 compared to Scenario 4 due to rail passenger improvements.  The Draft Scoping Plan claims that “Incremental reductions from enhanced in-state rail aligning with 125 MPH alternative detailed in Empire Corridor Tier 1 Draft EIS” will provide a reduction of 200 million light duty vehicle miles at a per unit cost of $6 per mile or $1.2 billion.  I estimate that the only valid cost for the difference between the rail alternatives is $8.4 billion and that it would only provide a reduction of 64.7 million miles.  While my estimate is for 2035, consistent with the Empire Corridor evaluation, and the Draft Scoping Plan is for 2050, I don’t think there is any question that the numbers are inconsistent.

Conclusion

I concluded that the Final Scoping Plan must provide more detailed documentation because there is little reason to trust the cost estimates in the Draft Scoping Plan because of the pervasive issues I have found.  I believe that the Final Scoping Plan documentation should provide sufficient information so that anyone can readily determine the costs and emission reductions for their particular concerns.  In my opinion in order to fulfill this obligation, the Final Scoping Plan must describe all control measures, assumptions used, the expected costs for those measures and the expected emission reductions for the Reference Case, the Advisory Panel scenario and the three mitigation scenarios. 

I have little hope that any of my comments will be considered much less acted upon.  The leadership of the Climate Action Council already has the answer from the back of book.  They are going through the motions of the public stakeholder process hoping that they can claim more people support the Draft Scoping Plan than don’t.  While comments from an individual like me may not be of consequence, the possibility that comments from the organizations responsible for reliability will also be dismissed does not portend well.