Category: Climate Act Feasibility

In my last post I explained that the New York Public Service Commission has initiated a process to “identify technologies that can close the gap between the capabilities of existing renewable energy technologies and future system reliability needs, and more broadly identify the actions needed to pursue attainment of the Zero Emission by 2040 Target”.  In order to implement the Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act) net-zero transition the Integration Analysis, the New York Independent System Operator and the New York State Reliability Council all agree that a new resource that has all the characteristics of a natural gas fired turbine but no emissions is needed.  This post reviews an article about this topic: New York Begins Exploring Non-Renewable Energy to Meet Climate Target.

I am a retired air pollution meteorologist who specialized in the electric generating sector.  I have been following the Climate Act since it was first proposed. I submitted comments on the Climate Act implementation plan and have written over 300 articles about New York’s net-zero transition because I believe the ambitions for a zero-emissions economy embodied in the Climate Act outstrip available renewable technology such that the net-zero transition will do more harm than good.  The opinions expressed in this post do not reflect the position of any of my previous employers or any other company I have been associated with, these comments are mine alone.

Climate Act Background

The Climate Act established a New York “Net Zero” target (85% reduction and 15% offset of emissions) by 2050 and an interim 2030 target of a 40% reduction by 2030. The Climate Action Council is responsible for preparing the Scoping Plan that outlines how to “achieve the State’s bold clean energy and climate agenda.”  In brief, that plan is to electrify everything possible and power the electric grid with zero-emissions generating resources by 2040.  The Integration Analysis prepared by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) and its consultants quantifies the impact of the electrification strategies.  That material was used to write a Draft Scoping Plan.  After a year-long review the Scoping Plan recommendations were finalized at the end of 2022.  In 2023 the Scoping Plan recommendations are supposed to be implemented through regulation and legislation.

My previous article described the reason why a new proceeding on this topic is required. The professional staff at the agencies responsible for keeping the lights on in New York and the analysts who developed the Integration Analysis used for the Scoping Plan all believe that a new resource that can be dispatched as necessary but has zero emissions will be needed.   In the discussion section of the order the PSC agrees that efforts to meet the Climate Act targets “must include exploration of technologies that can support reliability once conventional fossil fuel generation has been removed from the system”.  The order states:

We see this exploration as integral to our responsibility under the PSL to ensure reliable electric service as we approach the Zero Emissions by 2040 Target. With this Order, we are initiating process to determine appropriate next steps to address this gap including consideration of whether it is appropriate for the Commission to allocate ratepayer funds to incentivize the deployment of zero-emission technologies.

I concluded that on one hand it is encouraging that there is finally an effort underway to define “zero emissions” resources and there is recognition that new technologies must be evaluated.  On the other hand, this is a recognized problem that should have been the priority of Climate Action Council and the Scoping Plan from the start.  I have always decried the lack of a feasibility analysis of the affordability, reliability, and permitting acceptability of zero emission resource options and the net-zero transition as a whole.  I believe that the Climate Action Council reliance on non-experts is a leading cause for this delay.  I wrote this article because it interviewed some of the non-experts that caused the delay and had some mis-understandings that deserve clarification.

New York Focus

The article was published at the New York Focus website.  According to the about link:

New York Focus is an independent nonprofit newsroom investigating power in the Empire State.  Launched in October 2020, New York Focus publishes in-depth journalism that explains how the state really works.

As the state’s only nonprofit statewide newsroom, our goal is to help rebuild a local news ecosystem that has faced years of relentless cuts: Almost half of New York’s newspapers have died in the last two decades. We focus on decisions made in Albany and how they impact communities around the state; Albany is the state’s center of power but receives a fraction of the scrutiny it warrants.

We’re guided by the belief that politics is not a sport. Decisions made in New York’s executive mansions, legislative chambers, state administrative offices, courts, nonprofits, union halls, and campaign headquarters don’t stay there. They determine how many New Yorkers sleep on the street each night; how large public college classes are; how many hospital beds are available during a pandemic.

The New York Begins Exploring Non-Renewable Energy to Meet Climate Target article was written by Colin Kinniburgh. 

He is a reporter at New York Focus, covering the state’s climate and environmental politics. Over a decade in media, he has worked in print, television, audio, and online news, and participated in fellowship programs at CUNY’s Graduate School of Journalism and the Metcalf Institute. His reporting has appeared in outlets including France 24, Grist, Dissent, and The Nation.

New York Begins Exploring Non-Renewable Energy to Meet Climate Target

I have annotated the article in this section. 

Biofuels, hydrogen, carbon capture, and nuclear: These are some of the technologies that will be on the table as New York weighs how to clean up its grid over the next 17 years.

When New York passed its climate law four years ago, it declared wind, solar, and battery storage to be the energy sources of the future. The law not only required the state to get 70 percent of its electricity from renewables by 2030, but set precise benchmarks for technologies like offshore wind.

As I have written before, the Climate Act is a political statement.  The implication here is that the Legislature developed a plan that was based on an understanding of the power system and developed schedules based on evaluation of technology.  That was not the case.

That riled power companies, who have long argued that picking technologies in advance will stifle innovation needed for the energy transition. There was still an opening for them to make their case. New York’s climate law requires the state to produce 100 percent of its energy from “zero emissions” sources by 2040, but what exactly that means is still up for debate.

Power plant operators’ lead trade group, the Independent Power Producers of New York (IPPNY), have spent years pushing the state to focus on that more distant goal. The group’s president, Gavin Donohue, pressed the legislature, the Public Service Commission, and the Climate Action Council to back a new subsidy for technologies that will close the gap in New York’s energy supply when the sun isn’t shining and the wind isn’t blowing. Those could include hydrogen; nuclear; alternative fuels like waste products from agriculture; or carbon capture and storage, which could allow plants to keep burning fossil fuels as long as they keep emissions out of the air.

Donohue wasn’t alone in this effort. Along the way he won support from the AFL-CIO, the leading voice of organized labor in the state.

The reference to new technologies that will close the gap in energy supply refers to the Dispatchable Emissions-Free Resource (DEFR). The article does not recognize that the professional staff at the New York Independent System Operator and the New York State Reliability Council  who are responsible for keeping the lights on in New York and the analysts who developed the Integration Analysis used for the Scoping Plan all believe that DEFR will be needed to keep the lights on. 

But environmentalists pushed back, arguing that the effort was a ploy to keep polluting plants open with the help of expensive technologies that have yet to be proven commercially. For much of the last two years, they’ve maintained the upper hand: the IPPNY-backed bill died in committee last session, and the state’s climate plan de-emphasized the kinds of alternative fuels the power industry says will be needed.

The environmentalist push back is rooted in a mis-understanding of the way the electric system works and an overly optimistic expectation for wind and solar resource availability.  I have given a presentation explaining my skepticism of the Climate Act benefits relative to its risks.  My article describing that presentation focused on electric grid reliability risks that environmentalists do not consider.

Now, state regulators are signaling that the issue deserves a fresh look. On Thursday, the Public Service Commission ordered the state to begin studying which new technologies — beyond renewables — it will need to meet its climate targets.

Announcing the decision at a Public Service Commission meeting on Thursday, chair Rory Christian called it an important step. “If we’re successful, this will give us the tools to address many of the emerging issues that we’re seeing, and help us hit our various reliability needs and long-term goals,” Christian said.

State officials have stressed that the effort is intended to complement, not supplant, the central role of renewables. New York is already planning a massive buildout of wind, solar, and transmission lines: To meet the climate law’s requirements, it will need to build 100 times as much large-scale solar in the next five years as it did in the last ten, for example.

Yet even that explosion of renewables won’t be enough to ensure reliable energy while phasing out fossil fuels, studies by the state energy authority NYSERDA and the New York Independent System Operator have found. New York will also need to build new clean energy systems that don’t rely on the weather, and can be turned on at a moment’s notice.

As is the case with many of the green technology solutions advocated by proponents of the Climate Act, the idea that just existing wind and solar technology is all that is needed for the electric grid is flawed.  The general green technology problem is that the technologies do not work all the time.  For the electric system the issue is that there can be extended wind lulls in the winter when solar resources are inherently low is exacerbated because those periods coincide with the coldest weather and thus the highest loads.  The professionals responsible for reliability all conclude that DEFR is necessary for those periods.

The state’s climate plan asks the PSC, along with NYSERDA , to draw up the final criteria for those “firm” or “dispatchable” resources, and that’s what it started doing on Thursday. Like many regulatory decisions, the order published on Thursday is only the start of a lengthy process. It kicks off a two-month public comment period, which will be followed by a technical conference — likely in the fall — to decide what kinds of technologies qualify as “zero emissions” under state law.

Donohue, the head of the power plant lobby, said the move was a long time coming.  “The fact that the commission has finally said, ‘We need these technologies,’ and the fact that they did not limit technologies in this order, is a positive thing,” Donohue said. Still, he called it “incremental progress,” coming nearly two years after IPPNY petitioned the state to take the issue on.

The PSC’s order, which responds explicitly to IPPNY’s petition, meets the group halfway. It stops short of creating a state-backed market for the technologies that ultimately meet the criteria, as IPPNY has sought. The state currently has such markets for wind, solar, and other renewables: Through a mechanism known as the Clean Energy Standard, the state signs contracts for qualifying renewable energy projects, guaranteeing a buyer for the power they generate. The cost of underwriting those contracts trickles down to New Yorkers through their utility bills.

No such guarantees exist for technologies like hydrogen, making them a riskier bet to develop. That isn’t changing for now. But IPPNY hopes the PSC decision will pave the way toward such a subsidy before long.

Setting up a subsidy for these technologies is putting the cart before the horse.  They must find something that might possibly work before they can consider how much it might cost.  Getting something that will work may well be impossible because of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. I do not consider myself an electric system expert but I have talked to experts and they all say this is a challenge because of physics.

The effort’s most vocal backer among state regulators is Commissioner Diane Burman, who was appointed by then–Governor Andrew Cuomo in 2013 and is PSC’s longest-serving member.

“​​We need all the tools in the toolkit to help us achieve our clean energy goals,” she said on Thursday, echoing longstanding talking points from the power industry. “To do that, we need to not be so focused on picking winners and losers, in that we are actually going to chill the opportunities that may be there.”

A week earlier, Burman spoke at IPPNY’s annual conference, where Donohue called her a “good friend.” The conference dedicated a 90-minute session to the issue of dispatchable resources, featuring a program manager at NYSERDA, a chemical engineer, an executive at a fuel cell company, and a pipefitters’ union leader.

“We don’t have to displace middle-class union jobs to achieve our goals,” said John Murphy, the pipe trades union representative. “Intermittent renewables can’t do it alone.”

Speaking to New York Focus on Thursday, Donohue said the PSC’s expected decision on IPPNY’s petition shaped the conference lineup.

“I didn’t do this in the dark,” he said, adding that the PSC’s decision was a sign of regulators warming up to IPPNY’s agenda.

Given the expert concern about this technology it is encouraging that it is finally being addressed.  I worry that it will become politicized with environmental groups disparaging the very idea that it is needed.  The next section in the article, Environmental Groups Wary, confirmed my suspicions.

Environmentalists, who came out in uniform opposition last year to IPPNY’s push, remain wary. Environmental justice advocates in particular have condemned biofuels and hydrogen as “false solutions” that would roll back hard-fought commitments in the state’s climate law.

The “false solution” slogan is the mantra of environmental activists.  To date they have been very successful pushing their emotion-laden agenda that the only acceptable pollution burden is zero based on a selective science.  Anything that is inconsistent with that is labeled as a “false solution”.  See, for example, my work on the peaker power plant issue that discusses tradeoffs.

“If the intention is to have an honest discussion about what actually is zero emissions, and what’s industry hype and… gaslighting, then that’s one thing,” said Eddie Bautista, executive director of the NYC Environmental Justice Alliance. “However, a lot of us are skeptical and worried because of actions that we’ve seen of late by the Hochul administration themselves, looking to potentially undermine the climate law.”

Bautista pointed to the sudden proposal from Hochul’s office in late March, just days before the state’s budget deadline, to overhaul how New York counts carbon emissions. The shift could have allowed polluters to continue burning gas and other fuels for longer, and could have opened the door to more fuels derived from biological sources like wood, or methane gas captured from farms or landfills. Hochul dropped the proposal from budget talks following an uproar from climate groups, but officials have said they intend to revisit it.

Bautista is referring to a proposed change in the emissions accounting proposed earlier this year.  I don’t think very many people understand the actual ramifications to the Climate Act targets.  I don’t agree that it would have “allowed polluters to continue burning gas and other fuels for longer”.  They only proposed to change the accounting label.  The actions necessary to meet the percentage reductions don’t care whether the starting number is 200 and the 2030 40% emissions limit is 120 or the starting number is 100 and the 2030 40% reduction emission limit is 60.  The control strategies still have to get a 40% reduction.  The environmental community is wound up about bio-fuels but ignore the fact that most other jurisdictions with similar programs enable their use.

The plan adopted by the state’s Climate Action Council in December rejected most uses of alternative fuels, to the relief of environmental justice advocates — and the dismay of the three industry-aligned members, including Donohue, who voted against. Now, Bautista is nervous that Hochul might be wavering on the council’s recommendations.  “It’s hard not to see signs of the Hochul administration not fully embracing the plan,” he said.

Raya Salter, an environmental justice advocate and lawyer who sat on the Climate Action Council, was not surprised to see the state moving forward with IPPNY’s petition. She said it was up to climate groups to “hold the line” against any move that would “increase costs to New Yorkers and put disadvantaged communities at risk.”  “We set the bar high in New York, in terms of what any technology that will be used in our state will do in terms of affordability, health, cost, etc.,” she said. “Through the fog, we’re talking about emerging technologies that are unproven and really have a long way to go before clearing any bar.”

The rhetoric of these two ideologues is frightening.  Neither has ever acknowledged the concerns of the agencies responsible for electric system reliability.  I suspect that they would prefer to risk the current standards for reliability and affordability than concede that some of their aspirational goals are threats to them.

The PSC’s order acknowledges some uncertainties around new nuclear, biofuels, and hydrogen, but it doesn’t rule any technologies out. Aside from possible pollution, critics worry that many of these technologies remain prohibitively expensive — though new federal funding, mostly from the Inflation Reduction Act, could change the economics.

Critics of the technologies are worried about the costs of these technologies.  They should be but apparently do not understand that the potential risks of not having this technology dwarf those costs.  In February 2021, the Texas electric grid failed to provide sufficient energy when it was needed.  As a result, over 4.5 million homes and residences were without power, at least 246 people died, and total damages were at least $195 billion.  Those are real costs and deaths not some contrived benefits and projected health impacts associated with GHG emissions. 

It is hypocritical to worry about the DEFR costs but ignore the costs of the rest of the net-zero transition.  Both Bautista and Salter support the narrative that the costs of inaction for the net zero Climate Act transition outweigh the costs of action.  That too is nothing more than a slogan.  It is misleading, because the costs in the Scoping Plan do not include the costs of “already implemented” programs.  In other words, it does not cover the costs to get to net-zero only the costs of the Climate Act itself.  My analyses of costs found that there are significant “already implemented” program costs that likely would make the statement false.  It gets worse because as far as I can tell the Integration Analysis does include the benefits of already implemented programs while it excludes the costs.  My analysis of the benefits shows that they over-estimated the benefits in any event.

Officials say some state investment is necessary to bring emerging, zero-emissions resources to market, just like the technologies that came before them.  “All of our energy infrastructure, at some point, was built with public injection of funds,” said NYSERDA operations manager Richard Bourgeois at the IPPNY conference.

There is one difference overlooked by proponents however.  In the past there was an end to the public injection of funds.  The public injection of subsidies for wind and solar have been on-going for decades.  Given the technological risk of DEFR it is likely that similar on-going subsidies will be required.  There is likely no end for the new “zero-emissions” technologies.

The state will need at least 17 gigawatts’ worth of these clean, “firm,” systems by 2040, NYSERDA estimates — about two-thirds the capacity of all the fossil fuel plants that serve New York today.  Those dispatchable systems will run very rarely, generating only about 1 percent of the power New Yorkers actually end up using, according to a recent presentation by Vlad Gutman-Britten, assistant director of policy and markets at NYSERDA.

The current business model for peaking generation resources is to use the cheapest technology available (simple cycle natural gas turbines) because cost recovery for a facility that only runs 5% or less of the time for the rare conditions is challenging.  It seems unrealistic to expect that any of the new DEFR technologies will be cheaper than a gas turbine which means that cost recovery will be much more difficult.  Somebody, somewhere is going to have to pick up that tab.

Bautista says that limited role means there’s no need for the state to rush into supporting these technologies, particularly given advances in battery storage. “Their solution is always shooting an elephant gun to kill a fly,” he said. “They can’t say in 10 years where battery technology is going to be.”

Gutman-Britten sees things differently.  “That resource is really going to carry New York through some of the most difficult weeks of every year, when renewables are not generating at the times when demand is highest,” he said.

Gutman-Britten has it right.  Without this resource there will be serious reliability problems.  In my opinion failure to provide DEFR will inevitably result in a Texas February 2021 blackout disaster.  Bautista’s naïve position is dangerously wrong.

Conclusion

The Hochul Administration’s deference to a few naïve individuals is increasing the threat to reliable and affordable electricity in New York.  The responsible experts all say that this new resource that can be dispatched as needed without any emissions is necessary for the net-zero transition.  Instead of confronting the discrepancy between the activists who believe that existing technology is sufficient and the Integration Analysis that said that this new technology was needed, the Climate Action Council frittered away a couple of years arguing semantics and nomenclature on less critical issues.

Even if the technologies necessary for the transition turn out to be affordable and work as necessary, the arbitrary schedule of the Climate Act is a problem.  The proposed cap and invest program promises compliance certainty with respect to the mandated schedule.  What is missing is implementation certainty.  There are a whole host of reasons (e.g., funding, supply chain issues, and lack of trained workers) why the generating resources necessary to meet the mandates might not get built as fast necessary.  If that happens the final compliance option is to shut down when the cap is reached.  I do not think that an artificial energy shortage to meet the targets is in the best interest of anyone.  Are the climate activists so naïve as to believe that rationing gasoline, heating fuels and electricity will be selling points for their vision of the future?

In order to implement the Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act) net-zero transition the Integration Analysis, the New York Independent System Operator and the New York State Reliability Council all agree that a new resource that has all the characteristics of a natural gas fired turbine but no emissions is needed.  The New York Public Service Commission has initiated a process to “identify technologies that can close the gap between the capabilities of existing renewable energy technologies and future system reliability needs, and more broadly identify the actions needed to pursue attainment of the Zero Emission by 2040 Target” for New York electric generating sources intended to address that need.  This is an overview of the proceeding.

I have been following the Climate Act since it was first proposed. I submitted comments on the Climate Act implementation plan and have written over 300 articles about New York’s net-zero transition because I believe the ambitions for a zero-emissions economy embodied in the Climate Act outstrip available renewable technology such that the net-zero transition will do more harm than good.  The opinions expressed in this post do not reflect the position of any of my previous employers or any other company I have been associated with, these comments are mine alone.

Climate Act Background

The Climate Act established a New York “Net Zero” target (85% reduction and 15% offset of emissions) by 2050 and an interim 2030 target of a 40% reduction by 2030. The Climate Action Council is responsible for preparing the Scoping Plan that outlines how to “achieve the State’s bold clean energy and climate agenda.”  In brief, that plan is to electrify everything possible and power the electric grid with zero-emissions generating resources by 2040.  The Integration Analysis prepared by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) and its consultants quantifies the impact of the electrification strategies.  That material was used to write a Draft Scoping Plan.  After a year-long review the Scoping Plan recommendations were finalized at the end of 2022.  In 2023 the Scoping Plan recommendations are supposed to be implemented through regulation and legislation.

Dispatchable Emissions-Free Resources

The Integration Analysis, the New York Independent System Operator, and the New York State Reliability Council all agree that a new resource that provides all the services of existing natural gas fired generating units without emissions is needed because of the reliability problem illustrated in the following figure.  This graph illustrates the long-duration wind lull problem from an early presentation to the Climate Action Council.  It explicitly points out that emissions-free firm capacity or dispatchable emissions free resources (DEFR) is needed to meet multi-day periods of low wind and solar resource availability.  The thing to remember is that in order to prevent catastrophic blackouts caused because intermittent wind and solar resources are not able to support expected loads, all three groups are banking on DEFR capacity.  Using wind, solar and storage exclusively makes meeting the worst-case renewable resource gap much more difficult, if not impossible, to address.

I compared the state’s scoping plan resource estimates and the New York Independent System Operator analysis that both projected how much more energy (MWh would be needed when everything is electrified and what resources would be needed to provide them.  The issues are summarized in the New York State Reliability Council Draft Scoping Plan comments.  They made the point that the new resources required are enormous and also raised other concerns:

Practical considerations affecting the availability, schedule and operability for new interconnections include: interconnection standards; site availability; permitting; resource equipment availability; regulatory approval; large volume of projects in NYISO queue and study process; scalability of long-term battery storage and other technologies; operational control; impact of extreme weather; consideration of a must- run reliability need for legacy resources. In addition, the pace of transportation and building electrification, the timing of any natural gas phase-out and their impact on the electric T&D system must also be carefully studied from technical, economic and environmental perspectives. Together, these practical considerations require the development of reliable zero emission resources to be conscientiously sequenced and timed in the near term (through 2030) to ensure broader GHG reductions in all sectors beyond 2030.

It all boils down to the fact that a reliable zero emission resource that can backup intermittent renewable energy does not exist.  The NYISO and NYSRC both waffle around saying that such a magical resource must be developed and tested but they have not admitted publicly the possibility that such a resource may well be impossible because of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.  The Scoping Plan chose green hydrogen as its candidate resource and in order to prove that it can work a comprehensive feasibility analysis is required. 

Scoping Plan and DEFR

In my opinion the Hochul Administration lost track of the plot regarding the Climate Action Council’s handling of the Scoping Plan.  In particular, the Council managed to get bogged down into technical details that were outside the expertise of the membership but forged ahead anyway.  I believe they went off in the wrong direction. 

At the meeting where the Climate Action Council approved the Scoping Plan Council members gave statements.  The statement of Robert W. Howarth, Ph.D., the David R. Atkinson Professor of Ecology & Environmental Biology at Cornell University illustrates my concern.  He claimed that he played a key role in the drafting of the Climate Act and summarized his position regarding the transition of the electric grid:

I further wish to acknowledge the incredible role that Prof. Mark Jacobson of Stanford has played in moving the entire world towards a carbon-free future, including New York State. A decade ago, Jacobson, I and others laid out a specific plan for New York (Jacobson et al. 2013). In that peer-reviewed analysis, we demonstrated that our State could rapidly move away from fossil fuels and instead be fueled completely by the power of the wind, the sun, and hydro. We further demonstrated that it could be done completely with technologies available at that time (a decade ago), that it could be cost effective, that it would be hugely beneficial for public health and energy security, and that it would stimulate a large increase in well-paying jobs. I have seen nothing in the past decade that would dissuade me from pushing for the same path forward. The economic arguments have only grown stronger, the climate crisis more severe. The fundamental arguments remain the same.

The professional staff at the agencies responsible for keeping the lights on in New York and the analysts who developed the Integration Analysis used for the Scoping Plan all believe that DEFR will be needed to keep the lights on.  Their position is at odds with Howarth’s assertion that the existing technologies for wind, sun, and hydro generating resources are all that is necessary for a reliable electric system.  The failure of the Hochul Administration to make it clear that Dr. Howarth’s opinion cannot be the basis of New York policy has resulted in unacceptable delays in the development of a feasibility analysis for this resource.

Public Service Commission DEFR

On May 18, 2023 the Public Service Commission (PSC) announced that a process has been started to “examine the need for resources to ensure the reliability of the 2040 zero-emissions electric grid mandated by the Climate Act”.  The press release went on:

The Climate Act, passed by the State Legislature in 2019, directs the Commission to establish, among other things, a program to ensure that by 2030, at least 70 percent of electric load is served by renewable energy, and that by 2040, there are zero emissions associated with electrical demand in the State. The initiative will help deliver on the Climate Act zero-emissions electric grid mandate and will enable the necessary types of clean energy to reach all New Yorkers. The Commission’s decision follows a substantial climate package announced by Governor Kathy Hochul in the FY24 enacted State Budget that will advance sustainable buildings, clean energy, and an affordable Cap-and-Invest program.

Today’s action recognizes that as renewable resources and storage facilities are added to the State’s energy supply, additional clean-energy resources capable of responding to fluctuating conditions might be needed to maintain the reliability of the electric grid. The Commission’s work to meet the Climate Act targets must include exploration of technologies that can support reliability once fossil generation has been removed from the system.

The order initiates a process to identify technologies that can close the anticipated gap between the capabilities of existing renewable energy technologies and future system reliability needs. Within the order, the Commission asks stakeholders a series of important questions, including how to define ‘zero-emissions’ for purposes of the zero emissions by 2040 target, and whether that definition should include cutting edge technologies such as advanced nuclear, long duration energy storage, green hydrogen, and demand response. The order further elicits feedback from stakeholders on how to best design a zero-emissions by 2040 program, consistent with the Climate Act’s requirement of delivering substantial benefits to disadvantaged communities and New York State’s electric grid reliability rules, while also leveraging other state and federal efforts to research, develop, and deploy zero-emission resources.

After a 60-day public comment period, Commission staff will convene at least one technical conference to examine a series of issues and questions raised in this important proceeding. The Commission may take additional actions on zero-emission resources based on the information obtained through those processes.

The order provided more background and rationale.  When the Climate Act was passed the PSC modified the Clean Energy Standard (DES) to align with its requirements.  The order explains:

The pathway established by the CES Modification Order focuses on options for procuring sufficient renewable energy resources to meet CLCPA requirements. However, several studies indicate that renewable energy resources may not be capable of meeting the full range of electric system reliability needs that will arise as fossil generation is replaced. These studies suggest that there is a gap between the capabilities of existing renewable energy technology and expected future system reliability requirements.

On August 18, 2021 the Independent Power Producers of New York, Inc., New York State Building and Construction Trades Council, and New York State AFL-CIO (Petitioners) filed a Zero Emissions Petition that also raised this issue. The proceeding notes:

This Order responds to the Petition and initiates a process to identify technologies that can close the gap between the capabilities of existing renewable energy technologies and future system reliability needs, and more broadly identify the actions needed to pursue attainment of the Zero Emission by 2040 Target. As a first step, rather than adopting a new CES tier as requested in the Zero Emissions Petition, this Order seeks input from stakeholders on options for addressing that gap. In particular, the Commission welcomes responses to the questions posed in the body of this Order and directs the Department of Public Service staff (Staff), in consultation with the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA), to convene a technical conference that addresses the same list of questions.

In the discussion section of the order the PSC admits that efforts to meet the Climate Act targets “must include exploration of technologies that can support reliability once conventional fossil fuel generation has been removed from the system”.  The order states:

We see this exploration as integral to our responsibility under the PSL to ensure reliable electric service as we approach the Zero Emissions by 2040 Target.²⁵ With this Order, we are initiating process to determine appropriate next steps to address this gap including consideration of whether it is appropriate for the Commission to allocate ratepayer funds to incentivize the deployment of zero-emission technologies.

The order goes on to seek comment on related topics and asks specific questions.

I find it particularly enlightening as an example of poor planning that the one of the topics relates to the term “zero emissions”.  It turns out nobody has bothered to define what technologies qualify as “zero emissions”:

Many of the questions posed below relate to how the term “zero emissions” should be defined. This is a particularly important issue given that neither PSL §66-p(2)(b) nor any other provision of the CLCPA defines the technologies that should be considered “zero emissions.” Section 66-p(2) (b) simply states that “by the year [2040] the statewide electrical demand system will be zero emissions.” The CES Modification Order established that the technologies defined as “renewable energy systems” under PSL §66-p(l)(a) are de facto “zero emissions” for purposes of meeting the 2040 target.26 Additionally, the Commission recognized existing nuclear generation as a zero-emission technology in its 2016 CES Framework Order, which created the ZEC program.27 However, PSL §66-p(2) (b) does not say more about what is meant by “zero emissions,” leaving it to the Commission to define the term.

Notice Soliciting Public Comments

The order asks for comments on the following questions.

1. How should the term “zero emissions,” as used under PSL §66-p(2)(b), be defined?
2. Should the term “zero emissions” be construed to include some or all of the following types of resources, such as advanced nuclear (Gen III+ or Gen IV), long-duration storage, green hydrogen, renewable natural gas, carbon capture and sequestration, virtual power plants, distributed energy resources, or demand response resources? What other resource types should
   be included?
3. How should a program to achieve the Zero-Emission by 2040 Target address existing and newly constructed nuclear energy resources. Should the program be limited to specific types of nuclear energy technologies and exclude others?
4. Should new measures adopted to pursue compliance with the Zero-Emission by 2040 Target focus exclusively on generation and resource adequacy, or should they also encompass a broader set of technologies that could be integrated into the transmission or distribution
   system segments, or installed and operated behind-the-meter?
5. Should any program to achieve the Zero-Emission by 2040 Target specify subcategories of energy resources based on particular characteristics, such as ramp rates, the duration of their operational availability, or their emissions profile with respect to local pollutants?
6. What role does technology innovation need to play to meet the CLCPA’s Zero-Emission by 2040 Target?
7. Should life cycle emissions impacts be considered when characterizing energy resources? If so, how?
8. Given that the feedstocks and other resources required to produce renewable natural gas are limited and will be in demand in other sectors of New York’s economy, how should this fuel be considered in the context of this proceeding?
9. In what ways might a program to meet the Zero-Emission by 2040 Target require reexamination and possibly revision of different tiers of the Clean Energy Standard? Should one or more of the policy approaches that have been used to implement the CES be considered to meet the Zero-Emission by 2040 Target?
10. What is necessary to align a program to meet the Zero-Emission by 2040 Target with the priority of just transition embedded within the CLCPA?
11. How might the benefits of a program to meet the Zero-Emission by 2040 Target be measured for the purpose of ensuring that, consistent with PSL §66-p(7), it delivers “substantial benefits” to Disadvantaged Communities?
12. NYISO has adopted an effective load carrying capacity (ELCC) rubric and treatment of Zones J and K as load pockets with special resource adequacy requirements. How should these constructs and other NYISO market rules inform design of a program meant to support the development and deployment of resources capable of achieving a zero emissions grid?
13. What additional studies, if any, should the Commission undertake with respect to the development and deployment of resources capable of achieving a zero emissions grid?
14. Given that New York is not the only jurisdiction investigating options and opportunities for the research, development, and deployment of new technologies capable of achieving a zero emissions grid, how should the State seek to coordinate with and otherwise draw upon efforts that are underway elsewhere?

Conclusion

On one hand it is encouraging that there is finally an effort underway to define “zero emissions” resources and there is recognition that new technologies must be evaluated.  On the other hand, this is a recognized problem that should have been the priority of Climate Action Council and the Scoping Plan.  It has been 21 months since the Zero Emissions Petition was filed and they are just starting to address the problem.  I have always decried the lack of a feasibility analysis of the affordability, reliability, and permitting acceptability of zero emission resource options.  I believe that the Climate Action Council reliance on non-experts is a leading cause for this delay.

My other concern is that this could become politicized.  I expect massive pushback from Climate Act proponents if the proceeding finds that the only proven option available for affordable “zero emissions” resources that must be included in the future energy system mix to maintain reliability is nuclear.  If New York truly wants to reduce GHG emissions to the extent proposed nuclear must be in the mix but the entrenched anti-nuclear sentiment likely precludes that rational approach.  Furthermore, all the other options may well be impossible because of the Second Law of Thermodynamics   If the analysis determines that the other options are technologically infeasible or too expensive in the mandated Climate Act schedule, the only rational approach would be to adjust the schedule.  That would cause a meltdown for all the Climate Activists. The Hochul Administration has painted itself into a corner because I think the most likely result of this proceeding is inconsistent with the Scoping Plan.  They will have to either admit that the Scoping Plan schedule is untenable or modify the results to fit the political narrative.

Update

As I was getting ready to publish this I heard the Susan Arbetter on Spectrum News Capital Tonight had interviewed Dr. Howarth.  She had two members of the Climate Action Council on her show to discuss Climate Act Implementation: Howarth and Gavin Donohue of the Independent Power Producers of New York. I generally agree with Donohue’s description of the current status. At 7:20 of the interview video she talked to Howarth.  Her last question (13:12 of the video) was: “What is the greatest obstacle to meeting the goals of the Climate Act”.  Howarth’s response was completely consistent with his earlier statements:

Well, they are not technical.  We know how to move the state to a 100% fossil free future.  The technology has been around for more than a decade to do that. And it is actually cost-effective.  The Scoping Plan and the Climate Action Council lays that out in great detail.  The cost of inaction is more than the cost of moving forward with this plan, which is why 19 out of 22 of us voted for it.  Gavin is only one of three people who voted against it

Arbetter had to ask him at this point to answer the question.  He responded:

The challenges are political and educational.  Letting people know why it is good for the state.  Letting them know why they can afford it.  Counter-acting some of the misinformation and fear mongering that is out there.

If I was not clear enough in this post let me reiterate my concern.  The Integration Analysis that was used to develop the Scoping Plan; the organizations responsible for providing reliable electric energy -New York Independent System Operator and New York State Reliability Council, and by way of this proceeding, the Public Service Commission all agree that we do not know how to move the state to a 100% fossil free future because meeting that target requires dispatchable emissions free resources that do not presently exist.  Dr. Howarth claims that education is necessary to counter-act misinformation and fear-mongering but given that his technology position directly contradicts the state experts on electric system reliability I conclude he is the one guilty of misinformation.

This post describes some articles I have noted recently that relate to the Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act) net-zero transition plans.  At the core of the Climate Act the key questions are is there a problem that warrants the complete conversion of our energy system and can the alternatives proposed replace the existing system affordably while maintaining current standards of reliability.  The articles referenced here address those questions.

I have been following the Climate Act since it was first proposed. I submitted comments on the Climate Act implementation plan and have written over 300 articles about New York’s net-zero transition. The opinions expressed in this post do not reflect the position of any of my previous employers or any other company I have been associated with, these comments are mine alone.

Climate Act Background

The Climate Act established a New York “Net Zero” target (85% reduction and 15% offset of emissions) by 2050 and an interim 2030 target of a 40% reduction by 2030. The Climate Action Council is responsible for preparing the Scoping Plan that outlines how to “achieve the State’s bold clean energy and climate agenda.”  In brief, that plan is to electrify everything possible and power the electric gride with zero-emissions generating resources by 2040.  The Integration Analysis prepared by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) and its consultants quantifies the impact of the electrification strategies.  That material was used to write a Draft Scoping Plan.  After a year-long review the Scoping Plan recommendations were finalized at the end of 2022.  In 2023 the Scoping Plan recommendations are supposed to be implemented through regulation and legislation.

Climate Change Problem

The rationale for the Climate Act is that there is a climate crisis.  The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the United Nations organization that assesses science related to climate change and the IPCC reports were referenced in the Scoping Plan.  In March the latest Synthesis Report describing the latest IPCC AR6 assessment was released.  Climate Intelligence (CLINTEL)  has published a new report entitled “The Frozen Climate Views of the IPCC: Analysis of the AR6”:

“The new Report provides an independent assessment of the most important parts of AR6. We document biases and errors in almost every chapter we reviewed. In some cases, of course, one can quibble endlessly about our criticism and how relevant it is for the overall ‘climate narrative’ of the IPCC. In some cases, though, we document such blatant cherry picking by the IPCC, that even ardent supporters of the IPCC should feel embarrassed.”

Judith Curry described this report in a recent post.  She describes the key issue:

The IPCC focuses on “dangerous anthropogenic climate change,” which leads to ignoring natural climate change, focusing on extreme emissions scenarios, and cherry picking the time periods and the literature to make climate change appear “dangerous.”

I recommend her post as a good overview of the flaws in the IPCC assessment.  I endorse Curry’s conclusion:

In any event, UN-driven climate policy has moved well past any moorings in climate science, even the relatively alarming version reported by the IPCC.  The insane policies and deadlines tied to greenhouse gas emissions are simply at odds with the reality of our understanding of climate change and the uncertainties, and with broader considerations of human well-being.

Proposed Solutions

I think one of the fundamental flaws associated with the Scoping Plan is the presumption that the raw materials necessary for the electrification proposed are readily available.  Furthermore, the “clean energy” and “zero emissions” descriptions in the Plan ignore the total life cycle impacts of those raw materials.  On April 26, 2026 Mark P. Mills, Senior Fellow, Manhattan Institute, gave testimony before the Subcommittee on Environment, Manufacturing, and Critical Materials, U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce Hearing on: “Exposing the Environmental, Human Rights, and National Security Risks of the Biden Administration’s Rush to Green Policies”.  His testimony makes a strong case that New York’s presumptions are misplaced.

His introduction includes the following:

Permit me to begin by observing two indisputable facts about our future. First, economic growth is the fundamental driver of energy demand. And second, while periods of slow growth and recessions are inevitable in all societies, those periods always end. But any subsequent growth can be stifled if energy supplies are either unavailable or too expensive.

Energy supply itself is not as much a matter of finding resources as it is one of building machines, regardless of the natural resource used, whether sun, wind, water, oil, gas, coal, or uranium. Thus realities around machine-building determine costs and all the associated environmental, social, and geopolitical impacts.

We know a lot about those impacts—both the good and the bad—associated with energy machines that use hydrocarbons because we’ve been using those technologies at scale for a long time, and because that’s how 85 percent of U.S. and global energy is supplied. We’ve learned a lot less about impacts from wind, solar, and battery technologies because they’re relatively new and, so far, supply only a few percent of society’s overall energy.

 The Biden Administration has a stated policy goal to see America powered increasingly, eventually entirely by renewable energy. I should like to stipulate that the future will doubtless see far greater use of wind and solar technologies, and electric cars, if for no other reason than the sheer scale of future energy needs, and because developed countries are wealthy enough to pay higher costs.

However, there are many misconceptions about the realities of renewable energy technologies at scale, especially if the goal is to replace rather than supplement hydrocarbons. It begins with the core reality that renewables aren’t green. In fact, nor are renewable technologies inherently cheaper, nor more geopolitically secure.

That renewable energy isn’t green is a consequence of an unavoidable feature of wind and solar resources; they have very low energy density. That means, compared to using hydrocarbons, one must build machines that occupy roughly ten-times more of the earth’s surface to deliver the same amount of energy to society—whether it’s an hour of heat, or light, or computing time, or a mile of driving.

Essentially all life occupies the thin, surface interface of our planet, whether it’s land or water. One of humanity’s greatest achievements has been the radical reduction in the amount of that interface we use to deliver increasing quantities of food and fuel.

The inherent low-energy-density of renewables also means that far more machinery must be fabricated to deliver the same energy as now supplied by hydrocarbon machines. That in turn translates into a radical increase in global mining and minerals processing to supply all the critical materials needed to build renewable machinery.

Renewable plans proposed or underway will require from 400 percent to 8,000 percent more mining for dozens of minerals, from copper and nickel, to aluminum, graphite, and lithium. The IEA says the world will need hundreds of new mines, soon. Given regulatory realities, those won’t be here. Instead, most will be in emerging economies and most will be on or near the lands of indigenous people in areas that are culturally and ecologically valuable and fragile.

And given machine realities, the huge jump in mining required will increase energy use in that sector, thus offsetting a lot, in some cases all the CO2 emissions saved later by replacing hydrocarbons in powerplants and cars. Global mining today already accounts for 40 percent of worldwide industrial energy use, which is dominated by hydrocarbons, and will be for decades.

Mills makes similar arguments in a couple of videos available at PragerU.

Electric Vehicles

I also want to highlight a couple of articles about the electric vehicle mandates in New York and elsewhere.  Robert Bryce asked how can the conversion to electric vehicles possibly work out when Ford loses $66,446 per vehicle sold?  He argues that Ford can currently swallow the losses incurred by its electric vehicle sales but:

If a business isn’t profitable it isn’t sustainable. The history of electric vehicles goes back more than a century and that history is one of failure tailgating failure. In 1915, the Washington Post declared “Prices on electric cars will continue to drop until they are within reach of the average family.”  Today, 108 years later, Ford and other EV makers are still trying to make that prediction come true.

Timothy Nash described 25 reasons why Biden’s EV goals are economically and environmentally harmful.  One of the points he made was that thermal runaway issues with the battery packs are a problem. An industry insider told me recently that there is some talk about limiting vehicle range because battery over heating is more of a problem with the bigger batteries.  Given that range is a major concern that tradeoff is especially problematic.  The ultimate question is what is supposed to happen when people don’t buy the electric vehicles required by the government mandates.

Conclusion

The Climate Act is an example of an insane policy with unrealistic deadlines that is tied to the IPCC analyses.  In 2023 the Scoping Plan recommendations are supposed to be implemented.  The legislature is in session for another month or so and it will be interesting to see how things play out. The disconnect between reality and the aspirations of the Climate Act is still evident.  I hope that the issues described in these articles get addressed in the conversations.

This blog post highlights an article and report that address New York’s  Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act).   I am highlighting them here because they make good points in ways that I think clearly show the futility of the Climate Act. 

I submitted comments on the Climate Act implementation plan and have written over 300 articles about New York’s net-zero transition because I believe the ambitions for a zero-emissions economy embodied in the Climate Act outstrip available renewable technology such that the net-zero transition will do more harm than good.  The opinions expressed in this post do not reflect the position of any of my previous employers or any other company I have been associated with, these comments are mine alone.

Climate Act Background

The Climate Act established a New York “Net Zero” target (85% reduction and 15% offset of emissions) by 2050. The Climate Action Council is responsible for preparing the Scoping Plan that outlines how to “achieve the State’s bold clean energy and climate agenda.”  In brief, that plan is to electrify everything possible and power the electric gride with zero-emissions generating resources by 2040.  The Integration Analysis prepared by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) and its consultants quantifies the impact of the electrification strategies.  That material was used to write a Draft Scoping Plan.  After a year-long review the Scoping Plan recommendations were finalized at the end of 2022.  In 2023 the Scoping Plan recommendations are supposed to be implemented through regulation and legislation.

Trying to Head Off New York’s Total Self-Destruction

Francis Menton writing at the Manhattan Contrarian blog wrote an excellent story about New York’s budget proposals that includes a section on energy policy.  He described the Empire Center’s just released Next New York report that offers “counter-proposals in the major policy areas: public safety, K-12 education, Medicaid and healthcare, energy, transportation and transit, housing, and so forth”.  

Menton’s article addressed energy policy. The energy section of the Next New York report, titled “Heading off New York’s Home-Made Energy Crisis,” begins at page 69, and was written by the Empire Center’s energy guru, James Hanley.  The following is a direct quote from the Menton’s article :

I guess it’s fair to say at this point that we do have an “energy crisis” in New York, but the key word is “home-made.” Everything about energy in New York that could remotely be called a “crisis” is entirely the creation of our politicians. There is no rational reason why energy policy should even be a significant political issue in New York. We have a perfectly good, functional energy system. By far the larger part of it — the non-electrified part, including nearly all transportation, industry, agriculture, and home heat outside the large cities — came into being through private initiative and works with little to no input or interference from politicians and bureaucrats. The other, smaller part — the electrified portion plus urban natural gas distribution — has historically been subject to substantial government regulation, but until quite recently the whole point of the regulation was only to prevent the monopoly utilities from raising their rates to a point of overcharging the customers.

Then our politicians got the idea that there was an imperative to address and solve “climate change” through the device of a politically-directed total re-do of the energy system into something that has never previously been tried nor proven to work. (Don’t get me started on the question of how a place like New York, with a fraction of 1% of world greenhouse gas emissions, is supposed to be able to affect “climate change” by using less fossil fuels, when the places that emit the large majority of world GHGs, like China and India, are adding new coal power plants as fast as they can build them.).

At pages 69-75 of the Report, Hanley provides a brief history of how this subject of reducing GHG emissions got a toe-hold in New York and then rapidly metastasized. Governors Pataki and Paterson began the game in the 90s and 00s, with things like a “renewable portfolio standard” and joining the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (2005). Andrew Cuomo (first elected Governor in 2010) ramped things up by blocking fracking in the extensive Marcellus Shale that underlies a large part of the state, and by having his environmental bureaucrats block natural gas pipelines on bogus “water quality” concerns. But the full suppression of fossil fuels and the wind/solar mania did not really take full control in New York until 2019, when the progressive Democrats finally took both houses of the State Legislature. They used that control to pass something called the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA), which was then signed by Cuomo.
Suddenly, we are on a crash program to get rid of all fossil fuels, electrify everything, and depend completely on the wind and sun for the generation of our energy. Hanley:

The CLCPA’s overarching goal is an 85 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and a net-zero state economy by 2050. Intermediate steps on the way include 6,000 megawatts of installed solar and 185 trillion BTU savings in energy efficiency by 2025, 70 percent renewable energy production and 3,000 megawatts of battery storage by 2030, 9,000 megawatts of offshore wind production by 2035 and 100 percent zero-emissions electricity production by 2040.

I believe that I have used terms like “ridiculous,” “preposterous,” “incompetent,” and “irresponsible” to characterize the legally-mandated goals to which the CLCPA commits our state. Hanley is much more gentle in his use of words:

To say the CLCPA’s goals are ambitious is an understatement, and yet they will not be adequate to provide the state with sufficient clean energy to ensure the continuing reliability of the electrical grid.
One place where Hanley makes a real contribution to the debate is by producing a chart, based on data from the federal Energy Information Administration and Department of Energy, that makes the absurdity of the CLCPA goals apparent:

In the eleven years from 2010 to 2020, the percent of New York’s electricity coming from “renewables” inched up from about 22% to about 28%. But most of that 6% increase came from that blue line, “hydro,” aka almost entirely the Niagara Falls power plant, going from about 18% to about 22% of state electricity production. Meanwhile, in that 11 year period when everyone was starting to obsess about wind and solar and federal subsidies ramped up dramatically, the percent of electricity from wind (the orange line near the bottom of the graph) went all the way from about 2% to about 4%. And the percent from solar remained a barely-perceptible 1% or so, represented by a gray line that is so close to the x-axis of the graph that you can barely see it next to the brown line representing wood.

And then supposedly the percent of electricity from renewables takes off like the blade of a hockey stick in 2020 and gets to 70% by 2030. Unmentioned is that we don’t have another Niagara Falls. Therefore this whole increase now has to come from wind and solar. Oh, and we’re already two years in since the data in Hanley’s graph. How much of this has happened so far? Almost none.

Meanwhile the consumption of electricity is supposedly going to double or so, due to the electrification of automobiles and home heating.

I’ll throw in a few figures from research of my own to further illustrate the absurdity. According to EIA data here, New York’s electricity consumption in 2021 was 141,423,778 MWh. If that doubles from electrification of automobiles and heating, then we’ll need about 280 million MWh in a year. Per Hanley’s summary of the CLCPA above, the state authorities are calling for adding 6000 MW of solar and 9000 MW of offshore wind by 2035. At highly optimistic capacity factors of 25% for solar and 40% for wind, here’s what that will get you:

6000 x 0.25 x 8760 + 9000 x 0.40 x 8760 = 44,676,000 MWh

In other words, as ambitious as the plans for wind and solar may be, even if all gets built this will provide less than a sixth of the electricity that will be needed. And with wind and solar generation, such electricity as gets generated will come at random times that could include long weeks of no wind and almost no sun in the dead of winter.

But meanwhile they are proceeding apace to shut down the existing natural gas capacity.

Hanley concludes his section of the Report with a series of highly sensible recommendations, like ending the fracking ban, ending the pipeline moratorium, and scaling back renewable energy subsidies and tax credits. I actually think we will likely be better off going full speed ahead on the innumerate nonsense and running hard into the green energy wall.

Conclusion

The demand that we do something as quickly as possible does not square with reality. New York GHG emissions are less than one half a percent of global GHG emissions and global GHG emissions have been increasing by more than one half a percent per year.  Anything we do will be replaced by global GHG emission increases in less than a year.  That does not mean that we should not do something but it does mean that we should take the time to do “something” that it does not do more harm than good. Menton and Hanley show that the proposed implementation timeframe is extraordinarily risky and unlikely.  Their concerns must be addressed or the reliability and affordability of New York electricity will be unacceptably at risk.

The demand for compliance certainty inherent in the cap and invest proposed plan exacerbates the risks and impacts. In my last post on the cap and invest program proposal I noted that developing sufficient zero-emissions renewable energy to displace enough fossil-fired electric generation to meet the mandated emissions targets would be a challenge.  Both Hanley and Menton clearly show that the expectation that New York State can convert the electric energy system to meet the 2030 goal of 70% renewable energy is a dream and that meeting the emissions targets is a stretch.  Of particular concern is that the cap and invest approach includes penalties when those targets are not met.  Affected sources are going to err on the side of caution relative to their compliance obligations.  These results and that outlook increase the chance of an artificial energy shortage.