I lost track of this proposed regulation so I did not let my New York readers know that there was the opportunity to comment on the proposed rulemaking that will incorporate the State of California’s Advanced Clean Cars into New York’s regulations. This is the implementing regulation for the state law to switch to zero emission vehicles. It is unlikely that it will do any good but it would be appropriate to comment and express any misgivings you have about the requirement for a battery electric vehicle. The comment deadline is 5 pm, Monday, March 6, 2023. Written comments may be submitted by e-mail to air.regs@dec.ny.gov. Put Part 218 in subject line.
This is another article about my evaluation of the Climate Act that I have written 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.
Part 218 Advanced Clean Cars
The rulemaking is described at the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) Air Pollution Regulatory Revisions webpage. It explains that:
Emergency Rulemaking – Parts 200, General Provisions, and 218, Emissions Standards for Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Engines. The emergency/proposed 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 will be available in the December 28, 2022 issues of the State Register and the Environmental Notice Bulletin. A virtual hearing is scheduled for March 1, 2023 at 1 pm. The comment deadline is 5 pm, Monday, March 6, 2023. Written comments may be submitted to NYSDEC, 625 Broadway, Albany, NY 12233-3254, ATTN: James Clyne, P.E., or by e-mail to air.regs@dec.ny.gov.
My Comments
For what it is worth I had been accumulating material for comments so I manage to put together something to submit. I include a link to my comments and describe them below. I submitted comments to the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) because the proposed rulemaking ignores feasibility, affordability, and life-cycle environmental impacts. The primary rationale for this emergency rulemaking is to implement the control strategy recommendations included in the Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act) Scoping Plan. The Climate Action Council deferred a feasibility analysis of reliability, affordability, and environmental impacts to the rule-making phase. The result of this irresponsible avoidance of responsibility is a regulation that could very well not be in the best interests of New York
New York agencies are begrudgingly following their mandates for public comments. In the past each rulemaking had its own web page with a bit more description. More importantly the web page would have links to each component of the regulatory package. Admittedly they often would only be in html format so trying to develop comments required downloading and reformatting. This proposed amendment refers to a single pdf format file Part 218 Advanced Clean Cars II (ACC II) that includes all the components in one massive file. If they wanted to encourage public input then they would have everything on a dedicated web page and include links to the pdf format components.
It gets worse because the rationale provided in the proposed amendment documentation is insulting. The program boils down to California did it so we can too. There is no consideration of the potential that circumstances in New York differ from California. The two-county Buffalo–Niagara Falls Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) had an estimated population of 1.1 million in 2020 and can be crippled by winter storms. Blizzard conditions with winds excess of 70 mph and heavy lake effect snow in the Buffalo area on Christmas Eve 2022 resulted in devastating impacts across the Buffalo area. Battery electric vehicles (BEV) mandated by this proposed rule do not do well in those conditions. Thirty-nine people died in this storm and more surely would have died if electric vehicles were the only option available. California has no similar major metropolitan areas subject to this type of extreme weather so relying on their analysis so suggesting that it will work here too is disingenuous at best.
The Climate Act mandates a full life-cycle analysis of fossil-fuel use. On the other hand, the life-cycle impacts of the so-called “zero -emissions” alternatives are ignored. BEVs may not have emissions when operating but the volume of materials needed to access the rare earth elements necessary for those technologies certainly have environmental impacts when mined and processed. The vehicles mandated by proposed Part 218 require between 1,000 and 2,000 percent more minerals to deliver the same amount of power and on the order of 400% more metals to manufacture the same vehicles. The consequence of this is that many more materials will be required. The Part 218 Regulatory Impact Statement should address where the materials necessary for BEVs come from and whether there will be sufficient quantities available for the New York transition.
I also addressed disposal of electric vehicles. The modern gas automobile is one of the most highly recycled products in human existence. After initial creation, each vehicle has an average life cycle of about 20 years. At that point it is dis-assembled and its parts are sold used in a global used parts chain, which is the most profitable part of the whole life cycle. In comparison, a Tesla has a plastic body, and a battery assembled from thousands of 18650-type cells, so it is extremely hard to recycle. The body can’t be recycled. According to recent Tesla documents the batteries are “valorized” by grinding them up and putting their waste in construction cement. In contrast, Toyota/Honda hybrid batteries are easily re-used and recycled.
The rationale for this action is that “zero-emissions” vehicles in New York are good for the planet. However, the proposed amendment simply exports emissions elsewhere. I referenced a horror story of the Indonesia Morowali Industrial Park where the danger and pollution involved in mining nickel is at a rapid pace to meet the demand for EVs. I asked how this proposed amendment comports to the environmental justice cornerstone of the Climate Act.
The regulatory documents associated with the Proposed Amendment do not address a critical feasibility problem. DEC has to address BEV charging requirements and existing on-street parking. Who is responsible for providing the on-street charging infrastructure for car owners that do not have a dedicated charging resource?
The proposed amendment mandates that starting with model year 2026, car makers, 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. Despite tremendous publicity and extensive subsidies nothing can obscure the fact that EVs remain extremely costly for consumers and offer unproven maintenance and reliability records. I will never buy a BEV because I cannot afford a car that does not offer the same flexibility and convenience as an ICE vehicle. Moreover, I do not want to deal with home charging infrastructure and the safety risk of Lithium-Ion battery chargers below my bed room. What happens when the public does not buy enough of these vehicles to meet those quotas?
Conclusion
This is another instance of a regulation that affects most New Yorkers but only a few are aware of its existence. I expect that the climate activists will mobilize their acolytes to submit comments supporting the rule-making. DEC will count the pro and con comments and consider implementation as a mandate from the public because more comments in favor than against will be submitted. If everyone was aware of this I am sure there number of people opposed would far outweigh the number in favor.
Worse is the complete disregard for rigor in the analysis. The primary rationale is “California said they could do it and we agree”. I did not spend sufficient time to develop comments on the California analysis but given the record of the state’s response to my comments it would only have been a waste of time.
I encourage readers to send a comment. I think it is sufficient to say that the state needs to prove that this is feasible, affordable, and doesn’t cause more environmental harm than good. They have not done that work so this should be delayed until they can prove their case.
I attended a town hall meeting for the 2023 Budget sponsored my New York State Assemblyman, Al Stirpe, to explain why I am opposed to any legislation in the budget supporting implementation of any aspect of the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (Climate Act). The meeting format did not lend itself to presenting anything as detailed as the comments I wanted to make. This post documents the Climate Act-related issues that came up at the meeting and the comments I wanted to make.
This is another article about my evaluation of the Climate Act that I have written 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. Moreover, the costs will be enormous and hurt those least able to afford increased costs the most. I have worked over 40 years as an air pollution meteorologist in the electrical generating sector. After retirement, I served as Director of the Environmental Energy Alliance of New York, and later started the Pragmatic Environmentalist of New York blog that debates the challenges of balancing the risks and benefits of environmental issues. 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.
Everyone wants to do right by the environment to the extent that they can afford to and not be unduly burdened by the effects of environmental policies. New York environmental policies have lost sight of the need to balance the risks and benefits of environmental initiatives. I submitted comments on the Climate Act Scoping Plan and have prepared a layman’s summary of issues associated with the Climate Act. Those resources provide more backup to the references linked in the following.
Meeting Notes
Assemblyman Stirpe took an hour to go through the proposed legislative budget. He went through quite a bit of detail of all the components. The Climate Act component of the discussion was no more than five minutes of the presentation.
I got to the meeting a little early and there were people talking about the effects of the Climate Act, especially the electric vehicle mandate and the gas ban. Clearly, they were not in favor of either component. Someone in the audience made the point that most people still aren’t aware of the ramifications of the Climate Act and suggested that more outreach would have been appropriate. His response insinuated that people were getting wrong information from the fossil fuel interests. Several other people made comments that were skeptical of the rationale of an existential threat from climate change and others complained about components of the Climate Act.
Mr. Stirpe incorrectly responded to a couple of comments. To the climate change is not that big a deal comment he said he has been shoveling less snow and insinuated that climate change was to blame. I pointed out that he did not know the difference between weather and climate. Near the end of the meeting he insinuated that air quality has not improved much since 1970 and the first earth day. I was tempted to respond at the meeting but by that point everyone was tired and I thought he wouldn’t appreciate my response. The fact is that according to the EPA Air Quality Trends website Northeast air quality improvements from 2000 to 2021 have been significant:
Carbon monoxide has decreased 61%;
Nitrogen dioxide has decreased 35%;
Sulfur dioxide has decreased 90%;
Ozone has decreased 16%;
Particulate matter has decreased 31%; and
Inhalable particulate matter has decreased 43%.
Air quality is much better than it has been in the past. This misunderstanding is particularly problematic for a New York legislator because Environmental Justice activists have lobbied policymakers into accepting the PEAK coalition conclusion that “Fossil peaker plants in New York City are perhaps the most egregious energy-related example of what environmental injustice means today” and are putting tremendous pressure on the legislature to act. However, the analysis that forms the basis of that conclusion is flawed. The health impacts claimed in that analysis are for ozone and inhalable particulates that are secondary pollutants that form far downwind of the adjoining neighborhoods of peaking power plants.
My Climate Act Comments
I gave Assemblyman Stirpe a document with the following information.
I am opposed to any legislation implementing the Climate Act because the Hochul Administration has not done a feasibility analysis that proves that the Scoping Plan list of control strategies can maintain current levels of reliability, will be affordable, and will not do more environmental harm than good. I have written over 290 articles on my Pragmatic Environmentalist of New York blog about the Climate Act and I am convinced that the state is on a dangerous path.
New York greenhouse gas emissions are less than one half percent of global emissions per year but global greenhouse gas emissions have been increasing by more than one half percent per year on average since 1993. Anything we do will be supplanted by emissions elsewhere in less than a year. That does not mean we should not do something but it does mean that we can take the time to do it right.
The New York Independent System Operator recently published “Information for Policy Makers” that summarizes their activities “to design and implement the operations, planning and market enhancements necessary for the grid in transition.” I have noted that their work describes the situation well. New York electric gird is a complex system that has evolved over many years. It is a highly reliable system using proven hardware and procedures. Reliance on unprecedented levels of wind and solar has not been demonstrated successfully anywhere. The energy storage system technology to account for intermittent wind and solar has not been tested on the scale necessary for the proposed use. These facts make it an ill-conceived plan that will likely end in blackout. Furthermore, the rush to electrify everything is not safe. What will happen when everything has been converted to electricity and there is an ice storm?
The Scoping Plan does not include a detailed accounting of the costs to consumers. The administration claims that the costs of inaction are greater than the costs of action but that claim is misleading and inaccurate. It is misleading because the Scoping Plan costs of action only includes the costs of the Climate Act and do not include all the costs to meet the net-zero by 2050 target, including vehicle electrification. It is inaccurate because it double counts the societal benefits of reductions.
The Climate Act only accounts for fossil fuel life-cycle costs and environmental impacts while ignoring the lifecycle impacts of wind, solar, and energy storage technologies. Those “zero-emissions” resources may not have emissions when generating electricity but the volume of materials needed to access dilute wind and solar energy and the rare earth elements necessary for those technologies certainly have environmental impacts when mined and processed. The large number of wind turbines and solar panels will also create massive amounts of waste when they are retired. Furthermore, the cumulative environmental impacts of thousands of wind turbines and square miles of solar panels has not been evaluated for the levels proposed in the Scoping Plan.
Opposition to Following Legislation
My submittal noted that I oppose the following legislative proposals. I oppose all components of the NY Renews Climate Jobs, and Justice package including the Climate and Community Protection Fund as well as the following specific bills:
A4592/S2016 “NY Home Energy Affordable Transition Act”;Aligns utility regulation with state climate justice and emission reduction targets; repeals provisions relating to continuation of gas service; repeals provisions relating to the sale of indigenous natural gas for generation of electricity.
A4306/S732 DEC to establishes a carbon dioxide emissions price for electric generation from carbon-based fuel; creates a carbon dioxide emissions fund; distribute revenue to low-income individuals and communities and to support mass transit.
A920/S562 the “all-electric building act”; provides that the state energy conservation construction code shall prohibit infrastructure, building systems, or equipment used for the combustion of fossil fuels in new construction statewide no later than December 31, 2023 if the building is less than seven stories and July 1, 2027 if the building is seven stories or more.
A279/S4134“New York State Build Public Renewables Act”; requires the New York power authority to provide only renewable energy and power to customers; requires such authority to be the sole provider of energy to all state owned and municipal properties; requires certain New York power authority projects and programs pay a prevailing wage and utilize project labor agreements.
S4854/no same as. Requires agencies to develop recommendations regarding the establishment of microgrids at critical facilities.
A4393/S2007. Establishing a one hundred percent clean renewable energy system for electricity by two thousand thirty-four; such energy system shall include solar, wind, geothermal and tidal sources.
A4866/no same as. “fossil fuel facilities replacement and redevelopment blueprint act” requires NYSERDA, DPS and DEC to prepare a blueprint to guide the replacement and redevelopment of the oldest and most-polluting fossil fuel facilities and their sites by 2030.
A411/S3581 Declares a climate emergency and places a ban on fossil fuel infrastructure projects but shall not apply to repair or maintenance of existing infrastructure.
Support for following legislation:
I listed the following two legislative proposals as ones I think will help address my concerns.
S2030/no same as Directs the public service commission in consultation with NYSERDA to conduct a full cost benefit analysis of the technical and economic feasibility of renewable energy systems in the state of New York and to compare such directly with other methods of electricity generation within nine months after the effective date and every four years thereafter.
A4999/S2474 Directs the state energy planning board to conduct a study of the technical and economic feasibility of a one hundred percent renewable energy system and a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.
Conclusion
I don’t think Assemblyman Stirpe understands just how poorly informed he is because of the mis-information in the Scoping Plan and the constant propaganda from the media and climate activists. I had offered in the past to give him a briefing but he refused. I do not expect to hear anything as a result of the comment I gave him. If did respond I would ask him to put pressure on the Hochul Administration to give a full accounting of the costs, do a feasibility study of the effects on electric system reliability and do a cumulative environmental impact analysis of the Scoping Plan recommendations for wind and solar resources. Until the Scoping Plan is proven to be feasible, it is inappropriate to support any implementing legislation.
According to a press release: “New York State Senate Republican Leader Rob Ortt, members of the Senate Republican Conference, and statewide energy stakeholders today unveiled a package of smart energy policies to pursue a cleaner energy future. The plan puts affordability and reliability first for New York ratepayers, in sharp contrast to some of the radical proposals coming out of Albany.” I am highlighting a link to the press conference where this is announced because Richard Ellenbogen did a masterful job explaining his concerns about the net-zero transition plan and they match my worries.
This is another article about the Climate Act implementation plan that I have written 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.
Background
The implementation plan for New York’s Climate Act “Net Zero” target (85% reduction and 15% offset of emissions) by 2050 is underway. At the end of 2022 the Climate Action Council completed a Scoping Plan that makes recommends strategies to meet the targets. The Hochul Administration is developing regulations and proposing legislation to respond to those recommendations in 2023.
Unfortunately, the Scoping Plan is just a conglomeration of control strategies that are projected to provide the emission reductions required. The Plan did not do any feasibility analyses or address any “what if” questions raised by the NYISO or anyone else for that matter. As a result, I am convinced that it will fail.
I recently published Richard’s analysis of New York’s energy storage plan as a guest post. Ellenbogen is the President of Allied Converters that manufactures food packaging. His facility is about 55,000 square feet and does a lot of manufacturing with heat to seal the bags, all electrically driven. The facility has solar panels and uses co-generation. He explains:
In 2008, the average energy cost per square foot for a commercial facility in Westchester was $1.80. We were at 16% of that 12 years later and even with the increases, we are at 62% of that 14 years later. That has been done while having a carbon footprint 30% – 40% lower than the utility system. The $1.80 per foot also included commercial office space and our operation is far more energy intensive than an office. We use energy extremely efficiently and as a result, our bills are much lower than everyone else.
NYS Senate Republican Conference for Smart Energy Solutions
The event was an announcement for “smarter energy solutions”. The Republicans are calling for several alternatives and affordable amendments to the state’s current course of action, including:
Independent cost studies and full transparency;
Supporting diverse energy sources;
Keeping needed power supply online to ensure the reliability of New York’s power grid; and
Repealing and opposing anti-market mandates on consumers.
Richard was introduced as during the press conference to describe his technical concerns. He explained that he was representing an engineer’s perspective of the Climate Act Scoping Plan. I think his comments are a nice short and sweet description of the underlying technical issues that make the net-zero transition a very risky proposition that will cost too much for the state to afford. His email to me said:
The following link is to my presentation at today’s Senate Republican Press Conference at the Capital in Albany. I want to thank them, and Senator Mattera in particular, for offering me the platform to present reality to a wider audience before State policy causes major damage to our energy systems, public health, and to the state economy.
During the question and answer period Richard said he made a power point presentation that explained his concerns about the proposed net-zero energy transition before the Climate Act was signed. That document and other information is available on his website.
Conclusion
There are a few minor issues I might quibble with but overall this is a great summary of the issues facing New York with this plan. I only hope that it wakes some people up.
Gov. Kathy Hochul’s proposed budget for fiscal year 2024 includes billions of dollars for climate-related funding but climate activists are not satisfied. This post highlights things they want to implement in the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (Climate Act). I also want to point out that these are only the acknowledged parts of the funding because there are major costs buried in the utility costs that won’t be counted by the Governor.
This is another article about the Climate Act implementation plan that I have written 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.
Even with its billions of dollars in climate-related funding, policy experts said Gov. Kathy Hochul’s proposed budget for fiscal year 2024 needs more vigor to meet the urgency of the climate emergency.
The article mentioned that the budget package includes specific items that will add costs. There is a proposal for a cap and invest program. To my knowledge the Hochul Administration has not admitted how much this is expected to cost. The Executive Budget would also add 231 new staff positions at the DEC to enact and enforce regulations for climate laws. The article notes that “The budget is sprinkled with incentives such as $200 million to start EmPower Plus, a program from the state’s energy research and development authority that will provide 200,000 low-income residents with free energy-efficiency solutions for their homes, such as insulation, electrification and energy-saving appliances.” I was not surprised by the statement in the introductory paragraph because I think costs will be enormous.
What did catch my attention were the comments by Julie Tighe, president of the New York League of Conservation Voters. “We know ultimately it’s going to take a lot more money to do that,” Tighe said. “It’s a good down payment to make sure that we’re starting to take action and helping people who are least able to afford it.” I want readers to know her vision:
The governor’s budget also includes big-ticket items like more than $9 billion for mass transit improvements, a historic amount that’s 10% more than last year. But the state continues to invest record amounts on infrastructure for modes of transportation that are responsible for 28% of the state’s greenhouse gas emissions, such as roads and bridges. Tighe contends that massive counterinvestments are needed to get New Yorkers to stop driving and use cleaner forms of transportation that are also affordable and viable alternatives.
“We can’t drive our way out of the climate crisis,” Tighe said. “We need people to take mass transit. We need people to be taking e-bikes and walking more and using regular bikes.”
An organization that is located at 30 Broad Street in New York City has mass transit options. For those of us that live in upstate New York public transit options are limited and e-bikes, walking and regular bikes are not a credible option in the winter even if there are no distance limitations.
It has been educational to watch the gas ban messaging unfold. The Gothamist explains:
The executive budget, for example, features a controversial gas ban for new buildings, except it doesn’t go as far as some state legislators and environmental experts think it could. The All-Electric Building Act — a state bill currently stalled in the Senate’s finance committee — would prohibit the use of fossil fuels in newly constructed buildings and require those structures to rely completely on the electrical grid on a faster timeline than the governor is recommending.
Hochul’s version also comes with many exemptions and later deadlines for switching from gas to electric in homes and buildings. Buildings are the state’s largest climate polluters, responsible for 32% of total greenhouse gas emissions. Experts have called the electrification of buildings “low-hanging fruit” when it comes to making an impact in mitigating global warming.
That sums up the climate activist position. But the reality is that they are a small, albeit loud, constituency. I suspect that the majority of those currently using gas want to continue using it. In response to concerns raised by those folks, there also has been a flurry of news articles worried that “misinformation is spreading about Governor Kathy Hochul’s plans with a phase-out of fossil fuel systems.” James Hanley eviscerates the Administration response to the gas stove ban:
As the old Marx Brothers joke goes, “Who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?”
Doreen Harris, president and CEO of the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, told lawmakers that she was setting the record straight, and that “We are not taking away gas stoves, as one example of perhaps misinformation we need to correct.”
But the Climate Action Council that she Co-Chaired produced a Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA) Scoping Plan – which she voted to approve – that says the state will in fact be taking away gas stoves.
It’s right there on page 190, in the chapter on buildings, for all the world to read.
So where’s the misinformation?
Indeed, where is the misinformation? My position is that much of the misinformation is coming from the Hochul Administration. Most of this is political gamesmanship where the exact wording of the legislative or regulatory proposal allows some wiggle room when confronted with an inconvenient question. In the instance of the gas stove ban she falls back on claiming that she only wants to ban gas in new homes and moves on before the Scoping Plan reference can be brought up. The biggest item of the Administration’s overt misinformation is the ultimate cost to get to the Climate Act target of net-zero by 2050. The Administration claim in the Scoping Plan is that the “costs of inaction are more than the costs of action”. Aside from the biases and exaggerations of the alleged benefits, the official line consistently ignores the caveat that the Scoping Plan costs only include the costs of the Climate Act itself and not the costs of “already implemented” programs that are necessary to get to net-zero by 2050. The already implemented programs include the following:
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)
Needless to say when the costs of these programs are added to the Climate Act program costs, the costs of the actions necessary to get to the Climate Act net-zero by 2050 target far exceed the costs of inaction. Nonetheless, the climate activists want more funding:
“The governor’s budget proposal is lacking when it comes to ambitious climate funding,” said Elizabeth Moran, a New York policy advocate with EarthJustice, a nonprofit public interest environmental law organization. “There’s some funding there, but it’s far from what we know is needed.”
When it comes to carbon emissions from buildings, Hochul has planted some long-awaited policies in her budget, including a mandate for all-electric new construction that includes a few exemptions, such as commercial kitchens.
But the timeline is delayed relative to other state proposals and some local laws. For smaller buildings, Hochul’s plan would take effect in 2026. That differs from the All-Electric Building Act, which calls for the electrification of new smaller buildings by 2024. Likewise, New York City’s Local Law 97 wants to electrify any new building larger than 25,000 square feet by next year.
Hochul’s plan would delay this regulation for new commercial buildings until 2029. The All-Electric Building Act calls for implementation by July 2027. Facilities such as laundromats and hospitals would not be required to comply. Fossil fuels will continue to be used in backup generators.
I am opposed to any “all-electric” legislation or regulation because of safety: what happens when there is an extended electric outage? The article notes that the Adminstration tries to get around this by saying “fossil fuels will contine to be used in backup generators”. What is the percentage of fossil fuel sales for backup gnerators sold by suppliers? My guess is that it is a small fraction, at most 10%, of their sales. Is there any scenario where those suppliers will be able to remain viable when they lose 90% of their business?
Another example of the desires of climate activists is an accelerated schedule. It can be argued that the state’s leading climate activist is Robert W. Howarth, Ph.D., the David R. Atkinson Professor of Ecology & Environmental Biology at Cornell University. In his statement supporting his vote to approve the Scoping Plan, he reiterated his claim that he played a key role in the drafting of the Climate Act, developed the irrational methane requirements, and credited one politician for getting the Act passed. The article noted his desire and others that the phase-in should speed up:
Dr. Robert Howarth, a member of the Climate Action Council, said there is no reason to wait to require electric appliances in new construction, especially when they will have to be replaced in the case of heating and hot water, when laws take effect. Howarth said following the new regulations could save homeowners money in the long run while also cutting emissions faster. More than a third of building emissions come directly from natural gas use in cooking, heating and hot water. And a year does make a difference when the total leaks nationwide from turned-off gas stoves add up to the annual carbon dioxide emissions from half a million cars.
To speed up the transition, more incentives and assistance for homeowners in the budget could go a long way, said Dr. Gernot Wagner, a climate economist at Columbia Business School. Even homeowners who don’t qualify may also switch to electric as a result of wider adoption. The proposed $200 million for the EmPower program is a drop in the bucket when there are more than 7.5 million households in the state, and Tighe said assistance is needed for other homeowners, even large building owners, especially since New York is the country’s No. 1 user of heating oil.
Under Hochul’s proposal, new buildings can’t have cooking appliances that use fossil fuels such as natural gas. Existing buildings won’t be required to swap their gas stoves for electric models, even when purchasing replacements. By 2030, the governor would ban fossil fuel-powered heating or hot water equipment in homes.
The author of this article did not pick up on the fact that the Scoping Plan recommends that existing buildings will have to replace any fossil-fired appliance with an electric appliance starting in 2035. By then it will be somebody else’s problem and Hochul will be long gone.
Governor Hochul’s Executive Budget – Energy
The Gothamist article discussed two aspects of the electric energy system. Apparently because there isn’t enough interest by the private sector to build the infrastructure necessary for the net-zero transition, the Executive Budget proposed letting the public power operator get involved:
The Hochul is empowering the New York Power Authority to develop, finance, construct, own, operate and maintain renewable energy projects. This move will ensure that enough zero-emissions power sources are built. The governor is calling for the phaseout of electricity production from gas-fired peaker plants by 2035, and wants to support the training of a green power workforce.
The private sector and customers have traditionally shouldered the cost of renewable energy projects. They’re handled outside of the budget, mostly through renewable energy credits.
I have no opinion on the value of this approach but picking and choosing when the State depends on the market for electricity supply seems to be a slippery slope. The other aspect concerns transmission projects:
“The state budget does not include funding for transmission infrastructure,” said Jason Gough, deputy communications director for the governor’s office. “Utilities typically pay for the cost of power infrastructure, including transmission lines. These costs are passed to utility ratepayers through the delivery charge for electric service.”
Let me translate Gough’s comments. “These costs are passed to utility ratepayers through the delivery charge for electric service” means “The costs of the Administration’s policies that we won’t let the utility companies itemize for their ratepayers, are passed on so that the ratepayers will vent their anger at the utility companies rather than the Administration”. The next press release will say “The utility bill increase is not our fault, it is greedy industry’s fault.”
The article goes on:
But transmission lines and other infrastructure are needed to bring clean power to the downstate grid, which is mostly dependent on fossil fuels. New York City doesn’t have the space, Tighe said, to build enough solar and wind power. The absence of direct funding for this key infrastructure could hinder the city in reaching its goal of a zero-emission grid.
“New York City needs a lot more power lines going toward the city in order to enable the sort of clean energy transition, the rapid transition that is necessary now,” Wagner said. “Transmission is the biggest bottleneck to decarbonize New York state.”
Several days ago, I wrote about the hidden costs for this infrastructure. The New York Public Services Commission recently approved rate increases for this purpose in case 20-E-0197. The transmission upgrade projects will cost $4.4 billion to support 3.5 GW of renewable energy or $1.26 billion per GW. An additional 2.8 GW is expected by 2025 and another 4.1 GW by 2030 according to Scenario 2 of the Scoping Plan. At that rate, ratepayers will be on the hook for a total of $13.05 billion through 2030. It is disappointing to me that Upstate ratepayers are on the hook for bill impacts up to and exceeding twice the bill impacts of Con Ed ratepayers who need Upstate power to reach the goal of a zero-emission grid. If the Hochul Administration would stop pandering to her political base and have the courage to be responsible for these costs then they should be spread equitably over all the state.
The Gothamist article describes proposed policies for transportation:
Public transportation will receive a big boost in the proposed budget. The MTA could get around $8 billion, a 10% increase. The funds will address the revenue deficit incurred as a result of a drop in ridership during the pandemic. But Moran said additional financial support is needed for faster fleet electrification, and more of it.
For individual vehicle electrification, the DOT expects to receive $175 million from the federal government as part of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act over the next five years to build fast charging stations along New York’s interstate highways.
Hochul has also included congestion pricing as a revenue stream to help fund the ailing transportation authority. Tighe applauded the measure as a “good incentive for people to stop driving in Manhattan.”
The governor’s proposal also wants to fund mass transit outside of New York City. It includes nearly $1 billion for non-MTA public transportation, including some bus electrification and rehabilitation of upstate light rail.
Affordability is important in making public transportation a viable alternative to driving, Tighe said.
As noted previously, climate activists are big proponents of public transit. Unfortunately, that is only a solution in urban areas. None of these proposals benefit rural Upstate New York.
Cleaner modes of transportation require more funding to substantially reduce emissions, Wagner said. New bike lanes and the expansion of car-free pedestrian areas would make an impact on reaching goals and encourage these commuting modes, he added. The budget proposal doesn’t specify how much money will go to these environmentally friendly travel alternatives, and there are no direct amounts either. But these projects can be funded through the state DOT’s small umbrella programs such as the Transportation Alternatives Program and clean air funding initiatives.
Other climate activist strategy favorites are bike lanes and pedestrian areas. One of the issues with these green solutions is that they don’t work all the time but the activists demand complete compliance. In the winter bike lanes in many parts of the state are dangerous and pedestrian areas challenging. Winter is also a reason that many Upstaters are reluctant to depend completely on battery electric vehicles.
“Is this [budget] going to set us on a completely different path commensurate with the challenge? No,” said Wagner. “It is doing a lot of good things. Not to be ungrateful, but I thought we all recognized that we are in a climate crisis here.”
New York’s Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions are less than one half one percent of global emissions and since 1990 global GHG emissions have increased by more than one half a percent per year. That does not mean that we should not do something but it does mean that even if there is a climate crisis New York cannot do anything about it alone. We must make sure that we are not doing more harm than good with the net-zero implementation.
Discussion
This is just a part of the legislative initiatives to meet the Climate Act targets. There are many member items also up for consideration. In addition, there are also regulatory initiatives. For example, the Department of Environmental Conservation is promulgating Part 218: Advanced Clean Cars II (ACC II) as part of the reckless push for all electric transportation. The emergency/proposed rulemaking will incorporate the State of California’s Advanced Clean Cars II (ACC II) regulation into New York’s existing rules.
My overarching problem with all these initiatives to meet the recommendations of the Scoping Plan is that the Integration Analysis that provided the background for the Plan did not include a feasibility analysis. The Integration Analysis is simply a list of potential control strategies with estimated emission reductions that when combined together provide the controlled emissions appropriate for the emission targets. There was no consideration of “what if and how about” questions like how are all the people who live in homes that have to park on the street going to be able to charge their cars? What if the magical solution necessary to keep the lights on called dispatchable emissions-free resources is not available on the schedule of the Climate Act. The Hochul Administration has not given consumers the expected costs or addressed the question what happens after everything is electrified and there is an ice storm.
Consider the feasibility of just one control strategy component. The article notes that NYSDOT expects funding of $175 million from the federal government as part of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act over the next five years to build fast charging stations along New York’s interstate highways.. A gas station fuel pump costs about $20,000 and can serve a customer in less than six minutes. A 50-kilowatt fast DC charger costs about $100,000 and can serve an EV customer in about 30 minutes. The gas pump can serve five times as many customers for one-fifth of the capital cost of a high-speed charger. Think about the feasibility issues. The $175 million can only fund 1,750 fast chargers. The closest NYS Thruway service center to my home has ten automotive fuel pumps but is a small service center. Consider what would be needed to maintain the same level of refueling capacity. The service center would need 50 charging stations to provide the same amount of refueling capacity and I suspect that would blow through the $175 million for the 27 service centers on the NYS Thruway. The space available and energy needed for those chargers means physical upgrades are needed at the service centers. Throw in the fact that for a long time it will be necessary to provide gasoline too. Finally, the NYS Thruway is just under 500 miles and the total NYS interstate mileage is 1730 miles so the $175 million would provide recharging support for less than half the interstate mileage. The implementation logistics for this component of the electric vehicle requirement appear unrealistics so the onus should be on the State to prove that this can work. They have not done this for any of the control strategies included in the Scoping Plan.
If any reader has concerns similar to mine, I encourage you to contact your elected officials and demand answers to these “what if” and “how about” questions before they vote on or support any legislation related to the Climate Act. There are opportunities to comment on regulations. A virtual hearing is scheduled for March 1, 2023 at 1 pm for Part 218: Advanced Clean Cars II (ACC II). The comment deadline is 5 pm, Monday, March 6, 2023. Written comments may be submitted to NYSDEC, 625 Broadway, Albany, NY 12233-3254, ATTN: James Clyne, P.E., or by e-mail to air.regs@dec.ny.gov.
Conclusion
Climate activists like Robert Howarth and Julie Tighe are pushing the state down a road towards a canyon without a bridge. Howarth’s arguments that Mark Jacobson’s academic analysis of wind, water, and solar energy is proof that a net-zero transition is cost-effective and possible is misplaced. The reality is that the Climate Act is promoting a system with less stability, robustness, and reliability that will undoubtedly raise costs a lot.
It is not only the disconnect relative to technical limitations but the attitude of the activists that disappoints. Tighe said: “We can’t drive our way out of the climate crisis” relegating everyone in the State who must rely on driving because they have no viable alternative to second class citizenship. This is no less demeaning than Marie Antoinette’s infamous “Let them eat cake”. Unfortunately, it can only get worse. Now there are climate scientists who are arguing for rationing to fight climate change.
If the Hochual Administration wants to solve their alleged climate crisis then they have to come up with a solution that provides the developing world with the prosperity and quality of life that comes with abundant and cheap energy. It is immoral to deny them that right because the best adaptation strategies for extereme weather require prosperous societies. The onus is on New York to provide them with affordable emissions-free energy technology or get out of the way. At home, the only means left to avoid the Climate Act stampede that will destroy our existing reliable and affordable energy system is to speak up now and vote anyone who supports this out of office before the we go over the cliff.
The Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (Climate Act) has a legal mandate for New York State greenhouse gas emissions to meet the ambitious net-zero goal by 2050. This article describes the comments I submitted to the Climate Action Council on Chapter 17: Economy-Wide Strategies. I am not sure why they did not refer to these as policies that effectively price GHG emissions because that is what they are talking about.
Everyone wants to do right by the environment to the extent that they can afford to and not be unduly burdened by the effects of environmental policies. I have written extensively on implementation of New York’s response to that risk because I believe the ambitions for a zero-emissions economy embodied in the Climate Act outstrip available renewable technology such that it will adversely affect reliability, impact affordability, risk safety, affect lifestyles, and will have worse impacts on the environment than the purported effects of climate change in New York. New York’s Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions are less than one half one percent of global emissions and since 1990 global GHG emissions have increased by more than one half a percent per year. Moreover, the reductions cannot measurably affect global warming when implemented. This page documents all the comments that I submitted as part of the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act implementation process. 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 establishes a “Net Zero” target (85% reduction and 15% offset of emissions) by 2050. The Climate Action Council is responsible for preparing the Scoping Plan that will “achieve the State’s bold clean energy and climate agenda”. They were assisted by Advisory Panels who developed and presented strategies to the meet the goals to the Council. Those strategies were used to develop the integration analysis prepared by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) and its consultants that quantified the impact of the strategies. That material was used to write Draft Scoping Plan that was released for public comment at the end of 2021. The Climate Action Council will revise the Draft Scoping Plan based on comments and other expert input in 2022 with the goal to finalize the Scoping Plan by the end of the year.
I prepared this comment because my extensive experience with the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative has shown that there is a major disconnect between the theory of a carbon pricing program and reality. This disconnect is also evident in the NYISO carbon pricing initiative and the Draft Scoping Plan carbon pricing initiatives.
Summary
Based on the format of Section 17, it was written to address specific issues raised by the Climate Action Council. As a result, it gets bogged down into details about specific issues raised by council members rather than looking at the big picture. In theory, a price on carbon is a great idea. The Council has not considered the theory relative to their perceptions.
My overview comments explain why I believe carbon pricing will always be a regressive tax based on a post I did on carbon pricing. I also think that there are a number of practical reasons that carbon pricing will not work as theorized. Because a global program is impractical, leakage is always going to be a problem. All carbon pricing proposals need to address the problem that as carbon emissions go down revenues go down relative to the fact that reductions get more difficult and expensive as control efficiency increases. The Council members who support carbon pricing seem to be blissfully unaware of the realities of the energy market that are at odds to their theories. Based on observed results I think that indirect market signals are going to lead to less cost-effective reductions in the time frame necessary for the aggressive reduction rules. To date, carbon pricing for the electric sector only considers generation costs which leads to cost shifting the additional costs to supply electricity when and where it is needed to be covered outside the carbon pricing framework. Supporters under-estimate the very real problems of implementation logistics. My concerns about carbon pricing are supported by the recently completed a relevant study done by Regulatory Analysis Project (RAP): Economic Benefits and Energy Savings through Low-Cost Carbon Management for Vermont.
In addition to my practical concerns “A Practical Guide to the Economics of Carbon Pricing by Ross McKitrick defines how carbon pricing is supposed to work in theory. He explains that “First and foremost, carbon pricing only works in the absence of any other emission regulations.” The Guide goes to note “another important rule for creating a proper carbon-pricing system is to be as careful as possible in estimating the social cost of carbon”. He argues that “whatever the social cost of carbon is determined to be, the carbon price must be discounted below it by the marginal cost of public funds (MCPF) — that is, the economic cost of the government raising an additional dollar of tax, on top of what is already being raised”. The Draft Scoping Plan does not even recognize the importance of this aspect of carbon pricing. Finally, he notes that: “it needs to be remembered that carbon pricing works because it is a market-based policy: it works with market forces, not against them. He concludes: “There may be many reasons to recommend carbon pricing as climate policy, but if it is implemented without diligently abiding by the principles that make it work, it will not work as planned, and the harm to the Canadian economy could well outweigh the benefits created by reducing our country’s already negligible level of global CO2 emissions.”
Affordable Revenues
I think the Climate Action Council has to define affordable. In the absence of any numbers in the Draft Scoping Plan related to potential revenues I calculated my own estimates. The total New York State GHG emissions in 2019 are 379.43 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent. If the carbon price was set at the 2022 New York State Value of Carbon Guidance value of $129, then the economy wide cost would be $48.9 billion. I submit that is not affordable for any New Yorkers and could not possibly be designed to avoid regressive impacts.
Clearly, setting a carbon price for all New York emissions is unaffordable so the Climate Action Council should consider setting a price on different sectors. Table ES.2: 2019 New York State GHG Emissions is from the 2021 Statewide GHG Emissions Report and lists the emissions by sector.
I used this GHG emissions information and the 2022 value of carbon of $129 to look at several emission scenarios in the next table. Using the IA-Tech Supplement Annex 2 Emissions Key Drivers spreadsheet 2022 Gross State Product and population each scenario estimates the cost per month for each NYS resident and the cost as a fraction of the GSP. If all the emissions were included in the carbon pricing scheme the cost per resident would be $262.50 and the costs are 3.36% of the GSP. The Candidate scenario only includes the Energy and Industrial Processes and Product Use sectors reduces the costs slightly. The Combustion scenario only includes in-state combustion emissions and drops the total revenues by more than half. Finally, I excluded everything except the electric power sector. Those costs are still pretty high: $12.05 per person per month and 0.15% of the GSP.
The estimates of current (2019) emissions coupled with the New York value of carbon yield very high revenues. On October 26, 2021, the AP-NORC Center and the Energy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago (EPIC) released the results of a survey that claimed that a majority of Americans regard climate change as a problem of “high importance”. It also included survey questions asking whether respondents would support, oppose, or neither support or oppose a law that imposed “a fee on carbon to combat climate change”. The survey question asked “If the law passed, it would increase the average amount your household pays each month for energy, including electricity, heating gas, and gasoline or diesel for your car by a total of X dollars per month” where respondents were randomly assigned a $1, $10, $20, $40, $75, or $100 cost increase. For a $1 per month increase, 45% would support, 30% would oppose, and 25% would neither support or oppose. For a $100 per month increase, 20% would support, 62% would oppose, and 18% would neither support or oppose. Only 45% support $1 per month per household and $1 per month per person only provides revenues of $237 million. All of the projections in Table 2 estimate costs far higher than that level so I do not think the public perception of affordable will be met by any carbon pricing scheme that uses the New York value of carbon.
Another way to look at affordable costs is to set the costs per month per person and the costs relative to the GSP and see what revenues would be generated. The following table provides that information. All of the projected costs exceed the AP-NORC Center and EPIC survey category where 45% support $1 per month per household.
The Draft Scoping Plan provides no details to recommend what is affordable. Rather than getting bogged down in implementation issues, the Climate Action Council and the Climate Justice Working Group should address what is affordable. That recommendation is going to drive the specifications for all three of these carbon pricing approaches.
Conclusion
The theory of carbon pricing is embraced by leading economists. However, advocates for such a scheme in New York do not understand that the plans proposed are not like the theory. My comments showed that there are implementation issues and that the Draft Scoping Plan proposed pricing schemes do not match the theory. Ross McKitrick sums it up: “There may be many reasons to recommend carbon pricing as climate policy, but if it is implemented without diligently abiding by the principles that make it work, it will not work as planned, and the harm to the Canadian economy could well outweigh the benefits created by reducing our country’s already negligible level of global CO2 emissions.” Substitute New York for Canada and it describes the likely effect of the carbon pricing plans proposed.
In a couple of weeks, the comment period closes for the Draft Scoping Plan that outlines how New York is to achieve its Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act net zero ambitions. Despite the fact that any rational observer can only conclude that there is no real plan for a reliable electric system and the Plan provides very little cost information, environmental advocates have convinced the most progressive of the State’s legislators that it is not enough. On May 26 Assemblyman Jeffrey Dinowitz, Chair of the Assembly Codes Committee, and State Senator Liz Krueger, Chair of the Senate Finance Committee, along with environmental advocates and experts, announced the introduction of the Climate Change Superfund Act (S.9417). In brief it codifies the litigation against fossil fuel companies as a cash cow for adaptation programs.
In light of the billions of dollars in damages that New York State has suffered as a result of climate change, and the tens of billions more to come in future decades, this first-in-the-nation legislation will use the polluter-pays model exemplified by existing federal and state superfund laws to collect $30 billion over ten years for climate change adaptation from the parties most responsible for causing the climate crisis – fossil fuel companies.
Right now consumers are facing pain at the pump as well as in their gas and electric bills. At the same time, the oil and gas industry is raking in enormous profits.The Climate Change Superfund Act will claw back some of the oil and gas industry’s recent windfall profits and use them for adaptation costs that would otherwise be charged to state taxpayers. The program is designed to prevent such costs from being passed on to consumers.
“The climate crisis is here, right now, and it’s already causing billions of dollars in damage and a growing death toll in New York State,” said Senator Krueger. “We must begin to make the investments necessary not only to mitigate future climate change, but to adapt to and defend ourselves from the damage that’s already been done. The cost of inaction is inconceivable – in money, in lives, and in countless other ways. Nonetheless, there will be a large price-tag to the work we have to do, and it’s only fair that the companies who made the mess should pay for cleaning it up. The Climate Change Superfund Act is one critical piece of the puzzle of funding our state’s response to the climate emergency.”
“The damage done to our climate and to our communities from decades of corporate disregard for scientific evidence is irreparable and omnipresent,” said Assemblyman Dinowitz. “As we continue to take big steps towards a green future in order to mitigate the worst potential impacts from climate change, the Climate Change Superfund Act would be a vital resource to invest in adaptive and resilient infrastructure, and it is common sense to charge those who did the most damage to our climate for the costs of keeping people alive amidst our new climate reality.”
Rationale
Unfortunately, their rationale uses the same line of reasoning that was used to pass the Climate Act. Because “everybody” knows that climate change causes unusual weather and the climate and weather illiterate think anecdotes prove their case, they actually believe that New York has suffered billions in damages from climate change and not just weather.
The bill language says:
Climate change, resulting primarily from the combustion of fossil 6 fuels, is an immediate, grave threat to the state’s communities, environment, and economy. In addition to mitigating the further buildup of greenhouse gases, the state must take action to adapt to certain consequences of climate change that are irreversible, including rising sea levels, increasing temperatures, extreme weather events, flooding, heat waves, toxic algal blooms and other climate-change-driven threats. Maintaining New York’s quality of life into the future, particularly for young people, who will experience greater impacts from climate change over their lifetimes, will be one of the state’s greatest challenges over the next three decades. Meeting that challenge will require a shared commitment of purpose and huge investments in new or upgraded infrastructure.
Implementation
It is a holiday weekend and I have other things to do than to try to make sense of the implementation language in the proposed legislation. If ever get to the point where I can stomach looking into the plan, I will try to figure out how they account for the fact that New York’s total GHG emissions are less than half a percent of total global emissions. What share of global emissions is accountable for New York’s alleged problems? Shouldn’t that be somehow a function of New York emissions? I suspect the innumeracy of the authors of the legislation affects the plans and upon closer inspection will undermine the whole thing.
My impression skimming through the legislation is that this applies to fossil fuel production. Ronald Stein recently pointed out that the primary usage of crude oil is “to manufacture derivatives and fuels which are the ingredients of everything needed by economies and lifestyles to exist and prosper”. If I am right that this legislation covers fossil fuel production then how do they hope to address that aspect without unduly impacting consumers?
One last point. In another outstanding example of cluelessness, the underlying argument that the primary reason fuel prices have gone up is because the evil oil companies are making windfall profits. Somehow these energy market experts have convinced themselves that if this monstrosity ever gets enacted and withstands the inevitable lawsuits that the fossil fuel producers won’t simply pass the costs on to consumers. They say they are going to prevent that, but aside from yet another magical solution, I cannot imagine how that could ever work in favor of the consumer. At the same time these same politicians have enacted a holiday on fuel taxes because costs are too high.
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.
The Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (Climate Act) has a legal mandate for New York State greenhouse gas emissions to meet the ambitious net-zero goal by 2050. In order to implement the changes needed additional legislation is needed. Environmental advocates are pushing Renewable Heat Now bills including the All-Electric Building Act. This post puts that legislation into the context of the current electricity reliability crisis facing New Yorkers.
Everyone wants to do right by the environment to the extent that they can afford to and not be unduly burdened by the effects of environmental policies. I have written extensively on implementation of New York’s response to climate change risk because I believe the ambitions for a zero-emissions economy embodied in the Climate Act outstrip available renewable technology such that it will adversely affect reliability, impact affordability, risk safety, affect lifestyles, and will have worse impacts on the environment than the purported effects of climate change in New York. New York’s Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions are less than one half one percent of global emissions and since 1990 global GHG emissions have increased by more than one half a percent per year. Moreover, the reductions cannot measurably affect global warming when implemented. 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 establishes a “Net Zero” target by 2050. The Climate Action Council is responsible for preparing the Scoping Plan that will “achieve the State’s bold clean energy and climate agenda”. They were assisted by Advisory Panels who developed and presented strategies to the meet the goals to the Council. Those strategies were used to develop the integration analysis prepared by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) and its consultants that quantified the impact of the strategies. That analysis was used to develop the Draft Scoping Plan that was released for public comment on December 30, 2021.
I previously described two bills that address the building sector components that need to be changed for the net-zero transition. According to the Advanced Code Act: “Buildings are the single largest user of energy in the State of New York, accounting for almost 60% of all energy consumed by end-use in the State.” Revisions to building codes will be “directly impacting a building’s energy load and carbon footprint”. The Gas Ban notes that the Climate Act “requires greenhouse gas emission reductions from all sectors, which will entail, among other things, converting buildings throughout the state from heating and cooking with combustible fuels to heating and cooking with non-emitting sources such as energy-efficient air, ground, and water sourced electric heat pumps which also provide cooling, and electric and induction stoves”. I understand that the Advanced Code Act has already passed.
All Electric Building Act
I described the public hearing for this legislation that establishes the All-Electric Building Act. As has been the case with other legislation the bill assumes that there are no technology limitations and that all new buildings can be built without fossil fuel infrastructure without any issues.
The proposed legislation revises the state energy conservation construction code to “prohibit infrastructure, building systems, or equipment used for the combustion of fossil fuels in new construction statewide no later than December 31, 2023 if the building is less than seven stories and July 1, 2027 if the building is seven stories or more”. It allows the building code council to exempt systems for emergency back-up power, or buildings specifically designated for occupancy by a “commercial food establishment, laboratory, laundromat, hospital, or crematorium, but in doing so shall seek to minimize emissions and maximize health, safety, and fire-protection.” However, it limits the areas where the combustion of fossil fuels is allowed and the building must be designed as all-electric ready.
The legislation includes a provision for affordability. It requires state agencies to identify policies to ensure affordable housing and affordable electricity (meaning that electricity costs no more than 6% of a residential customer’s income) for all-electric buildings by February 1st, 2023. Note that I have been unable to determine the current affordability status of New York.
Affordability
Energy affordability, in general, and electricity affordability, in particular, should be a major concern. There is no question that there is a home energy crisis:
According to WE ACT for Environmental Justice, an organization whose mission is to combat environmental racism and build healthy communities for people of color, 13 percent of all residential households—about 1,137,000 in total—are 60 days in arrears on their utility bills, with an average of $1,427.71 in debt. The debt level is even higher for Con Ed customers, averaging about $2,085 per residential household/customer.
More than 471,629 disconnection notices were sent out in April 2022 for residential customers across New York State, with Orange and Rockland counties leading the way, with 79 shutoffs that month. For commercial customers, there were more than 77,651 disconnection notices overall, with almost 2,544 already carried out. National Grid (KEDLI) had the highest number of service terminations, 882, followed by Con Edison at 831 terminations and National Grid (KEDNY) at 310. Residential terminations in March were at 131 and commercial terminations stood at 1,688.
The proposed legislation addresses affordability but puts the cart before the horse by evaluating electricity affordability after the bill is enacted:
§ 11-111. Additional reporting. On or before February first, two thousand twenty-three, the department of public service, the division of housing and community renewal, the department of state, and the New York state energy research and development authority shall report jointly to the governor, the temporary president of the senate, the minority leader of the senate, the speaker of the assembly, and the minority leader of the assembly, regarding what changes to electric rate designs, new or existing subsidy programs, policies, or laws are necessary to ensure that subdivisions six and seven of section 11-104 of this article do not diminish the production of affordable housing or the affordability of electricity for customers in all-electric buildings. For the purpose of this subdivision, “affordability of electricity” shall mean that electricity does not cost more than six percent of a residential customer’s income.
In 2016, New York State set a target that low-income New Yorkers should pay no more than 6% of their income toward energy bills and I applaud its inclusion in this legislation. However, I have not been able to find out how New York State stands relative to this target. I did find an analysis for New York City that showed that over 460,000 low-income families in New York City are paying over 6% of their pre-tax income toward their energy bills. That works out to 14.6% of the households.
All Electric Building Act Costs
I have yet to see an evaluation of the potential costs of this legislation. The Integration Analysis spreadsheets that support the Draft Scoping Plan include a table with device costs. In order to ensure that heat pumps work at all times in New York’s winters upgrades to the building shell (insulation, infiltration and windows) are needed. According to device cost table an air source heat pump runs $14,678 and a deep shell upgrade of $45,136 totaling $59,814 or a ground source heat pump ($34,082) and a basic shell upgrade ($6,409) totaling $40,491 for single family homes. This legislation would mandate adding those costs above the cost of an efficient furnace or boiler ranging from $3,085 to $8,975. Obviously, those added costs are going to add to the affordability burden for New Yorkers.
Conclusion
The bill requires a study after the law becomes effective to ensure it does not “diminish the production of affordable housing or the affordability of electricity for customers in all-electric buildings”. That is an example of the cart before the horse mindset of this legislation and the Climate Act itself. This bill should be amended to include a specific affordability target and only proceed as long as the metric is achieved. I think that there should be a state-wide goal for the percentage of customers that don’t meet the 6% target and the State should make the current value readily available. Without that information it is inappropriate to implement this legislation.
By any measure New York’s complete elimination of GHG emissions is so small that there will not be any effect on the state’s climate and global climate change impacts to New York. New York’s emissions are only 0.45% of global emissions. I have shown that global emissions have increased more than New York’s total share of global emissions since 1995. In other words, whatever New York does to reduce emissions will be supplanted by global emissions increases in a year. Against that backdrop it is not clear why any increase in New York energy costs from any renewable heat legislation should be considered until the electricity energy crisis is resolved.
On May 12, 2022 the New York State Assembly had a legislative hearing for Assembly Bill A8431, the “all-electric building act”. The recording for the hearing offers a glimpse into New York’s irrational net-zero transition legislation. This post describes the legislation and the testimony presented by Climate Action Council Co-Chair Doreen Harris and her response to questions about costs of this control strategy.
Everyone wants to do right by the environment to the extent that they can afford to and not be unduly burdened by the effects of environmental policies. I have written extensively on implementation of New York’s response to that risk because I believe the ambitions for a zero-emissions economy embodied in the Climate Act outstrip available renewable technology such that it will adversely affect reliability, impact affordability, risk safety, affect lifestyles, and will have worse impacts on the environment than the purported effects of climate change in New York. New York’s Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions are less than one half one percent of global emissions and since 1990 global GHG emissions have increased by more than one half a percent per year. Moreover, the reductions cannot measurably affect global warming when implemented. 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 establishes a “Net Zero” target (85% reduction and 15% offset of emissions) by 2050. The Climate Action Council is responsible for preparing the Scoping Plan that will “achieve the State’s bold clean energy and climate agenda”. They were assisted by Advisory Panels who developed and presented strategies to the meet the goals to the Council. Those strategies were used to develop the integration analysis prepared by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) and its consultants that quantified the impact of the strategies. That analysis was used to develop the Draft Scoping Plan that was released for public comment on December 30, 2021. Comments on the draft can be submitted until June 10, 2022. In order to implement these strategies additional legislation is needed.
I recently described two bills. According to the Advanced Code Act: “Buildings are the single largest user of energy in the State of New York, accounting for almost 60% of all energy consumed by end-use in the State.” Revisions to building codes will be “directly impacting a building’s energy load and carbon footprint”. The Gas Ban notes that the Climate Act “requires greenhouse gas emission reductions from all sectors, which will entail, among other things, converting buildings throughout the state from heating and cooking with combustible fuels to heating and cooking with non-emitting sources such as energy-efficient air, ground, and water sourced electric heat pumps which also provide cooling, and electric and induction stoves”.
All-Electric Building Act
This legislation establishes the All-Electric Building Act. As has been the case with other legislation the bill assumes that there are no technology limitations and that all new buildings can be built without fossil fuel infrastructure.
The proposed legislation revises the state energy conservation construction code to “prohibit infrastructure, building systems, or equipment used for the combustion of fossil fuels in new construction statewide no later than December 31, 2023 if the building is less than seven stories and July 1, 2027 if the building is seven stories or more”. It allows the building code council to exempt systems for emergency back-up power, or buildings specifically designated for occupancy by a “commercial food establishment, laboratory, laundromat, hospital, or crematorium, but in doing so shall seek to minimize emissions and maximize health, safety, and fire-protection.” However, it limits the areas where the combustion of fossil fuels is allowed and the building must be designed as all-electric ready.
The legislation includes a provision for affordability. It requires state agencies to identify policies to ensure affordable housing and affordable electricity (meaning that electricity costs no more than 6% of a residential customer’s income) for all-electric buildings by February 1st, 2023. Note that I have been unable to determine the current affordability status of New York.
Harris Testimony
The May 12, 2022 legislative hearing for this bill started with testimony from Doreen Harris. She is the head of the New York State Energy Research & Development Authority (NYSERDA) and co-chair of the Climate Action Council. Her presentation starts on the video at 4:45. She explained that buildings are the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions according to the most recent inventory performed using the Climate Act’s unique emission estimation methodology. In order to eliminate those emissions, the Draft Scoping Plan found that fully electrify buildings are necessary. Unfortunately, her testimony was long on generalizations and short on specifics relative to what the Draft Scoping Plan requires to meet the net-zero goals.
She noted that in this year’s State of the State the Governor announced a commitment to support two million climate friendly homes. This includes a plan to achieve one million efficient and electrified homes and up to one million electrification ready homes by 2030. To achieve this, they plan to increase energy efficiency and deploy clean home heating and cooling technologies.
Rather than explaining what the Draft Scoping Plan projects is necessary she talked about NYSERDA programs. For example, she said there is “laser focus” on the combination of heat pumps and energy efficiency because “when installed at scale they are the number one solution for emissions reductions in the sector. Harris bragged (at 7:40) that the New York Stretch 2020 Energy Code will save homeowners $275 per year. However, that code change “improves the State Energy Code’s efficacy by roughly 10%”.
I submitted comments on the Draft Scoping Plan residential heating projections that showed that a primary driver of home heating electrification is the building shell cost. The Draft Scoping Plan states:
Two bundles of building shell improvements have been included: a basic shell upgrade and a deep shell upgrade. Basic and deep shell upgrades include a variety of measures focused on reducing energy use and increasing occupant comfort; these measures include, for example, varying levels of roof and wall insulation improvements, window treatments such as double or triple paned windows and infiltration improvements. Space heating demands are reduced by 27-44% with the basic shell package and 57-90% with the deep shell package, depending on building type.
Clearly the Stretch 2020 Energy Code is no where close to the basic or deep shell upgrades envisioned in the Draft Scoping Plan.
Most people at the hearing were worried about costs. Chair Harris lost the opportunity to explain what the Draft Scoping Plan projects as costs for the air source heat pumps, ground source heat pumps, and different building shells. She said that heat pumps paired with high performing building envelopes will work everywhere in New York. She did not explain how much that might cost. The following table lists data from the Council’s Plan. My interpretation of the Scoping Plan is that a ground source heat pump paired with a basic shell upgrade ($40,941) or an air source heat pump paired with a deep shell upgrade ($60,954) should work everywhere. The reference table gives the price of an efficient gas furnace as $3,085. That is quite a price premium for zero-emissions.
Given its importance all the assumptions used to generate the numbers should be available but there is insufficient documentation for that. The Draft Scoping Plan claims only 26% of residences need deep shell upgrades. I estimate that more than half actually will need to have deep shell upgrades using a more refined climatology. I estimate that the entire building sector component cost is $230 billion relative to the reference case in the Draft Scoping Plan. I calculated that just the residential retrofit heat electrification costs range between $259 billion and $370 billion using one methodology and between $295 billion and $370 billion based primarily on the number of residences that need deep building shell upgrades.
Chair Harris also made the claim that all-electric homes will be “more resilient and safer than buildings previously built and supported by fossil fuels as they lose heat during power outages”. I can only guess that the rationale for this argument is that the building shell improvements will be so good that the buildings will not lose as much heat when the power goes out. Eventually, however, even the best insulated and sealed home will become too cold to be livable. That is why people who are truly concerned about safety during power outages incorporate an independent backup system. For heating many use wood stoves. In my case I have used a backup electric generating system: first portable and more recently a whole house generator. A backup system that can be operated indefinitely is the truly “more resilient and safer” alternative.
The responses to questions were interesting. Assemblyman Cusik at 13:00 asked for the timeline for the State’s plan for implementing fully electric. Rather than explaining what is in the Draft Scoping Plan Chair Harris gave the pitch for Hochul’s two million climate friendly homes by 2030 proposal. Recall that this includes a plan to achieve one million efficient and electrified homes and up to one million electrification ready homes by 2030. In my opinion the sign of an “efficient and electrified” home is that it will have a heat pump installed. The following table shows that the Governor’s plan is 32% less than what the Draft Scoping Plan Integration Analysis projects is necessary.
She went on to say the plan is 200,000 decarbonized homes per year by 2030 as opposed to 20,000 now. Assuming that the sign of a decarbonized home is an installed heat pump the following table indicates that this estimate is much less than what is needed. It is not clear what the metric for today’s electrification metric is but 20,000 is not consistent with the Reference Case.
Affordability questions were asked numerous times. Cusik asked specifically whether there is a cost analysis in the plan at 14:34. The response was not direct: “Yes, certainly. Affordability is and will continue to be significant priority and a central focus of our implementation of the Climate Act.” Harris went on to say that NYSERDA programs are looking at upfront costs. Those programs found that all-electric homes are on the range of 2 to 4% higher than a building that would be constructed with gas infrastructure at this point”. She claimed costs will come down in the future but did not mention that the Draft Scoping Plan does not incorporate such a cost reduction.
In response to questions by Assemblyman Zebrowski about existing homes Harris noted that “as existing buildings turnover in ownership or replacement of installed equipment that’s when we would be addressing existing building stock”. This confirms my expectation that when a homeowner sells a home with gas-fired appliances after 2030 that the home will have to be upgraded to all-electric. Obviously that cost will be borne by the seller.
In response to Assemblyman Palmesano’s question about affordability Chair Harris claimed that the NYSERDA Building of Excellence found that a single family home built today for $350,000 added $17,000 upfront cost for heat pump and building shell (Video at 33:20).
At (40:49 in video) Assemblyman Lawler asked for a specific cost estimate to electrify a home. Chair Harris had to respond but only prattled on that she could not provide a specific price. She said that each home will be different and the building shell improvement for each house can only be determined by doing an energy audit. This is all baloney because we all understand that it is not possible to predict exactly what our individual home is going to cost to be electrified. However, the Draft Scoping Plan claims that “The cost of inaction exceeds the cost of action by more than $90 billion” so there are costs estimates available in the Integration Analysis. It would have been interesting to see the reaction if the Chair Harris had been asked what the Integration Analysis device costs were and what the expected total costs for new housing units and retrofits would be.
Based on my evaluation of the Integration Analysis spreadsheets I can answer those questions. The 2030 Climate Friendly Homes Compared to Integration Analysis Homes with Heat Pumps table earlier in this post gives an example of the device costs available in the Draft Scoping Plan documentation. The Plan’s recommended electrification approach is electric heat pumps and building shell improvements (more insulation, infiltration improvements and better windows). Based on the information in the Plan, I estimate that for a single-family residence, an air source heat pump ($14,678) will need to be coupled with deep shell improvements ($45,136) totaling $60,954 or a ground source heat pump ($34,082) coupled with basic shell improvements ($6,409) totaling $40,491 will be needed to provide adequate comfort similar to those oft-referenced homes in the Nordic countries. These numbers are much higher than those quoted from the Buildings of Excellence program but the comments I submitted document that they are from the Draft Scoping Plan so it is incumbent on NYSERDA to explain the discrepancies.
A couple of assemblymen asked about grid upgrades and got another non-responsive reply. I recently submitted comments on the costs for residential electric service upgrades, electric distribution improvements when everyone is all-electric, and an estimate of the costs for de-commissioning gas service. The following table presents those numbers which are not based on the Draft Scoping Plan. Presumably, somewhere, someplace similar numbers have been developed but I have not been able to find them. The unit cost ranges for a single-family home is another $3,850 to $9,500.
In addition to the individual homeowner costs, I made a first-order approximation estimate of total costs for residential heating upgrades to all-electric. Using the Integration Analysis device costs described earlier I estimate the additional cost to electrify home heating and upgrade the building envelopes to the basic and deep shell standards will add $28 billion to new building housing costs between 2023 and 2050. Depending on the assumptions used for air-source vs. ground source heat pumps and basic building shell vs. deep building shell I project retrofit costs between $240 and $330 billion. Throw in $30 billion for electric service upgrades, distribution network modifications and residential natural gas disconnections the total residential heating upgrades to all-electric approach at least $300 billion. This does not include costs for other electric appliances, EV chargers, and all the other things necessary for an all-electric house.
Discussion
In my opinion the fact that the Co-Chair of the Climate Action Council did not provide the Draft Scoping Plan projections was an oversight. On the other hand, it could be indicative of a deeper problem. The Climate Action Council draft scoping plan is required to provide “The costs of implementing proposed emissions reduction measures, and the emissions reductions that the council anticipates achieving through these measures” in § 75-0103 (14) (b) (ii). In order to fulfill that mandate, I believe there should be a summary chapter in the Draft Scoping Plan that describes all the control measures, provides references for the assumptions used, lists the expected costs for those measures and lists the expected emission reductions for the Reference Case, the Advisory Panel scenario and the three mitigation scenarios. I don’t believe that the Integration Analysis developers have provided these numbers to anyone. If this information was available then legislators would have ready access to the information that both parties requested but did not get at the hearing. Given the extreme reticence to provide specific numbers and the shenanigans I have uncovered related to the few numbers provided, I worry that this obfuscation is deliberate. I believe that the Legislature should be demanding this information be included in the Final Scoping Plan.
I want to make one other point. I have spent a lot of time evaluating the Climate Act Draft Scoping Plan and recently noticed something that is inconsistent with the NYSERDA story that everything is wonderful about heat pumps. According to the Integration Analysis modeling, sales of heat pump for the Reference Case grows to 4% of total sales by 2025 but stays the same until 2050 in the Reference Case Space Heating-Res table. If heat pumps are as good as NYSERDA claims then shouldn’t the rate of adoption be higher in the business-as- usual case? The fact that the NYSERDA claims no increased rate of heat pump sales either means that the modeling is wrong or that these heat pumps are not expected to be purchased by homeowners who make decisions based on economics.
Conclusion
Co-Chair Harris testimony was more about NYSERDA than providing useful testimony for the Assembly. There were many instances of statements that basically said trust us we have this under control but provided nothing to support those claims. She should have been able to tell the Hearing attendees the device costs in the Draft Scoping Plan and the explained just what is needed for the building shells. The lack of detailed cost measure information is a major flaw in the Draft Scoping Plan.
The Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (Climate Act) has a legal mandate for New York State greenhouse gas emissions to meet the ambitious net-zero goal by 2050. A couple of pieces of legislation are being considered to implement parts of the transition plan. This post summarizes the Advanced Building Codes, Appliance and Equipment Efficiency Standards Act (Advanced Code Act) and the Gas Transition and Affordable Energy Act (Gas Ban).
Everyone wants to do right by the environment to the extent that they can afford to and not be unduly burdened by the effects of environmental policies. I have written extensively on implementation of New York’s response to climate change risk because I believe the ambitions for a zero-emissions economy embodied in the Climate Act outstrip available renewable technology such that it will adversely affect reliability, impact affordability, risk safety, affect lifestyles, and will have worse impacts on the environment than the purported effects of climate change in New York. New York’s Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions are less than one half one percent of global emissions and since 1990 global GHG emissions have increased by more than one half a percent per year. Moreover, the reductions cannot measurably affect global warming when implemented. 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 establishes a “Net Zero” target by 2050. The Climate Action Council is responsible for preparing the Scoping Plan that will “achieve the State’s bold clean energy and climate agenda”. They were assisted by Advisory Panels who developed and presented strategies to the meet the goals to the Council. Those strategies were used to develop the integration analysis prepared by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) and its consultants that quantified the impact of the strategies. That analysis was used to develop the Draft Scoping Plan that was released for public comment on December 30, 2021.
Two bills address the building sector components that need to be changed for the net-zero transition. According to the Advanced Code Act: “Buildings are the single largest user of energy in the State of New York, accounting for almost 60% of all energy consumed by end-use in the State.” Revisions to building codes will be “directly impacting a building’s energy load and carbon footprint”. The Gas Ban notes that the Climate Act “requires greenhouse gas emission reductions from all sectors, which will entail, among other things, converting buildings throughout the state from heating and cooking with combustible fuels to heating and cooking with non-emitting sources such as energy-efficient air, ground, and water sourced electric heat pumps which also provide cooling, and electric and induction stoves”.
Cart Before the Horse
The authors of the Climate Act and most of the Climate Action Council believe that the transition to net-zero is simply a matter of political will. The Act did not explicitly mandate a feasibility analysis and the Council has not mentioned anything in its deliberations. However, I believe that the Climate Action emission reduction targets are contingent upon meeting Public Service (PBS) CHAPTER 48, ARTICLE 4, § 66-p. Establishment of a renewable energy program (4): “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”.
Both of these bills suffer from the same under-estimation of the challenges of a net-zero transition. Until the New York has proven that the Scoping Plan will not impede the conditions described above, I think it is premature to change building codes and energy efficiency standards or implement a ban on fossil-fuel use.
Advanced Building Codes, Appliance and Equipment Efficiency Standards Act
The Senate version (S. 7176) is available here and Assembly version (A. 08143) here. Note that I am not trying to reconcile any differences between the Senate and Assembly versions in this post. The impetus of this legislation is to support the Climate Act and I believe revised building codes are necessary to improve building shells for electrified residential heating. Section 3.3 Sectoral Results -Buildings in Appendix G, Integration Analysis Technical Supplement Section I is the primary reference for technical information related to the building sector in the Draft Scoping Plan. It describes the building shell improvements as follows:
Building shell improvements (such as improved insulation, window treatments, or deep home retrofits) are modeled as reducing service demand for HVAC devices. Improvements to buildings incur costs but improve home and office comfort in addition to reducing energy bills. Two bundles of building shell improvements have been included: a basic shell upgrade and a deep shell upgrade. Basic and deep shell upgrades include a variety of measures focused on reducing energy use and increasing occupant comfort; these measures include, for example, varying levels of roof and wall insulation improvements, window treatments such as double or triple paned windows and infiltration improvements. Space heating demands are reduced by 27-44% with the basic shell package and 57-90% with the deep shell package, depending on building type. Air conditioning demands are reduced 14-27% with the basic shell package and 9-57% with the deep shell package. The total impact of building shell improvements on total HVAC service demand in buildings is a function of the market penetration of each package and distribution of building types. Building shell improvements include both retrofits and new construction, although all new construction in residential and commercial is assumed to be code-compliant and therefore has lower HVAC service demands relative to the existing building stock. (Footnote for this sentence said “E3 calculated the stock rollover of building shells with a 20-year lifetime to reflect improvements in new construction and opportunities for home retrofits.”
There is no reference to building shells in the Advanced Code Act. Amended Section 2 (a) reads:
The state fire prevention and building code council is authorized, from time to time as it deems appropriate and consistent with the purposes of this article, to review and amend the code, or adopt a new code, through rules and regulations provided that the code remains cost effective with respect to building construction in the state. In determining whether the code remains cost effective, the code council shall consider:
(i) whether the life-cycle costs for a building will be recovered through savings in energy costs over the design life of the building under a life-cycle cost analysis performed under methodology as established by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority in regulations which may be updated from time to time, and
(ii) secondary or societal effects, such as reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, as defined in regulations. Before publication of a notice of proposed rule making establishing the methodology or defining secondary or societal effects, the president of the authority shall conduct public meetings to provide meaningful opportunities for public comment from all segments of the population that would be impacted by the regulations, including persons living in disadvantaged communities as identified by the climate justice working group established under section 75-0111 of the environmental conservation law.
For residential buildings, the code shall meet or exceed the then most recently published International Energy Conservation Code, or achieve equivalent or greater energy savings; and for commercial buildings, the code shall meet or exceed the then most recently published ASHRAE 90.1, or achieve equivalent or greater energy savings.
The biggest question I have is whether the revised codes are consistent with the Draft Scoping Plan building shell requirements. If so, what level? For a single-family residence the Draft Scoping Plan estimates that a basic shell upgrade will cost $6,409 but a deep shell upgrade is expected to cost $45,136. As you can see this makes a huge difference in the costs.
A few other points. Note that cost effectiveness test includes “secondary or societal effects, such as reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, as defined in regulations”. New York mistakenly multiplies its social cost of carbon rates by the avoided carbon emissions for every year over the lifetime of a project. The social cost of carbon metric estimates the value of a ton of carbon reduced on societal benefits of reduced sea-level rise, reduced diseases, etc. impacts of climate change out to 2300. Clearly counting this for every year of the lifetime of a project over estimates the benefits.
One concern of mine is that there are many old buildings that cannot be upgraded to modern building shell standards. The bill does acknowledge that this is an issue. However, the exemption is limited to historic buildings related to the national register. That is an issue because there are many old houses that cannot be upgraded easily and cheaply that are not “historic”. In addition, some homeowners don’t want to register their homes because of restrictions on what they can do with their homes.
Gas Transition and Affordable Energy Act
The Assembly version (A 9329) is available here. In brief, this bill: “Aligns utility regulation with state climate justice and emission reduction targets; repeals provisions relating to continuation of gas service; repeals provisions relating to the sale of indigenous natural gas for generation of electricity.” A primary focus of the Draft Scoping Plan is to transition off of natural gas. It has become such a hot button issue on the Climate Action Council that the semantics of labeling natural gas as fossil gas has been a topic of heated debate.
The first goal of the bill is to align utility regulation with state climate justice and emission reduction targets. The climate justice target requires the state to “invest or direct resources in a manner designed to ensure that disadvantaged communities to receive at least 35 percent, with the goal of 40 percent, of overall benefits of spending on: clean energy and energy efficiency programs and projects or investments in the areas of housing, workforce development, pollution reduction, low-income energy assistance, energy, transportation, and economic development.” The emission reduction targets require New York to reduce economy-wide greenhouse gas emissions 40 percent by 2030 and no less than 85 percent by 2050 from 1990 levels.
The bill states:
After such plan is established, the commission or other relevant governing authority shall take any such action, after notice and a hearing, as is necessary to facilitate the achievement of the climate justice and emission reduction targets in article seventy-five of the environmental conservation law, but in doing so it shall actively encourage a transition away from combustible fuels and ensure that all residential customers have access to electric heating and cooling services without unreasonable qualifications, unreasonable costs, or lengthy delays with a goal that low-to-moderate income customers, defined as households with annual incomes at or below eighty percent of the area median income of the county or metro area where they reside, are adequately protected from bearing energy burdens greater than six percent of their income, including any undue burdens imposed by the cost to purchase and operate electric equipment needed to facilitate the termination of gas service.
It seems obvious to me that the bill should be written such that the first step is an analysis to determine if this is feasible. If it is not then implementation will only exacerbate the energy burden problem. It is disappointing to me that the environmental justice community has not addressed this aspect of the situation. As much as they all want to do something about climate change the fact is that ill-considered legislation and regulation can cause more harm than good.
The bill also repeals provisions relating to continuation of gas service. In order to make the net-zero transition someday, somewhere the State is going to have to force people off their gas appliances. The details how this will be accomplished are not made clear.
Finally, the bill repeals provisions relating to the sale of indigenous natural gas for generation of electricity. There are special provisions in current law that relate to an electric generating facility that has its own supply of natural gas. New York’s irrational war on natural gas precludes the use of the massive shale gas deposits underneath much of the state so this is a moot point.
The bill acknowledges that affordability is an issue. It states that:
Over two and a half million households in New York struggle to pay their heating bills. The Public Service Commission has declared, but not yet achieved the goal that customers should not pay more than 6% of their income for utility energy services, a number based on a nationally accepted standard.
Unfortunately, the bill sponsors do not state where the state stands relative to the standard and how the bill could affect it. Great Britain has similar net-zero transitions but is further along implementing the programs necessary to meet the goals. According to a recent article, “Britain’s cost-of-living squeeze is starting to bite into the spending power of most parts of the country, with 43% of those who pay energy bills saying they will struggle with the costs”. The article explains that “The findings underscore the scale of the hit to consumers from a jump in electricity and natural gas prices that has pushed up inflation across the economy to a 30-year high.” It is not clear how New York can avoid the same outcome.
The biggest question is how much will this cost? There are 5,889,200 residences that currently use natural gas. Conversion to heat pumps will not save them money so they will never save enough money to pay off the heat pump conversion costs.
Finally, there is no acknowledgement that an all-electric energy system is not resilient. The Council has been silent on a plan for the inevitable ice storm or heavy snow event. It is bad enough that the fragile transmission system creates health and safety issues when everything possible is electrified. The Climate Act goes even further. The current electric generating system that has taken decades to develop into the reliable and affordable system that exists today. The Council has not acknowledged that transitioning from a system dependent upon dispatchable generating resources to one dependent upon non-dispatchable wind and solar resources in less than 20 years carries enormous risks to reliability. In February 2021, the Texas electric grid failed when needed most. Russell Gold’s article “One year after the deadly blackout, officials have done little to prevent the next one—which could be far worse” does an excellent job describing what happened. He explains that as the frigid air behind the winter storm blanketed the state and the electric gird, operators started dealing with problems:
Nobody yet knew just how widespread the blackouts would become—that they would spread across almost the entire state, leave an unprecedented 11 million Texans freezing in the dark for as long as three days, and result in as many as seven hundred deaths. But neither could the governor, legislators, and regulators who are supposed to oversee the state’s electric grid claim to be surprised. They had been warned repeatedly, by experts and by previous calamities—including a major blackout in 2011—that the grid was uniquely vulnerable to cold weather.
Conclusion
These bills are sneaking through under the radar of most New Yorkers. They will be expensive, limit personal choice, and risk health and safety because limiting energy use to one source is not a resilient approach. I have not been able to find out how New York stands relative to the energy affordability policy goal that customers should not pay more than 6% of their income for utility energy services. Shouldn’t there be a state-wide goal for the percentage of customers that don’t meet that target and shouldn’t bills that will affect that target include a contingency to not exacerbate that metric? Given that New York’s emissions in context with the rest of the world are less than one half of one percent of total global emissions and that those emissions are increasing by more than one half of one percent per year, it does not seem appropriate to increase energy poverty in the state for emission reductions that will be displaced in a year.
Pragmatic Environmentalist of New York 