Category: Climate Act Costs & Benefits

In my opinion the biggest problem with the Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act or CLCPA) is that it will inevitably lead to extraordinary cost increases.  My last article described the recent rate case decisions that have markedly increased residential customer electric bills. These rate increases arrive amid an escalating affordability crisis, as of December 2024, over 1.3 million households are behind on their energy bills by sixty-days-or-more, collectively owing more than $1.8 billion.  This article documents unresolved affordability issues associated with the Climate Act.

I am convinced that implementation of the New York Climate Act net-zero mandates will do more harm than good if the future electric system relies only on wind, solar, and energy storage because of reliability and affordability risks.  I have followed the Climate Act since it was first proposed, submitted comments on the Climate Act implementation plan, and have written over 600 articles about New York’s net-zero transition.  The opinions expressed in this article do not reflect the position of any of my previous employers or any other organization I have been associated with, these comments are mine alone. 

Background

There is a fundamental Climate Act implementation issue.  Clearly there are bounds on what New York State ratepayers can afford and there are limits related to reliability risks for a system reliant on weather-dependent resources.  The problem is that there are no criteria for acceptable affordability bounds.

Proponents of the Climate Act argue that the transition strategies in the law must be implemented to meet the net-zero mandates.  However, they do not acknowledge that Public Service Law (PSL) Section 66-P, Establishment of a Renewable Energy Program, is also a law. PSL 66-P requires the Commission to establish a program to ensure the State meets the 2030 and 2040 Climate Act obligations.  It includes provisions stating that the PSC is empowered to temporarily suspend or modify these obligations if, after conducting an appropriate hearing, it finds that PSL 66-P impedes the provision of safe, adequate, and affordable electric service.  This requirement has been noted but, unfortunately, establishing a methodology to resolve the mandate has been ignored.

Petitions for a Hearing

The first unresolved affordability issue is the petitions by the Coalition for Safe and Reliable Energy and the Independent Intervenors submitted to PSC Proceeding Case 22-M-0149 that called for a hearing.  There has been no indication by the PSC that they will respond to those petitions.

The recent filings argued that the PSC should convene a hearing. On August 11, 2025 “Independent Intervenors” Roger Caiazza, Richard Ellenbogen, Constatine Kontogiannis, and Francis Menton petitioned  the  PSC arguing that safety valve provisions for customers in arrears trends in PSL  66-p(4) have been exceeded  which should trigger a hearing.  On January 6, 2026 the Coalition for Safe and Reliable Energy filed a petition with the Public Service Commission (PSC) requesting that the Commission act expeditiously to hold a hearing pursuant to Public Service Law § 66-p (4).  Both filings make similar arguments.  The Independent Intervenors argued that there was an explicit requirement for the hearing because the customers in arrears threshold has been exceeded.  The Coalition makes a persuasive argument that there are sufficient observed threats to reliability that a hearing is necessary to ensure safe and adequate service.

In addition, last summer two members of the Climate Action Council, Donna DeCarolis and Dennis Elsenbeck, sent a letter to Rory Christian, Chair & Chief Executive Officer of the New Yok State Public Service Commission (PSC) that made a similar argument that there are more than sufficient circumstances to warrant the PSC commencing a hearing process to “consider modification and extension of New York Renewable Energy Program timelines pursuant to Public Service Law § 66-p (4).

Agency Affordability Findings

There also have been New York Agency findings that argue that observed issues with schedule and costs suggest a pause to reconsider the mandates is appropriate.

The Draft Clean Energy Standard Biennial Review prepared by Department of Public Service (DPS) Staff and NYSERDA  “details the numerous factors, including inflation, transmission constraints, shifting federal energy and trade policies and interconnection and siting challenges that have adversely impacted renewable development and the state’s trajectory towards achieving the Program’s 2030 target.”  The Biennial Review “concludes that a delay in achieving the 70% goal may be unavoidable.”

The recently completed New York State Energy Plan (SEP) found that “current renewable deployment trajectories are insufficient to meet statutory targets, and that external constraints continue to impede progress.”  Volume 2 “Our Energy Systems” explains that “Considering resource build limitations and increased loads, the model aligns with the CES Biennial Review, projecting the procurement schedule of CES resources through 2035.”  In other words, the SEP acknowledges that the Climate Act schedule is impossible to meet.  The SEP found that Climate Act costs are expected to require $120 billion in annual energy system investments through 2040, equivalent to $1,282 per month per household. This baseline includes what the authors of the SEP characterizes as costs “no matter which future path we take” but I believe that framing is fundamentally deceptive because that scenario includes substantial greenhouse gas reduction programs implemented before 2019 that are necessary to meet the Climate Act goals.

The July 2024 New York State Comptroller Status report “Climate Act Goals – Planning, Procurements, and Progress Tracking” audited PSC and NYSERDA efforts to achieve the Climate Act mandates.  It found that “While PSC and NYSERDA have taken considerable steps to plan for the transition to renewable energy in accordance with the Climate Act and CES, their plans did not comprise all essential components, including assessing risks to meeting goals and projecting costs.”  The report recommended that the agencies begin the comprehensive review of the Climate Act, “continuously analyze” existing and emerging risks and known issues, conduct a detailed analysis of cost estimates, and “assess the extent to with ratepayers can reasonably assume the responsibility” of the implementation costs.  This is the information necessary for the PSL 66-P hearing.

My last article summarized recent residential electric utility customers rate case decisions approved between March 2025 and January 2026.  The New York Public Service Commission (PSC) “approved new multi-year rate plans for five major utilities—Con Edison, National Grid, Central Hudson, and Orange & Rockland—while two additional utilities (New York State Electric & Gas (NYSEG) and Rochester Gas & Electric (RG&E) have pending rate cases seeking significantly larger increases”.

Kris Martin from NY Solar Divide pointed out:

When we look at those modest Climate Act (CLCPA) percentages on “typical” electric bills, it’s important to understand that we have incurred only a small fraction of Climate Act expenses to date. The bulk of those expenses will really start to impact us in another 5-10 years as we start to seriously build out onshore and offshore wind and grid-scale solar, implement policy changes (e.g., school bus electrification), and deal with increases in demand.

Department of Public Service (DPS) staff is supposed to provide Climate Act information. On September 18, 2025 the PSC announced that they “received an update from DPS staff regarding progress toward the clean energy goals of the Climate Act”.  The Second Informational Report prepared by Department of Public Service (DPS) staff “focuses on Commission actions from January 2023 through August 2025, and includes the estimated costs and outcomes from 2023 through 2029 to provide the most up to date information.”  According to the Summary of Ratepayer Impact for Electric Utilities table, residential impacts of the Climate Act range from 4.6% to 10.3% of 2023 total monthly electric bills.  In my opinion, those estimates are conservative because there is immense pressure on agency staff to minimize the costs of the Climate Act.  In addition, the costs necessary to implement the Climate Act were ramping up in 2023.  As Martin notes these costs are just the tip of the iceberg.

Affordability Metrics

PSL law Section 66-p (4) states that the hearing could “temporarily suspend or modify the obligations” of the Renewable Energy Program if the PSC makes a finding that “there is a significant increase in arrears or service disconnections that the commission determines is related to the program”.   This refers to affordability limits, but they are not specific enough.  I believe the PSC must establish specific affordability limits.

This issue was also raised to the DPS last year.  On March 26, 2025, Jessica Waldorf, Chief of Staff and Director of Policy Implementation for the Department of Public Service (DPS) posted a letter responding to a letter from Michael B. Mager Counsel to Multiple Intervenors that had been submitted earlier in March to Chair of the Public Service Commission Rory Christian regarding the affordability standard.       I agreed with the comments submitted by Multiple Intevenors and was disappointed with the DPS response so I submitted a letter to Christian.

As described in my article My Comments on the NYS Affordability Standard: I believe that as part of the Scoping Plan the Climate Action Council should have developed criteria for the PSC to consider affordability and reliability.  That did not happen.  Based on issues observed with the transition it is incumbent upon the Commission to define “safe and adequate electric service” and “significant increase in arrears or service disconnections” as part of this Proceeding.  My letter stated that this is necessary so that there is a clearly defined standard for the temporarily suspending or modifying the provisions of Section 66-p (4).

The Public Service Commission has an existing target energy burden set at or below 6 percent of household income for all low-income households in New York State.  Reviewing it raises questions about its suitability for defining energy affordability acceptability.

The six percent target was included as part of Public Service Commission (PSC) Case Number: 14-M-0565, the Proceeding on Motion of the Commission to Examine Programs to Address Energy Affordability for Low Income Utility Customers.  According to the PSC: “The primary purposes of the proceeding are to standardize utility low-income programs to reflect best practices where appropriate, streamline the regulatory process, and ensure consistency with the Commission’s statutory and policy objectives.”  On May 20, 2016 the Order Adopting Low Income Program Modifications and Directing Utility Findings adopted “a policy that an energy burden at or below 6% of household income shall be the target level for all 2.3 million low income households in New York.” 

The order notes that:

There is no universal measure of energy affordability; however, a widely accepted principle is that total shelter costs should not exceed 30% of income. For example, this percentage is often used by lenders to determine affordability of mortgage payments. It is further reasonable to expect that utility costs should not exceed 20% of shelter costs, leading to the conclusion that an affordable energy burden should be at or below 6% of household income (20% x 30% = 6%). A 6% energy burden is the target energy burden used for affordability programs in several states (e.g., New Jersey and Ohio), and thus appears to be reasonable. It also corresponds to what U.S. Energy Information Administration data reflects is the upper end of middle- and upper-income customer household energy burdens (generally in the range of 1 to 5%). The Commission therefore adopts a policy that an energy burden at or below 6% of household income shall be the target level for all low-income customers.  The policy applies to customers who heat with electricity or natural gas. 

The utility companies submit quarterly reports documenting the number of low-income customers receiving discounts and the amount of money distributed.  However, I have been unable to find any documentation describing how many customers meet the 6% energy burden criteria, much less any information on how those numbers are changing.  The biggest problem with this energy burden program is that it only applies to electric and gas utility customers.  Citizens who heat with fuel oil, propane, or wood are not covered.  Moreover, it only considers utility costs but the economy-wide provisions of the CLCPA include transportation energy burdens.

Clearly, if this parameter is to be used for a CLCPA affordability standard, then defining what is acceptable and what is not acceptable is necessary.  Whatever affordability standard is chosen a clear reporting metric must be provided and frequent updates of the status of the implementation relative to the affordability standard provided.

It is also notable that Assistant Attorney General Meredith G. Lee-Clark submitted correspondence related to the litigation associated with Climate Act implementation.  The State’s submittal  to the petition addressed “two categories of new developments: (1) the publication of the 2025 Draft New York State Energy Plan by the New York State Energy Planning Board on July 23, 2025 and (2) additional actions by the federal government that impede New York’s efforts to achieve the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act’s (the Climate Act) goals in a timely manner.” 

The submittal means that the State of New York argued that it was inappropriate to implement regulations that would ensure compliance with the 2030 40% reduction in GHG emissions Climate Act mandate because meeting the target is “currently infeasible”.  The following paragraph concedes that there are significant upfront cost issues that out-weigh other benefits.

Ordering achievement of the 2030 target would equate to even higher costs than the net zero scenarios and would affect consumers even sooner. Undoubtedly, greenhouse-gas reducing policies can lead to longer-term benefits such as health improvements. This does not, however, offset the insurmountable upfront costs that New Yorkers would face if DEC were forced to try to achieve the Legislature’s aspirational emissions reductions by the 2030 deadline rather than proceeding at an ambitious but sustainable pace.

The letter concluded that the Climate Act is unaffordable:

Petitioners have not shown a plausible scenario where the 2030 greenhouse gas reduction goal can be achieved without inflicting unanticipated and undue harm on New York consumers, and the concrete analysis in the 2025 Draft Energy Plan dispels any uncertainty on the topic: New Yorkers will face alarming financial consequences if speed is given preference over sustainability.

Conclusion

It is impossible to ignore that multiple independent analyses, audits, litigation findings, and party filings in DPS proceedings document that the Climate Act transition will exacerbate energy affordability issues at a time when more than a million New York households are already in arrears on their energy bill.  Unfortunately, the Hochul Administration and Legislature have not adopted clear affordability metrics, a transparent tracking system, or mandatory corrective actions when affordability thresholds are exceeded.  Of course, these are bright line accountability metrics, and no political supporter of the Climate Act wants to admit their role in the New York affordability crisis.

In my opinion the biggest problem with the Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act) is that it will inevitably lead to extraordinary cost increases.  This post summarizes recent residential electric utility customers rate case decisions approved between March 2025 and January 2026. I do not discuss gas rate cases.  The New York Public Service Commission (PSC) “approved new multi-year rate plans for five major utilities—Con Edison, National Grid, Central Hudson, and Orange & Rockland—while two additional utilities (New York State Electric & Gas (NYSEG) and Rochester Gas & Electric (RG&E) have pending rate cases seeking significantly larger increases”. These rate increases arrive amid an escalating affordability crisis, as of December 2024, over 1.3 million households are behind on their energy bills by sixty-days-or-more, collectively owing more than $1.8 billion.

I am convinced that implementation of the New York Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act or CLCPA) net-zero mandates will do more harm than good if the future electric system relies only on wind, solar, and energy storage because of reliability and affordability risks.  I have followed the Climate Act since it was first proposed, submitted comments on the Climate Act implementation plan, and have written over 600 articles about New York’s net-zero transition.  The opinions expressed in this article do not reflect the position of any of my previous employers or any other organization I have been associated with, these comments are mine alone. 

Background

There is a fundamental Climate Act implementation issue.  Clearly there are bounds on what New York State ratepayers can afford and there are limits related to reliability risks for a system reliant on weather-dependent resources.  The problem is that there are no criteria for acceptable affordability bounds.

Trying to decipher rate case decisions is a difficult task because of the volume of materials associated with each rate case. The PSC maintains a database that compiles all the filed documents and public comments for each rate case.  The Matter Master file for the current NYSEG rate case lists 913 filed documents and 1967 public comments.  To compile this summary, I acknowledge the use of Perplexity AI to generate summaries and references included in this document.  Assume all the results shown are referenced to the original Perplexity response.

Rate Case Results

Figure 1 summarizes the recent rates cases for Con Edison, National Grid, Central Hudson, and Orange & Rockland that have been completed since 2025.  NYSEG and RG&E have pending rate cases, so their results shown are not directly comparable.

Figure 1: New York Utility Rate Cases Impact on Residential Customer (2025-2026) – Perplexity

The NYSEG and RG&E cases are pending and the results shown represent their initial offer.  All the results shown for the other utilities had much higher initial rates. For example, Con Edison initially requested annual revenue increases of $1.612 billion for electric service (18.0 percent increase in base delivery revenues) and $440 million for gas service (18.8 percent increase in base delivery revenues). Following intense public opposition, intervention by Governor Kathy Hochul, and even comments by President Trump, and extensive settlement negotiations, the PSC approved a dramatically reduced three-year rate plan on January 22, 2026.   The approved joint proposal represents an 87 percent reduction from Con Edison’s initial request.

Utility Summaries

Con Edison’s service territory covers New York City and Westchester County with 3.6 million residential customers.  For typical NYC residential customers using 280 kilowatt-hours monthly, electric bills will increase by approximately $4 per month (3.9 percent) in 2026, $3.55 per month in 2027, and $4.22 per month in 2028, resulting in a cumulative 10.4 percent increase over three years. Westchester County residential customers using 425 kWh monthly face increases of $5.25 (2.6 percent) in year one, $4.84 (2.3 percent) in year two, and $4.95 (2.2 percent) in year three, totaling 10.1 percent over the period

National Grid’s rate case was approved on August 13, 2025.  The service territory covers 1.7 million electric customers across 25,000 square miles in Upstate New York. For residential electric customers using an average of 625 kilowatt-hours per month National Grid’s three-year upstate rate plan includes a $14.32 per month increase in year 1, a $6.44 per month increase in year 2, and a $4.34 per month increase in year 3 with an expected total increase over three years of 31%.

Central Hudson 315,000 residential customers in its Hudson Valley and Mid-Hudson region service territory.  Central Hudson’s rate case followed a unique trajectory, proceeding through litigation rather than settlement, ultimately resulting in a one-year rate plan approved on July 18, 2024, followed by a subsequent multi-year joint proposal filed on May 13, 2025, and approved on August 14, 2025.  Typical residential electric customers will experience total bill increases of approximately 7.85 percent, equating to approximately $12.65 per month.

Orange & Rockland serves 233,000 residential electric customers in Rockland, Orange, and Sullivan counties.  On March 19, 2025, the PSC adopted a three-year rate plan for Orange & Rockland that substantially reduced the utility’s initial request, keeping electric revenue flat for the first year while authorizing incremental increases in subsequent years. For residential electric customers using 600 kilowatt-hours per month the 2025 total bill increase will be 4.6 percent, in 2026 the total bill increase will be 3.3 percent and in 2027 the total bill increase will be 3.5 percent total bill increase.

New York State Electric & Gas (NYSEG) and Rochester Gas & Electric (RG&E) filed rate case proposals on

June 30, 2025.  The case is currently under review.  I am an active party in the rate cases and am unsure what I can say about the status.  I don’t think it is inappropriate to note that an evidential hearing is scheduled for early February.  The service territories of the two utilities are all over the state but is primarily located in Central and Western New York.  NYSEG serves 921,000 customers and RG&E serves 392,00 customers. The initial NYSEG electric request asked for an amount that works out for a typical residential customers (600 kWh electric usage) to a $33.12 per month increase (23.7 percent increase to total bill).  The initial RG&E electric request asked for an amount that works to a $33.01 per month increase (26.0 percent increase to total bill).

 Climate Act Impacts

It is unfortunate that the utilities fail to provide a breakdown of how much implementation of the Climate Act adds to these rate case costs.  I used a Perplexity AI search of the National Grid rate case to provide Climate Act cost estimates.   It found that the approved rate plans do not contain explicit breakdowns of specific dollar amounts or percentages of the rate increases allocated specifically to the Climate Act projectsand state mandated programs. The query response included the following:

CLCPA-Related Investments Identified

While specific cost breakdowns are not provided, the orders identify several CLCPA-related investment categories within the approved rate plans:

Electric System CLCPA Investments

Transmission Infrastructure:

• CLCPA Phase 2 Transmission Projects
• Smart Path Connect
• Grid Modernization

Distribution System Enhancements:

• Enhanced grid capabilities for solar, wind, and energy storage interconnection
• Smart grid technologies to manage intermittent renewable resources
• Electric vehicle infrastructure support programs

Historical CLCPA Investment Context

Previous utility filings and planning documents provide context for CLCPA-related costs across New York utilities:

Statewide CLCPA Transmission Investments:

• Phase 1 Projects: Approximately $4.16 billion in transmission investments and $2.64 billion in distribution investments across all New York utilities
• Phase 2 Conceptual Estimates: $7.62 billion in transmission and $2.16-$2.85 billion in distribution investments (conceptual estimates)

National Grid’s Historical CLCPA Share:

• Phase 2 Transmission: $1.37 billion estimated for National Grid transmission projects
• Phase 2 Distribution: $510 million to $1.2 billion estimated for National Grid distribution projects

Department of Public Service (DPS) staff is supposed to provide Climate Act information. On September 18, 2025 the PSC announced that they “received an update from DPS staff regarding progress toward the clean energy goals of the Climate Act”.  The Second Informational Report prepared by Department of Public Service (DPS) staff “focuses on Commission actions from January 2023 through August 2025, and includes the estimated costs and outcomes from 2023 through 2029 to provide the most up to date information.”  According to the Summary of Ratepayer Impact for Electric Utilities table, residential impacts of the Climate Act range from 4.6% to 10.3% of 2023 total monthly electric bills.  In my opinion, those estimates are conservative because there is immense pressure on agency staff to minimize the costs of the Climate Act.  In addition, the costs necessary to implement the Climate Act were ramping up in 2023.  I expect that these costs will continue to climb.

Discussion

The Perplexity summary of the rate cases raised some overarching issues.  New York residential utility bills consist of two primary components, each subject to different pricing mechanisms and contributing to overall cost increases through distinct channels.

Delivery Charges account for approximately two-thirds of bills. These charges represent what customers pay utilities to build, maintain, and operate the physical infrastructure that transmits electricity and natural gas to homes and businesses. Delivery charges remained relatively stable historically but have increased substantially in recent years to fund:

• Infrastructure Modernization and Replacement: Utilities must replace aging equipment that has reached the end of its useful life, including transformers, substations, transmission lines, and distribution networks.
• Grid Hardening and Storm Resiliency: Utilities must enhance system resiliency to manage severe weather events. This includes vegetation management, reinforced poles and wires, and backup systems.
• Clean Energy Integration Infrastructure: The Climate Act mandates necessitate substantial transmission and distribution system upgrades to connect renewable energy resources, accommodate distributed generation, manage bi-directional power flows, and handle increased electrification of transportation and heating.
• Property Taxes: Utility companies pay significant property taxes on their infrastructure, which are passed through to customers. Note that the clean energy infrastructure increases the property tax burden.
• Return on Equity (Profit Margin): Regulated utilities earn a PSC-approved rate of return on their capital investments. Approved returns on equity in recent cases range from 9.4 percent (Con Edison) to 9.5 percent (National Grid).

Supply Charges  account for approximately one-third of bills.  They represent the actual cost of purchasing electricity or natural gas in wholesale markets. These charges fluctuate based on market conditions and are typically adjusted monthly. These have increased for the following reasons:

• Explosive Demand Growth: New York and the broader Northeast region are experiencing unprecedented electricity demand growth driven by several factors that are fundamentally reshaping the supply-demand balance. The New York Independent System Operator (NYISO) reports that the pace of new energy sources coming online is insufficient to keep pace with demand growth.
• Wholesale electricity prices have responded predictably to this supply-demand imbalance. The average monthly wholesale electricity price in New York soared by 67 percent over the past year according to NYISO data.
• Thermal Generation Fuel Costs: Natural gas remains the marginal fuel setting electricity prices in New York’s wholesale markets during most hours. Natural gas commodity prices have increased due to growing domestic demand (particularly for heating during cold winters), export demand for liquefied natural gas, and supply constraints.
• Weather-Driven Consumption: The 2025-26 winter has proven particularly severe, with temperatures 15-20 percent colder than the prior year. Colder weather increases heating demand, driving up both consumption (measured usage) and market prices due to heightened competition for available supply.

Conclusion

These rate case results are unsustainable.  For all the noise made by politicians about affordability, the fact remains that the New York State Legislature or Administration has not defined affordable energy.  The Public Service Commission has an existing target energy burden set at or below 6 percent of household income for all low-income households in New York State.  I have been unable to find any documentation describing how many customers meet the 6% energy burden criteria, much less any information on how those numbers are changing.  The biggest problem with this energy burden program is that it only applies to electric and gas utility customers.  Citizens who heat with fuel oil, propane, or wood are not covered.  There is a clear need for an affordability metric that can be tracked.

Although proponents of the net-zero transition in New York and elsewhere continue to claim that building wind and solar energy resources is the cheapest resource, reality is catching up. If this is true, then why aren’t electricity bills going down?  I believe that affordability is the biggest challenge for the Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act) net-zero transition mandate.   This post addresses affordability and risks that proponents who claim it is cheaper ignore.

I am convinced that implementation of the Climate Act net-zero mandates will do more harm than good because of reliability and affordability risks.  I have followed the Climate Act since it was first proposed, submitted comments on the Climate Act implementation plan, and have written nearly 600 articles about New York’s net-zero transition.  The opinions expressed in this article do not reflect the position of any of my previous employers or any other organization I have been associated with, these comments are mine alone.

Lessons for an Energy Affordability Agenda

A recent article by Lauren Teixeira at the Ecomodernist Blog examines the affordability of renewable energy relying heavily on a new study from Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) by Ryan Wiser, Eric O’Shaughnessy, Galen Barbose, Peter Cappers, and Will Gorman (LBNL Report).  The LBNL Report examined state-level trends in U.S. retail electricity prices.  There is a wide range of state-level trends.

The LBNL Report and Teixeira emphasize that there are many facts affecting electricity prices. Teixeira explains that the LBNL Report distinguishes between market-driven renewables, which show a statistically insignificant negative effect on prices, and policy-mandated renewables that are linked to significant price increases. ​The LBNL Report found that generation mix effects are not the biggest drivers of electricity prices.  Instead, the key factors driving price increases include utility infrastructure spending, load dynamics and factors like utility spending on wildfire mitigation are more influential on electricity prices.

There is an important finding relative to the Climate Act.  The abstract for the LBNL Report notes:

States with the greatest price increases typically exhibited shrinking customer loads—partially linked to growth in behind-the-meter solar and end-use energy efficiency—and had renewables portfolio standards (RPS) that required additional renewable energy supply. By contrast, the 75 percent of recent utility-scale wind and solar deployment that occurred outside Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) programs had no broadly discernible positive impact on retail prices and had suggestive (weak) evidence of reducing prices over the most recent time periods.

This is an unacknowledged implementation constraint for the Climate Act.  States with favorable renewable resources, like Texas, can lower prices without mandates but New York’s comparatively poor resources face higher costs because more capacity must be installed to produce the same amount of power, additional energy storage is required, and more transmission must be built for the greater capacity development.  As a result, it is unlikely that renewable energy could ever be cheaper.

If affordability is a priority, Teixeira advocates removing subsidies and policies favoring specific energy sources with a focus on market efficiency. ​ That is the fundamental problem with the Climate Act energy transition.  The Climate Act requires subsidies and includes mandates for specific energy technologies.  The article criticizes simplified narratives in the renewable energy debate, arguing for a nuanced understanding of the interactions between generation types, policies, and geographic factors. ​ Given the importance of energy affordability she calls for a shift from technology advocacy to a focus on consumer affordability, recognizing the trade-offs inherent in energy policy. ​

There is one other aspect of Teixeira’s article that is relevant to the New York discussion.  State agencies have claimed that renewable energy is cheaper because of lower price volatility.  Teixeira’s explains that the merit order effect impacts that claim.  The merit order effect explains how electricity prices are determined by the marginal costs of power plants, with cheaper sources like wind and solar being dispatched first. ​As a result, renewables, having near-zero marginal costs post-construction, push out more expensive fossil fuel generators, leading to lower wholesale electricity prices. ​However, without adequate energy storage in poor resource locations, it is impossible to push out fossil resources so it may be necessary to eventually subsidize them.  In the short term, as renewable energy increases supply during peak periods, it shifts the supply curve, reducing prices for all generators due to marginal pricing.  However, that means the costs necessary to support the resources that come on line during the worst peak periods must be secured during the peaks.  That means that price volatility during peaks will be higher as a feature not a bug of the system.

Teixeira claims that the costs of solar and wind energy have dramatically decreased, with solar prices dropping by 88% since 2009. ​She notes that while renewables can lower prices, they may also lead to “price cannibalization,” where excess renewable generation during high output periods can depress prices, sometimes resulting in negative pricing. Parker Gallant explains how this led to Ontario ratepayers coughing up $14 million in two days.  Finally, she argues that falling battery storage costs are expected to mitigate these challenges, enhancing the viability of renewables. ​ I disagree with her expectation that renewables can be viable if the underlying resources are weak like New York.

In my opinion, the LBNL Report and Teixeira both miss the effect of what I think is the intractable problem associated with dark doldrums. ​ Dark doldrums are extended periods of low wind and solar resource availability.  The LBNL report analyzed 24 years of U.S. data and found that states with higher renewable energy penetration see lower electricity price increases over time.  However, that reduction in prices does not account for the reliability risks of infrequent prolonged periods of low renewable resource availability.  Using Texas as an example, while they have great wind and solar resources on average, in February 2021, the Texas electric grid failed to provide sufficient energy when it was needed.  The storm and accompanying dark doldrum was the worst energy infrastructure failure in Texas history 4.5 million homes and residences were without power, at least 246 people died, and total damages were at least $195 billion.  Apologists for renewables claim the disaster was caused because other resources did not cover the lack of wind and solar.  In my opinion, electric market pricing must reflect the fact that wind and solar are intermittent and that the costs for backup during the worst periods should reflect that requirement.  Proponents claim that renewables act as fuel-saving resources that reduce the operational need for costly gas and coal plants and that results in system-wide savings for consumers.  However, if insufficient investments are made in backup resources, current policies are risking catastrophic blackouts that will wipe out all the savings and directly lead to injuries and death. 

​

State Supplemental Letter

Even the New York State Attorney General office agrees that the current Climate Act implementation schedule will lead to infeasible costs.  On Oct. 24, 2025,  the New York Albany Supreme Court ruled that the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) failed to implement regulations necessary to comply with the Climate Act mandates.  During the legal process the State submitted a letter  that addressed “two categories of new developments: (1) the publication of the 2025 Draft New York State Energy Plan by the New York State Energy Planning Board on July 23, 2025 and (2) additional actions by the federal government that impede New York’s efforts to achieve the Climate Act.  The letter argued that it was inappropriate to implement regulations that would ensure compliance with the 2030 40% reduction in GHG emissions Climate Act mandate because meeting the target is “currently infeasible”. 

Ordering achievement of the 2030 target would equate to even higher costs than the net zero scenarios and would affect consumers even sooner. Undoubtedly, greenhouse-gas reducing policies can lead to longer-term benefits such as health improvements. This does not, however, offset the insurmountable upfront costs that New Yorkers would face if DEC were forced to try to achieve the Legislature’s aspirational emissions reductions by the 2030 deadline rather than proceeding at an ambitious but sustainable pace.

The letter concluded that the Climate Act is unaffordable:

Petitioners have not shown a plausible scenario where the 2030 greenhouse gas reduction goal can be achieved without inflicting unanticipated and undue harm on New York consumers, and the concrete analysis in the 2025 Draft Energy Plan dispels any uncertainty on the topic: New Yorkers will face alarming financial consequences if speed is given preference over sustainability.

Discussion

It is no longer possible to argue that New York can afford to implement the Climate Act mandates.  The State Attorney General’s office argued that meeting the 2030 emission reduction mandate was infeasible.  The LBNL Report found that States like New York that have RPS that require additional renewable energy supply but do not have adequate renewable energy resource potential for those resources to be developed without subsidies have seen and will continue to see higher retail energy prices.

Consistent with the Draft State Energy Plan, the LBNL Report found that renewable energy deployment was not the primary driver of increased electric prices.  The LBNL Report noted price increases were associated with load dynamics, extreme weather, natural disasters, and wildfires contributed to sizable price increases in some states.  The Draft State Energy Plan argued that electric energy prices increased because of infrastructure investment requirements, transmission system expansion, and distribution system upgrades as well as increasing loads.

However, there is no question that energy affordability is a problem.  Governor Hochul has expressed concerns about the affordability impacts of Climate Act implementation, stating worries about costs and “collateral damage” to New York families.  I have long argued that components of  New York Public Service Law  Section 66-p (4). “Establishment of a renewable energy program” should be considered because it includes safety valve conditions for affordability and reliability.  § 66-p (4) states: “The commission may temporarily suspend or modify the obligations under such program provided that the commission, after conducting a hearing as provided in section twenty of this chapter, makes a finding that the program impedes the provision of safe and adequate electric service; the program is likely to impair existing obligations and agreements; and/or that there is a significant increase in arrears or service disconnections that the commission determines is related to the program”.  The increase in arrears metric is an indirect indicator of affordability and I have shown that there has been a significant increase in arrears since Climate Act implementation began.

Even if Climate Act costs are not the primary driver of retail electric price increases can we afford to continue the net-zero transition?  New York GHG emissions are less than one half of one percent of global emissions and global emissions have been increasing on average by more than one half of one percent per year since 1990.  Anything we do is subsumed by increases elsewhere so that this is just political theater that negatively impacts those least able to afford energy increases.

Conclusion

The Attorney General office says compliance with 2030 emission reduction mandates is infeasible.  The LBNL Report suggests that states like New York that have policies that mandate renewable deployment but have renewable resources that require subsidies will increase costs.  Clearly, it is time for the New York Legislature to revisit the Climate Act and establish affordability metrics to protect New Yorkers.

As electric energy prices increase substantially the blame game starts.  On October 23, 2025 the New York State Assembly Standing Committee on Energy had a public hearing “Protecting Residential Ratepayers from Certain Increased Energy Costs”.   This article explains why I think this heating misses the point of the affordability crisis affecting New Yorkers.

I am convinced that implementation of the New York Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act) net-zero mandates will do more harm than good if the future electric system relies only on wind, solar, and energy storage because of reliability and affordability risks.  I have followed the Climate Act since it was first proposed, submitted comments on the Climate Act implementation plan, and have written nearly 600 articles about New York’s net-zero transition.  The opinions expressed in this article do not reflect the position of any of my previous employers or any other organization I have been associated with, these comments are mine alone. 

Hearing Announcement

The hearing announcement states:

The United States Energy Information Administration’s April 2025 “Annual Energy Outlook” estimates that electricity consumption in the United States will increase to record highs in 2026, from 4,097 billion Kilowatt Hours (kWh) in 2024, to 4,283 billion kWh by 2026, driven primarily by large energy users such as computing services. The New York Independent System Operator’s (NYISO) “2025 Power Trends Report” confirms that this trend will likely also occur in New York, estimating that an additional 1,600 megawatts of power could be needed by 2030, driven primarily by these large energy users.

This increased energy demand, along with the accompanying need for infrastructure and generation, is expected to lead to higher utility bills for consumers in the coming years. This phenomenon has been seen in other states, such as in Illinois where data has shown that Commonwealth Edison’s existing customers paid over 91% of the costs associated with new large energy users. However, some states, such as Georgia and Oregon, have taken action to protect residential customers from such rate increases. The purpose of this hearing is to examine measures that may be effective in protecting residential ratepayers against increased energy costs associated with the integration of new large energy users.

I think this hearing is part of an effort by supporters of the fossil fuel transition to net-zero is deflect concerns about costs away from the Climate Act.  They argue that infrastructure costs associated with increased load driven primarily by large energy users such as computing services is driving the utility rate increases. 

The hearing announcement references the New York Independent System Operator’s (NYISO) “2025 Power Trends Report” estimates that an additional 1,600 megawatts of power could be needed by 2030, “driven primarily by these large energy users”.  Climate Act proponents are deflecting net-zero transition costs by blaming load growth due to energy centers and semiconductor manufacturing plants.  There is no question that this load growth impacts electric bills in New York, but context is important.  While those costs are substantial, they are dwarfed by the infrastructure support needed for electric grid transition to wind, solar, and energy storage displacement of fossil fuels.

Impact of New Large Loads on Electric Bills ​

I acknowledge the use of Perplexity AI to generate this summary of potential impacts on electric bills. The proposed Clay, NY Micron chip fabrication plant could use 16,000 gigawatt-hours annually which is more than the energy used by Vermont and New Hampshire and works out to be about 11% of New York’s total usage. ​ Loudoun County, Virginia—specifically the “Data Center Alley” area around Ashburn and Sterling—hosts the world’s highest concentration of data centers, with approximately 199 operational facilities as of 2025 and 40GW of contracted capacity. The higher demand from these sources leads to increased wholesale electricity prices.  In addition utilities must also invest in infrastructure upgrades for these large loads, resulting in higher delivery charges that are typically socialized across all ratepayers.

New York Assemblyman Jonathan Jackobson has proposed legislation that aims to prevent the transfer of infrastructure costs from large users to everyday consumers, targeting costs specifically to data centers and chip fabs. Meanwhile, discussions are ongoing about special contracts that would require major users to cover their infrastructure costs and reduce load during peak times, but these measures are not yet widespread. ​

On the other hand, increased electricity sales could help spread fixed costs, potentially lowering per-kWh delivery rates.  Sadly, this effect is usually less than the impact of new loads. ​There is the potential for demand response agreements with large users that could enhance system reliability and mitigate severe price spikes. ​

New York Future Loads

​I looked at load projections for New York.  The NYISO 2025 Load & Capacity Data Report (Gold Book) includes two spreadsheets: 2025 Gold Book Higher Demand Scenario Tables and the 2025 Lower Demand Scenario Tables that report future energy usage (GWh).  I used these tables to extract the expected sources of future load growth.  Unfortunately, the Gold Book does not break out the energy capacity (MW) for the same categories as the NYISO Power Trends report which makes comparison to the hearing announcement projection difficult.  Because ratepayers pay for energy and not capacity, I think the better metric is energy.

 In the following table I combined Gold Book projected annual energy load forecast (GWh) tables I-15a: and I-16a.  I extracted the NYISO projected future load for five different load categories: storage net energy consumption, electric vehicles, building electrification, large load projects and electrolysis.  Table 1 compares the large load projects energy relative to GHG reduction programs.  The GHG reduction programs are the sum of the other four categories that, were it not for efforts to reduce GHG emissions by the Climate Act, legacy New York programs and Federal policies, would not exist.  According to the NYISO Gold Book projections, in 2025 1.2% expected energy use is due to the GHG reduction programs and 2.4% is due to large load projects for the lower demand forecast and 1.4% due to the GHG reduction programs and 2.4% for large load projects for the higher demand forecast. 

Table 1: Gold Book Projected Annual Energy Load Lower and Higher Demand Forecasts – GWh

Assembly Bill A9064 presumes that prohibiting utilities from passing along the “costs of capital expenditures or maintenance of infrastructure resulting from the building or operation of a data center or semiconductor fabrication plant” will substantively reduce ratepayer costs.  While true it ignores the fact that GHG emission reduction load increase will be more than double the energy load increase expected for the large load projects.

Discussion

The ideologues who insist that the net-zero transition must proceed on the arbitrary schedule of the Climate Act do not generally support development of data centers and semiconductor fabrication plants.  I think continuing operations of crypto mining are also on their hit list.  In all three instances, they argue that they require a lot of energy and water and are responsible for electricity price increases. 

In my opinion, the analyses supporting their arguments were contrived to support the concept that they increase electricity prices.  Another characteristic of the analyses is that they ignore any potential positive impacts.  Vilifying chip fab plans ignores the tremendous economic benefits of hundreds of jobs, for example.  Ideologues tend to ignore any tradeoffs and that does not make for rational policy.

Conclusion

There is an energy affordability crisis.  The scramble to find excuses for higher electric prices to cover the costs of decarbonizing the energy system is on.  It is long past time for Climate Act supporters to define acceptable affordability, track where we stand relative to their metric, and commit to stop the insanity when costs inevitably exceed their limit.  Blaming data centers and chip fabrication plants is misdirection.

There finally has been a long overdue admission that the Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act) might not be affordable.  Buffalo TV Station WRGZ 2 On You Side posed questions to the governor that forced Governor Hochul to suggest that a “slow down” on the Climate Act was needed because of affordability concerns.

I noticed this article as I was preparing this article on the New York Department of Public Service (DPS) “broad mandate to ensure access to safe, reliable utility service at just and reasonable rates.” The fact is that Climate Act implementation process pushes ahead because the law says so while at the same time DPS ignores another law that says that there are limits.  This is an update to earlier posts about Climate Act Safety Valves and the DPS response to my safety valve recommendations.  We shall see if the Governor’s revelation slows the process down.

I am convinced that implementation of the Climate Act net-zero mandates will do more harm than good because the energy density of wind and solar energy is too low and the resource intermittency too variable to ever support a reliable electric system relying on those resources. I have followed the Climate Act since it was first proposed, submitted comments on the Climate Act implementation plan, and have written over 550 articles about New York’s net-zero transition.  The opinions expressed in this article do not reflect the position of any of my previous employers or any other organization I have been associated with, these comments are mine alone.

Overview

The Climate Act established a New York “Net Zero” target (85% reduction in GHG emissions and 15% offset of emissions) by 2050.  The Climate Action Council (CAC) was responsible for preparing the Scoping Plan that outlined how to “achieve the State’s bold clean energy and climate agenda.”  After a year-long review, the Scoping Plan was finalized at the end of 2022.  Since then, the State has been trying to implement the Scoping Plan recommendations through regulations, proceedings, and legislation. 

Safety Valves

My previous article about safety valves described Public Service Law (PSL) Section 66-P Establishment of a renewable energy program that provides for bounds on implementation. Section 66-p (4) states: “The commission may temporarily suspend or modify the obligations under such program provided that the commission, after conducting a hearing as provided in section twenty of this chapter, makes a finding that the program impedes the provision of safe and adequate electric service; the program is likely to impair existing obligations and agreements; and/or that there is a significant increase in arrears or service disconnections that the commission determines is related to the program”.

I have started following some of the rate cases for electric and gas services which are universally requesting markedly higher rates.  Based on what I have found so far program costs to implement the Climate Act mandates are clearly part of the reason that the costs are increasing.  The rationale to include those programs is that the Climate Act is a law that requires it. Thus far, DPS has ignored the safety valve provisions of 66-p(4).

As documented in my DPS response to my safety valve recommendations article, DPS Staff said that this issue should be addressed elsewhere:

Finally, the issues raised by Caiazza and Kontogiannis regarding the CLCPA are beyond the scope of this rate case. The Commission has instituted a proceeding to address the CLCPA, and Caiazza and Kontogiannis’ statewide concerns are more appropriately addressed in that proceeding.

There are numerous generic proceedings that were initiated or expanded to comply with the directive for the Commission to establish a renewable energy program.

I researched these other proceedings.  The DPS Document and Matter Management (DMM) system is the online repository for all cases before the Public Service Commission.  There are thousands of cases in the system and individual cases can have thousands of filings.  I used Perplexity AI to generate summaries and references that are documented in a white paper. I entered the following prompts on [1 July 2025]:

• Find all explicit recommendations for affordability related to implementation of the Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act in the New York DPS DMM system.
• Find all explicit recommendations for reliability related to implementation of the Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act in the New York DPS DMM system.

Note that the Perplexity link also includes two other questions: “How does the DMM system document affordability criteria for CLCPA implementation” and “How does the DMM system evaluate household ability to pay energy costs” that I posed to clarify the affordability definition.

DMM Affordability Reference: Case 22-M-0149

Case 22-M-0149: Proceeding on Motion of the Commission Assessing Implementation of and Compliance with the Requirements and Targets of the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act responds to a Public Service Commission order in May 2022. It required the major utilities to

• Develop a proposal for an annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory Report, including “detailed requirements and the methodology used to calculate total gas system-wide emissions,” and then report annually;
• Include, in all future rate filings, an “assessment of the impacts that the utility’s specific investments, capital expenditures, programs and initiatives included in the rate filing will have on its greenhouse gas emissions from its gas network, specifying the potential emissions impacts of each”;
• “Develop a Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Pathways Study Proposal that analyzes the scale, timing, costs, risks, uncertainties and customer bill impacts of achieving significant and quantifiable reductions in carbon emissions from the use of delivered gas”;
• Describe in all future rate filings, “the investments, programs and initiatives necessary to achieve the objectives described in the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Pathways Study.”

In addition to the requirements for the major utilities the order included two other items:

• Department of Public Service Staff is directed “to present an annual informational item detailing overall compliance with Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act as discussed in the body of this Order”
• Seek public comment regarding “utility ownership of both distributed energy resources and large-scale renewables contemporaneously with the issuance of this Order.”

The annual informational report description stated:

Staff is directed to present to the Commission an annual informational item detailing the Commission’s actions and DPS’ activities associated with overall compliance with the CLCPA mandates. This presentation shall include, but not be limited to, the emissions associated with electric and gas usage in the State, as identified in the annual GHG Emissions Inventory Reports, progress on achieving the targets mandated within the renewable energy program (including the biannual review required by the CLCPA), the cost and benefits to ratepayers of CLCPA investments over the prior calendar year, including the purchase of RECs and ORECs by LSEs, the costs of local and bulk transmission facilities constructed for purposes of facilitating compliance with CLCPA targets, and the cost recovery associated with NE:NY and other energy efficiency programs implemented by the Utilities and NYSERDA.

The annual informational report should be a primary source for assessing the affordability impacts of Climate Act implementation.  Unfortunately, the Order included a condition that negates its value. “In the Secretary’s sole discretion, the deadlines set forth in this Order may be extended.”   The first annual Informational Report was released in July 2023, but nothing was released in 2024 and to date in 2025.  Note that the requirement is just for numbers.  There is no affordability mandate to relate the costs to the ability to pay.

The docket for Case 22-M-0149 only had 93 filed documents on July 2, 2025.  Most of the filings were related to the GHG Emissions Inventory Report or a request for information about Federal funding for the utility Climate Act work.  Earlier this year there were two requests for an update to the annual informational report and a reply from the Department of Public Service as chronicled here.

There is no apparent sense of urgency in this Proceeding.  The second annual informational report is a year late and the utility GHG emission inventory report “remains in a proposal stage”.  There hasn’t been a response to the last filing on April 14, 2025.

DMM Affordability References: Case 14-M-0565 and Case 23-M-0298

Case 14-M-0565: Proceeding on Motion of the Commission to Examine Programs to Address Energy Affordability for Low Income Utility Customers mandates that major utility companies provide quarterly updates for affordability-related metrics.  Notably that includes the number of customers in arrears that is parameter mentioned in PSL 66-P(4). 

Case 23-M-0298: In the Matter of Budget Appropriations to Enhance Energy Affordability Programs is closely linked to the other Proceeding.  Frankly I am not sure why this is separate.  Of note is the March 2025 Staff White Paper on Implementing an Enhanced Energy Affordability Policy.  It includes a procedural history that explains how energy affordability has been addressed and proposes a pilot program that builds on existing programs.  It does not mention the Climate Act.

These two proceedings address general affordability concerns.  They do not directly consider the effect of the Climate Act on affordability.

Discussion

In my opinion, the PSC and DPS have dropped the ball on Climate Act affordability.  No one has ever argued that affordability should not be a consideration.  The problem is that the Hochul Administration has not bothered to define what is acceptable.  A Business Council of New York memo on Climate Act implementation made the point that the “CLCPA only requires the consideration of equitable impacts and cost minimization, in effect making affordability and cost-effectiveness of CLCPA implementation measures a consideration, not a requirement.”

It was inevitable that the impact of the Climate Act on energy affordability would become a political liability.  On July 1, 2025 Governor Hochul suggested that a “slow down” on the Climate Act was needed.  Buffalo TV Station WRGZ 2 On You Side posed questions to the governor that forced her to admit “At the end of her long response on utility rates and energy strategy, there was this summation from Hochul: “You’re absolutely right. Utility costs are a huge burden for families, and I’ll do whatever I can to alleviate that.”  The entire article is well worth a read because it reveals that the Administration has realized that an “all of the above energy strategy” that includes nuclear power is needed.

There is no more direct and immediate impact of Climate Act implementation to New Yorkers than utility bills.   Hopefully, the Administration will realize that PSL 66-P(4) safety valve considerations can be interpreted to trigger the PSC to conduct a hearing that could result in a decision to “temporarily suspend or modify the obligations” of the Climate Act.  Such a hearing could address modifications to the Climate Act address affordability as well as changes necessary to incorporate nuclear power.

Such a hearing could also address reliability.  The PSC has acknowledged that a new category of resources is needed to support the proposed renewable-dependent electric energy system.  During periods of extended low wind and solar resource availability dispatchable, emission free resources (DEFR )are needed as backup to keep the lights on.   In my opinion, the most promising backup technology is nuclear generation because it is the only candidate resource that is technologically ready, can be expanded as needed and does not suffer from limitations of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. If the only viable DEFR solution is nuclear, then renewables cannot be implemented without it.  But nuclear can replace renewables, eliminating the need for a massive DEFR backup resource.  Therefore, it would be prudent to pause renewable development until DEFR feasibility is proven because nuclear generation may be the only viable path to zero emissions that can maintain current standards of reliability.

Conclusion

The PSC and DPS have not adequately addressed the necessity to consider the costs of the Climate Act on their “broad mandate to ensure access to safe, reliable utility service at just and reasonable rates.”  DPS has not even bothered to update its mandated report on Climate Act costs in over a year.  No proceeding has directly addressed the need for safety valve boundaries on costs or reliability. In rate case proceedings DPS says this issue is addressed elsewhere, but my search shows it is mentioned elsewhere but not directly addressed.  Even Governor Hochul has figured out that it is time to do this right.  Only time will tell whether the PSC acts.