Category: Climate Act Legislation & Regulations

On April 4 I published an article about the Hochul Administration’s proposal to make some changes to the greenhouse gas emissions accounting approach in the Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act).  After a “firestorm of opposition from environmentalists” the proposal to use a different global warming potential value was removed from budget negotiations but the topic will still be addressed later this year.  This post provides information on this Climate Act component to try to clear up some misconceptions that I noticed in the recent dustup and to explain what the two methodologies mean to required emission reductions.

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

Climate Act Background

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

Global Warming Potential

The recent controversy involved changes to the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions accounting approach used by the Climate Act to account for methane or natural gas emissions.  The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) explains that the Global Warming Potential (GWP) was “developed to allow comparisons of the global warming impacts of different gases”.  EPA explains that GHGs affect the rate at which energy from the surface escapes to space.  The explanation notes:

Different GHGs can have different effects on the Earth’s warming. Two key ways in which these gases differ from each other are their ability to absorb energy (their “radiative efficiency”), and how long they stay in the atmosphere (also known as their “lifetime”).

The EPA explanation goes on to state:

Specifically, it is a measure of how much energy the emissions of 1 ton of a gas will absorb over a given period of time, relative to the emissions of 1 ton of carbon dioxide (CO₂). The larger the GWP, the more that a given gas warms the Earth compared to CO₂ over that time period. The time period usually used for GWPs is 100 years. GWPs provide a common unit of measure, which allows analysts to add up emissions estimates of different gases (e.g., to compile a national GHG inventory), and allows policymakers to compare emissions reduction opportunities across sectors and gases.

• CO₂, by definition, has a GWP of 1 regardless of the time period used, because it is the gas being used as the reference. CO₂ remains in the climate system for a very long time: CO₂ emissions cause increases in atmospheric concentrations of CO₂ that will last thousands of years.
• Methane (CH₄) is estimated to have a GWP of 27-30 over 100 years (Learn why EPA’s U.S. Inventory of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks uses a different value.). CH₄ emitted today lasts about a decade on average, which is much less time than CO₂. But CH₄ also absorbs much more energy than CO₂. The net effect of the shorter lifetime and higher energy absorption is reflected in the GWP. The CH₄ GWP also accounts for some indirect effects, such as the fact that CH₄ is a precursor to ozone, and ozone is itself a GHG.
• Nitrous Oxide (N₂O) has a GWP 273 times that of CO₂ for a 100-year timescale. N₂O emitted today remains in the atmosphere for more than 100 years, on average.
• Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF₆) are sometimes called high-GWP gases because, for a given amount of mass, they trap substantially more heat than CO₂. (The GWPs for these gases can be in the thousands or tens of thousands.)

EPA also explains that there are alternatives to using the 100-year GWP:

The United States primarily uses the 100-year GWP as a measure of the relative impact of different GHGs. However, the scientific community has developed a number of other metrics that could be used for comparing one GHG to another. These metrics may differ based on timeframe, the climate endpoint measured, or the method of calculation.

For example, the 20-year GWP is sometimes used as an alternative to the 100-year GWP. Just like the 100-year GWP is based on the energy absorbed by a gas over 100 years, the 20-year GWP is based on the energy absorbed over 20 years. This 20-year GWP prioritizes gases with shorter lifetimes, because it does not consider impacts that happen more than 20 years after the emissions occur. Because all GWPs are calculated relative to CO₂, GWPs based on a shorter timeframe will be larger for gases with lifetimes shorter than that of CO₂, and smaller for gases with lifetimes longer than CO₂. For example, for CH₄, which has a short lifetime, the 100-year GWP of 27–30 is much less than the 20-year GWP of 81–83.

Climate Act Global Warming Potential

The ideologues who wrote the Climate Act chose to use GWP measured over 20 years rather than 100-years.  I believe that this was a deliberate choice to emphasize the “value” of methane and natural gas reductions.  At the time the Act was passed this was a unique choice and since then only one jurisdiction (the state of Maryland) has chosen this approach. Everybody else, all the other states, the EPA, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, all use GWP measured over 100 years.  The proposal to change this accounting was greeted with vociferous opposition from New York’s environmental community because it was perceived as reducing the value of reductions of oil, gas, and bio-fuels.

For example, in what was billed as an “explanation of the painfully nerdy, incredibly important methane math problem that roiled New York’s budget process this week” Lisa Harris writing for “The River – Hudson Valley Newsroom” wrote:

Even if you were paying attention, you might have missed this one: While the bail reform battle was occupying the spotlight, and with the budget fight playing out mostly behind closed doors, Gov. Kathy Hochul tried to push through a major change to the way New York does climate math. 

Here’s what we know: Armed with outsized budget-season power, and with the support of the natural gas industry, Hochul threw her weight behind an obscure bill introduced late in the budget session by Senator Kevin Parker and Assemblymember Didi Barrett, who chair the energy committees in their respective houses. The bill, S6030, proposed a couple of sweeping changes to the method New York uses to count its greenhouse gas emissions.

If adopted, S6030 would cast New York’s newly-adopted climate plan into limbo by changing the figures that provide the foundation for its 400-plus pages of policy recommendations. It would also have brought New York’s accounting in line with the way methane is counted by most other states and the federal government — a method climate scientists say is outdated, and that underestimates the outsized impact that natural gas leaks and other major methane sources have on climate change.

If I had the time, I would respond to the entire article because it exemplifies the rationale of the NY environmental community relative to this issue.  Unfortunately,  there are too many issues on my plate to address all of it.  However, the last sentence quoted above must be addressed.  As I noted previously both the EPA and the IPCC use GWP-100.  It is hypocritical for activists to demand that New York  follow the “Science” as espoused by the IPCC except when it is inconvenient.  The claim that “a method climate scientists say is outdated” cherry picks a limited number of scientists.  In New York that would be Robert Howarth Ph.D. who has repeatedly claimed that he played a key role in the drafting of the Climate Act.

Dr. Howarth is a biogeochemist and ecosystem scientist who has assumed the mantle of venerated Climate Scientist™.  Everything he says is taken as holy writ by New York climate activists.  It is not clear to me why the David R. Atkinson Professor of Ecology & Environmental Biology at Cornell University is considered a climate scientist with impeccable qualifications that preclude any criticism of his arguments.  I have no doubts of his expertise related to methane chemistry and the comparison to carbon dioxide in the laboratory.  However, his understanding and that of the New York climate activist community, on the role of methane on global warming is flawed.  I charitably ascribe his incorrect views to his lack of background in atmospheric physics.  I have summarized the methane issues ignored by Howarth.  It boils down to one issue that even the EPA description overlooks.  The GWP values are based on laboratory molecular measurements which are only appropriate in that setting.  In the atmosphere where the effect on global warming actually occurs, the relative differences between carbon dioxide and methane due to concentrations, the particular wavelengths affecting the out-going radiation,  and the saturation effect all mean that carbon dioxide is much more important than methane.  If considered properly the EPA and IPCC approach is appropriate and the use of the 20-year GWP is not justified as mandated in the Climate Act

New York State GHG Emissions Inventory GWP-20 and GWP-100

The primary purpose of this post is to document the differences between the emissions associated with the two global warming potential methodologies.  The differences are being portrayed as hugely important.   Marie French writes:

But the numbers — and previous work by state staff — show that New York would be required to take less aggressive action to slash greenhouse gasses if Gov. Kathy Hochul, despite dropping an immediate push for it Wednesday, ultimately cuts a deal with lawmakers to change the climate law, an effort first reported by POLITICO. “Overall, you’re saying we don’t need to reduce emissions as much,” said Bob Howarth, a Cornell University professor and member of the Climate Action Council that was set up to chart a path to achieving the state’s climate goals. “This is a big retrenchment from the climate goal, particularly on the use of natural gas.”

In order to look at the numbers I developed a spreadsheet that uses the NYS GHG emissions by Global Warming Potential for 20-year and 100-year time frames.  The observed data from 1990 to 2020 are from the 2022 Statewide GHG Emissions Report and the associated data on Data NY for Statewide GHG Emissions. 

My spreadsheet also makes projections for 2021-2030.  I made some educated guesses for the 2021 and 2022 emissions.  Electricity sector emissions in 2021 and 2022 are available from EPA.  I assumed that the ratio of direct CO2 emissions to all the other GHG emissions in the sector for the last three years would be the same as for 2021 and 2022 to estimate the total electricity sector emissions.  The emissions from all the other sectors are the average of the last three years.  On the long list of unresolved questions is how the emission reduction target of 2030 will be apportioned amongst the different sectors.  A portion of the agricultural and industrial sector emissions are off the table.  Does that mean the other sectors have to produce reductions to make up the difference?  For this analysis I just assumed that all sectors have to reduce their emissions 40% less than their 1990 baseline emissions. I assumed a linear reduction from 2022 to 2030 to estimate the annual emissions.

The total emissions shown in the following graph shows that GWP-20 values are significantly higher than GWP-100 values.  In the baseline year of 1990 the total GWP-20 emissions were 404 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MMT CO₂e) and the GWP emissions were 314 MMT CO₂e or 29% higher.  In the last year of observed data, 2020, the GWP-20 emissions were 345 MMT CO₂e and the GWP emissions were 245 MMT CO₂e or 41% higher.  Does that mean that changing to GWP-100 will the State can take less aggressive action to reduce emissions?  Between 1990 and 2020 the total GWP-20 emissions dropped 15%.  In order to meet the 2030 targets GWP-20 emissions will have to be reduced 29% almost double the reductions observed over 30 years.  On the other hand, GWP-100 emissions dropped 23% between 1990 and 2020 and will “only” have to be reduced a further 22% to meet the

 mandated reduction of 40% of total GHG emissions by 2030. It does appear that less aggressive action is needed but as shown below I don’t think the 2030 target is achievable for either accounting system.

One other feature of the plots needs to be discussed before we can address the question whether the target is likely for either accounting approach.  The last year of observed emissions was 2020 and that value is sharply lower than the general trend because of the pandemic shutdown of society.  I chose not to make any sophisticated attempt to adjust emissions for that outlier.  However, note that emissions in 2021 are higher than 2019 despite the general downward trend.  That is entirely due to the State’s misguided shutdown of Indian Point and the resulting increase in emissions.

To gain a perspective of the relative importance of sector specific emissions I list the emissions by sector for each GWP accounting methodology below:

One of my biggest concerns with the Scoping Plan is that it did not include a feasibility analysis.  This is particularly troublesome with regards to the schedule for the mandated targets.  If we consider the following graphs for each sector specifically looking at the rate of reductions required compared to historical emissions it does not appear to me that the targets are achievable. 

I am most familiar with the electric sector.  The following graph shows the GWP-20 and GWP-100 emissions for just that sector.  The increased emissions associated with the shutdown of Indian Point and resulting fossil fuel generation emissions increase to replace that zero-emissions resource is clearly visible.  The first reaction looking at the emission trends could be that the slope of both emission trajectories from 2006 to 2018 is roughly consistent with the trend necessary to meet the 2030 target from 2022 to 2300.  There is a problem with that perception however.  The observed reductions from 2006 to 2018 were primarily due to fuel switching away from coal and residual oil to natural gas.  There are no more opportunities for fuel switching emission reductions.  In order to reduce electric sector emissions, zero-emissions wind and solar resources must be deployed to displace fossil generation at the same time load is expected to increase due to the electrification of other sectors.  I believe that the lack of a feasibility analysis to prove this is possible will prove problematic by 2030.

I am not familiar with the control strategies for other sectors but the same unsettling emission trajectory reduction rates are apparent.  The biggest source of emissions using GWP-20 is buildings.  Because GWP-20 accentuates the effect of natural gas, there will have to be a real concerted effort to switch existing building sector gas away from natural gas.  In my opinion neither emission reduction trajectory rate looks realistic relative to historical emissions but the GWP-20 rate (31% between 2020 and 2030) is more unlikely.

Transportation is the next highest emitting sector for GWP-20 accounting and is greater than buildings for GWP-100.  From 2010 to 2018 both emission trajectories were very similar.  Clearly the emission reductions necessary in this decade are considerably faster than anything observed in the past.  I am not aware of any indications that the public is ready to embrace electric vehicles at the rate necessary to meet this reduction trajectory.

The industrial sector emissions reductions have been steadily decreasing since the mid 1990’s.  Unfortunately, that is more a reflection of the business climate of New York rather than any clean energy strategy.  The Climate Act includes provisions that are supposed to prevent further reductions in this sector to save jobs but no details have been provided.  This is another instance where it may be decided that other sectors must provide reductions so that the state GHG emissions meet the 2030 target.

The waste sector emissions trends are interesting.  I did not try to figure out what was going on between 2008 and 2009 when there is an obvious step change in GWP-20 emissions from 43 MMT to 38 MMT CO₂e.  In my experience with emission inventories any change that drastic was caused by some error in my work.  More importantly, a 30% emissions reduction (12.6 MMT CO₂e) is required from 2020 to 2030 in order to meet the 40% reduction from the 1990 baseline mandate. Note, however that while the GWP-100 required emission reduction is only 4.6 MMT CO₂e it still represents a 30% reduction.  I am not aware of any control technology that can be expected to provide that kind of reduction. 

I include the agricultural sector for completeness but caution that I don’t know how the emissions will be handled.  I know that some emissions are exempt but exactly how many I do not know.  In any event the effect of the methane bias is obvious. It also is obvious that expecting the agricultural sector to make its share of emission reductions is unlikely.

Discussion

I do not think the proponents of the Climate Act understand how difficult it is to reduce GHG emissions.  In the electric sector the only readily available emission reduction approach is to switch to a lower emitting fuel.  There are no more opportunities to fuel switch in New York and there is no add-on cost-effective control option available.  As a result, the only control option left is to reduce operations.  The Scoping Plan presumes that wind and solar will be deployed such that the fossil generators will be displaced as required by the Climate Act schedule.  However, the Integration Analysis did not include a feasibility study to prove that would be possible while current reliability standards are maintained.

As difficult as it is for the electric sector to reduce GHG emissions, that is the sector where reductions are most feasible.  In general, the problem with all the “clean energy” solutions is that they don’t work all the time and the time when they don’t work is the time, they are needed the most.  For example, in the building sector, air source heat pumps are touted as the replacement for fossil-fired furnaces.  Despite the claims that they work fine, there is a point when air source heat pumps do not provide sufficient heat in really cold weather.  That issue can be addressed by upgrades to the building shell but that in turn requires upgrades to the ventilation system.  In order to provide a system as resilient as a fossil-fired furnace the costs of all the additions to the home will be so great that they are not saving enough energy to make the investments cost effective.  The Integration Analysis did not include a feasibility study to demonstrate what would be needed to maintain the same level of resiliency for residential home heating or any of the other components of the net zero transition.

Conclusion

According to NY Renews:

When Governor Hochul tried to sneak in a fossil-fueled methane accounting method that would gut New York State’s Climate Act during the final push of budget negotiations, New York’s climate and environmental justice movement responded swiftly and powerfully. NY Renews is proud to stand with a movement that stopped—for now—changes to New York’s progressive 20-year methane accounting method as written in law. 

Based on these numbers I don’t disagree that using the 100-year GWP makes the emission reductions less problematic.  However, the emission reduction rate trajectories necessary to meet the 2030 40% reduction mandate are so much greater than anything in the past that I do not think the accounting approach is going to matter.  As a result, the over-the-top rhetoric about the importance of the 20-year GWP accounting approach is unwarranted.

The Hochul Administration lost control of the Climate Action Council and allowed naïve and uneducated ideologues to control the narrative.  The global warming potential issue is one example of a technical consideration that was chosen based on emotion rather than a full understanding of the ramifications.  In this instance the one unarguable negative aspect of the 20-year GWP is that it precludes New York from joining any other emissions market program with other jurisdictions.  If New York cannot join other jurisdictions, then they will have to develop all the infrastructure for their system on their own.

Inevitably, there will be another flash point issue. The lack of a feasibility analysis to prove that reductions at the rate necessary for any sector to meet the 2030 targets kicked the problem down the road. The insistence that the Climate Action Council could not consider a “plan B” if targets could not be met means there is no contingency plan in place.  When the reality that the 2030 40% reduction mandate cannot be met becomes obvious that will incense New York’s climate and environmental justice movement who will undoubtedly demand that the targets must be met. As explained above the ultimate control strategy is to stop burning fossil fuels.  Hochul will have to choose between keeping the lights on, gasoline obtainable at the pump, and natural gas available for homes against meeting the arbitrary emissions reduction mandate of the Climate Act. 

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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQd-QlkDCbk

The full press conference is at the following link.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9E3bSeutAg&t=4s

His presentation referenced a bar graph and the energy storage report.

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.