Climate Act Legislation & Regulations – Pragmatic Environmentalist of New York

NY Politicians Face Climate Act Decision

On Oct. 24, 2025, the New York Supreme Court issued a decision and order in a case pitting environmental organizations against the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC). The judge ordered DEC to issue final regulations establishing economy-wide greenhouse gas emission (GHG) limits on or before Feb. 6, 2026. This post summarizes the findings and my thoughts on the ramifications and path forward.

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

Decision Summary

I think Supreme Court Judge Julian Schreibman’s decision includes an excellent overview of how we got where we are. He wrote:

In the present case, in 2019, the Legislature passed the Climate Act with the express goal of making New York a leader in addressing climate change through reduced emissions of greenhouse gases. The Climate Act specifically committed the state to achieving a 40% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030, and an 85% reduction by 2050, measured against 1990 emissions levels.

The decision goes on to explain that the Climate Act implementation plan has three steps:

DEC was required to set emission limits for the reduction targets;
The Climate Action Council, “an advisory group made up of 22 members with relevant expertise”, was given two years to prepare a Scoping Plan containing recommendations for “attaining statewide greenhouse gas emissions limits”; and
The DEC was required to issue regulations that would achieve the mandated emissions reductions following the findings of the Scoping Plan.

The State met the first two requirements but the regulations that were supposed to be released by January 1, 2024, were not promulgated. On March 31, 2025, a group of environmental advocates filed a petition pursuant to CPLR Article 78 alleging, among other things, that DEC had failed to comply with the timeframe.

Although I agreed with most of the descriptive text in the Schreibman decision, I disagree with his characterization of the Climate Action Council having “relevant expertise”. I evaluated the background of the 22 members and found they were chosen based on political ideology. Only eight come from energy sector organizations or have backgrounds in the energy sector. Four of the energy sector members are agency heads, two represent renewable energy organizations, and one represents both renewable and traditional energy organizations. This leaves only one member from the traditional energy sector. Furthermore, the stakeholder process ignored comments that did not comport with the Administration’s narrative. My point is that the Climate Action Council’s Scoping Plan is unworkable because most of its members approved components that can only be described as magical solutions.

The petition from the environmental advocates states:” The Scoping Plan recommends that New York implement a “cap-and-invest” system to ensure that the state meets those limits.^” This is supposed to provide a cost-effective way to ensure compliance with the Climate Act emission limits. As explained here, my comments on the Draft Scoping Plan explained why it would not work as claimed. My comments were never acknowledged, much less discussed by the Council. Now that dreams cannot avoid reality, the State’s argument in the case boils down to:

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

Schreibman’s decision noted that the State had made a persuasive argument that there were issues related to achieving the emissions targets. However, he notes:

The Legislature has not empowered DEC to set its own targets, to achieve results within a range, or to simply to make progress. Instead, it has specified a result and required DEC to issue regulations that “shall” fulfill it.

Faced with this mandate, DEC does not have the discretion to say no or to decide that it has the authority to choose not to follow the express legislative directive at issue. Under our system of separation of powers, upon concluding, based on its subject-matter expertise, that achieving the goals of the Climate Act might be “infeasible” for the reasons stated, DEC had two options. One, it could issue compliant regulations anyway, and let the chips fall where they may for the State’s political actors. Or, two, it could raise its concerns to the Legislature so that the State’s elected representatives could make a determination about what costs their constituents can or cannot bear in the pursuit of reining in climate change.

The decision concludes:

The Court has no more authority to set climate policy than DEC and would generally expect to have less. However, bearing in mind the factors and issues addressed by the parties, the Court considers that, at this point, it would be improvident to order relief before the next regularly scheduled session of the Legislature convenes. The Court takes judicial notice that the next such session is scheduled to commence in January 2026. If legislative action modifies DEC’S obligations under the Climate Act, DEC will act in accordance therewith. In the absence of legislative relief, however, respondent shall “promulgate rules and regulations to ensure compliance with the statewide emissions reductions limits” set forth in the Climate Act no later than February 6, 2026. Respondent is cautioned that, having afforded it with the time to both further develop its regulations and address its concerns to the political branches, the Court is highly unlikely to grant extensions of this deadline.

Going Forward

The judge ruled that DEC must either issue compliant regulations or tell the Legislature that they must change the law. In the cap-and-invest approach pollution permits to operate (aka allowances) are set equal to the emission targets. Judge Schreibman said DEC could “issue compliant regulations and let the chips fall where they may for the State’s political actors”. The Clean Energy Standard Biennial Review and the Draft Energy Plan both concluded that GHG emissions in 2030 would exceed the emission target. If that projection occurs, then there will not be enough allowances and the only way for entities to comply with the law is to stop operating. That would create an artificial energy shortage. It is disappointing that the State’s argument did not raise this possibility. However, it would not matter because DEC can only issue compliant regulations or the politicians must act to revise the law.

An article by Greenberg Traurig notes that issuing compliant regulations by February 6, 2026 is “virtually impossible” for DEC to comply because:

State Administrative Procedure Act § 202, which specifies that draft regulations are subject to a minimum 60-day public comment period. Additionally, it takes the Department of State at least two weeks to publish draft regulations in the State Register after being provided with the same by an agency. Finally, there would likely be thousands of public comments to which DEC would be required to respond.

While I am not politically astute it seems equally unlikely that DEC “could raise its concerns to the Legislature so that the State’s elected representatives” could revise the law in this timeframe. Although the decision stated that “the Court is highly unlikely to grant extensions of this deadline” there was no mention of New York Public Service Law § 66-p (4) “Establishment of a renewable energy program” that includes safety valve conditions for affordability and reliability. Section 66-p (4) states: “The commission may temporarily suspend or modify the obligations under such program provided that the commission, after conducting a hearing as provided in section twenty of this chapter, makes a finding that the program impedes the provision of safe and adequate electric service; the program is likely to impair existing obligations and agreements; and/or that there is a significant increase in arrears or service disconnections that the commission determines is related to the program”. There has been a significant increase in arrears so if the Public Service Commission were to rule that a temporary suspension was warranted, that might persuade the Judge to extend the deadline.

The Greenberg Traurig article describes the third possible option:

All of this may be rendered moot, however, if DEC appeals the decision – a viable option given Gov. Hochul’s public statement following the decision – and appropriate amendments are made to ECL § 75- 0109(1) in the next legislative session. Pursuant to CPLR § 5519(a)(1), the State would be entitled to an automatic stay of the directive to issue the regulations upon the filing of a notice of appeal or an affidavit of intention to move for permission to appeal. In this respect, a decision on an appeal may take more than six months to be issued from the date of the filing made under CPLR § 5519(a)(1). The timing of an appeal may coincidently provide the Hochul administration with time to include amendments of ECL § 75- 0109(1) in the Governor’s Executive Budget Proposal, which is issued in January of each year. Although in recent years it has taken well into May for the final budget to be enacted, there is a strong chance that an appeal would not be heard and decided prior to that time, allowing for sufficient time to change the statutory language upon which the Citizen Action decision was based if there is the political will to do so.

Colin Kinniburgh wrote a recent article about the decision that indicates that the third option is likely:

Now, Hochul is slamming the court order as unrealistic in light of President Donald Trump’s war on renewable energy and the ongoing economic fallout from the Covid-19 pandemic. Speaking to reporters Monday, she made clear that she has no intention of reviving the cap and invest program in the coming months. Instead, she plans to appeal the ruling and seek a deal with the legislature to amend the climate law.

“We have time to work it out,” she said. “We’ll work on appeal. We’ll sit down and talk to the legislature [about] what’s within the realm of possibility and reality here in light of all these changed circumstances.”

In my opinion, appealing the ruling is not going to change the decision. It is clear cut. DEC had to promulgate regulations that meet the Climate Act law. Even though they know it won’t work and will cost too much, that does not matter. The only way to change the requirement is to hold the politicians accountable and have them change the law. Appealing will just push the inconvenient ramifications of political accountability off, probably past the Gubernatorial election. How convenient for Governor Hochul.

In a recent Capital Tonight segment Susan Arbetter interviewed Earthjustice attorney Rachel Spector about the ruling. I made a transcript and added my comments because I think the responses to her questions exemplify the position of environmental organizations that support the Climate Act. Despite overwhelming evidence that it is time to reconsider the Climate Act schedule, these organizations deny that there is any need to worry about affordability, reliability, and environmental impacts. I think their belief that they have sufficient leverage with the New York legislature is going to crash into reality sooner rather than later.

My Recommendation

I am very frustrated with the Climate Act net zero transition because the reality is that there are so many issues coming up with the schedule and ambition of the Climate Act that it is obvious that we need to pause implementation and figure out how best to proceed. In my opinion, the best way to proceed is to couple a revised Climate Act schedule with clearly defined standards for affordability, reliability, and environmental impacts. A trackable metric for each should be developed and a tracking system be put in place. The key point is that the law should be modified so that there are consequences when those metrics are exceeded. In short, the safety valve provisions of PSL 66-p should be improved and incorporated into the Climate Act.

The process to establish these metrics should incorporate extensive public participation. New Yorkers need to understand the range of costs, impacts on personal choice, and changes to lifestyles that are buried in the Scoping Plan and Energy Plan. If these safety valve metrics have reasonable limits, I expect that affordability, reliability, and environmental impacts targets will be exceeded as soon as tracking begins. That is the point. Eliminating fossil fuels sounds has been portrayed as simple and cheap but the reality is very different.

Conclusion

The Climate Act has always been about politics and appeasing certain constituencies with climate “leadership”. The politicians who supported the Climate Act did not include a feasibility analysis, concrete implementation plans, or defined affordability and reliability risk limits. The necessity to consider a pragmatic approach is undeniable now. Will the politicians step up and address the issues identified in the last five years of implementation experience? That would require admission that the current plan is doomed to failure. I suspect that politicians will selfishly kick the can down the road to try to avoid the consequences of their virtue-signaling Climate Act.

DPS Definitions for Establishment of a Renewable Energy Program

I believe that the biggest shortcoming of the Hochul Administration’s implementation of the Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act) is the lack of a plan. For example, in order to implement a transition to meet the mandate that all electricity must be generated by “zero-emissions” resources by 2040 it is necessary to define “zero emissions”. On November 4, 2024, the Department of Public Service (DPS) staff finally proposed definitions for two key components of the 2040 target. This post describes my impressions of the definitions.

I have followed the Climate Act since it was first proposed, submitted comments on the Climate Act implementation plan, and have written over 470 articles about New York’s net-zero transition. The opinions expressed in this article do not reflect the position of any of my previous employers or any other organization I have been associated with, these comments are mine alone.

Overview

The Climate Act established a New York “Net Zero” target (85% reduction in GHG emissions and 15% offset of emissions) by 2050. It includes an interim 2030 reduction target of a 40% GHG reduction by 2030. Two targets address the electric sector: 70% of the electricity must come from renewable energy by 2030 and all electricity must be generated by “zero-emissions” resources 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.” The Integration Analysis prepared by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) and its consultants quantified 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. Since then, the State has been trying to implement the Scoping Plan recommendations through regulations, proceedings, and legislation. The DPS Proceeding on “Motion of the Commission to Implement a Large-Scale Renewable Program and a Clean Energy Standard” case number 15-E-0302 is the primary implementation proceeding.

Background

On November 4, 2024, the DPS staff proposal concerning definitions for key terms (Staff Proposal) in Public Service Law §66-p. The Introduction of the Staff Proposal explains:

In this proposal, the Department of Public Service Staff (Staff) suggests interpretations of key terms in the provisions of the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (Climate Act), codified in Section 66-p of the Public Service Law (PSL), which directs the Public Service Commission (Commission) to establish a renewable energy program and design it to achieve particular targets. At issue in this proposal is the language of PSL §66-p(2)(b), which directs the Commission to establish a program pursuant to which, by the year 2040, the “statewide electrical demand system will be zero emissions.” Of particular note, neither of the terms “statewide electrical demand system” nor “zero emissions” are expressly defined in the Climate Act or in the PSL. This lack of statutory definition requires the Commission’s interpretation of these terms to ensure proper regulatory implementation.

The last sentence understates the obvious – it is impossible to implement a plan if we don’t define these terms. I have highlighted the two terms in the law that are the focus of the definitions, § 66-p, 2:

No later than June thirtieth, two thousand twenty-one, the commission shall establish a program to require that: (a) a minimum of seventy percent of the state wide electric generation secured by jurisdictional load serving entities to meet the electrical energy requirements of all end-use customers in New York state in two thousand thirty shall be generated by renewable energy systems; and (b) that by the year two thousand forty (collectively, the “targets”) the statewide electrical demand system will be zero emissions. In establishing such program, the commission shall consider and where applicable formulate the program to address impacts of the program on safe and adequate electric service in the state under reasonably foreseeable conditions. The commission may, in designing the program, modify the obligations of jurisdictional load serving entities and/or the targets upon consideration of the factors described in this subdivision.

Note that the program to implement these mandates has already been established so these definitions have not been addressed thus far. Also note that there is specific language mandating consideration of the implementation program impacts on “safe and adequate electric service”. On one hand, they have been working on the implementing programs without defining these key terms and on the other hand, they have a mandate to make sure it works. I do not think they can protect reliability without a plan that addresses definitions of these terms.

Statewide Electrical Demand System

One of the key definitions describes the statewide electrical demand system. This is an esoteric concern that is less relevant in my opinion because it is basically just concerns emissions accounting. The definition problem is that the electricity used in the state comes from sources within the state and imported from other states. DPS has a good handle on the characteristics of power generated within New York but there is much less information for imported power. The document does a good job explaining the limitations for New York to impose restrictions on imported electricity based on source type. DPS Staff basically recommended tracking the emissions and accounting for the different source types.

There are related concerns with facilities and process emissions. This boils down to accounting for emissions in specific situations such as those related to co-generation facilities that provide both process energy and generate electricity for on-site use. The Staff Proposal concludes “In sum, Staff reads the legislature’s use of “system” as reflective of an intent to not encompass every power-generating resource in the state, but only those that participate in the operation of the statewide electric grid and do so in a routinized or systematic way.”

In my career I spent a lot of time preparing emission compliance reports. The accounting issues related to the these definitions make me very glad I will not have to address these problems now that I am retired.

Zero Emissions

The more important definition is for “zero emissions”. The Staff Proposal states:

The Commission’s interpretation of this term will lay the foundation for decisions about planning, investments, and more in the run-up to 2040. That interpretation must address several issues: whether non-greenhouse gas emissions count; which aspects of a resource’s emissions profile to count; whether and how to count emissions from fuel production processes that arguably occur outside the power sector; whether the emissions attributed to a resource should be counted on a gross basis or on a net basis that recognizes the potential for use of particular feedstocks to reduce or wholly avoid emissions that would occur otherwise; how “zero” should be applied as a threshold; and the significance of the Climate Act’s categorization of a fuel cell that does not consume fossil fuels as a “renewable” resource.

Some of these issues are more important than others. One of the topics during CAC meetings related to whether non-greenhouse gas emissions count. Members of the Council who were appointed by Democrats ideologically favored the strict interpretation that zero emissions meant no pollutant emissions whatsoever. Practically speaking the issue was related to the use of hydrogen which is the recommended zero-emissions fuel technology for hard to convert sectors and the place holder for the new Dispatchable Emissions-Free Resource (DEFR) that the Integration Analysis argues is necessary. Everyone agrees that compliant hydrogen cannot be produced with fossil fuels, but the question was whether the hydrogen had to be used in fuel cells so that the only emission was water or whether it could be burned to produce energy.

I am sure that the ideologues are having fits over the proposed definition:

Staff recommends that the Commission interpret “zero emissions” to refer to greenhouse gases only and not to emissions of other air pollutants. Several points argue in favor of this interpretation. In New York, “unless a contrary intent is clear, lawmakers employ words as they are commonly or ordinarily employed.” Some commenters argue that no ordinary usage of “zero emissions” can be read to exclude particular pollutants, because ordinary usage would specify which are at issue if the intent was to include only some. But, in this instance, at least three aspects of the Climate Act reflect a contrary intent on the part of the legislature. Those are: (1) the Climate Act’s legislative findings; (2) several of its definitions; and (3) its references to “co-pollutants.” As other commenters note, these point to the same conclusion, namely that the legislature’s primary focus in the Climate Act is on the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions, and that it refers to co-pollutants for specific and discrete purposes that complement the regulation of greenhouse gases.

In my opinion this is a pragmatic decision so I support it. It will be hard enough and expensive enough to produce hydrogen for the uses proposed without adding to the challenge by insisting that it be used in fuel cells. While fuel cells are a proven technology for limited applications, trying to deploy them on the scale necessary in this instance would be a problem.

I am not particularly concerned with the other zero emissions issues.

Conclusion

There are two Climate Act electric sector targets: 70% of the electricity must come from renewable energy by 2030 and all electricity must be generated by “zero-emissions” resources by 2040. The DPS has finally defined two terms relevant to those targets in Public Service Law §66-p: statewide electrical demand system and zero emissions. The law mandated that a program be established by 6/30/2021 to meet the targets. The fact that the terms crucial to the development of an implementation plan were defined 28 months after the program was supposed to be established epitomizes the lack of planning throughout the Hochul Administration’s implementation of the Climate Act.

The definitions themselves are not of particular interest to the public. The “statewide electrical demand system” definition is an esoteric concern related to emissions accounting. The practical consequence of the “zero emissions” definition is the pragmatic decision to accept some emissions rather than demanding no emissions for “zero emissions” technologies. The best example is that this enables the use of technologies that burn hydrogen and emit nitrogen oxides instead of fuel cells that only emit water.

The DPS staff proposal also included a section titled “Reviewing Progress Towards Achieving the 2040 Target” that will be the subject of a future post. The bottom line for this DPS report is that making progress is a moot point when there is no overall plan. New York could be headed towards a policy dead-end that could be prevented if a study assessing whether the Scoping Plan outline of strategies is feasible was conducted first. Given that no jurisdiction anywhere has developed an electric system reliant on wind, solar, and energy storage, a demonstration project would be best.

Draft NY Documents Requiring Public Comment

Keith Schue sent me an email with the following information that I believe would be of interest to readers here. New York State agencies have recently announced several draft documents that are out for public comment. It is confusing. When Keith sent this clarifying information, I asked for permission to send it out as a post and he graciously gave me permission.

Keith Schue is an electrical engineer and technical adviser on energy policy. Keith advocates for nuclear power. He recently co-authored a commentary in the Albany Times Union with climate scientist James Hansen, making a persuasive case for using nuclear in the future.

Overview

The Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act) established a New York “Net Zero” target (85% reduction in GHG emissions and 15% offset of emissions) by 2050. It includes an interim 2030 GHG reduction target of 40%. Two targets address the electric sector: 70% of the electricity must come from renewable energy by 2030 and a requirement that all electricity generated be “zero-emissions” resources 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.” 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. Since then, the State has been trying to implement the Scoping Plan recommendations through regulations, proceedings, and legislation.

Keith describes three related documents and opportunities for public comments in the following sections. I have made some minor edits and added a few links. He describes each document and includes a suggestion for a possible comment.

Draft Blueprint for Consideration of Advanced Nuclear Technology

A number of states throughout the country are encouraging the development of advanced next generation nuclear reactors to meet our growing energy needs, remain economically competitive, significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions, conserve farmland, and protect nature. During last month’s Future Energy Summit in Syracuse, Governor Hochul announced that New York ought to consider advanced nuclear power, too. However, several misguided “environmental” groups who either don’t understand energy or don’t care about those things have launched a misinformation campaign involving form-letters to the governor and NYSERDA intended to create the appearance that New Yorkers oppose nuclear power. They would rather see the state pursue an unproven, inefficient, ecologically-destructive energy strategy dominated by massive amounts of solar, wind, and batteries.

The due date for comments is Nov 8^th. A useful comment would be to say that if New York is serious about addressing climate change, providing ample reliable electricity essential for a growing economy, and protecting the integrity of rural land and nature, then it needs to join the 21st century by investing in dependable, compact carbon-free nuclear power.

Click here to read the draft Blueprint: Read Draft Blueprint

Click here to comment on the draft Blueprint: Comment on Draft Blueprint

Draft Scope of NYS Energy Plan

Although related, this should not be confused with the Climate Action Council’s Scoping Plan for implementation of the CLCPA that was adopted in Dec 2022. Every several years the New York Energy Planning Board is required to update its overall energy plan for the state. The process begins with an initial document that identifies a “scope” of work–meaning the set of things to be evaluated in the plan. That draft “scope” was released last month for public comment with a defined planning horizon of 2040. This makes the CLCPA’s 2040 goal of carbon-free electricity particularly relevant. Unlike the CLCPA’s 70% renewable goal which only applies in 2030, the 2040 goal does not mandate an arbitrary quota of “renewables”. Instead, it simply mandates carbon-free electricity, which can include nuclear power.

The due date for comments is Nov 25^th. An important comment would be to say that if New York is serious about achieving carbon-free electricity as electricity demand doubles, it needs to invest in reliable and resilient nuclear power that is made in America, instead of focusing predominantly on wasteful, fragile, intermittent, and ecologically-harmful sources of energy made mostly in China.

Click here to read the draft Scope: Read Draft Scope

Click here to comment on the draft Scope: Comment on Draft Scope

Draft NYPA Renewables Strategic Plan

Historically, the New York Power Authority (NYPA) has been a well-run public entity that has provided NY residents and business with reliable, affordable electricity by building and operating large hydropower plants and various electric infrastructure projects. In the past, NYPA even helped to develop nuclear power. However, the Build Public Renewables Act adopted last year now forces NYPA to try installing solar, wind, and batteries even faster than the private sector is already doing with subsidies. NYPA’s draft plan appears to leverage its good credit to help rescue or expedite about 31 private-sector large-scale solar/wind/battery projects. It would also build about 9 such projects itself.

The due date for comments is around Dec 8^th. A useful comment would be to say that achieving carbon-free electricity requires firm reliable power. Therefore, throwing more public money and resources at intermittent generation not only jeopardizes reliability and affordability, but also ensures that NY will remain dependent on fossil fuels. Instead of focusing on solar panels and wind turbines that the private sector can install on its own, NYPA should do what it has historically done best by working on reliable public projects for the common good, like nuclear energy, hydropower, and utility infrastructure.

Click here to read the draft NYPA Renewables Plan: Read Draft NYPA Renewables Plan
Click here to comment on the draft NYPA Renewables Plan and see the schedule of Public Hearings: https://www.nypa.gov/renewables

Conclusion

Keith’s overview is apropos and I agree with him. I am on vacation so publishing someone else’s work is an easy way to keep the hits to the blog coming. All of these documents and issues are of interest to me, and I intend to comment. The bottom line is that if New York really wants to decarbonize, then nuclear must be part of the future energy mix or it will be impossible to achieve the aspirational targets.

Assemblyman Stirpe and the NY Heat Act

Recently I posted two articles about the New York Home Energy Affordable Transition Act, or NY HEAT, legislation that was being considered by the New York legislature but did not pass in the legislative session. At the same time I posted the last article (13 May 2024) I sent the following to my NYS Assemblyman Al Stirpe: “I am opposed to the NY HEAT Act for the reasons in documented in this article: NY HEAT is not so hot”. This post describes the response I received on 11 July 2024.

I have followed the Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (CLCPA) since it was first proposed, submitted comments on the CLCPA implementation plan, and have written over 400 articles about New York’s net-zero transition. I am convinced that the CLCPA will adversely affect affordability, reliability, and that the environmental impacts of the proposed transition are greater than the possible impacts of climate change. 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 CLCPA 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 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 and 2024 the Scoping Plan recommendations were supposed to be implemented through regulation, PSC orders, and legislation. NY HEAT is an example of Climate Act legislation.

NY HEAT Act Response
As noted I did a couple of articles about the HEAT act a couple of months ago. The first described Rich Ellenbogen’s response to Sane Energy Voice claims that NY HEAT Act should be enacted. The second article referenced additional op-eds that argue this legislation is not a good idea.

While I appreciate the fact that someone on Stipe’s staff responded to my note, the response was unsatisfactory. As is always the case, the amount of energy necessary to refute BS is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it. In the following I provide my annotated comments to the email received from Assemblyman Stirpe.

The first paragraph was the usual boilerplate response:

Thank you for reaching out to me with your concerns regarding the NY HEAT Act. I greatly value the feedback I receive from my constituents, as it plays a crucial role in my decision-making process.

The meat of the response addressed NY HEAT:

First, I want to address some misconceptions about the NY HEAT Act. The Act will not eliminate existing gas services; it will end subsidies for new gas hookups. Currently, when a new home is constructed, the first 100 feet of gas hookup is free for the homeowner, with the cost being distributed among all ratepayers. The NY HEAT Act aims to remove this subsidy to encourage home builders to consider alternative energy sources, such as geothermal systems. If a developer chooses a geothermal system for a neighborhood instead of gas, the monthly heating and cooling costs could be 40%-50% lower, benefiting both the environment and New York homeowners.

The suggestion that NY HEAT will not eliminate existing gas services is solely concerned with the new gas hookups is either deliberate misinformation or outstanding naiveté. Consider the following sections of NY HEAT with my highlights:

Section 5: Amends section 30 of the public service law. Removes a residential customer’s legal entitlement to utility gas services, while maintaining this entitlement for electric service.

Section 7: Amends section 31, subdivisions 1,3, and 4, of the public service law. Implements the policy established in section 5 with respect to applications for electric and gas services. Acknowledges gas service may be limited or discontinued to facilitate achievement of the CLCPA climate justice and emission reduction mandates.

Section 8: Amends section 12 of the transportation corporations law. Removes the entitlement of non-residential customers to utility gas service, but maintains it for electric service.

Section 9: Amends section 66, subdivision 2, of the public service law and creates a new subdivision 12-e. Grants the commission authority to order the curtailment or discontinuance of the use gas for any customer, group of customers, or section of the gas distribution system, where the commission has determined that such curtailment or discontinuance is reasonably required to implement state energy policy.

Section 11: Repeals section 66-b of the public service law. Removes the entitlement to continuation of gas service following the demolition and reconstruction of any structure owned by a customer.

I am not a lawyer, but this language seems clear to me that the legislation is intended to do more than just change new gas hookup requirements. The only possible excuse is that the legislation does not explicitly include language to eliminate existing gas service. However, it clearly provides the enabling legislation to make it possible for the State to shut down gas service to existing customers. The claim that NY HEAT is solely concerned with the 100 foot rule is incorrect.

The rationale to eliminate the subsidy for new hookups claims that: “If a developer chooses a geothermal system for a neighborhood instead of gas, the monthly heating and cooling costs could be 40%-50% lower, benefiting both the environment and New York homeowners.” My response to that is show me the numbers. I am not going to take the time to find alternate numbers. However, my understanding is that geothermal systems are expensive to install and the oft-repeated narrative that a neighborhood system would bring down costs is long on wishful thinking and short on real world examples.

The response from Stirpe went on to provide the narrative rationale for NY HEAT:Addressing the climate crisis is essential, as record-breaking temperatures and fossil fuel emissions significantly contribute to global warming. The NY HEAT Act did not pass during this session, but it is important to take measures for mitigating the impact of fossil fuels on our planet. We all want our kids and grandkids to exist in a livable world.

Addressing the climate crisis is essential, as record-breaking temperatures and fossil fuel emissions significantly contribute to global warming. The NY HEAT Act did not pass during this session, but it is important to take measures for mitigating the impact of fossil fuels on our planet. We all want our kids and grandkids to exist in a livable world.

It is a Sisyphean task to try to debunk the emotional “existential” climate crisis rationale and the climate porn argument that every record-breaking temperature is proof that the climate is changing due to fossil fuel emissions that significantly contribute to global warming. There are many attempts to address those claims amongst my articles on the Climate Act but I think it is impossible to change many minds on those claims.

Importantly however is my unaddressed concern is about New York’s role in this global problem. Using GHG emissions data from Our World In Data I looked at emissions in the last year with global data. In 2021, NYS GHG emissions (GWP-100) were 247 million metric tonnes (MMT). GHG emissions from China were 13,774 MMT and from India were 3,879 MMT. The increase in emission from 2020 to 2021 were 498 MMT in China and 265 MMT in India. New York emissions will be supplanted by emissions from China or India in less than one year. New York’s emissions are less than a half a percent of global emissions. This does not necessarily mean that we should not do something, but it does mean that NY HEAT is not going to make a bit of difference to climate change impacts.

I also want to address the last emotional argument: “We all want our kids and grandkids to exist in a livable world”. I agree that we should be worried about our children and grandchildren. On the other hand, I know that the societal cost of carbon benefits are based on contrived calculations and that New York’s Value of Carbon calculations project alleged impacts out to 2300. The children and grandchildren argument changes when you understand that we are talking about the impacts today relative to those ten generations in the future. The emotional argument is less impactful when you consider the hubris involved with claims that we can predict or even imagine what the world will like 275 years in the future.

One final point about New York’s efforts to go to net-zero. My work indicates that New York’s Climate Act will do more harm than good. There are enormous challenges associated with the proposed energy plan that relies on wind and solar energy that have not been resolved and will undoubtedly affect reliability. Because the proposed energy plan relies on intermittent and diffuse generating resources the costs of just wind and solar capacity do not tell the whole story. When solutions are proposed for intermittent and diffuse wind and solar the costs involved skyrocket. It is also not clear that when all the environmental impacts are considered that the proposed energy sources will not cause more environmental harm than the alleged impacts of climate change.

Discussion

I distribute a fortnightly summary of my recent posts to an email distribution. I think one of the recipients is the Assemblyman’s communications director. The last paragraph suggests that the Assemblyman is aware of my work:

Thank you for your advocacy and engagement on behalf of our community’s well-being. If you have any questions about this or other issues, please feel free to contact me.

I doubt that there is a constituent in his district that has a greater understanding of the Climate Act and its ramifications for the state and its residents than I do. If I was asked to provide the Assemblyman one question that needs to be addressed, it would be how much will it cost to meet the 2040 target for 100% carbon-free emissions. The Hochul Administration claims that the costs of inaction are less than the cost of action. Does Assemblyman Stirpe know that claim only refers to the costs associated with the Climate Act itself? The baseline of “no-action” described in the Scoping Plan as “Business as usual plus implemented policies” includes the following programs:

Growth in housing units, population, commercial square footage, and GDP
Federal appliance standards
Economic fuel switching
New York State bioheat mandate
Estimate of New Efficiency, New York Energy Efficiency achieved by funded programs: HCR+NYPA, DPS (IOUs), LIPA, NYSERDA CEF (assumes market transformation maintains level of efficiency and electrification post-2025)
Funded building electrification (4% HP stock share by 2030)
Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards
Zero-emission vehicle mandate (8% LDV ZEV stock share by 2030)
Clean Energy Standard (70×30), including technology carveouts: (6 GW of behind-the-meter solar by 2025, 3 GW of battery storage by 2030, 9 GW of offshore wind by 2035, 1.25 GW of Tier 4 renewables by 2030)

That means that the costs of all these programs that are required to meet the Climate Act mandate of 100% carbon-free emissions by 2040 are not included in the evaluation “proving” that the costs of inaction are more than the costs of action. Sadly that is not the only deceptive analysis or down right incorrect approach used to make the claim.

It is also becoming clear that those of us that have argued that NY HEAT is dangerous and represents something too far, too soon are right. I would be willing to provide briefings that support my concerns. The Public Service Commission recently released its Clean Energy Standard Biennial Review Report. That report admits that the 2030 goal for 70% renewable energy will not be met. The New York State Comptroller Office released an audit of the NYSERDA and PSC implementation efforts for the Climate Act titled Climate Act Goals – Planning, Procurements, and Progress Tracking. It found that “the costs of transitioning to renewable energy are not known, nor have they been reasonably estimated”. Concerns raised by the New York Independent System Operator in its Power Trends 2024 report include decreasing reliability margins, electrification of heating and transportation will increase loads and shift the maximum to winter, the ambitious schedule, and the need for a new category of electric resources that are not yet commercially available. The issues raised in these reports mean that the mandates in NY HEAT are premature.

Conclusion

It is long past due for the Hochul Administration to provide New Yorkers with the real costs. My Assemblyman has not looked at the Scoping Plan in enough detail to understand the shortcomings and dangers of the current path. I think it would be prudent for New York to take a deep breath and pause implementation until questions about reliability, affordability, and environmental impacts are addressed openly and comprehensively. I would welcome the opportunity to explain why to him or anyone else.

NY HEAT is not so hot

According to New York climate activist non-governmental organizations New York is “failing to lead on climate.” These organizations are lobbying very hard for the New York Home Energy Affordable Transition Act, or NY HEAT, legislation currently being considered. I recently described Rich Ellenbogen’s response to Sane Energy Voice claims that NY HEAT Act should be enacted. This post documents additional op-eds that argue this legislation not a good idea.

Overview

The CLCPA 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 CLCPAion Council (CAC) was 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. NY HEAT is an example of Climate Act legislation. Not surprisingly, implementation is falling behind as the difficult challenges are addressed.

NY HEAT

According to Environmental Advocates of New York:

The purpose of the bill is to give the Public Service Commission the authority and direction needed to align gas utility regulation and gas system planning with the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA) mandates. Overall, the bill removes the legal basis and subsidies driving the expansion of gas systems and requires the commission to adopt rules and develop a statewide gas service transition plan that is consistent with decreasing gas reliance and, where appropriate, decommissioning gas systems.

Fossil fuels burned in buildings for heating, hot water, and cooking account for approximately one-third of greenhouse gas emissions in New York State. Additionally, heating and cooking with fossil fuels like natural gas quietly impact our indoor air quality, contributing to cases of asthma and heart disease. The Public Service Law, as is, promotes gas system expansion in its stated obligation to serve customers and its business model. This undermines the important climate justice directives and binding emissions limits in the CLCPA. Instead of letting this incompatibility issue continue, this bill better aligns the rules and business practices of the Commission with reduced gas reliance, transition to more sustainable utilities, and prevents energy bill burden among low-income ratepayers.

The bill makes several amendments to the Public Service Law. One of which includes directing the Commission to integrate “the utility sector achievement of the CLCPA” as a core planning objective to its public service responsibilities. Notably, this bill codifies the state goal that low-to-moderate income customers must be protected from bearing energy burdens greater than 6% of their income, including those burdens imposed by the cost to purchase and operate electric equipment.

The overarching problem with NY HEAT is that it is another piece of energy legislation drafted by climate activist non-governmental organizations and pushed by gullible politicians. The biases of these constituencies and their lack of technical expertise has led to the situation where New York is mandated to meet an aspirational schedule that can only be met by revoking the laws of physics. Energy policy should not be dictated by politicians and NGOs that have no responsibilities for their actions.

Alternate Views from the Real World

This post provides three op-ed pieces that provide other reasons that NY HEAT is inappropriate. On Sunday May 12, the New York Daily News published pieces by NY State Senator George Borrello and one co-authored by Richard Ellenbogen and myself. Last week Dennis Higgins had another opinion piece published by All Otsego.

Senator Borrello’s paywalled opinion was titled: Don’t raise the N.Y. HEAT Act: We have to be honest about energy costs. Borrello represents the 57th state Senate District which includes Cattaraugus, Chautauqua, Genesee and Wyoming counties, as well as a portion of Allegany County. He is also a member of the Senate Energy Committee. He stated:

The failure of climate-related items to pass in the “Big Ugly” of the New York State budget was no accident. Reason prevailed among pragmatic lawmakers, and reality set in that the New York Home Energy Affordable Transition Act (NY HEAT) would have placed New Yorkers at risk and wreaked havoc with reliability and affordability.

However, advocates have regrouped and are waging a media campaign, arguing that NY HEAT is necessary to “save New Yorkers billions every year,” trying to confuse the public and pressure lawmakers into passing this horrendous piece of legislation. We cannot let ideology and a radical climate agenda override facts and real progress.

Unfortunately, false and misleading claims about the cost savings that New York ratepayers would realize under the NY HEAT Act are everywhere. Those perpetrating this narrative conveniently ignore the costs to New Yorkers that will come with a mandated conversion to an all-electric future for the state. These advocates also sell their drastic, one-size-fits-all solution as the only path forward.

The fact is, there is a more balanced approach that addresses pollution and environmental concerns without threatening safety, reliability, and affordability. The balanced approach clearly works: our state is already one of the greenest in the nation, ranking seventh in renewable-sourced electricity generation. Much of the credit goes to hydroelectric power, which supplies 21% of New York’s total in-state power generation.

While the HEAT Act would end the 100-foot rule requiring utilities to connect new customers within 100 feet of an existing gas pipeline, it should be noted that utilities are already taking steps in this direction. They are proposing provisions that would allow them to voluntarily make determinations on new service connections based on relevant factors.

While we all recognize the value in pursuing a cleaner energy future, we must acknowledge that utilities have a legal and moral obligation to replace aging pipe infrastructure to ensure safe, reliable service to all their customers and the communities they serve. Claims by advocates that the maintenance of natural gas infrastructure is a burden on ratepayers that would disappear under the HEAT Act are disingenuous, at best.

The reality is that ratepayers already subsidize the maintenance of all utilities — electric, water, and sewer. Utility maintenance costs will not disappear if the HEAT Act is enacted. Additionally, many of the cost estimates being cited for critical maintenance of gas infrastructure are grossly inflated, which only serves to further mislead the public.

The real factors fueling utility rate increases are largely driven by government. More than 70% of the bill for the average ratepayer is the result of the following: federal and state pipeline safety mandates, property tax increases, expanded energy efficiency programs, supports for low-income customers, state-mandated purchases of costly wind and solar energy, increases in the cost of capital, supply chain shortages and inflation.

The replacement of pipes, while a regulatory mandate, is not a major driver — and those costs are just a fraction of what’s to come once the impacts of renewables and new transmission lines hit customer bills later this decade.

Finally, NY HEAT Act advocates are conspicuously silent about the fact that electrifying homes is many times more expensive than pipe replacement, and residents often bear those costs on their own.

According to a recent analysis, electrifying just one co-op in Brooklyn took four years and cost nearly $1 million. Even with rebates, that comes out to $40,000 per apartment, and residents are now responsible for the full cost of heating their homes, rather than sharing costs with the entire building. The cost to operate those electrical systems to heat homes will cost more on a monthly basis than to heat that same home on natural gas.

The reality is that the most fervent advocates of New York’s aggressive climate agenda believe that no cost is too great to address the climate crisis. That is why they misrepresent the facts and mislead New Yorkers into believing a transition to all-electric will save them money. The truth is that New Yorkers are in for a far costlier and less reliable energy future if proposals like the HEAT Act are adopted.

Rich Ellenbogen and I had an op-ed published next to the Senator’s. The title of our paywalled piece was “Don’t raise the N.Y. HEAT Act: It threatens the safety of all New Yorkers”. We wrote:

The New York Home Energy Affordable Transition Act, or NY HEAT, is before the Legislature now. However, until questions regarding its feasibility, affordability, and reliability are answered, the HEAT Act should be allowed to lay dormant.

The Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (NYS’s climate law) mandates that the electric grid be 100% zero emissions by 2040, and the law’s scoping plan projects that by 2040 more than 60% of the capacity and more than 69% of the energy will come from wind and solar.

This total transformation of New York’s energy production and use is being undertaken in spite of the fact that no jurisdiction anywhere in the world has yet succeeded in raising the percentage of the supply of electricity to its grid from wind and solar — beyond about 50% of total supply — on a consistent basis.

The reason for these limits is because both wind and solar are intermittent and therefore unreliable. As a result of these realities, the state Public Service Commission is considering what new technologies must be developed to address those coldest and hottest periods where there will be insufficient generation from existing wind, solar, and energy storage technologies.

Unfortunately, there is no commercially available technology that can be deployed in sufficient quantities today for this reliability requirement. As a consequence of these facts on the ground (and in the air), it is prudent for New York’s decisionmakers to determine the technological feasibility of the zero emissions transition before passing NY HEAT.

The Empire Center’s recent Green Guardrails describes why the Climate Law implementation plan is flawed. It notes that “The process that has played out in the five years since the law’s passage has been marred by a lack of transparency, with state officials failing to issue legally required cost estimates and crucial studies designed to guide state energy policy.” Before the state passes NY HEAT, a full, transparent accounting of all the costs, benefits, and emission reductions for the proposed control strategies is necessary.

It is premature — and unquestionably dangerous — to mandate the additional electrification requirements of NY HEAT. The mandate to deploy massive amounts of wind, solar, and energy storage resources, and simultaneously upgrade and expand the distribution and transmission systems, means that an enormous quantity of transformers, wires, and generating equipment will be required.

There already is a shortage of transformers which will inevitably get worse and spread to other infrastructure components. Even if the hardware is available, there is insufficient labor to execute the plan. There is also a shortage of both electricians and plumbers, and there are not enough people to train even if they could develop the training programs. Without these new resources, current reliability standards of the electric grid cannot be maintained.

NY HEAT removes the “obligation to serve,” a regulation that requires utilities to offer natural gas to any customer who requests it; and the bill also enables the network to be decommissioned in favor of neighborhood-scale electrification. In addition, it will codify a goal of protecting residential customers from paying more than 6% of their household income for energy bills.

When NY HEAT eliminates the obligation to serve, and enables the decommissioning of existing gas systems, it eliminates consumer choice and does not acknowledge — as the state’s scoping plan to implement the Climate Law does — that not all homes will be able to electrify home heating safely and affordably.

A political mandate to decommission a gas network is a drastic step that should only be undertaken until the full ramifications of New York’s total energy transformation is understood. Otherwise, we risk jeopardizing the safety of all New Yorkers.

Lastly, the HEAT bill’s proposal to limit energy bills to no more than 6% of a household’s income is an inadequate energy poverty safeguard. It does not cover household costs: to replace existing home heating equipment with the preferred heat pump alternatives; to upgrade building shells to eliminate or minimize the time that backup heating systems will be needed; to pay for backup heating systems if needed; or to pay for the upgrades to the electric service for the household to cover the increased electric load when the entire household is electrified.

The shortcomings of the HEAT bill are to some extent a product of its authors’ faulty assumptions, but they are exacerbated by the even more unrealistic and unachievable goals built into the larger Climate Law. Until these issues are properly addressed, we should set aside the HEAT bill because it will simply make a bad situation worse.

The Dennis Higgins article in the All Otsego Partial Observer was titled HEAT Act Nothing But a Hot Mess. He wrote:

The proposed NY HEAT Act, which would mandate a rapid transition to air-source heat pumps, is yet another toxic plan, currently shunted to the back burner in Albany. Although it did not make it into the budget, with pressure from advocates it could be passed this session. NY HEAT, like its Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act launch pad, runs counter to sound engineering and responsible fiscal policy. What’s wrong with it? Let me count the ways.

A five-ton ASHP unit may cost $9,000.00. Installation in the New York City area would cost as much as the pump, assuming existing panel boxes could support the load. There is currently a shortage of plumbers and electricians to do that work. New panel boxes, wiring, and post-installation repair, combined with labor shortages, would serve to increase costs and undermine any timetable. Further, an ASHP may require 5,000 kilowatt-hours a year. Electric bills are already climbing, as rate-payers finance new transmission lines and utilities deal with gas shortages. For homes and apartments with new pumps, electric bills could double.

The independent system (grid) operator, the NYISO, is projecting a 450-megawatt capacity shortfall in the metro region as early as summer 2025, assuming normal weather conditions and without factoring in NY HEAT’s additional load. With building and vehicle electrification, the NYISO already expects demand to double in the next 25 years. But NY HEAT implementation would require a capacity-constrained grid to deliver lots more electricity in the very near term.

Increased electricity demand would in turn increase the load on every transformer in the state. Transformers would have to be replaced, but—as has been reported on National Public Radio and elsewhere—replacements do not exist. The increases to load would also require replacing transmission lines. This could take decades and would require lots of aluminum. Currently, there isn’t enough aluminum for beverage cans, let alone thousands of miles of wire.

Even ignoring the sluggish pace of buildout and lack of battery support, solar and onshore wind are intermittent and have low-energy density, rendering them unsuitable to support additional demand. Offshore wind will not help. Many of New York’s offshore wind projects were cancelled. Driving bid prices and cancellations, supply-chain and construction hurdles mean significant offshore installation may not happen this decade. The Jones Act prohibits foreign jack ships from installing turbines in U.S. waters. The U.S.’s first Jones-Act-compliant ship, Dominion’s Charybdis, may not be ready until early 2025 and is already booked for Virginia’s 2.6 gigawatt project.

Ultimately, increases in demand from ASHPs—a Micron factory, bitcoin mining, or AI hubs—will rely on our fleet of fossil-fuel power plants. The metro region is currently at capacity, so peaker plants will continue to be needed. Even before the NY HEAT proposal, NYISO indicated that deadlines for closing peakers will need to be extended. Gas supply constraints downstate mean Cricket Valley—a combined-cycle plant in Dover—can’t currently run at full capacity. Compression expansion projects on the Iroquois and Algonquin pipelines may be needed to fuel peakers and big plants at Ravenswood and Cricket Valley, as well as for private homes.

If California is a model for New York, it is also an admonition. California is 20 years ahead of us in solar and wind installations and has about 40 percent intermittent capacity. California can boast a solar capacity factor twice what New York gets and has deserts in which to put the panels. Nevertheless, it has extended deadlines for closing gas plants and, with an EPA waiver, has also built new ones. Even with the largest lithium-ion battery in the world, California can’t store summer solar and had to dump about three terawatt-hours of energy last year. Can New York do better? The state Energy Research and Development Authority’s storage projections would cost hundreds of billions of dollars for batteries that might last 10 years. And if all that storage were fully charged, we could not keep the lights on in New York City—let alone the rest of the state—for one day.

New York currently has only about eight percent renewable capacity. To meet a 70 percent-by-2030 renewable target, industrial solar and wind installed over the last 30 years would have to be multiplied six-fold in four years. There is no reason, beyond press releases, to believe this can happen. Rural opposition to solar and wind buildout has also grown. 2020 Executive Law 94-C established the Office of Renewable Energy Siting to speed up installation. ORES can ignore local legislation and even reasonable environmental safeguards in project permitting. Last year’s budget requires communities to use an assessment formula supplied by Albany, cutting tax revenue by up to 80 percent. As reported (4/30/2024 Times Union), a dozen towns in Schoharie are suing the state over the current assessment model. Combined with eminent domain authority for developers to run wire and poles—in this year’s budget—we can expect significantly more pushback from communities. Environmentalists concerned with preservation of farmland and forest, increasing eagle-and-bat deaths, as well as water supply threats from large wind installations, are also raising their voices.

Who will pay for NY HEAT? The cost of a $672-million bailout for a few of the hundreds of thousands of utility customers currently in arrears will be borne by other utility customers. Every New Yorker will help fund subsidies for industrial solar and wind projects which could gobble up a million acres and yet fail to provide reliable electricity.

It continues to be a mistake to let political appointees and Big Green organizers craft energy policy. CLCPA and NY HEAT do not meet the fiscal or engineering standards needed to shape a reliable, carbon-free grid.

Conclusion

This legislation was passed by both the Assembly and the Senate – remember that next November. It currently awaits a decision by Governor Hochul. I urge readers to call 518/ 474-8390 or email the Governor’s office urging her not to sign this legislation.

Climate Act Coercion

I recently described the New York State Comptroller’s Office Renewable Electricity in New York State Review and Prospects report (“Comptroller Report”) that addressed progress and prospects for attaining New York’s Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act) 2040 mandate for a zero-emissions electric grid. This post addresses the following quote from that report: “the Enacted Budget for SFY 2023-24 included a provision to hold the electric bills of low-income customers to 6 percent of household income if the customers participate in State programs to electrify home heating and appliances and undertake efficiency upgrades.”

I have been following the Climate Act since it was first proposed, submitted comments on the Climate Act implementation plan, and have written over 350 articles about New York’s net-zero transition. I have devoted a lot of time to the Climate Act 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. 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 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. 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.

The provision mentioned in the Comptroller Report that conditionally limits electric bills of low-income customers to 6 percent of household income is an example of the programs that are being implemented to reach the Climate Act targets. Until reading the quote I was unaware of this new law. The condition “if the customers participate in State programs to electrify home heating and appliances and undertake efficiency upgrades” caught my attention and spurred this post.

Energy Affordability Program

The FY24 Enacted Budget included the following funding within the Public Service Commission’s Aid to Localities Budget (A.3003-D of 2023, signed Chapter 53 of 2023). The Energy Affordability Program is allocated $200 million in new funding for utility bill relief for residential customers that do not currently qualify for the Department of Public Service’s current energy affordability policy program, but whose income is below the State median income. The Public Service Commission is directed to consider the feasibility of using area median income or other eligibility thresholds in the event the use of State median income prevents reaching all households that have an energy burden greater than 6%. In addition to Statewide residents, residential customers of electric corporations regulated by the Public Service Commission (PSC) and the Long Island Power Authority, and its service provider Public Service Enterprise Group-Long Island (PSEG-LI) are eligible to participate in the program. This appropriation may be disbursed to utilities, including LIPA, and then disbursed to ratepayers.

The Department of Public Service (DPS) is directed to provide an energy affordability guarantee to residential customers participating in home electrification efforts through the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA)’s EmPower Plus Program such that EmPower Plus participants pay no more than 6% of household income on utility bills for the duration of the estimated useful life of an EmPower Plus electrification project. DPS is authorized and directed to establish a cap on such customers’ energy usage applicable to the guarantee.

Discussion

Whenever I start researching a new topic for a blog article about the Climate Act, I have found that it is more complicated and leads to more questions than I had expected. This topic was no exception. In this case several things came up. I was not aware of the Department of Public Service’s current energy affordability policy program. There is a reference to a six percent energy burden target that I have seen elsewhere but have yet to find what I think represents an official definition or any status data. I have heard of the EmPower program but never looked into it. My primary concern is the conditional statement that is associated with EmPower program eligibility for a price guarantee. I will address these below.

The Energy Affordability Working Group August 15, 2023Status Report explains how this group associated with the energy affordability policy program was formed:

On August 12, 2021, the Commission issued its Energy Affordability Policy Phase 2 Order (Phase 2 Order) adopting certain modifications and improvements to the energy affordability framework established in the Affordability Order, Implementation Order, and Rehearing Order. Among the improvements to the Energy Affordability Policy directed in the Phase 2 Order, the Commission established an Energy Affordability Policy Working Group (Working Group) that encouraged participation from all interested stakeholders for the advisement of improving energy affordability.

The working group is associated with two PSC cases: CASE 23-M-0298 In the Matter of Budget Appropriations to Enhance Energy Affordability Programs and CASE 14-M-0565 Proceeding on Motion of the Commission to Examine Programs to Address Energy Affordability for Low Income Utility Customers. The status report gives an overview of what they do.

One requirement is a submittal of low-income data to the docket. On a regular basis Central Hudson Gas and Electric Corporation, Consolidated Edison Company of New York, National Fuel Gas Distribution Corporation, Brooklyn Union Gas Company, Keyspan Gas East Corporation, Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, New York State Electric and Gas Corporation, Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation, and, Orange & Rockland Utilities submit data in a proscribed format. As an example of yet another question that comes up whenever I start digging note this: as far as I can tell the low-income information reports do not cover Long Island electric customers or anyone from the municipal utilities. I think that is odd but I am not going down that rabbit hole to determine why or if my interpretation is incorrect.

I did combine available data from the most recent reports in a spreadsheet to create the following summary table. I believe the low-income information reports only cover the participants in the utility Energy Affordability Programs. If that is the case then the number of participants who are in arrears and the amounts owed under estimates the state totals. It is worrisome enough that 155,626 people were sent termination notices and their amount owed is $178.7 million. The $200 million in this law would barely cover the emergency assistance needed of those people.

PSC Energy Affordability Submittal Summary

I have seen references to a six percent energy burden target before but not as an official policy. For example, a recent legislative proposal included a requirement for state agencies to identify policies to ensure affordable housing and affordable electricity (defined as electricity costs no more than 6% of a residential customer’s income) for all-electric buildings. Alternatively, Addressing Energy Poverty in the US offers other possible criteria:

According to the U.S. Department of Energy, the average energy burden for low-income households is 8.6%. That is three times higher than for non-low income households, which is about 3%. And according to the Kleinman Center for Energy Policy at University of Pennsylvania, more than one-third of US households are experiencing “energy poverty,” having difficulty affording the energy they need to keep the lights on and heat and cool their home.

In my opinion there are two issues with the six percent electric burden criterion. It appears to only apply to all-electric homes and that ignores the needs of people who heat their homes with other fuels. With regards to the rural poor, the urban politicians who support the Climate Act overlook the fact that many people live in remote rural areas because that is the only location where they can afford housing. As a result, transportation costs are a major part of their energy budgets because they must travel longer distances to work.

There is another problem with the energy burden criterion. I have been unable to find where the state stands relative to the six percent target or any other energy poverty criterion As part of a total energy transition, it seems obvious that we need a baseline status so that we can track whether the program is forcing more people into energy poverty. The necessary data to calculate the status are not included in the energy affordability policy program reports and I could not find any summary that included it.

The impetus for this post was the condition that in order to get support for an energy affordability guarantee, customers must “participate in State programs to electrify home heating and appliances and undertake efficiency upgrades.” I am concerned that the rural poor are being overlooked in low-income support programs and this is a specific example. I recall that there was a qualifying statement in the Draft Scooping Plan that noted that some residential building shells could not be upgraded because of the building type or historical significance. For example, consider that the Integration Analysis assumes that building shell upgrades are not possible for mobile homes. Without building shell upgrades, air-source heat pumps are not a viable heating option. Does that mean that residents in mobile homes or other structures that cannot be improved are not eligible for these benefits?

I had to research EmPower program to determine how that condition might be implemented. According to the webpage:

EmPower+ helps low- and moderate-income households save energy and money toward energy improvements made to their property. Through EmPower+:

Households can receive a no cost comprehensive home energy assessment to pinpoint where energy and dollars are being wasted and receive a customized plan to lower energy usage.

No-cost direct install improvements identified during the assessment can be installed by participating program contractors.

Households can receive financial discounts on the cost of energy efficiency improvements.

The program is open to income-eligible owners and renters of 1-4 family households.

The eligibility guidelines do not mention anything related to feasibility. The eligibility guidelines webpage notes:

Homeowners and renters must meet income requirements to qualify for EmPower+. You may be eligible if you can answer “yes” to these statements:

My household income is below 80 percent of the State/Area Median Income or lower
OR
I reside in a single family home located in a geographically eligible territory
OR
I participate in a utility payment assistance program

I think this is an overlooked concern in the legislation. The energy improvements are contingent upon the comprehensive home energy assessment. I believe that there will be instances where at least some of the potential electrification options will not be effective replacements. There may also be situations in rural areas with poor reliability that electrification of any appliance is a safety issue. It is not clear whether there are any caveats to the requirement that only customers who participate in State programs to electrify home heating and appliances and undertake efficiency upgrades are qualified for the six percent of household income guarantee. There should be assistance programs for people who have participated in the EmPower Plus home energy assessment but may not be able to implement all the home energy improvements.

If any reader can provide insights on these topics, I would appreciate hearing from you.

Conclusion

The Climate Act-related Public Service Commission’s Aid to Localities Budget included in the FY24 Enacted Budget is an example of the myriad laws, regulations, and policies being enacted to implement the Climate Act net-zero transition. From the start of this process there has been inadequate evaluation of these programs to ensure that they do what they are supposed to do without unintended consequences.

In this instance, I object to the implicit coercion that there will be a guarantee that the energy burden will not exceed six percent only if customers participate in State programs to electrify home heating and appliances and undertake efficiency upgrades. It appears the authors of the law did not consider the fact that Integration Analysis admits that not all residences can be electrified effectively and safely or that there are limitations on efficiency upgrades. If there are no relevant caveats to implementation, then needy low-income citizens will be adversely affected.

Even if my interpretation is wrong and this is not a potential issue, there is a serious shortcoming in the implementation process. There is not official energy poverty metric that covers all energy use and there is no status data available for the frequently referenced six percent electric bill target. How will we know if there are increasing energy poverty issues associated the transition unless someone is tracking it?

New York Zero-Emissions Resource Proceeding

The New York State Public Service Commission (PSC) recently initiated an “Order initiating a process regarding the zero-emissions target” that will “identify innovative technologies to ensure reliability of a zero-emissions electric grid”. Implementation of the Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act) started soon after the law was passed at the end of 2019. It was recognized early 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” but here we are three and half years later finally getting around to address this critical requirement. This post summarizes the proceeding, gives an overview of the questions raised by the PSC, and describes the comments I submitted.

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. I have extensive experience with meteorological aspects of electric generation because I have worked in the sector as a meteorologist for over four decades. I have devoted a lot of time to the Climate Act and the issues raised in this proceeding 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. I represent the Environmental Energy Alliance of New York on the New York State Reliability Council Extreme Weather Working Group. The opinions expressed in this article do not reflect the position of the Alliance, the Reliability Council, the Extreme Weather Working Group, 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. The zero emissions analysis is part of that effort.

Overview of Process

The press release describes the process to “identify innovative technologies to ensure reliability of a zero-emissions electric grid”:

The New York State Public Service Commission (Commission) has initiated a process to examine the need for resources to ensure the reliability of the 2040 zero-emissions electric grid mandated by the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act, or Climate Act.

“The Commission’s action reaffirms efforts to ensure New York has the needed clean-energy resources to replace existing fossil fuel-fired power plants,” said Commission Chair Rory M. Christian. “I am proud that New York continues to lead by advancing important clean energy initiatives, such as the one commenced today.”

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.

Questions Asked

I have included the questions asked with some brief commentary. I chose to only address one question related to my expertise and one short-coming in the Proceeding. The Commission wants answers to “assist the Commission in determining what, if any, subsequent actions should be taken, which may include refinements to existing policies or establishing new policies.”

Question 1: How should the term “zero emissions,” as used under PSL §66-p(2)(b), be defined?

It has taken three and a half years to define what qualifies as “zero emissions” and address the problems associated with this resource. Given its importance this should have been an immediate and high priority for the Climate Action Council. The Order notes:

Following enactment of the CLCPA, the Commission issued the Order Adopting Modifications to the Clean Energy Standard, which aligns the existing Clean Energy Standard (CES) with the CLCPA renewable energy targets.

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. The Independent Power Producers of New York, Inc., New York State Building and Construction Trades Council, and New York State AFL-CIO (Petitioners) also raised this issue in a petition filed in this proceeding on August 18, 2021 (Zero Emissions Petition or Petition).

I did not provide any comments on this question.

Question 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?

If I were to respond to this question, I would simply say the only one of these resources that has a realistic chance of providing the services necessary is advanced nuclear. That answer is obvious to anyone who has looked at the other options pragmatically. I do not believe that a state that shut down 2,000 MW of operating nuclear will ever pivot to nuclear so I am not going to dilute my comments by stating the obvious.

Question 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?

It is obvious that keeping existing nuclear in operation as long as it is safe should be a priority but this is New York. Responding to the specific types of nuclear question is beyond my existing knowledge and I do not have time to research a response.

Question 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?

Responding to this is beyond my existing knowledge and I do not have time to research a response. My impression is that the broader technologies being considered are all magical solutions that are only being included to appease the green energy advocates. They may play a role but it will be inconsequential.

Question 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?

I am sure that New York’s reliability experts will address the technical aspects of the energy resources needed. I am not qualified to do so. My comments do address the duration of the operational availability of this resource.

Question 6: What role does technology innovation need to play to meet the CLCPA’s Zero-Emission by 2040 Target?

Given that the Commission by way of this proceeding, the New York Independent System Operator (NYISO), and the New York State Reliability Council (NYSRC) all agree that there is no commercially available resource available that meets the need identified for dispatchable emissions free generation, I would say that technology innovation is an obvious prerequisite to the 2040 target. My comments address the reliability and affordability implications of the technological innovations needed.

Question 7: Should life cycle emissions impacts be considered when characterizing energy resources? If so, how?

It would be inappropriate for me to respond to this question because my comments would be unprofessional. I doubt that something along the lines of the following would be considered: “Why would the State want to start becoming unbiased in its consideration of energy resources now? All of the possible life cycle impacts of fossil sources are included and none of the life cycle impacts of wind and solar are considered. When there was no obvious characterization methodology for fossil fuel impacts available, they just made something up – so do the same.”

Question 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?

This question answers itself. There will never be enough renewable natural gas available to provide a meaningful contribution. On the other hand, there are instances where emission reductions will be required and the capture and use of renewable natural gas makes sense.

Question 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?

Responding to this is beyond my existing knowledge and I do not have time to research a response.

Question 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?

The Just Transition rubric is a political construct. I pride myself on pragmatic comments that balance impacts, costs, and benefits. Those are not considerations that will be included in the just transition priorities so I did not submit a response to this question.

Question 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?

The substantial benefits to Disadvantaged Community rubric is another political construct. It is disappointing that the State has so far ignored the benefits of a reliable and affordable electric grid relative to the alleged benefits and significant affordability and reliability risks to Disadvantaged Communities.

Question 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?

Responding to this is beyond my existing knowledge and I do not have time to research a response.

Question 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?

In the following section I describe my response to this comment.

Question 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?

This is another question that answers itself. Given the challenges we need all the help we can get. How to do that is beyond my pay grade.

My Comments

My comments addressed two concerns: duration of the operational availability of the zero-emissions resources and the need to address the feasibility and affordability conditions in New York Public Service Law § 66-p (4). “Establishment of a renewable energy program”.

In order to determine whether any of the innovative technologies to “ensure reliability of a zero-emissions electric grid” are adequate it is necessary to determine how much energy they can provide relative to the amount needed in the worst case. I have been whining about the ultimate problem in the Integration Analysis for nearly three years. On September 16, 2020 In their presentation to the Power Generation Advisory Panel E3 included a slide titled Electricity Supply – Firm Capacity. Their presentation states: “As the share of intermittent resources like wind and solar grows substantially, some studies suggest that complementing with firm, zero emission resources, such as bioenergy, synthesized fuels such as hydrogen, hydropower, carbon capture and sequestration, and nuclear generation could provide a number of benefits.” Those are the zero-emissions resources addressed by the Proceeding. Of particular interest is the graph of electric load and renewable generation because it shows that this problem may extend over multiple days.

My comments explained that in New York the winter solar resource is poor because the days are short, the irradiance is low because the sun is low in the sky, and clouds and snow-covered panels contribute to low solar resource availability. If there is a period of low winds, then the zero-emissions resource is needed to provide an economically viable resource solution. Note that the magnitude of the zero emissions resource needed to address this issue will be a significant percentage of system peak load and that the technology (green hydrogen, long-term battery, etc.) does not presently exist for utility scale application.

I also pointed out that the reliability concern is exacerbated for several reasons. The future peak load will be in winter because the primary decarbonization strategy is electrification. During extreme cold weather periods, natural gas used at power plants is diverted to other users and power plants must switch to oil. There are fewer plants that have dual-fuel capability and over an extended event or a series of events the oil in storage could be depleted. Finally, the coldest periods are also associated with wind lull periods because extreme cold is associated with large high-pressure systems that suppress wind resources.

If there are insufficient generating resources available to serve peak loads, then a disastrous blackout will result. In February 2021, the Texas grid was unable to provide support load and resulted in as many as seven hundred deaths and billions in damages. I stated that this proceeding must ensure that this situation does not happen in New York.

I described the NYISO resource adequacy planning process in my comments. It has developed over many years and provides reliability planning projections based on the current mix of electric generating resources. One of the important characteristics of the current system is that there is insignificant correlation between the unavailability of generating resources. I believe that one of the significant findings of the New York State Reliability Council (NYSRC) Extreme Weather Working Group (EWWG) will be the observed correlation of the frequency and duration of low-wind episodes across the entire state, including the offshore wind development areas. I emphasized that this finding must be considered in future planning.

I have no doubt that these issues will eventually be addressed in the resource adequacy planning process and the reliability standards for the electric system. However, in order to determine how to do this it is necessary to understand the worst case. In order to determine how large the DEFR capacity needs to be, the State must know how much energy was available for low renewable resource episodes of different lengths. The EWWG is addressing this issue. However, because of its importance I believe a more extensive analysis and possibly independent analysis by different organizations would be appropriate. It is too important to rely on a single analysis of the expected worst-case availability. Therefore, I recommend this study be addressed as part of this Proceeding.

My comments on this topic recommended what should be included in a worst-case analysis. The most important aspect of any such analysis is to use as long an analysis period as possible. Fortunately, meteorological reanalysis data generated by modern weather forecast models but using original observations since 1950 are available for this application. The analysis should identify potential periods of low wind and solar availability and their frequency and duration. Once worst case periods are identified, modeling that projects the specific resource availability during the worst periods should be performed. That information can be used for future resource planning.

My second comment addresses the feasibility and affordability conditions in New York Public Service Law § 66 “Establishment of a renewable energy program”. The Hochul Administration has not acknowledged that there is a “safety valve” if the implementation does not work out as imagined in the Scoping Plan.

Specifically, New York Public Service Law § 66-p (4) states: “The commission may temporarily suspend or modify the obligations under such program provided that the commission, after conducting a hearing as provided in section twenty of this chapter, makes a finding that the program impedes the provision of safe and adequate electric service; the program is likely to impair existing obligations and agreements; and/or that there is a significant increase in arrears or service disconnections that the commission determines is related to the program”. The plain reading of that is that if implementation cannot feasibly maintain reliability standards or adversely affects affordability can “temporarily suspend or modify the obligations” of the Climate Act.

In my opinion, if the Climate Action Council had spent time looking at overarching issues rather than getting bogged down in arguments about wording and the pet concerns of its members then this would have been addressed. In this instance, they should have defined the reliability obligations, and affordability conditions for the commission. They could have specified the metrics to be used and the limits at which it would be appropriate to pause implementation. Because the Climate Action Council failed to provide recommendations, I commented that the Commission must establish those criteria.

Once the criteria are established then they can be used as a test for the acceptability of the proposed zero emissions resources. As part of the process a feasibility analysis for each resource to determine the technological risks for the resource and potential costs must be prepared. If the analysis projects that the § 66-p (4) criteria will be exceeded then the resource should not be considered.

Finally, I noted that my primary problem with the Climate Act is the mandate to go to zero without consideration of tradeoffs. In this instance that mandate precludes an obvious solution. New York’s oil-fired steam-electric generating stations could be used to provide the dispatchable generation needed for the worst-case extremes. The facilities have on-site storage, significant capacity availability, and experience operating units that run rarely. The units could be kept on-line, used for testing, training, and to be available for use in these extreme events. The extreme events are easily forecasted days in advance so the units can be brought on-line to be available as needed. I suspect that the cost to maintain those facilities will be far less than the cost of any zero-emission resource. Overall, the emissions and air quality impacts will be far less of an issue than the ramifications of a blackout. I recommended that this option be considered as part of this Proceeding.

Conclusion

This proceeding puts to rest the myth that the technology necessary for the electric system transition is available today. In order to meet the 2040 “zero emissions” electric generating resource requirement, this zero emissions resource is needed.

My comments were confined to two overarching issues that must be resolved in order to evaluate New York’s “zero-emissions” resources. The energy that the resource needs to provide to replace wind and solar resources during low availability periods must be known in order to determine how much will be needed. I recommended that an analysis that uses as long a period as possible be included as part of the Proceeding. My other concern is that the acceptability of zero-emissions resources should be based on well-defined standards of reliability feasibility and affordability. I recommended that the Proceeding define these criteria.

This is a necessary component of the net-zero transition. Unfortunately the need for this Proceeding has been known since the implementation began and it should have been part of the discussions of the Climate Action Council in 2020.

New York State Advanced Clean Cars

I believe that the majority of New Yorkers are unaware of the ramifications of regulations implementing control programs for the Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act) emission reduction mandates. This post describes one regulation that will affect most New Yorkers but has not received as much attention as I would have thought. The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) recently adopted amendments to 6 NYCRR Section 200.9 and 6 NYCRR Part 218 will incorporate California’s Advanced Clean Cars II (ACC II) regulation that require increasing annual zero emission vehicle (ZEV) sales requirements starting at 35% in model year 2026 and increasing to 100% by model year 2035.

I have been following the Climate Act since it was first proposed, submitted comments on the Climate Act implementation plan, and have written over 300 articles about New York’s net-zero transition. I have devoted a lot of time to the Climate Act 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 reduction 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. 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. This regulation is an example: “The amendments are also consistent with the requirements of the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act, Chapter 106 of the Laws of 2019, as well as legislative requirement for all new, light-duty vehicle sales to 100% ZEV by 2035, Chapter 423 of the Laws of 2021, to further reduce greenhouse emissions in New York State.”

Advanced Clean Cars Regulation

One problem for the public as regulations and legislation are proposed and enacted is that the regulatory action language is dense and unclear. The DEC description of this rulemaking is a good example:

Part 218 Advanced Clean Cars II (ACC II) (PDF) – Effective July 6, 2023

This notice is continuation of the Proposed/Emergency Rulemaking of the same title that was adopted and effective on December 13, 2022 and published in the State Register on December 28, 2022. Emergency Rulemaking – Parts 200, General Provisions, and 218, Emissions Standards for Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Engines. The emergency rulemaking will incorporate the State of California’s Advanced Clean Cars II (ACC II) regulation. The proposed amendments establish new zero emission vehicle (ZEV) and low emission vehicle (LEV IV) standards intended to reduce GHG (greenhouse gas) and NMOG + NOx (non-methane organic gas + oxides of nitrogen) emissions from light- and medium-duty on-road vehicles.

The ZEV amendments include an annual ZEV sales requirement for original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), minimum technical requirements, ZEV assurance measures, regulatory flexibilities, and simplified credit accounting. The proposed ZEV amendments will apply to 2026 and subsequent model year light-duty passenger cars (PC), light-duty trucks (LDT), and medium-duty passenger vehicles (MDPV). Starting with model year 2026, OEMs, will be required to deliver an increasing annual percentage of their sales that are ZEVs or PHEVs. This percentage requirement will start at 35% in model year 2026 and increase to 100% of sales for 2035 and subsequent model years. The proposed LEV IV amendments will apply to 2026 and subsequent model year PC, LDT, and medium-duty vehicles (MDV).

The Notice of Emergency Rulemaking is effective as of July 6, 2023, and will be available in the July 26, 2023 issues of the State Register and the Environmental Notice Bulletin.

Advanced Clean Cars for the Public

I think that the biggest unappreciated impact to the public will be the sales percentage mandates for zero-emission vehicles (ZEV) and plug-in hybrid vehicles (PHEV). Buried in the regulatory documents there is a pretty straigh-forward explanation. On page 4 of the July 26, 2023 State Register (page 14 of the pdf file) the sales mandates are described:

Starting with model year 2026, OEMs, will be required to deliver an increasing annual percentage of their sales that are ZEVs or PHEVs. This percentage requirement will start at 35% in model year 2026 and increase to 100% of sales for 2035 and subsequent model years.

PHEVs may be used to meet up to 20% of the annual ZEV requirement and they must meet minimum technical requirements. The use of PHEVs to meet part of the annual ZEV requirement will sunset following the 2035 model year.

ZEVs and PHEVs will be required to meet minimum technical requirements to earn ZEV values under ACC II. ZEVs must have a minimum all electric range (AER) of at least 150 miles and PHEVs must have a minimum AER of 50 miles and be capable of doing at least 40 miles on an aggressive drive cycle. ZEVs and PHEVs must also meet the ZEV assurance measures to be eligible to earn ZEV values. PHEVs must also be certified to super ultra-low emission vehicle (SULEV) standards and be covered by a 15 year or 150,000 mile warranty

The proposed ACC II ZEV amendments include ZEV assurance measures consisting of durability, warranty, service information/ standardized data parameters, and battery label requirements. The ZEV assurance measures will ensure that ZEVs retain functionality and reliability as internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEVs) are transitioned out of the on-road fleet.

Reactions to Advanced Clean Cars

The Big Green NGOs support this program to mitigate climate change. The NRDC claims “Transitioning to a zero-emission transportation system, therefore, is one of the most effective ways to mitigate climate change, improve air quality and health almost everywhere, and make the total cost of car ownership lower and more predictable.” The Sierra Club says “One policy that has pushed EVs to become more affordable and easier to purchase is the Advanced Clean Cars II (ACC2) Rule, also known as the Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) Standard.”

While I am sure that there are people who agree with these organizations, I believe that the majority do not. According to the NYSERDA Electric Vehicle Registration Map there were 155,988 electric vehicles on the road in New York as of July 2, 2023. There are on the order of 11.5 million vehicles registered in New York so electric vehicles account for about 1.5% of the vehicles in the state. The following table lists the number of new EV registrations per year. EV proponents point to the increasing sales but, given the tremendous marketing effort for EVs I do not these numbers represent an endorsement for electric vehicles where it counts.

The reality is that there are issues with EVs. I have set up a background page that provides links to articles describing some of those issues. I am going to describe a couple of recent articles here that list some of my concerns.

Both articles address the obvious issue. What if people like me don’t want to buy a battery electric vehicle because of range limitations, home infrastructure concerns, and worries about the morality of the supply chain of rare earth metals. The first article notes that Unsold Electric Cars May Be Signaling A Death Spiral For The Auto Industry. Ronald Stein lists reasons why people are not purchasing EVs and points out that EV inventories are rising. He also points out that the used car market is important but that the EV used car market is non-existent. Anecdotally, a friend of mine in the car business says that used Evs are not selling because of lemon laws and worries about battery replacement.

The other article by Terry Etam, The Potential Looming Auto Industry Fiasco, takes a big picture look at what lies ahead for the auto industry. He notes that:

In the second quarter of 2023, Ford lost $72,000 on every EV sold. While the latter is ‘sort of’ normal for new car platforms – and Evs are nothing if not new platforms – what isn’t normal is for highly-touted/media-frenzy revolutionary new autos like the Ford Mustang Mach E EV to be selling under 3,000 units per month in the US as it is in 2023, two years after introduction (US sales peaked over 5,000 units per month shortly after introduction). In the second quarter of 2023, Ford sold 14,843 Evs (out of 513,662 vehicles sold by the company overall), a fairly meagre total considering the capital invested and the marketing campaigns. In the minds of most consumers, it seems an EV means a Tesla, and there is scant interest in anything else no matter the marketing hyperbole.

Etam brings up another point that is a concern of mine. Evs are so expensive that the low- and middle- income residents of disadvantaged communities will have a tough time buying one. He explains:

In case anyone cares, and it doesn’t seem that they do when energy transitions are discussed, this will all work out the absolute worst for lower income people. Ordinarily, the auto market provides options for lower economic classes with vehicles that are no longer in favour. For example, in periods of high gasoline prices, consumers that can afford to switch up will tend to go for more fuel efficient vehicles, and the market can get flooded with inefficient ones – which has the effect of pushing down prices of these out of favour beasts, putting them within reach of poorer people. The fuel costs may be higher, but at least they can buy wheels.

That likely won’t happen this time around, if we see people buy ICE vehicles and then hoard them for as long as they can. In fact, things are terrible already for lower income people looking to buy older used cars – prices have skyrocketed for those as well.

Used cars are expensive, new cars are hideously more so, and Evs are, thus far, mostly toys of the wealthy with multi-car garages, or well paid urbanites that can afford to use them where they really shine. Again, we can see where China is twelve steps ahead; many popular Evs in China are tiny, cheap EV runabouts that don’t have massive range, but get the job done. No such option is available here in North America, few in Europe, and if they do show up on these shores, it is a safe bet they will be of Chinese origin, because they’re the only ones that can make money at it.

New York Reality

I took a quick look at the numbers to see if the Advanced Clean Car regulations in New York that require a certain percentage of new vehicle sales that are ZEVs or PHEVs have realistic targets. The requirements are:

This percentage requirement will start at 35% in model year 2026 and increase to 100% of sales for 2035 and subsequent model years. PHEVs may be used to meet up to 20% of the annual ZEV requirement and they must meet minimum technical requirements. The use of PHEVs to meet part of the annual ZEV requirement will sunset following the 2035 model year.

Where is the state now relative to these mandates? At one time it would have been relatively easy to get the necessary data to determine the status. However, the NY Department of Motor Vehicles no longer provides historical registration and new vehicle registration summary information. Instead the primary New York registration information through Data.NY.Gov is a data dump of 12.5 million rows of registrations. Completely worthless without a lot of processing and I don’t think it includes any historical information. There is Data.NY.Gov source of summary registration by fuel type and county data.

In order to estimate the EV percentage of new car sales I needed the number of vehicles sold in New York. I could not find that data but did find data for the United States. I assumed that the percentage of new car sales in New York would be the same as the percentage of the country. I found a source for United State motor vehicle registrations that included state data. The following table lists country-wide and New York registrations by vehicle type. I lumped all the registrations together for this analysis.

For new car sales I found data for the country. I estimated the New York new car sales as the same percentage of new sales to total registrations for the country. The following table lists those results. Because I did not have registration data after 2019, I assumed the New York sales would equal the 5-year average for 2019 and subsequent years (highlighted in yellow).

I previously listed the EV registration data for New York. The following table includes a projection of sales needed for model year 2026. These assumptions show that the idea that New York will be able to meet the Advanced Clean Car rule 2026 mandate is preposterous. In 2023 I estimate that 8.6% of the vehicle sold will be EVs. Note that PHEVs made up around 50% of the sales in 2022 but that starting in 2026 that percentage needs to be lowered to 20%. I interpolated where we are in 2023 to 2026 and the increase in sales of EVs is not likely. To think that in 2025 that EV sales will be larger than the number of EVs currently on the road is nothing but wishful thinking.

The State Register notice describes the public comments:

Most of the more than 4,400 commenters including vehicle manufacturers, environmental groups, and non-governmental organizations supported the Department’s ACC II adoption. The remaining six commenters, including a large manufacturer of diesel engines and a petroleum industry trade group, were opposed to the regulation.

Typically, DEC will point to this overwhelming support in favor of the regulation as “proof” that it is appropriate. If the comments were representative of general public opinion, then the percentage of EVs on the road in New York and the sales totals would be much higher. As a result, the argument that the comments supporting the program are representative of general public opinion fails. The overwhelming numbers do show that the environmental movement is extremely good at playing the game.

Used Vehicles

I believe that the regulation only applies to new cars. This explanation states: “This law doesn’t affect gas cars already on the road, the sale of used gas cars or new registrations of gas cars.” I suspect what we will see will be similar to what happened in Cuba. Etam notes that:

Cuba has not had access to modern automotive technology since the 1960s. As a result, streets still are full of ancient American cars, held together forever.

There is no reason to think that won’t happen in the US, Canada and western Europe when the new-ICE ban comes into effect. Some segments of the population will go with the regulatory-mandated flow, while a great many will hold onto what they know, trust, and love. Short of a miracle battery breakthrough, many will simply not trust EVs in cold weather and/or instances where battery power doesn’t cut it.

As note previously, the lack of used EVs will impact the low income and disadvantage communities the most. The regulation tries to address this problem but I don’t think the plan is very useful:

The proposed voluntary ACC II EJ flexibility is intended to award extra ZEV values to OEMs that undertake programs to expand ZEV availability to low income and disadvantaged communities. Optional programs include discounted ZEVs and PHEVs placed in community-based clean mobility programs, used ZEVs and PHEVs remaining in New York following the expiration of their lease term, and making low-cost ZEVs available to low income and disadvantaged communities. EJ values will be capped at 5% per year and will sunset following model year 2031.

Conclusion

From a practical standpoint I do not see how the new car sales mandates are going to convince those members of the public that EVs have more problems than benefits to buy one. I bet that enterprising car salesmen will figure out ways around the regulation for those people who want a new internal combustion engine or even a PHEV for that matter. If I but one out of state and come in toe DMV to register it are they going to say you cannot do that? Will there be a market for sales out-of-state to middle men who buy a specific new car then turn around and sell it “used”. The ultimate fall back is to simply keep the existing cars running as long a possible.

When I tell someone that there is a regulation in place that will eventually force them to buy an electric vehicle, the usual response is to say they cannot do that and I won’t buy one. Unfortunately, the law is in place and eventually there will not be any other options for new vehicles. The only alternative is to vote out the pandering politicians who respond to the marketing efforts of the Big Green lobbyists that got us into this mess. I think that will eventually happen and I can’t wait.

Climate Act and NY Heat Proposed Legislation

In order to implement the Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act) the plan in 2023 is to promulgate regulations and implement legislation to facilitate the control strategies needed to meet the net-zero transition plan. The NY HEAT proposed legislation is intended to protect the climate and keep energy costs down. This post describes an article by one of the co-sponsors.

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

Assemblymember Patricia Fahy and Senator Liz Krueger have sponsored a bill (S2016) NY HEAT that is intended “to ensure that state regulation and oversight of gas utilities provides for the equitable achievement of the climate justice and emission reduction mandates set forth in the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act. The intent is to provide the “Public Service Commission with the authority and direction to align gas utility regulation and gas system planning with the CLCPA’s mandates.” It will remove “the legal basis and subsidies driving the expansion of gas systems and requires the commission to adopt rules to provide for the timely and strategic decarbonization and right-sizing of the gas distribution system in a just and affordable manner prioritizing low-to-moderate income customers and disadvantaged communities, and encouraging neighborhood-scale transitions.”

Rather than going through the legislation itself this post addresses an article by Fahy about it in the Gotham Gazette –We Can Protect the Climate and Keep Energy Costs Down with NY HEAT. In the following section I have annotated the article with my comments.

We Can Protect the Climate and Keep Energy Costs Down with NY HEAT

Per usual the political approach is to appeal to authority to provide the rationale for the action. Advocates like Fahy and Krueger don’t acknowledge that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has a political agenda that threatens the credibility of claims that we have to act now.

In March, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) warned that the planet will cross a critical threshold for global warming within the next decade if we don’t take immediate action to curb emissions and meet ambitious climate mandates laid out in New York’s climate law.

The sponsors of the bill claim that concerns about affordability risks are unwarranted. I am not sure I understand their reasoning however. There is an implication that the gas utilities should be the ones that shoulder the costs and not the customers. The idea that the costs would be passed on seems to be missing.

As expected, gas utilities are casting doubt on the affordability of these needed reductions. Let’s be clear — New Yorkers and their families should not shoulder the burden of our clean energy transition.

Affordability is a major concern but we don’t need to weaken our nation-leading climate law to save the planet and save New Yorkers money. As the name suggests, legislation I sponsor with Senator Liz Krueger, the New York Home Energy Affordable Transition (NY HEAT) Act would help keep costs down for New Yorkers while accelerating our energy transition away from polluting fossil fuels and addressing affordability, keeping us on track to meet the goals of our climate law.

The focus on the bill is to outlaw a provision that gas utilities must provide hook ups to the system for new customers within 100 feet of existing pipelines. The authors claim that this subsidy forces ratepayers to pay $200 million in subsidies and they apparently think that stopping it will make the transition affordable.

For decades, New Yorkers have been subsidizing the very infrastructure the gas industry’s profits rely on. The industry’s business models are premised on the perpetual taxpayer-subsidized expansion of gas infrastructure and services. Currently, due to the 100-foot rule mandate – which requires gas utilities to hook up all new customers to gas lines at no charge – ratepayers are footing the $200 million annual bill for this continued expansion of polluting gas infrastructure.

This reasoning is egregious innumeracy because this cost is peanuts compared to all the subsidies needed to transition away from natural gas and go all electric. Consider that the ratepayers are going to have to pony up $339 million to upgrade the electric transmission system to reduce curtailment of 3 GW of offshore wind capacity which is just one component of the net-zero transition. The total cost for all the subsidies is not readily available but is very likely at least an order of magnitude greater than the savings claimed by this legislation. It may reduce the cost a little but reducing this cost will not make the Climate Act affordable.

The article goes on to claim that because National Grid is looking to sell parts of its pipeline network it is “adapting and adjusting”. I am at a loss how this will benefit consumers. Moreover, I don’t see how the ownership of the pipeline network will affect any of the transition issues.

The NY HEAT Act (A4592/S2016) will relieve us of the hook-up cost, and stop the continued expansion of the gas system that is moving New York further away from the goals of the climate law. Thankfully, utilities like National Grid are already adapting and adjusting: as New York considers legislation like NY HEAT, the company is looking to sell parts of its pipeline network to meet future clean energy demand. Last year, it sold a majority share of its gas distribution business in the United Kingdom.

If those reasons are not enough to ensure savings, the authors proposed legislation will simply mandate that a price cap. In typical political fashion the target constituency (low- and middle- income families) gets the benefits of the price cap but the question of who pays the transition costs is ignored. I agree that there should be an energy poverty component to the Climate Act implementation because this policy should not hurt those least able to afford the increased energy costs. However, I have tried and failed multiple times to find out where New York stands relative to the 6% of income threshold referenced in the following paragraph. Does it cover just the cost of electricity and natural gas utilities? Does it include other energy costs such as personal transportation for rural residents? How many families exceed this threshold today and how will the future policies affect the totals? All that information must be known to find out how much the rest of the ratepayers will have to pay to subsidize the price cap.

The savings don’t end there. For low- and middle-income families, NY HEAT would put a price cap on electricity bills, to limit paying no more than 6% of income to stay warm and cook dinner.

In the last legislative session the Utility Thermal Energy Network and Jobs Act was passed to spur development of thermal energy networks which are just community-based ground water heat pump systems. The authors of this legislation claim that NY HEAT will support that initiative by preventing billions of dollars to replace natural gas infrastructure. Left unsaid is just how much this more expensive technology will cost relative to the existing fossil-fired system.

NY HEAT clears a path for utilities to build renewable thermal energy networks instead of replacing and expanding the gas network. Doing so will create thousands of new clean, green energy jobs for union pipefitters and electrical workers for decades to come. It could also prevent the billions of dollars of spending on replacement pipes that gas utilities are planning by 2040 and gas customers would get stuck paying for in the decades to come.

I have often said that there is a disconnect between reality and the understanding of proponents of the Climate Act. Fahy’s claims in the next paragraph provides a vivid example.

New York’s electrical grid maintains a surplus of energy that will support new, all-electric construction. While gas furnaces on the market today require electricity to power their electronics and fans, there are new technologies that keep electric equipment like heat pumps running when the power goes out.

Fahy claims that there is “a surplus of energy that will support new, all-electric construction”. However, she references the installed reserve margin which is the “minimum level of capacity, beyond the forecasted peak demand, which utilities and other energy providers must procure to serve consumers.” For starters the installed reserve margin is a capacity measure and not energy. More importantly, that parameter is used to ensure that the existing system can reliably meet peak loads. It is the minimum level of reserve capacity to keep the lights on. It provides no surplus available for additional load associated with new electric construction. Reality is that the New York Independent System Operator’s Resource Outlook includes four key findings: an unprecedented buildout of new generation is needed, load will increase when we electrify everything, transmission is necessary and must be expended to get diffuse renewables to New York City and a new resource has been identified: Dispatchable Emissions-Free Resource (DEFR). (see following figure) Those findings suggest significant concerns totally overlooked by the Progressive politicians pushing Climate Act implementation legislation.

The other claim is that there are new technologies to keep electric equipment running when the power goes out refers to using power from charged personal electric vehicles to “ power key devices, like cell phones, and appliances, and even your entire home for multiple days.” Maybe on the best day but during a really cold period the idea that family electric car can power the home as needed is wishful thinking and overlooks the point that if it is powering the home it cannot be used for transportation.

Fahy and other advocates refuse to acknowledge the possibility that fossil fuel interests could align with the interests of the majority of New Yorkers who appreciate and value the resiliency and affordability of our existing fossil-fueled infrastructure. Their response is to denigrate any of their arguments as shown in the following paragraph. The article referenced refers to proposed legislation that would have changed the emissions accounting system. I think that it was much ado about nothing. What has not been recognized in any commentary on the cap and invest proposal is that New York’s unique approach makes it impossible for New York to join other jurisdictions in such a program. As a result, New York will have to develop all the infrastructure for its own system at a significant cost and implementation time delay.

The gas industry wants to prevent alternative options for a reliable, affordable, and green transition. Unsurprisingly, they were a force behind the recent unsuccessful push to undermine New York’s climate law – which would have enabled the combustion of more gas, for longer.

Proponents earnestly believe that the Climate Act Scoping Plan is a credible design for the future energy system. I disagree. There is no feasibility analysis that proves that the list of strategies in the Integration Analysis will work as proposed and can be implemented on the schedule necessary to meet the Climate Act targets. There is inadequate documentation for the costs of each strategy and we are left only with a hollow slogan that the costs of inaction are more than the costs of action. The Hochul Administration has refused to provide estimates of consumer impacts to date. When the cap and invest cost estimates were recently calculated, the Administration floated the idea to change the accounting methodology. Despite promises they have yet to provide detailed cost documentation. The Administration has not provided a cumulative environmental impact assessment for the Scoping Plan mitigation scenarios which include substantially more wind and solar resource development and an entirely new dispatchable emissions-free resource than included in any assessments to date. There is no implementation plan. As a result, there are no limits on utility-scale solar development impacts on prime farmland, inadequate on-going monitoring and no backup plan if offshore wind development construction is found to adversely affect whales, and no plan to develop the dispatchable emissions-free resource that is necessary but does not currently exist. I am convinced that the Scoping Plan will do more harm than good.

Our climate plan was years in the making. It was created in consultation with multiple expert advisory panels, subject to public hearings, and incorporated tens of thousands of New Yorkers’ comments. New Yorkers know that we can get off gas and have affordable, reliable energy and a stable climate — but that will take ratepayer funds currently used for expanding fossil fuel infrastructure to be reallocated.

Fahy’s claim that the $200 million savings due to the proposed legislation will save New Yorkers money ignores the costs of the alternatives. That subsidy is peanuts compared to all the costs of alternate technologies.

If we want to save New Yorkers money and lead on climate, we must stop asking New York families to foot the $200 million per year bill to continue constructing and maintaining fossil fuel infrastructure that will inevitably become obsolete. As the Legislature continues its post-budget session, we must pass NY HEAT to move towards our clean energy future.

Conclusion

Proponents refuse to acknowledge the possibility that the majority of New Yorkers appreciate and value the resiliency and affordability of our existing fossil-fueled infrastructure. New York GHG emissions are less than one half of one percent of global emissions and global emissions have been increasing on average by more than one half of one percent per year since 1990. Therefore the effect of eliminating our emissions will be wiped out by emission increases elsewhere. While that does not mean that New York State should not do something, it does mean that there is time to address the ramifications of the proposed wholesale shift to unwanted technology without proper accounting of costs, impacts to reliability, environmental impacts and implementation consequences.

The Hochul Administration has not admitted to the total costs, has provided inadequate documentation for anyone to derive the costs from their analyses, and has refused to provide consumer cost estimates. Until such time that there is a full accounting of the costs necessary to achieve the full net-zero transition and not just the Climate Act program costs, I think it is inappropriate to pass any implementing legislation like the NY HEAT bill. As shown here, the rationale used by the authors of this particular legislation is not credible to support its claims.

New York Gas Stove Ban – Beginning of the End or End of the Beginning?

New York State recently banned the use of natural gas from most new buildings that was described as: “a major win for climate advocates, but a move that could spark pushback from fossil fuel interests”. I have been following New York’s net-zero transition plan for years and there are some interesting aspects associated with the “major win for climate advocates”.

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 Leadership & Community Protection Act (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

New York’s official website for the Climate Act promotes the strategies in the Scoping Plan including a fact sheet describing the plans to decarbonize New York’s buildings. It includes the following:

Adopt Zero-Emission Codes and Standards: More efficient, zero-emissions equipment for heating and cooking is increasingly available. That makes replacing existing equipment and appliances with cleaner and healthier alternatives an easy choice for New Yorkers. New construction projects will be required to install zero-emissions equipment in 2025 for single-family and low-rise buildings and in 2028 for high-rise and commercial buildings.

The Scoping Plan includes specific recommended strategies for the buildings sector. The relevant theme, “Adopt Zero-Emission Codes and Standards and Require Energy Benchmarking for Buildings”, included three strategies:

B1. Adopt Advanced Codes for Highly Efficient, Zero-Emission, and Resilient New Construction
B2. Adopt Standards for Zero-Emission Equipment and the Energy Performance of Existing Buildings
B3. Require Energy Benchmarking and Disclosure

The text states:

In existing buildings, the best opportunity for energy improvements is during routine home and capital improvements and when HVAC equipment is retired from service. Since the useful life of HVAC equipment ranges from 15 to 30 years, seizing the opportunities to electrify

buildings by 2050 requires near-term action.

Electrification and efficiency improvements in existing buildings present a larger challenge of sheer scale. The New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA), DEC, and New York State Department of State (DOS) should work together to adopt regulatory requirements that will bring about the end of fossil fuel combustion in buildings by prohibiting replacement of fossil fuel equipment at end of useful life, coordinated with action taken by the PSC and New York State Department of Public Service (DPS) to regulate gas utilities and with New York State Department of Labor (DOL) and the Office of Just Transition to promote workforce development. Building performance standards also will compel efficient operation of buildings and capital investments in high-performance building envelopes and efficient HVAC systems.

New York Legislation

As noted previously the plan for 2023 is to promulgate new regulations and pass new legislation to implement the Scoping Plan recommendations. New York’s strange political process includes an annual legislative self-made crisis in which legislation is held hostage to the annual budget. On May 2, over a month past the April 1 due date, the Legislature and Administration finally passed the budget bill that included the gas stove ban that got so much attention. The point of this article is that there were interesting aspects of the budget discussions this year that have bigger implications than the passage of the ban.

In my opinion, and certainly the belief of the climate activists, the Scoping Plan is pretty clear that fossil-fueled equipment is to be banned outright. Indeed, the legislation prohibits installation of “fossil-fuel equipment and building systems” in newly constructed buildings seven stories or less, except new commercial or industrial buildings over 100,000 ft²on or after 12/31/25, and for all other buildings on or after 12/31/28”. However, the prohibition does not apply to :

The repair, alteration, addition, relocation, or other changes to pre-existing buildings
The fossil-fuel prohibition shall exempt equipment and systems used for emergency back-up power and standby power; manufactured homes, and building used as a manufacturing facility, commercial food establishment, laboratory, car wash, laundromat, hospital, other medical facility, critical infrastructure, agricultural building, fuel cell system, or crematorium.
To the “fullest extent feasible”, fossil-fuel equipment and building systems in such buildings are to be limited to areas where a prohibition is infeasible, and such areas must be “electrification ready”, except for those serving manufacturing or industrial processes. Emissions from allowed use must be minimized. “Financial considerations shall not be sufficient basis to determine physical or technical infeasibility.”
The Energy Code shall exempt new building construction that requires new or expanded electric service, pursuant to §31.1 of the Public Service Law, when electric service cannot be reasonably provided by the grid.

When the ban on natural gas in new construction was first announced there was intense pushback. Apologists and the Governor were quick to point out that the ban only affected new construction and that nobody was coming to take away existing natural gas appliances. However, the Scoping Plan recommendations make it clear that the plan is to eventually ban the replacement of most existing fossil-fired infrastructure. Furthermore, the original language did not include all the caveats that ended up in the final bill described above. I interpret that to mean that the reality is that accommodations have to be made to pass Climate Act implementing legislation.

Emissions Accounting

The New York political theater starts with the Governor’s State of the State address in early January that outlines her legislative agenda for the year. This is followed by specific legislative proposals from the Administration, Senate, and Assembly. This year the initial budget bills from the Governor, Senate and Assembly included significant policy aspects related to the Climate Act that did not get included in the final budget bill but the debates are instructive.

For example, sometime during this process there was a revelation that prompted a specific legislative proposal to modify the emissions accounting because of excessive costs. Climate Action Council co-chairs Doreen Harris and Basil Seggos explained that:

“First and foremost, the governor is trying to maintain New York’s leadership on climate. It’s a core principle that she brought into office and we have been carrying that out for several years,” said Seggos.

But Gov. Hochul instructed both the DEC and NYSERDA to look at the affordability of Cap & Invest.

“We began running the numbers on that, based on some of the metrics being used by Washington state and some of our own, and revealed some…potentially extraordinary costs affiliated with the program,” Seggos explained. “So that’s really what this is. It isn’t a focus necessarily on methane itself, or any particular pollutant. It is how do we implement the CLCPA in a way that doesn’t put extraordinary costs on the pockets of New Yorkers.”

It seems astounding to me but it does appear that someone in the Administration finally started really looking at the potential costs of the Climate Act. When the first auction of allowances for the Washington state program produced costs higher than expected, DEC and NYSERDA ran the numbers and the results were a reality slap to the Administration. The response was to propose a change to the unique emissions accounting scheme used in the Climate Act.

In order to maximize the purported harm of natural gas use the Climate Act specified the use of global warming potential over 20 years rather than over 100 years as used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United States government, and every other jurisdiction (since its implementation the state of Maryland has also begun to specify GWP-20). The result is that the number of tons of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions are increased and when that emission total was multiplied by the closing price of the Washington state auction the result was “extraordinary costs”.

In one word the response by climate activists to this legislation was “meltdown”. For example, NY Renews, a coalition of over 300 environmental, justice, faith, labor, and community groups that bills itself as the “force behind the nation’s most progressive climate law” had this to say:

S6030/A6039 is part of a larger pattern of attacks by the fossil fuel industry that threaten to sabotage New York’s nation-leading climate law, the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act, and roll back hard-won standards for accurately accounting for the impacts of greenhouse gas emissions, particularly methane. If passed, the bill would change how the state measures methane and carbon dioxide emissions, pave the way for polluting corporations to emit without consequence, and harm the health and well-being of frontline community members who live, work, play, and pray in neighborhoods across NYS.

NY Renews unequivocally opposes the inclusion of this bill in the state budget and any deal that would include it. We’re calling on the state legislature to uphold the Climate Act as written into law and reject amendments that would threaten its power to protect and prepare New Yorkers facing the worst effects of the climate crisis.

In response to the outcry the Administration backed down from the proposal. They claimed that it distracted from the importance of passing the budget bill. Nonetheless, Seggos said “The fundamental takeaway is it’s full steam ahead for cap and invest with the climate action rebate and any other elements we’ll take up as soon as we can.”

Discussion

The reason that I am encouraged rather than discouraged by the enacted gas appliance ban on new construction is that a couple of issues came up that will have to be addressed. The political approach to punt difficult problems down the road can only work so long.

The initial blowback to the gas stove ban prompted the Administration to propose legislation that gradually eliminates fossil fuel-burning heating equipment from nearly all New York buildings, consistent with the Climate Action Council plan, but takes less aggressive steps to reduce the use of gas stoves. The proposed changes:

Dec. 31, 2025: Prohibit all equipment (including stoves) that burn fossil fuels in new construction of single-family homes or apartment buildings of three stories or less.
Dec. 31, 2028: Prohibit all fossil fuel-burning equipment (including stoves) in new construction of commercial buildings and multifamily structures of four stories or more.
Jan. 1, 2030: Prohibit installation of heating or hot water equipment (but not stoves) in any single-family home or apartment building of three stories or less.
Jan. 1, 2035: Prohibit installation of fossil fuel heating or hot water systems (but not stoves) in any commercial building or larger multifamily structure.

The final legislation only addressed the first two components. The Administration apparently hopes that the Scoping Plan recommendation to mandate electrification when existing fossil-fired appliances reach their end of life can be made palatable if gas stoves are exempted. I think that is naïve because so many people appreciate the resiliency and capabilities of fossil-fueled furnaces and hot water heaters too. When the legislation to implement a prohibit in-kind replacement of existing appliances comes up, I believe there will be intense blowback.

The final budget bill also included legislation for distribution of the proceeds from a cap and invest auction. I don’t see an easy path for the Administration to walk back their statements that the auction will result in extraordinary costs. They are on record saying the costs are unacceptable so how do they reconcile that?

Conclusion

At the start of the year the idea that the government is coming for your gas stove was dismissed as a right wing conspiracy:

NYT: “No One Is Coming for Your Gas Stove Anytime Soon”
Time: “How Gas Stoves Became the Latest Right-Wing Cause in the Culture Wars”
Salon: “Rumors of a gas stove ban ignite a right-wing culture war”
MSNBC: “No, the woke mob is not coming for your gas stove.”
AP News: “FACT FOCUS: Biden administration isn’t banning gas stoves”
The Washington Post: “GOP thrusts gas stoves, Biden’s green agenda into the culture wars”

However, New York’s Climate Act implementation demonstrates that a net-zero transition requires such a ban. It is not going to be possible to put off a debate about personal choice options and the advantages of fossil fuel for residential use because the New Yorkers who are blissfully unaware of this aspect of the Climate Act will demand to be heard.

The other aspect of this relates to the cap and invest program and the costs of the program. The Hochul Administration narrative is that the costs of inaction for the net zero Climate Act transition outweigh the costs of action but that statement is misleading unless they issue a caveat that the costs in the Scoping Plan do not include the costs of “already implemented” programs. My analyses of costs have found that there are other significant “already implemented” program costs (for example the costs of transportation electrification) and that means that the Administration claim does not include all the costs to transition to net-zero. 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. In order to get the desired result, the State analyses have a thumb pressing down on one side of the scale and the other thumb is pushing up the other side of the scale. I don’t see how the Administration can avoid a meaningful discussion of the costs that they admit are extraordinary.

CNN described the New York State ban on the use of natural gas from most new buildings as “a major win for climate advocates, but a move that could spark pushback from fossil fuel interests”. Advocates refuse to acknowledge the possibility that fossil fuel interests could align with the interests of the majority of New Yorkers who appreciate and value the resiliency and affordability of our existing fossil-fueled infrastructure. The proposed wholesale shift to unwanted technology without proper accounting of costs will be under intense scrutiny this year. I do not see how the Hochul Administration can avoid an open debate about the implications of the Climate Act for all New Yorkers.