Category: Climate Act Feasibility

A recent article in New York Focus, How a More Flexible Grid Could Save New York Billions, received widespread New York media coverage.  Unfortunately, the claims that VPP can provide reliable power falls apart under close examination.  I believe it was misinformation because it presents false information that was not created or shared with intention of causing harm.  I wrote this article because this kind of false information is leading New York’s Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act) transition to net-zero efforts towards a false solution.

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.

Overview

The Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act) established a New York “Net Zero” target (85% reduction in GHG emissions and 15% offset of emissions) by 2050.  Implementation plans have called for a cleaner, more distributed system that minimizes load variations consistent with the virtual power plant (VPP) approach.

VPP terminology was used in the predecessor Reforming the Energy Vision program.  In the Climate Act Scoping Plan and last year’s State Energy Plan the concept has been repackaged as Distributed Energy Resources”.  In draft Energy Plan comments, the New York Solar Energy Industries Association stated:  “By doubling down on distributed energy resources, New York can lower costs, strengthen the grid, and sustain one of its most successful clean energy industries.”

This article describes errors that I think support my belief that this clean-energy industry promise is another miracle technology that will not support the system when needed most.  All the promised savings and good intentions will vanish when people freeze or suffer in the dark.

How a ‘Flexible’ Grid Works

The New York Focus article was written by Jack Carroll and Colin Kinniburgh.  Kinniburgh has a knack for explaining technical concepts well for the general public.  The article describes VPP:

In a traditional electric grid, power flows essentially in one direction: from central power plants to homes and businesses. In a “flexible” grid, powered in part by virtual power plants, those homes and businesses take on a new role. Not only can they supply power back to the grid with rooftop solar and batteries, but their devices — smart thermostats and electric vehicles, for example — can communicate with each other and with grid operators to respond to the system’s demands.

Under the traditional model, utilities have to keep an army of power plants, substations, and wires on standby at all times, in preparation for peak times like hot summer days. The costs of maintaining that system show up on every energy bill, even when customers are using less energy.

“It’s built for the hottest couple of days or hours of the year, but customers are paying for it all year long,” said Richard Kauffman, who served as the state’s energy czar from 2013 to 2019 and chaired the board of the energy authority NYSERDA until last year.

The more you use technology to spread out demand and adapt to the grid’s needs, the less utilities rely on costly infrastructure to meet the peak — and the less utility spending shows up on customers’ bills.

I think this is a good description of the concept, but it contains a fundamental flaw.  The electric system must be built around reliability during peak demand because that is when it is needed the most.  That is why utilities must “keep an army of power plants, substations, and wires on standby at all times, in preparation for peak times”.   While the “costs of maintaining that system show up on every energy bill” that is also why ratepayers are assured power is always available.  This is the first mistake.

Many VPP advocates have the naïve belief that if there are enough distributed energy resources that peaks will be eliminated and there will be no need for peaking resources.  Others know better but continue to argue otherwise.  There is no better example of those who should know better than the politically connected former New York energy czar Richard Kaufmann.  He parrots the talking point that building the system for peaks costs money and insinuates that there is a better way.  In my opinion he cannot be trusted because he has a massive personal financial interest in this false information.  I used Perplexity AI to research his connection to the Biden administration’s Inflation Reduction Act “gold bars” controversy.  The Perplexity AI report describing his connection includes the following quotes:

Richard Kauffman did join one of the organizations that received IRA “gold bars” funding. He became CEO of the Coalition for Green Capital (CGC) in January 2025 — a nonprofit that had been awarded $5 billion from the EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund under the Inflation Reduction Act.

Kauffman’s career trajectory — from Obama DOE advisor, to New York energy czar under Cuomo, to NYSERDA board chair, to CGC board member, and finally to CEO of a $5 billion GGRF recipient — illustrates the tight interconnection between government clean energy policymakers and the nonprofit organizations that subsequently received billions in IRA-funded grants.

In April 2024, the EPA selected CGC as a recipient of $5 billion under the National Clean Investment Fund. Coalition for Green Capital (CGC) had originally requested $10 billion in its application. Career EPA reviewers flagged several concerns during the application process:

• CGC had “only expended $1.42 million in 2023 before receiving a $5 billion award”
• “Of the 71 expected hires, more than 20% would be making salaries more than approximately $450,000”
• CGC’s “assumption of deploying $10 billion in the first fiscal year of performance seems unattainable”
• “FY2022 and 2021 financials show a net loss with declining fees for service income”

In my opinion, the value of a reference from a crony capitalist with a salary of more than $450,000 is worthless because of his vested interest in a particular response.  This quote is the second mistake in this article.

Pilot Study

Orange and Rockland (O&R) initiated the Innovative Storage Business Models (ISBM) pilot with Sunrun as a REV Demonstration Project approved by the Public Service Commission (PSC) that was referenced in the Carroll and Kinniburgh article.  The goal of the pilot is to test an innovative residential solar-plus-storage VPP business model to “optimize and deliver clean energy, provide dispatchable grid services and reduce costs for customers.”

I used Perplexity AI to also document the technical specifications. It found that the program deploys residential solar-plus-storage systems across O&R’s service territory in Orange and Rockland counties, aggregating them into a dispatchable virtual power plant that provides grid services during peak demand periods.  The ISBM Project’s design specifications, as established in O&R’s June 2020 Initial Filing Letter to the PSC, include:

• Customer installations: Approximately 300 residential solar-plus-storage (Brightbox) systems
• Solar capacity: Approximately 2.9 MW of distributed rooftop solar
• Energy storage capacity: Approximately 2.1 MW / 4.7 MWh of distributed battery storage
• Aggregate VPP size (after 3-year deployment): 2 MW / 4 MWh
• Program duration: 10-year demonstration period with 25-year customer lease agreements
• Target deployment locations: 15 distribution circuits identified by O&R as having distribution value

The solar array panel at each home was designed to provide 110 percent of the annual average and the battery was designed to provide between 8 and 12 hours of essential load for the homeowner. The battery energy more than the homeowner’s needs contributes to the 2.1 MW VPP that can provide 4.7 MWh.  The VPP pilot could provide 2.1 MW for a little over two hours. 

According to the Perplexity summary, the VPP achieved the following milestones in Summer 2024:

• Enrolled systems: 325 O&R customers contributing approximately 2 MW of aggregated capacity
• Dispatch events (summer 2024): Called on 18 times to provide electricity to the grid during peak demand events
• Dispatch events (2025 heat wave): In June 2025, Sunrun completed its fourth dispatch event in a single week in New York, helping relieve stress on congested circuits
• The VPP was described as having supported dozens of peak electricity demand events during the summer of 2024, with home batteries supplying stored solar energy to help stabilize the electric grid.

Carroll and Kinniburgh state that: “The 350 households participating can deliver close to 50 megawatts of power to the grid at peak times — about enough to supply Calderon’s entire small town of Warwick for a couple of hours.”  This is the third mistake.  The actual capacity is about 2 megawatts so the quotation is off by 25 times.

Virtual Power Plants Reliability Support

The third mistake is minor but the claims that VPP are a viable solution to reliability problems is serious.  The following quote from the article claims that some experts have demonstrated that the VPP network can replace an average sized gas plant.

The New York Independent System Operator, the nonprofit that manages the state’s grid, has warned that New York may not have enough energy to meet demand over the next decade, as large energy users like data centers come online and the state electrifies homes and transportation. New York City, it said, could face a gap as soon as next summer. Even last summer, NYISO had to activate emergency protocols during a worse-than-expected heat wave. 

In response (and to some controversy), NYISO recommended the state delay the retirement of multiple fossil fuel plants, including high-polluting peaker plants in New York City, and strongly consider the construction of new ones.

Some experts argue that virtual power plants offer a cheaper, cleaner way to close the gap. A 2023 Brattle analysis found that the networks can backstop the grid as reliably as an average-sized gas peaker plant, for about half the price.

Renewable advocates focus on energy production, but power systems are built around reliability during peak demand. If you look at the grid through the lens of accredited capacity, that is, capacity that can be relied upon during peak demand – instead of average energy, the resource allocations for different technologies look radically different. 

Because I don’t have time to read and evaluate every article referenced, I again used Perplexity to review the Brattle Group’s 2023 analysis.  The Executive Summary of the response states:

The Brattle Group’s May 2023 “Real Reliability: The Value of Virtual Power” report—prepared for Google—compared the cost and reliability of virtual power plants (VPPs), natural gas peakers, and utility-scale batteries in providing 400 MW of resource adequacy for an illustrative mid-sized utility. Rather than explicitly modeling extreme multi-day renewable droughts (sometimes called “Dunkelflaute” events), the analysis addressed low renewable availability indirectly through its net load methodology and deliberate selection of operationally challenging system conditions. This approach has significant implications for interpreting the study’s reliability conclusions

The fatal flaw in the Brattle analysis is that the approach used did not address the extreme events that affect peak demand adequately.  The analysis focused on individual peak hours/days, not sustained multi-day low-output periods that are associated with peak demand.  The inevitable problem can be illustrated using observations from the January 2026 winter storm.

January 2026 Winter Storm

I recently described the effects of this storm on the New York grid over the last ten days of January.  Wind and solar resources during the January 24 to January 27, 2026 winter storm were impacted during the storm.   The NYISO January  Operations Performance Metrics Monthly Report includes a graph of net statewide wind and solar performance total daily production and capacity factors (Figure 1).  The data clearly show that the snowstorm caused both the utility-scale and rooftop solar resources to go to essentially zero on January 25^th at the height of the storm.  Utility-scale generation came back slowly but had not returned to before storm levels by the end of the month.  Rooftop solar never exceeded more than 5% energy availability over the ten days and was only 2% the last four days of the month.  The period of prolonged sub-freezing weather prevented snow covered rooftop solar panels from clearing and caused a peak in the electric load.

Figure 1: Net Wind and Solar Performance Total Daily Production and Capacity Factors

Source: NYISO JanuaryOperations Performance Metrics Monthly Report

VPP during the January 2026 Winter Storm

There is insufficient data available to quantitatively assess what would happen if New York were to rely on VPP technology.  However, we can look at the energy production at the end of January 2026 and see serious problems both for the homeowners participating in the program and the grid.

Recall that the solar array panel at each home was designed to provide 110 percent of the annual average energy and the battery was designed to provide between 8 and 12 hours of essential load for the homeowner.  The promise to homeowners is that these systems will provide essential support during outages.  If there is an outage at the same time rooftop solar panels are covered with snow, then there will be no essential support for an outage greater than 12 hours.  That is an admittedly a rate event but when it occurs the homeowner would be desperate for electric power.

There are also problems on the grid level.  Table 1 lists the daily energy production by fuel-type documented in my first article about this event.  VPP technology is supposed to smooth peak loads and eliminate the need for peaker power plants.  Oil fired units are used almost exclusively as peaker unit in New York so we can assume that their load during this event is “peak” energy.  The Brattle analysis only looks at individual peak days.  The peak daily oil energy production was 18,252 MWh on 1/26.  If New York expanded the O&R VPP pilot producing 2.1 MW VPP that can provide 4.7 MWh to a 9,000 MW system that would produce over 20,000 MWh.  That would be sufficient for the maximum daily peak.  However, looking at the entire episode, it is obvious that a VPP that relies on distributed rooftop solar would run out of energy on the day after the snowstorm.  The sum of the solar resources is not greater than the oil generation for the remainder of the episode.  The VPP would have no value to the system after the second day.

Table 1: Daily NYISO Energy Production (MWh) January 22 to January 31, 2026

Discussion

The January 2026 storm proves that VPP solar plus storage technology has no value during extended periods of light winds, low solar availability, and snow-covered solar panels.   It simply cannot provide necessary power to replace an existing peaking power plant during these periods. 

The VPP proposal introduces yet another threat to grid reliability. New York’s own agencies agree that Dispatchable Emissions-Free Resources (DEFRs) must be developed to backstop wind and solar when those resources falter for days at a time. The January 2026 winter storm made that reality unmistakable. Every delay in pursuing DEFRs compounds the risk and economic burden of clinging to an unproven wind–solar–storage–VPP strategy.

I view nuclear generation as the only realistically viable DEFR backup option, despite its costs, because it is uniquely technologically mature, can be scaled as needed, and is not constrained by the thermodynamic limits that burden storage‑based approaches. However, nuclear plants are best suited to operate as baseload resources, so using them solely for DEFR backup duty would be an inappropriate application of the technology.

If the only viable DEFR technology is nuclear power that implies that large expenditures on wind, solar, battery storage, and VPPs that cannot reliably supply electricity during periods of greatest system stress are unnecessary. When the full lifecycle and system costs of the Scoping Plan’s wind‑, solar‑, and storage‑centric strategy are weighed against a nuclear‑based electric system, I believe that nuclear will be the lower‑cost option, particularly once asset lifetimes are taken into account.

Conclusion

Advocates for VPP claim one of the benefits is that it can replace an army of power plants.  However, you can’t shut down the old power plants until you’re sure the new system actually works under all conditions. If it doesn’t, the lights go out, costs rise, and people get hurt.  The NY Focus article on VPP misses the fundamental VPP flaw. 

Governor Hochul plans to pursue “the most ambitious development of nuclear power in America, setting a new goal to build five gigawatts of new nuclear capacity”.  I believe that nuclear power is the best option to reduce electric system GHG emissions but there are issues.  This post includes Richard Ellenbogen’s description of practical deployment issues and my observations relative to the Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act).

Richard Ellenbogen has been speaking to NY State policy makers and regulators since 2019 regarding the deficiencies inherent in NY State Energy policy.  He has a proven record implementing carbon reduction programs at his own manufacturing business in Westchester County where it has reduced its electric utility load by 80% while reducing its carbon footprint by 30% – 40% below that of the downstate system.  I have previously published other articles by Ellenbogen including a summary description of his issues with the Climate Act.

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 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.

Hochul Proposal

Hochul’s State of the State Book describes the nuclear proposal in the following two sections:

Establishing a Nuclear Reliability Backbone for a Zero-Emission Grid

As New York transitions to a zero-emission electric grid, the State must ensure reliable and cost effective baseload power to keep homes, businesses, and critical infrastructure running at all hours.  Governor Hochul will ensure that New York State leads in the race to harness safe and reliable advanced nuclear energy to power homes and businesses with zero-emission electricity for generations to come.

To catalyze progress towards those goals, the Governor will advance a new initiative, the Nuclear Reliability Backbone, directing state agencies to establish a clear pathway for additional advanced nuclear generation to support grid reliability. The Nuclear Reliability Backbone will be developed by a new Department of Public Service (DPS) process to consider, review, and facilitate a cost-effective pathway to four gigawatts of new nuclear energy that will combine with existing nuclear generation and the New York Power Authority’s (NYPA) previously announced one gigawatt project, to create an 8.4 gigawatt “backbone” of reliable energy for New Yorkers.

This effort will provide firm, clean power that complements renewable energy resources and reduces reliance on fossil fuel generation. By creating a stable foundation of always-on energy, the Backbone will allow renewable resources to operate more efficiently and flexibly. Together, these actions will support a resilient, flexible, and zero-emission grid that meets New York’s growing energy needs.

Ensuring New York’s Nuclear Power Future is Built By and For New Yorkers

As New York expands advanced nuclear energy, the State must ensure that New Yorkers benefit from these jobs and investments, including making sure New Yorkers are prepared to build, operate, and sustain this emerging industry. Governor Hochul will launch NextGen Nuclear New York to develop a skilled, in-state nuclear workforce through coordinated education and training pathways.

The initiative will expand partnerships across K–12 schools, higher education institutions, labor organizations, and training programs to align curricula, credentials, and career pathways with industry needs. It will also support workforce transitions for existing energy workers and increase public awareness of nuclear career opportunities. By investing in people and skills, New York will ensure its nuclear future is powered by New Yorkers, for New Yorkers.

Practical Deployment Issues – Ellenbogen

Ellenbogen recently sent an email that described his concerns about the proposal to add 5 Gigawatts (GW) of nuclear to NY State’s generation fleet that forms the basis for this article.  Because we are closely aligned on our thoughts I am not going to try to differentiate between his material and my supplemental information.  However, I take responsibility for the contents of this article and accept that I may have misquoted or misrepresented Ellenbogen’s beliefs.

For background consider New York’s nuclear power plants (Table 1).  Five gigawatts of nuclear is basically equivalent to building five new traditional reactors like Nine Mile 2, the last completed plant in New York. Note that Shoreham was completed, tested, and then shut down before it operated in the mid 1980’s.

Table 1: New York Nuclear Generating Plants

We agree on one thing completely: It’s a step in the right direction but it is too little, too late.  Building this amount of capacity will take a long time.  Nine Mile 2 construction took 13 years, and the most recent reactors built in the US at Vogtle, Georgia took 15 years from the start of initial site work.

According to a Perplexity AI query, The new Vogtle units are Westinghouse AP1000 designs with passive safety systems; The capacity of each unit is on the order of 1.1 GW.  Construction went over schedule and budget “as the first new U.S. nuclear build in decades, became a protracted megaproject with schedule slips and cost growth to roughly the mid‑$30‑billion range, widely characterized as one of the most expensive infrastructure projects in U.S. history”. These issues were caused by a “combination of incomplete design and planning, contractor and supply‑chain problems, first‑of‑a‑kind AP1000 implementation issues, weak project management and oversight, and the 2017 Westinghouse bankruptcy, which disrupted construction and financing”. 

Most of these underlying factors will be problems for New York State.  If new technology is used the design and planning will have to evolve as the plants are built.  There are contractor and supply-chain problems with existing infrastructure construction so this will be more of a problem for the new technology.  If the deployment goes so far as to mandate that the facilities are “built by and for New Yorkers”, then there will be delays because there are insufficient skilled trade workers available today.

Climate Act Schedule and Reliability Issues – Ellenbogen

The Climate Act has a requirement for zero emissions electric generation by 2040.  There is no possibility that all the nuclear capacity proposed by Hochul could be built by 2040 and there is a low probability that any new nuclear could be built by then.  Last June Hochul ordered the New York Power Authority (NYPA) to develop at least on gigawatt of nuclear capacity.  NYPA has not even announced where they might consider siting new nuclear capacity.  In my experience with power plant permitting, it takes at least three years to secure permits for existing design equipment.  There have been indications that New York would favor new designs which would slow down permitting substantially.  Finally, “Nuclear” has been a four-letter word in New York State for about 45 years so we expect opponents to try to delay permitting in every way possible.

Last November the New York Independent System Operator (NYISO) released its 2025-2034 Comprehensive Reliability Plan (CRP).  The report found that “the electric grid is at an inflection point driven by the convergence of three major trends: the rapid growth of large loads, (e.g.: microchip manufacturing and AI-related data centers); the aging generation fleet; and a lack of new dispatchable generation resources being added to the system.”   The description of the CRP went on to say:

The CRP highlights that the future reliability of the grid depends on the development of flexible generation capable of performing during extended periods of high consumer demand and extreme weather. The report examines lessons-learned from the June 2025 heatwave and the need for a planning framework that better reflects present challenges of operating the grid while anticipating plausible future risks.

“The system requires additional dispatchable generation to serve forecasted increases in consumer demand,” said Zach Smith, Senior Vice President, System and Resource Planning. “We also need to refine and evolve our planning processes to better reflect this period of great change on the grid and a broader range of plausible future outcomes.”

The CRP demonstrates that due to emerging reliability challenges, traditional planning methods built around a single forecast are no longer sufficient. To maintain system reliability and protect public safety, the economy and quality of life, the CRP recommends actions that will strengthen planning processes across a broad spectrum of system conditions and advance needed investment before reliability margins disappear.

Our biggest concern is the reliability margin crisis described in the CRP.  The NYISO plausible range of reliability margins illustrates the problem (Figure 1).  The CRP doesn’t explain what is going to keep the lights on after 2033, and possibly as early as 2027 if replacement capacity does not keep up with retirements.  My Perplexity AI search found that there are no new fossil-fired capacity proposed.  While adding new nuclear capacity is appropriate, replacement of existing capacity must also be considered.  The youngest of the 3.4 GW of existing nuclear in NY State will be reaching 60 years of age by 2040.

Figure 1: Plausible Range of Statewide System Margins NYISO 2025-2034 Comprehensive Reliability Plan     

Reason to Pause – Caiazza

Over the last year I have written many articles describing various reasons to pause implementation and reconsider the schedule and scope of the Climate Act.  The State Energy Plan and the CRP both include multiple future energy projections that include estimates of capacity and grid infrastructure additions.  The CRP “recommends actions that will strengthen planning processes across a broad spectrum of system conditions and advance needed investment”. The State Energy Plan advocates massive deployment of as much wind, solar, and energy storage capacity as possible as fast as possible hoping that it will work out.

Wind and solar energy resources are diffuse, intermittent, and correlated.  Because they are diffuse, utilizing wind and solar means that transmission and distribution systems must be upgraded.  Because they are intermittent, that means that energy storage is needed on daily to seasonal scales.  Because wind and solar are correlated, new dispatchable emissions-free resources (DEFR) are needed to make the electric energy system viable during extended periods of low wind and solar resource availability.  I believe the only likely viable DEFR backup technology is nuclear generation because it is the only candidate resource that is technologically ready, can be expanded as needed, and does not suffer from limitations of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Every day that the resolving the DEFR requirement is delayed the costs associated with what may be a false solution increase.  If the only viable DEFR solution is nuclear, then the wind, solar, and energy storage approach cannot be implemented without nuclear power.  Nuclear power works best as a baseload resource so using it solely as DEFR backup is inappropriate.  Developing baseload nuclear eliminates the need for a huge DEFR backup resource and means that the “build as much as we can as fast as we can” wind and solar buildout currently in progress is unnecessary.  Climate Act implementation should be paused until the most appropriate path forward is determined.

Discussion

Both Ellenbogen and I have been harping about reliability for years.  Unfortunately, no one at the state level seems to be ready to confront the problem.  It is absolutely necessary to come to grips with it.  The state government keeps trying to defy physical law by pushing technologies that can’t keep the lights on.  They need to get out of their bubble because the time frame required to fix what has become a massive problem is getting increasingly small.  The rapidly decreasing margins and negative capacity margins appear likely before new generation of any type can be built.

One of the biggest takeaways from this latest political energy proposal is the danger of political interference in energy policy.  New York politicians now claim that we need 5 GW of nuclear generating capacity.  New York politicians shut down 3.1 GW of nuclear capacity since 1984.  Hochul’s announcement is encouraging but until it must be accompanied by a pause in Climate Act implementation to be credible.  If timely decarbonization using nuclear power is appropriate, then a restart at Indian Point should be considered because it is the cheapest and quickest option.  However, that would be politically toxic so I cannot imagine that ever being proposed by the Hochul Administration. 

Conclusion

In my opinion, nuclear power should be part of New York’s electric system future.  However, Hochul’s proposal is too little, too late as part of the Climate Act implementation without revising the schedule.  It is necessary first to pause implementation and reassess the schedule and ambition of the Act so that it can play a meaningful role.

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) to evaluate whether to temporarily suspend or modify the obligations under the Renewable Energy Program established as part of the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act.”  Last August I described a filing and supporting documentation that I prepared with Richard Ellenbogen, Constatine Kontogiannis, and Francis Menton (Independent Intervenors) submitted to the same PSC Proceeding (Case 22-M-0149).  Our filing made a similar argument.  This article compares the filings.

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

The Climate Act established a New York “Net Zero” target (85% reduction in GHG emissions and 15% offset of emissions) by 2050 and has two electric sector targets: 70% of the electricity must come from renewable energy by 2030 and all electricity must be generated by “zero-emissions” resources by 2040.

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 bounds and New York energy policy has not openly reassessed where we stand relative to acceptable affordability and reliability risk.

Coalition for Safe and Reliable Energy

According to their petition the Coalition for Safe and Reliable Energy (Coalition) is “a diverse coalition consisting generally of associations, chambers of commerce and other groups representing various businesses, industries, manufacturers and constituencies from across the state, as well as two members of the state’s Climate Action Council”. Clearly, they have a vested interest in affordability because it affects their competitiveness.  Coalition members include:

• Buffalo Niagara Builders Association
• Buffalo Niagara Manufacturing Alliance
• Buffalo Niagara Partnership
• Builders Exchange of the Southern Tier
• Business Council of Westchester
• Capitol Region Chamber of Commerce
• Center for Economic Growth
• Commercial Real Estate Development Association – Upstate Chapter
• Construction Exchange of Buffalo and Western New York
• Engineers Labor Employer Cooperative 825
• Greater Binghamton Chamber of Commerce
• Greater Rochester Association of REALTORS
• Greater Rochester Chamber of Commerce
• Manufacturers Alliance of New York
• Manufacturers Association of Central New York
• Manufacturers Association of the Southern Tier
• Multiple Intervenors – An unincorporated association of approximately 55 large industrial, commercial, and institutional energy consumers with manufacturing and other facilities located throughout New York State
• National Federation of Independent Businesses
• New York State Association of Plumbing, Heating and Cooling Contractors
• New York State Builders Association
• New York State Economic Development Council
• Niagara USA Chamber of Commerce
• North Country Chamber of Commerce
• Northeastern Retail Lumber Association
• Northeast Hearth, Patio and Barbecue Association
• Power for Economic Prosperity – An active coalition of manufacturing companies that depend on low-cost hydropower from the New York Power Authority in order to maintain their operations in the Buffalo/Niagara Region.
• Rochester Technology and Manufacturing Association
• The Business Council of New York State – The leading business organization in New York State, representing the interests of large and small firms throughout the state. Its membership is made up of approximately 3,500 member companies, local chambers of commerce and professional and trade associations.
• The Council of Industry, Manufacturers Association of the Hudson Valley
• The Manufacturers Alliance of New York
• Western New York Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Contractors
• Also included in the Coalition are Donna L. DeCarolis and Dennis W. Elsenbeck, both members of the state’s Climate Action Council established by the CLCPA. 

The Coalition petition provides a description of each of its members

Independent Intervenor Filing

For comparison purposes I will describe the Independent Intervenor filing submitted on August 12, 2025, first.  My first post described our main argument and the second post described the supporting exhibits.  In brief, Public Service Law (PSL) § 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”.  We argued the hearing was necessary because of the significant increase in arrears threshold has been exceeded.

Independent Intervenors – Affordability 

Exhibit 3 – Affordability-Focused Recommendations documents references to affordability and reliability recommendations in the New York Department of Public Service (DPS) Document and Matter Management (DMM) System.  Rather than wading through the system I acknowledge the use of Perplexity (https://www.perplexity.ai/) to generate summaries and references included in the document.

The Perplexity summary provided the following key takeaway:

Since 2022, at least six concrete safeguards have been proposed in the New York Department of Public Service (DPS) record to keep the Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act affordable for households and businesses. They call for (1) rigorous public cost reporting, (2) objective “safety-valve” triggers under Public Service Law §66-p(4), (3) systematic pursuit of alternative funding, (4) expansion of low-income bill-protection programs, (5) transparent data dashboards, and (6) stricter benefit-cost and rate-design standards.

In my opinion, these safeguards haven’t been implemented well enough to ensure affordability.  There has been no DPS staff response to any of the calls to develop affordability triggers.

Independent Intervenors – Reliability

The biggest unresolved reliability risk associated with Climate Act implementation is addressed in Case 15-E-0302 – Proceeding on Motion of the Commission to Implement a Large-Scale Renewable Program and Clean Energy Standard.  Responsible New York agencies all agree that new Dispatchable Emissions-Free Resource (DEFR) technologies are needed to make a solar and wind-reliant electric energy system viable during extended periods of low wind and solar resource availability. 

Two exhibits addressed these reliability concerns.  To adequately address the amount of DEFR required it is necessary to determine how much is needed. Exhibit 4 – Resource Gap Characterization describes the challenges of defining the frequency, duration, and intensity of low wind and solar resource availability (known as dark doldrums) events.  One fundamental flaw in the Climate Act is the mistaken belief by the authors of the law that existing wind, solar, and energy storage resources would be sufficient and that no new technology would be required.  Exhibit 5 – Dispatchable Emissions-Free Resources explains that this presumption is not correct. There is a need for a resource that is not currently commercially available.  This reliance on unknown solutions risks investments in false solutions and poses significant reliability risks. 

Coalition Filing

The Coalition petition states:

The Coalition for Safe and Reliable Energy, a diverse coalition consisting generally of associations, chambers of commerce and other groups representing various businesses, industries, manufacturers and constituencies from across the state, as well as two members of the state’s Climate Action Council (hereinafter referred to as the “Coalition”), hereby petitions the New York State Public Service Commission to hold a hearing pursuant to Public Service Law § 66-p (4) to evaluate whether to temporarily suspend or modify the obligations under the Renewable Energy Program established as part of the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act.

The preceding statement includes a footnote referencing the Independent Intervenor filing and another regulatory action that argued a heating was appropriate.  The Coalition lays out the basic argument:

 This Petition seeks Commission action authorized by the CLCPA. Recent evidence suggests that the Renewable Energy Program, and its associated renewable energy targets, may impede the provision of safe and adequate electric service and upset the necessary balance of reliable, economic and sustainable energy in New York State. This evidence justifies commencement of the hearing process in PSL § 66-p (4), which will allow the Commission to determine whether the temporary suspension or modification of the Renewable Energy Program obligations is necessary to ensure the continued provision of safe and adequate electric service. Further, the Coalition believes that any hearing held pursuant to PSL § 66-p (4) should examine the relationship between Renewable Energy Program costs and customer arrears.

The Executive Summary provides an excellent overview of the status of Climate Act implementation.

The CLCPA set extraordinarily ambitious targets for renewable energy generation in New York State, requiring that by 2030, 70% of statewide electricity generation be from renewable energy systems and that by 2040, the electric grid be zero emissions. Recent data from the Commission demonstrates that New York will not achieve – or even come close to achieving – the 70% target by 2030. In addition, recent developments at the federal level impacting clean energy are likely to have a negative impact on renewable energy in the near term. With respect to the target of zero emissions by 2040, the necessary emission-free generation resources are not currently available at commercial scale. The inability of New York to develop the amount of renewable energy generation necessary to meet the 70% target by 2030, the increasing retirement of aging fossil-fuel generators due to the CLCPA, and the uncertainty surrounding the development of resources necessary to meet the zero emissions target by 2040, presents a reliability concern.

This concern is exacerbated by the fact that it may take more than two times the amount of certain forms of renewable generation to make up for the loss of one megawatt of fossil-fuel generation, and by expected increases in electric demand driven by the combination of new large loads and electrification.

Pursuant to the PSL, the Commission is required to ensure the provision of “safe and adequate” electric service. Renewable energy development has not kept pace with generator retirements, which has resulted in declining reliability margins across New York, jeopardizing electric reliability and safe and adequate service. In recognition that the Renewable Energy Program might negatively impact electric reliability, the CLCPA includes a safeguard that allows the Commission to temporarily suspend or modify the obligations of the program, after a hearing, if it makes a finding that the program impedes the provision of safe and adequate electric service. Given recent evidence regarding delayed renewable energy generation and risks to reliability, the Commission should hold a hearing pursuant to PSL § 66-p (4) to determine whether safe and adequate electric service in New York is impeded by the Renewable Energy Program and, if so, to appropriately modify or suspend the program’s obligations.

Discussion

Both filings argue that the PSC should convene a hearing to determine whether it is appropriate to temporarily suspend or modify the obligations of the Climate Act.  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.

The other difference is that the Independent Intervenors represent the views of four individuals whose credibility lies in our technical expertise. The Coalition consists primarily of associations, chambers of commerce and other groups representing various businesses, industries, manufacturers and constituencies from across the state whose credibility is based on its political and economic clout. 

Hopefully, the Coalition filing for a hearing will engender a response from the PSC.  There has been no hint of a response to the Independent Intervenor filing.  Perhaps the Coalition represents too big a constituency to ignore.

Some may say that the Coalition position is economically self-interested and therefore should be discounted.  They could also argue that the Independent Intervenors are not qualified to speak.  I think I can speak for both parties when I say we believe our concerns have never been openly discussed and addressed by the Hochul Administration.  All we want is the chance to make our case for the need to define affordability and reliability metrics that ensure safe, affordable, and adequate service.

Conclusion

I am encouraged that there is another group making similar arguments that the time has come to convene a hearing.  All my attempts have failed but maybe the Coalition will succeed in getting the PSC to convene a hearing.