Category: Climate Act Feasibility

A slightly different version of this article was posted at Watts Up With That.

I have been following issues associated with wind and solar resource availability for many years.  My thinking has evolved to the point where I now believe that in a rational world it would be recognized that any electric grid relying on wind and solar is doomed to failure.  This post explains why.

I am a retired electric utility meteorologist and have taken every opportunity I have had to raise my concerns about wind and solar resource availability in New York regulatory proceedings. I have followed the Climate Act since it was first proposed, submitted comments on the Climate Act implementation plan, and have written over 400 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 organization I have been associated with, these comments are mine alone.

Overview

The Climate Act established a New York “Net Zero” target (85% reduction in GHG emissions and 15% offset of emissions) by 2050.  It includes an interim 2030 reduction target of a 40% reduction by 2030 and a requirement that all electricity generated be “zero-emissions” by 2040. The Climate Action Council (CAC) was responsible for preparing the Scoping Plan that outlined how to “achieve the State’s bold clean energy and climate agenda.”  In brief, that plan is to electrify everything possible using zero-emissions electricity. 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 develop the Draft Scoping Plan outline of strategies.  After a year-long review, the Scoping Plan was finalized at the end of 2022.  In 2023 the Scoping Plan recommendations were supposed to be implemented through regulation, PSC orders, and legislation.  That process is falling behind as the enormity of the challenge becomes clearer.

Background

The North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) recently convened a webinar for the Cold Weather Preparedness Small Group Advisory Sessions (SGAS) to “provide an educational opportunity for registered entities to meet with NERC and Regional Entity representatives to discuss the cold weather preparedness Standards and possible compliance approaches in an open and non-audit environment.”  The impetus for this initiative was the February 2021 Texas event described in the following slide. The regulatory fallout for this event is not finished but the need to discuss how best to address these events is so acute that SGAS was established in “an open and non-audit environment”.

Source: May 6, 2024 NERC Cold Weather Preparedness Small Group Advisory Session

The takeaway point is that there are already electric grid resource adequacy issues in the existing system during extreme weather events. I am most concerned about the future grid that relies on weather impacted resources. Even though Texas has substantial wind and solar resources their presence did not contribute meaningfully to this Texas blackout. Instead, it was the failure of many components of the traditional generating and transmission systems to be sufficiently hardened to extreme cold. In the future the weather dependent grid will cause similar problems more frequently and, as I will show, may not be able to prevent a catastrophic blackout.

My primary concern is the feasibility for the New York Climate Act implementation plan. or more appropriately the lack of a proper feasibility analysis, that addresses the worst-case wind and solar energy resource drought.  In September 2021, I described the reliability challenges for the Climate Act described by the organizations responsible for electric system reliability.  All the credible analyses done for future grid reliability point out the expected worst-case scenario – When New York electrifies heating and transportation the peak load will be in the winter when temperatures are coldest.  The Integration Analysis identified a multi-day period winter wind lull.  The New York Independent System Operator has done similar analyses and showed that winter wind lulls that coincide with low solar availability and high loads will be the ultimate problem.  The New York Department of Public Service also has identified the Renewable Energy Gap as a major issue.  In my opinion, however, no analysis done to date has identified the worst-case scenario because they have all used relatively short periods of historical data.

All credible renewable resource projection analyses use historical meteorological data, projections of future load during those periods, and estimates of electric resource availability based on assumed deployment of wind, solar, energy storage, and other technologies needed to supply the expected load.  Hourly profiles of weather variables produced via the weather forecast modeling techniques are used to develop hourly demand forecasts and energy output profiles for wind and solar resources for the periods being studied.  The credible analyses only differ in their assumptions for the characteristics of the buildouts and the sophistication of potential availability based on climatological and geographical constraints.  Once the analysis is complete the resulting data can be used to identify the worst case.

The New York Independent System Operator (NYISO) is working with its consultant DNV to develop New York onshore wind, offshore wind, and solar resource availability.  Their analysis uses a 23-year historical meteorological database for the New York State renewable resource areas. Similar analyses are underway in other regional transmission operator regions.  It has also been recognized that larger areas need to be treated similarly.  The Electric Power Research Institute has a Low-Carbon Resources Initiative that has been looking at the North American continent.  Researchers outside of the industry have also done analyses of wind and solar power droughts using the ERA5 reanalysis data from 1950 to the present.  The reanalysis data analysis uses current weather forecast models and historical observations to provide hourly meteorological fields.  These data can be further refined to finer scales to project the wind and solar resource availability.

Results

All these analyses find there are periods of low renewable resource availability.  For example, the New York State Reliability Council Extreme Weather Working Group (EWWG) analyzed the high resolution NY offshore wind data provided by NYISO and its consultant DNV for offshore wind resources.  The summary of the report stated:

The magnitude, duration, and widespread geographic impacts identified by this preliminary analysis are quite significant and will be compounded by load growth from electrification. This highlights the importance of reliability considerations associated with offshore wind and wind lulls be accounted for in upcoming reliability assessments, retirement studies, and system adequacy reviews to ensure sufficiency of system design to handle the large offshore wind volume expected to become operational in the next five to ten years.

The NYISO/DNV analysis used a 21-year database.  In a similar type of analysis, the Independent System Operator of New England (ISO-NE) Operational Impact of Extreme Weather Events, the ERA5 data were used to prepare a database covering 1950 to 2021.  The analysis evaluated 1, 5, and 21-day extreme cold and hot events. 

One of the important results presented in the ISO-NE analysis was a table of projected system risk for weather events over the 72-year data record.  In the analysis, system risk was defined as the aggregated unavailable supply plus the exceptional demand during the 21-day event.  Note that the analysis considered sliding windows for the 21-day events by shifting the 21-day window every seven days.  The unsurprising point I want to highlight is that the system risk increases as the lookback period increases.  If the resource adequacy planning for New England only looked at the last ten years, then the system risk would be 8,714 MW, but over the whole period the worst system risk was 9,160 and that represents an resource increase of 5.1%.

Source: ISO-NE Operational Impact of Extreme Weather Events, available here

Note that there was an EWWG analysis of Historical Weather and Climate Extremes for New York performed by Judith Curry and myself that identified the January 1961 event as the probable worst-case scenario.  We found that there was a 15-day period from January 20 until February 3, 1961 that will likely turn out to be the worst-case cold wave. This was a period when high-pressure systems dominated the weather in the Northeast and those conditions mean light wind speeds.

Discussion

I do not think we can ever have an electric grid that will provide reliable power when it is needed the most. Today electric system resource adequacy planners don’t have to worry that many generating resources might not be available at the same time. In a future electric grid that relies on wind and solar the fact that those resources correlate in time and space is what I think is the insurmountable planning problem. All solar goes away at night and wind lulls affect entire regional transmission organization (RTO) areas at the same time. This issue is exacerbated by the fact that the wind lull will cover multiple RTO areas at the same time the highest load is expected.

The reason we can never trust a wind, solar, and energy storage grid is because if we depend on energy-limited resources that are a function of the weather, then a system designed to meet the worst-case is likely impractical. Consider the ISO-NE events where it was found that the most recent 10-year planning lookback period would plan for a system risk of 8,714 MW.  However, if the planning horizon covered the period back to 1961, the worst-case to 1950, an additional 446 MW would be required to meet the system risk.  I cannot imagine a business case for the deployment of energy storage or the magical dispatchable emissions free resource that will only be needed once in 63 years.  For one thing, the life expectancy of these technologies is much less than 63 years.  Even over a shorter horizon such as the last ten years, how will a required facility be able to stay solvent when it runs so rarely without subsidies and very high payments when they do run.

As I described in an earlier article, the New York Department of Public Service (DPS) Proceeding 15-E-0302 technical conference Zero Emissions by 2040  highlighted concerns about this Gap resource gap and how it could be addressed.  Besides the fact that the preferred candidate technologies have not been commercially proven, they all will be extraordinarily expensive.  I believe that makes worst-case solutions impractical.

On the other hand, the alternative to ignore the worst case is unacceptable.  In the net-zero fantasy world that is supposed to rely on wind and solar when heating and transportation is supposed to be electrified the need for reliable electricity is magnified. If we don’t provide resources for the observed worst case, when those conditions inevitably reoccur then there will be a blackout when electricity is needed the most to keep people from freezing to death in the dark because they are unable to flee.

The tradeoff between practicality and necessity is not going to be resolved by the resource adequacy planning groups doing the analyses described.  I don’t think organizations like the New York State Reliability Council or NERC will make the decisions either.  This is something that will have to be decided by politicians at the highest levels.  Hopefully the problem will be considered in an open and transparent manner, but political lobbying pressures will be immense because the viability of the politically correct current plan to depend on wind and solar in New York and elsewhere is threatened.

Conclusion

I have long argued that New York should perform a feasibility study to determine if the net-zero outline to comply with the Climate Act in the Scoping Plan could possibly work.  Francis Menton has convinced me that it would be better to do a demonstration project in some smaller jurisdiction to prove that it can work.   The described tradeoff between the practicality of deploying resources for the observed worst-case resource deficit and the necessity to do so to prevent a catastrophic blackout should be a key consideration in either workability evaluation.

In my opinion any electric system that depends on wind and solar is impractical.  Obviously, if the goal is a zero-emissions electric system then nuclear must be the cornerstone.  If affordability is a concern, then the pragmatic acceptance of a large reduction in emissions rather than a zero target would allow the use of some natural gas as proposed by Russell Schussler and myself last year.  Given the entrenched crony capitalists and special interests supporting wind and solar any shift in direction, even if necessary to protect health and safety, will be a tremendous lift.

This is my 400^th article on the Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act) net-zero transition.  It seems appropriate to look at where the state stands relative to the time when I started writing these articles and the Climate Act targets.  This summary supplements the progress status summary described by Francis Menton and the generation trend status prepared by Nuclear New York by looking at Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions.

I have followed the Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act)  since it was first proposed, submitted comments on the Climate Act implementation plan, and have written 400 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 organization I have been associated with, these comments are mine alone.

Overview

The Climate Act established a New York “Net Zero” target (85% reduction in GHG emissions and 15% offset of emissions) by 2050.  It includes an interim 2030 reduction target of a 40% reduction by 2030 and a requirement that all electricity generated be “zero-emissions” by 2040. The Climate Action Council (CAC) 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 using zero-emissions electricity. 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 develop the Draft Scoping Plan outline of strategies.  After a year-long review, the Scoping Plan was finalized at the end of 2022.  In 2023 the Scoping Plan recommendations were supposed to be implemented through regulation, PSC orders, and legislation.  Not surprisingly, the aspirational schedule of the Climate Act has proven to be more difficult to implement than planned.  Many aspects of the transition are falling behind, and the magnitude of the necessary costs is coming into focus.  When political fantasies meet reality, reality always wins.

Nuclear New York – Generation Trends

In a press release on January 8, 2024 Nuclear New York, “Independent Advocates for Reliable Carbon-Free Energy” explained that “four years since passing the Climate Act, New York struggles to replace shuttered clean energy “.  Their release stated (foot notes removed):

In 2023, nuclear power was once again the largest single source of clean energy in New York State. Electricity generation from this carbon-free source totaled 27.6 terawatt hours (TWh), up 2.7% over 2022. Nuclear covered 18.1% of the state’s total electricity demand (including behind-the-meter “rooftop” solar generation), and amounted to 42.7% of in-state clean electricity.

Hydro, the second largest source of carbon-free power, recovered 2.1% in 2023 to 27.2 TWh, covering 17.9% of demand. These two ‘firm clean’ generation sources provide on-demand power regardless of the time of day or weather.

Despite increasing deployed wind capacity in 2022 by 13% over 2021, generation from this source declined 3.9% in 2023 over 2022 to 4.7 TWh, demonstrating the perils of relying on weather-dependent renewable energy. New York Independent System Operator (NYISO) does not report grid-connected solar as a separate category, given its currently minuscule contribution to the generation mix. However, rooftop solar generation increased 18% to 5.2 TWh, covering 3.4% of demand.

New York’s electricity demand declined by 4.8 TWh over 2022 (-3.1%), which enabled the state to reduce net imports by 4.3 TWh. In-state fossil fuel combustion decreased by 2.3 TWh, but remained 11.0 TWh (21%) above 2019 levels, when clean energy generation peaked.

Updates on the March to the New York Great Green Future

Francis Menton’s update on the net-zero transition asks the question where are we and responds:

The Manhattan Contrarian Energy Storage Report of December 1, 2022, led off by sounding a clear alarm: getting electricity from intermittent wind and solar well past 50% of total generation would require enormous quantities of energy to be stored, with technical requirements, including duration of storage, well beyond the capability of any battery currently existing or likely to be invented any time soon. Essentially, if fossil fuels are to be eliminated, there is only one realistic possibility for meeting the storage requirements: hydrogen.

In mid-2023, the New York Independent System Operator, to its credit, recognized the problem — although it buried that recognition deep in a report when it should be shouting about the problem from the rooftops. From NYISO’s Power Trends 2023 Report, revised August 2023, page 7, starting in the middle of a paragraph and without any emphasis:

“[T]o achieve the mandates of the CLCPA, new emission-free generating technologies with the necessary reliability service attributes will be needed to replace the flexible, dispatchable capabilities of fossil fuel generation and sustain production for extended periods of time. Such emission-free technologies, either individually or in aggregate, are not yet available on a commercial scale.“

With hydrogen as the only possible such “emissions-free generating technology,” how much would hydrogen cost as the solution to this problem, particularly if one follows the hypothesis that it must be created without any use of fossil fuels? My Report, page 14, noted that existing commercial production of this so-called “green” hydrogen was “negligible,” leaving no good benchmark for understanding what the costs might be. As a substitute, I ran some rough numbers based on cost of wind and solar generators to make the electricity and efficiency of the electrolysis process. The result was a very rough estimate that this “green” hydrogen would cost “somewhere in the range of 5 to 10 times more” than natural gas (page 17).

Well, now some new precision has come into view. In July 2022 the UK government launched what it calls its First Hydrogen Allocation Round (HAR 1), to obtain bids and award contracts to produce this so-called “green” hydrogen using wind power. The process took a while, but here from December 14, 2023 is the announcement of the first round of contract awards. Excerpt:

“Following the launch of the first hydrogen allocation round (HAR1) in July 2022, we have selected the successful projects to be offered contracts. We are pleased to announce 11 successful projects, totalling 125MW capacity. HAR1 puts the UK in a leading position internationally: this represents the largest number of commercial scale green hydrogen production projects announced at once anywhere in Europe. . . . The 11 projects have been agreed at a weighted average strike price of £241/MWh.“

£241/MWh? At today’s exchange rate of 1.27 $/£, that would be $306/MWh. Prices of natural gas are generally quoted in $/MMBTU rather than per MWh, but here is EIA’s latest Electricity Monthly Update, dated December 21 and covering the month of October 2023. It gives natural gas prices in the per MWh units. The “price of natural gas at New York City” is given as $11.32/MWh. That would make the price that the UK has just agreed to pay to buy this “green” hydrogen stuff approximately 27 times what we can buy natural gas for here in New York to obtain the same energy content.

And that $306/MWh is just for the hydrogen. It includes nothing for the massive new facilities (underground salt caverns?) to store the stuff, for a new pipeline network to transport it, and for a new collection of power plants to burn it.

Electric Generating Unit Emission Trends

Electric generating units report emissions to the Environmental Protection Agency Clean Air Markets Division as part of the compliance requirements for the Acid Raiin Program and other market-based programs that require accurate and complete emissions data.  The 2023 emissions data submittal date was January 31 and I downloaded the data the next day.  Something has changed in the data access system so I could not check to see if all the facilities reported on time.  If some facilities had to ask for a delayed submittal this could mean that the totals are lower that actual emissions.

The following table lists the emissions since 2009 when the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative started.  Emissions of CO2, SO2, and NOx are down dramatically over this period.  The primary reason is that the fracking revolution made the cost of natural gas so cheap relative to other fuels that every facility that could convert to natural gas did so.  New York banned the use of coal in 2021 which forced the retirement of the remaining coal plants.  The state still has some facilities that primarily burn residual oil but those run infrequently.  The takeaway message is that the fuel switching options are no longer available so future reductions will only come as zero-emissions resources displace facilities burning fossil fuels.

The following graph shows the emission trends.  Note that I divided the CO2 emissions by 1,000 so that all the parameters would show up on the same plot.  The impact of the closure of the Indian Point nuclear facility mentioned in the Nuclear New York presentation is clearly shown as CO2 rose over the last three years until the 2023 emissions started down.  Importantly that could be mostly due to weather variations and not necessarily the addition of the renewables shown above.

New York State GHG Emission Trends

A relevant question is where we stand in regards to the Climate Act mandate for a 40% reduction from a 1990 baseline in GHG emissions by 2030.  Unfortunately, that is not easily answered in sufficient detail to be able to figure out what is going on.

The regulation setting the 1990 baseline emissions values that form the basis for the 2030 40% reduction and the 2050 85% reduction was promulgated in 2020.  It sets the limits

§ 496.4 Statewide Greenhouse Gas Emission Limits

(a) For the purposes of this Part, the estimated level of statewide greenhouse gas emissions in 1990 is 409.78 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent, using a GWP20 as provided in Section 496.5 of this Part.

(b) For the purposes of this Part, the table below establishes statewide emission limits for the year specified, as a percentage of estimated 1990 statewide greenhouse gas emissions of 60 percent and 15 percent, respectively, measured in millions of metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent gas using a GWP20 as provided in Section 496.5 of this Part.

The Regulatory Impact Statement for the regulation included a table that breaks down the 1990 emissions by Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Sectors and gases.  As shown below there is not much of a breakdown.  Note that all the rest of the emissions will be reported as the CO2 equivalents so you do not need to worry about the component gases.

According to the 2023 Statewide GHG Emissions webpage “The Climate Act requires the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) to issue an annual report on statewide greenhouse gas emissions, pursuant to Section 75-0105 of the Environmental Conservation Law.”  The most recent report covering the years 1990 through 2021 was released in late December 2023. The following reports were released at that time:

• Summary Report (PDF)
• Sectoral Report 1: Energy (PDF)
• Sectoral Report 2: Industrial Processes and Product Use (PDF)
• Sectoral Report 3: Agriculture, Forestry, and Land Use (PDF)
• Sectoral Report 4: Waste (PDF)
• Appendix: CLCPA Emission Factors (PDF)

I extracted summary data from each of the sectoral reports to provide some idea of where New York stands relative to the 2030 targets in the following table.  The Part 496 1990 column lists the regulatory baseline numbers.  The estimated emissions in the 2023 Statewide GHG Emissions are listed for 1990, 2005, and the last five years.  I list the sector 2030 targets (40% of 1990 emissions) and the percentage reduction necessary to meet the targets. 

The first thing that pops out is that the 2023 inventory has a different estimate for 1990.  GHG emission inventories require indirect estimates of many of the emission sources and the assumptions regarding the emission factor that estimates emissions with an activity and the activity rate.  This is a fundamental problem with emission factors and means that for full transparency all the emission factors and associated activity levels should be clearly documented.

The second thing of note is that none of the IPCC sectors are even close to the 2030 targets.  The Scoping Plan’s quantitative assessment in the Integration Analysis essentially is a list of control strategies, presumed control efficiencies, and expected emission reductions that when added up meet the limits.  That assessment was poorly documented, contains inconsistencies with similar New York Independent System Operator (NYISO) analyses, and there has never been any response to comments about inconsistencies and other issues identified in the Scoping Plan comments.  There is no feasibility analysis to determine if those targets can be met with any assurance.

I tried to analyze the data used for the 2023 Statewide GHG Emissions.  Those data are available for download from Open Data NY.  This is another instance where it is not easy to break down the components of the IPCC sectors to determine if it is realistically possible to meet the 2030 targets because state agencies do not provide consistent data.

The Regulatory Impact Statement for Part 496 included Table 4 that broke down fuel combustion GHG emissions within the IPCC energy sector.  Because I used the dataset itself, I picked the sector categories that I believe match the Table 4 categories.  Note that I did not include fuel combustion from petroleum refining in the table because I could not find categories that I thought matched it.  The following table lists the results for the last ten years and compared the 2021 emissions to the 2030 target. Fuel combustion in the electric and industrial sectors are already lower than the equivalent 2030 targets.  On the other hand, transportation and fuel combustion in the commercial and residential sectors will require significant reductions to meet the targets. 

Is that feasible?  Consider what is needed for just one parameter.  To determine if the transportation fuel combustion reductions are feasible, the expected reductions per gasoline vehicle must be estimated.  Miles per gallon and the annual mileage need to be estimated for a range of users and locations so that a reasonable estimate of state-wide fuel use can be estimated.  Once you know that then you can determine how many zero-emissions vehicles must be deployed.  Is that estimate realistic?  That is not all because zero-emissions vehicles also require charging infrastructure and that affects the distribution infrastructure. It is easy to say the model projections meet the 2030 targets but the range of parameters that can be tweaked is so large that any pre-conceived answer can be produced. 

I also put these data in a graph.  I am not sure it adds much value, but I spent enough time on it that I don’t want to waste the effort.  The overall trend suggests that it might be possible to meet the targets if, and only if, the historical rate of emission reductions can be replicated.  Given that the electricity and industrial sectors have achieved the greatest reductions but have no readily available additional reductions, I am not optimistic. 

Conclusion

The 400 articles I have written on the Climate Act all lead to the same result.  When you look at the numbers as shown in this post, the enormity of the challenge is clear. Paraphrasing Francis Menton:

No person looking at these charts would ever conclude that New York has spent the past five years embarked on a crash program to replace fossil fuels with wind and solar. That process is going absolutely nowhere.

Richard Ellenbogen recently sent an email to his distribution that highlighted an inevitable problem with New York State’s net-zero mandate of the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (Climate Act).  The plan is to electrify everything possible using renewable energy.  That brings up the problem that the local electric distribution system is not up to the task so it is likely that electric use could be limited at times in New York’s future.

Ellenbogen is the President [BIO] Allied Converters and frequently copies me on emails that address various issues associated with the Climate Act.  I have published other articles by Ellenbogen and a description of his keynote address to the Business Council of New York 2023 Renewable Energy Conference Energy titled: “Energy on Demand as the Life Blood of Business and Entrepreneurship in the State -video here:  Why NY State Must Rethink Its Energy Plan and Ten Suggestions to Help Fix the Problems.” I recently described his presentation on New York’s Energy Transition that is a detailed explanation why the State’s quest for zero emissions electricity generated by wind and solar is doomed to failure.

There are only a few people in New York that are trying to educate people about the risks of the Climate Act with as much passion as I am but Richard certainly fits that description.  He comes at the problem as an engineer who truly cares about the environment and how best to improve the environment without unintended consequences.  He has spent an enormous amount of time honing his presentation summarizing the problems he sees but most of all the environmental performance record of his business shows that he is walking the walk.  

Climate Act Overview

The Climate Act established a New York “Net Zero” target (85% reduction and 15% offset of emissions) by 2050.  It includes an interim 2030 reduction target of a 40% reduction by 2030 and a requirement that all electricity generated be “zero-emissions” by 2040. The Climate Action Council (CAC) 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 using zero-emissions electricity. 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 develop the 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 were supposed to be implemented through regulation and legislation.  Ellenbogen’s discussion describes one of the issues that was not addressed in 2023.

Record Christmas Lights

Ellenbogen described a home in Union Vale, NY where the residents set the world record for most lights in a residential Christmas display with 720,420 lights in the display.  He provided links describing the the record lights from the New York Times:

I cannot get around the Times paywall so I could not see those articles but found a relevant story at Good Morning America that includes a video.

Ellenbogen writes:

Independent of any issues raised in the article, the following comment by a neighbor stands out.

Bernadette and William Burke, who love to watch the show from their hot tub, but for years could not use their washing machine or dishwasher while the lights were on. Mr. Gay said the problem was resolved when the electric company put the Gay house on its own transformer.

He estimated the power requirements:

Below is a table of power consumption of various Christmas bulbs. Using a back-of-the-napkin calculation, the display probably draws about 75 – 100 KVA.   Most utility transformers in residential areas are sized between 70 KVA and 150 KVA.  Below are photos from a NYSERDA report that I wrote in 2010 for the reactive power project I did for them.  Note that a transformer used to support five buildings in a Garden Apartment complex had a capacity of 150 KVA and a transformer for two buildings had a capacity of 75 KVA.  Both of these transformers operated near their capacity on a hot summer day and would far exceed that capacity with widespread installation of heat pumps.

Ellenbogen compared the power consumption of the display to heat pumps and car charging that are components of the Scoping Plan outline of control strategies to meet the Climate Act mandates:

The three heat pumps in my home will draw about 22 KW at peak load for 250,000 BTU of heat transfer in heating mode (1000 watts per ton  COP=3.52 ).  The power draw in cooling mode is about 60 % of that (600 watts per ton  COP=5.86 ).  We also have gas furnaces with an output of 400,000 BTU that will operate on extremely cold days or will operate if there is an issue with the heat pumps.

My car charges at a peak load of 14,000 watts.  I have seen loads of 38,000 watts on the power monitor at my house when I am charging the car during the winter.  When I built my house, I had a 400 amp 3phase service installed.  It can deliver 144 KVA ( 144,000 watts) at peak load and the transformer across the street is 150 KVA.  Most newer homes might have a 200 amp single phase service (40 KVA) and older homes will have a 100 amp or 150 amp service (20 – 30 KVA).

Discussion

Ellenbogen argues that the fact that a neighbor was impacted by a large load by a neighbor has ramifications when everyone has to increase their electrical requirements:

The point is that if the utility system can’t support a Christmas display, even a large one, and allow the neighbors to wash their clothes at the same time, how is it going to support the massive load of heat pumps and vehicle charging that is being mandated.  That combination will far exceed the demand of a Christmas light display.  As I have mentioned previously, every transformer in the state is going to have to be replaced or have their service upgraded as occurred at the home in the article.  The problem is that there is an acute transformer shortage along with a shortage of electricians and utilities are worried about having a sufficient number of transformers to recover after a bad storm, let alone having enough to rebuild the entire system.

Also note that the GMA piece on the record light display mentioned that the owners claim that their electric bill is only $300.  New York utilities are installing smart meters that will eventually enable them to charge customers different rates at different times of the day.  The idea is that they will increase rates to incentivize customers to reduce use during peak load periods.  In the all-electric future the peak load will be in the early evening when homeowners get home from work and turn on appliances.  I would not be surprised at all if the costs for the massive display might increase so much that they would be unable to afford the costs even with LED lights.

Although the utilities claim that customers will not lose control of their electric use, I suspect that is also inevitable because of the scale of the problem.  As a result, someday Scrooge will say no you cannot have a record light show.

Conclusion

Ellenbogen said he was going to send a magic wand to the Public Service Commission to help them with the Climate Act transition because they are going to need all the help that they can get.  I agree with his conclusion: “Since math and science have been thrown out the window in New York State, we might as well turn to the occult.”