Category: Climate Act Safety Valve

PSL 66-P Petition Filing – Analysis of Future Utility Rates

The comment period for comments regarding the safety valve provision in New York Public Service Law (PSL) § 66-p for the Renewable Energy Program in the Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act or CLCPA) recently ended.  I published a series of posts describing this process that was summarized in my most recent post.  Independent Intervenors Richard Ellenbogen, Constantine Kontogiannis, Francis Menton, and myself explained why we thought it would be appropriate to hold a hearing addressing the safety valve provisions in our filing.  We agreed that we would not submit technical arguments from all of us but we are all driven by a common motivator that when we see something outlandish, we have to respond.  Richard Ellenbogen’s filing describing an Artificial Intelligence (AI) analysis impact of the Climate Act on utility rates was initiated by such a trigger.

Richard Ellenbogen has been speaking to lawmakers, policy makers and regulators since 2019 regarding the deficiencies inherent in New York State (NYS) energy policy.  He has a proven record implementing carbon reduction programs at his own manufacturing business in Westchester County where it has reduced its electric utility load by 80% while reducing its carbon footprint by 30% – 40% below that of the downstate system.  I have previously published other articles by Ellenbogen including a summary description of his issues with the Climate Act.

Background

New York Public Service Law (PSL) § 66-p establishes a renewable energy program for the Climate Act.  It  provides that 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”.  This safety valve was included because even the lawmakers realized that it may not be possible to transition the electric system to “zero-emissions” by relying on renewable energy. 

In response to the PSL 66-P safety valve, Ellenbogen filed a description of his analysis of the results of other jurisdiction’s attempts to implement energy policies like the Climate Act.  His filing was titled: “An AI Analysis of the CLCPA that Shows it will raise Utility rates between 50% and 150% over the Next 40 years with no rate relief appearing for between 100 – 150 years, IF EVER” and was described:

“Prejudices Inherent in the drafting of the CLCPA Introduced a rigid framework, unsupported by scientific facts, that preclude better long-term solutions from both a carbon emissions standpoint and an economic frame of reference”.  He also submitted a spreadsheet that was developed by Perplexity in response to his queries.

This post is based on the filing and his email description circulated to his mailing list.  I have lightly edited his work for consistency.

AI Analysis Background

Both Ellenbogen and I have been using Perplexity AI more as a research tool and we are just starting to realize the potential of its use.  He explains how he used it for this analysis:

For the past three weeks, i have been sitting and asking energy related questions of Perplexity AI.  The questions were asked without bias and conditions were only added based upon responses from prior questions, although as I learned over time, the AI algorithm remembered all of the conditions without my asking and applied those to subsequent questions.

The paper covers everything that I could think of.  It has AI answers to the major problems facing NY State.  I added context to the answers to help people understand them and explain how we got here.

The questions were asked in plain English.  Some of the AI responses can be technical in places. 

The first 23 pages tell most of the story with the 50 pages of appendices adding context.  AI has become a frighteningly powerful tool.  Watching it generate code to answer some of the questions was comparable to what an incredibly fast human would do that could access information at a pace that no human could possibly do, let alone think of all the parameters needed. When I was building the spreadsheet, the second query was to add BESS to the calculation to make the wind dispatchable so that it would be more of an “apples to apples” comparison to the retooled gas plants.  I didn’t specify how much but the AI algorithm automatically researched it and found NYISO requirements and pulled those into the calculation.  It also was telling me what it was doing as it did it.

An experienced utility analyst looked at the spreadsheet and said, “That’s exactly what I used to do for the utility companies, except that would take at least a week.”  It took me an hour.  It was built from three queries and the AI wrote code,  produced results, checked conformity, found its errors, redid the code and checked conformity again until the results made numerical sense.  It took about 20 minutes for each question.  It then added the additional questions to the same spreadsheet and suggested more related questions to research. It could turn into an infinitely long research rabbit hole. When I asked about natural gas prices, it had remembered my questions about the LI gas plants and automatically related the pricing questions to those without my asking.  It inferred that was why I was asking.

I spent time checking the answers which accounted for much of the time writing the document.  I knew the answers to many of the questions before I asked them based upon extensive reading and almost fifty years of experience dealing with energy systems.  I am hoping that AI confirmation of the answers will make people realize that this is not ideological.

On a final note, I’m a tech geek and this technology is very useful but a little creepy.   When I was doing this, I felt like I was dealing with “Skynet”.  The rate of evolution of the technology is breathtaking, and I don’t think that I could have generated this report six months ago.

Ellenbogen’s Filing

Consistent with Ellenbogen’s use of AI, I submitted the following question to Perplexity: “Provide an overview summary of Ellenbogen’s filing that I can incorporate into a blog post. “ The following is the response:

Core thesis

Ellenbogen’s filing argues that New York’s CLCPA will drive very large, long‑lasting rate increases and will not deliver genuine rate relief for at least 100–150 years, if ever, under anything resembling realistic assumptions. He frames CLCPA as a capital‑heavy, prejudiced policy design that blocks cheaper and faster emission‑reduction options (notably repowered gas and nuclear), locking customers into a multi‑generation cost burden for modest climate benefits.

Australia as the warning case

A central plank is a detailed Australia comparison, which he uses as a “best possible” renewable case study to bound what New York can realistically expect. Australia has six times New York’s solar capacity, far higher solar capacity factors, far more land at a fraction of New York’s cost, and far lower heating loads, yet wholesale prices only clearly began trending down in 2024–2025 after roughly 20 years of policy implementation, and even then retail bills are only expected to fall about 5 percent over the next five years.

He then scales this experience to New York’s much worse fundamentals: four times the per‑capita heating load, roughly half the solar capacity factor, far less developable land, and much higher land and interconnection costs. On that basis, he argues New York would need 80–150 years before seeing durable rate relief, with residential rates rising on the order of 50–150 percent over the next 30–40 years and upstate households facing bill increases of 2,000–5,000 dollars per year at the peak of the transition.

Grid, labor, and supply‑chain constraints

The filing emphasizes that official NYSERDA/CLCPA planning assumes “ideal” supply chains and grid conditions that do not exist. He cites transformer shortages with multi‑year lead times, insufficient trained labor to electrify buildings and upgrade panels and substations, and local grid stress already appearing as “blue sky blackouts” in electrified pockets like the Albany area.

Because load from electrification is ramping faster than new dispatchable capacity and network reinforcements, he argues New York is replicating Victoria’s mistakes in Australia: voltage problems, constrained substations, and reliability risks driven by “electrify first, supply later” policy sequencing. His bottom line is that these constraints stretch the transition into a 40‑year or longer construction effort, add huge cost premiums, and push any hypothetical “payoff” far into the next century.

Cost comparisons: offshore wind, storage, and gas repowering

A major section uses an Excel LCOE framework, fed by AI‑generated parameter sets, to compare offshore wind plus batteries against repowered combined‑cycle gas at Long Island sites like Northport, Barrett, and Port Jefferson. Across a wide range of gas prices (current Henry Hub and 2–4× that level), the model shows that offshore wind plus 4–8 hours of battery storage remains substantially more expensive than repowered gas over 20‑ and 40‑year horizons, even after layering in a state carbon tax on gas.

He also notes that the wind‑plus‑storage cost stack in his base case does not include synchronous condensers and other stability equipment required in a heavily inverter‑based system, which would drive the renewable system cost even higher relative to combined‑cycle plants. In his framing, the oft‑repeated “renewables are cheaper” line collapses once you include the full system cost of firming, transmission, and stability equipment in a New York context, as opposed to Texas or Australia with far better wind and solar resource.

Nuclear and statute‑driven “prejudice”

Ellenbogen then asks, via AI prompts, what an unconstrained least‑cost, low‑carbon system for New York would look like over a 60‑year horizon. When the CLCPA’s statutory renewable carve‑outs and timelines are removed, the response (which he quotes extensively) favors a nuclear‑heavy system, with long‑life reactors providing 60–100 years of output at high capacity factors and lower firm system LCOE than “firmed renewables” once overbuild, storage cycling, replacements, and grid expansions are included.

He uses that to argue that the CLCPA embeds an explicit prejudice against nuclear and gas repowering by design, because it hard‑codes high penetrations of wind and solar irrespective of system cost, reliability, or practical feasibility. In his conclusions, he characterizes the CLCPA as an ideologically driven statute that overrides physics and engineering judgment, and he urges the PSC to invoke its PSL‑66 powers to pivot toward a combination of repowered gas as an interim 40–60‑year bridge and nuclear as the primary long‑term zero‑carbon backbone, with hydrogen‑fueled peakers using excess nuclear output as a complement.

Discussion

Ellenbogen’s email concludes that the analysis shows a very grim future for NY State if there is not a course correction.  He notes:

Hopefully, an impartial question and answer session with the world’s computer systems will alter the discussion and make people realize that if we proceed down this path, we will be increasing emissions while needlessly increasing costs in search of a holy grail that is not feasibly attainable in NY State’s climate.  As I have written on several occasions, the CLCPA was a college thought experiment about what could be done if there were no limitations on money, labor, supply chains, land, and if there was no public resistance to having large renewable installations located near their homes.  Unfortunately, our state government, and particularly Andrew Cuomo,  turned that thought experiment into public policy.  While the authors of the thought experiment considered it attainable, engineers in the energy industry understood that the concept was preposterous in NYS.

Conclusion

I have a great deal of respect for Ellenbogen because he has personally approached the challenge of decarbonization as an experiment.  His home and manufacturing facility were the subjects and included data monitoring systems for the test.  He knows what will work and his opposition to the Climate Act technology transition plan is based on what his experiment shows will not work. 

His use of AI is based on his experience and the results are consistent with what he has learned.  I recommend his entire analysis for the unconvinced.  This analysis is another great example why New York should conduct a PSL 66-P hearing to determine if renewable energy can provide safe, adequate, and affordable electricity in New York.

Filings Opposed to the PSL 66-P Safety Valve

New York Public Service Law (PSL) § 66-p establishes a renewable energy program for the Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act or CLCPA) and includes a safety valve provision.  In recently  published posts I provided a status update that provides extensive background information, a description of the Independent Intervenor (Richard Ellenbogen, Constantine Kontogiannis, Francis Menton, and myself) filing describing how the hearing to address the safety valve should be handled, described how the Independent Intervenors think the Public Service Commission should respond to the hundreds of identical comments prompted by advocacy organizations, and finally described the Independent Intervenor filing.  This post describes comments opposing the petition from parties to the cases.

I am convinced that implementation of the Climate Act net-zero mandates will do more harm than good if the future electric system relies only on wind, solar, and energy storage because of reliability and affordability risks.  I have followed the Climate Act since it was first proposed, submitted comments on the Climate Act implementation plan, and have written over 650 articles about New York’s net-zero transition.  The opinions expressed in this article do not reflect the position of any of my previous employers or any other organization I have been associated with, these comments are mine alone.  I acknowledge the use of Perplexity AI to generate summaries included in this document. 

Background

New York Public Service Law (PSL) § 66-p establishes a renewable energy program for the Climate Act.  It  provides that 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”.  This safety valve was included because even the lawmakers realized that it may not be possible to transition the electric system to “zero-emissions” by relying on renewable energy. 

Party Comments Opposing the Petition

There were ten submittals that opposed the petition:

In response to a query to summarize and critique these comments Perplexity AI responded.

The opposing party comments generally argue that a PSL §66‑p(4) hearing is unnecessary, legally unwarranted, and contrary to the CLCPA’s purposes; however, across the various filings there is a recurring tendency to conflate “opposition to the program” with “request for oversight,” to rely on policy aspirations more than record evidence on reliability and costs, and to treat §66‑p’s hearing provision as effectively formally in effect but no longer necessary.

The Perplexity response addressed each of the comments.  The following are the highlights.

The “Green Energy Developers” coalition (Advanced Energy United, ACE NY, CCSA, NY‑BEST, SEIA) positions the petition as a broadside against the CLCPA and the clean‑energy transition rather than as a procedural request to use §66‑p(4). In other words, they do not want anything to get in the way of their revenue stream.  They argue that granting a hearing would increase investor uncertainty, slow project development, and jeopardize achievement of the 70‑by‑30 and 100‑by‑40 mandates. Their comments emphasize sunk costs, signed contracts, and an existing “orderly” procurement framework, and they tend to characterize reliability and bill‑impact concerns as either already addressed in prior Commission orders or overstated by petitioners.

New York State Solar Energy Industries Association (NYSSEIA) has similar interests as the Green Energy Developers coalition, but their comments focused on small developers and customer-sited projects.  They made the same arguments that the act of holding a hearing is tantamount to rolling back the Climate Act and their desire for investor certainty and program continuity are more important than reliability and cost impacts.

The “Green Energy Advocates” group (Citizens Campaign for the Environment, Earthjustice, NRDC, NYLCV, Sierra Club, etc.) generally frames the petition as an attempt to “roll back” CLCPA mandates and to “suspend” the renewable program, emphasizing the urgency of climate action, public‑health co‑benefits, and environmental‑justice goals. They argue that any delay or reconsideration via a §66‑p(4) hearing would violate the CLCPA’s spirit, exacerbate climate risk, and perpetuate fossil‑fuel pollution in disadvantaged communities. The comments rely heavily on broad climate‑science consensus and statewide emissions‑reduction imperatives rather than on the specific evidentiary record on reliability, costs, or implementation feasibility.

Consolidated Edison and Orange & Rockland’s joint comments oppose the petition for a hearing but do so in a more procedural and incremental tone. They emphasize that reliability is being managed through existing NYISO and DPS processes, that the Commission has previously reviewed and adjusted the Clean Energy Standard and related programs, and that another formal §66‑p(4) hearing could be duplicative or disruptive. Note as rate‑regulated entities with pass‑through cost recovery, these utilities have a structural incentive to avoid procedural steps that might slow capital deployment or introduce new prudence reviews, a factor not fully acknowledged in their arguments.

Other opposing commenters include Environmental Defense Fund, the First Unitarian Church Environmental Justice Ministry, Public Utility Law Project (PULP), the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, Third Act Upstate New York, and the PEAK Coalition. EDF and the Sabin Center focus on the legal structure, arguing that §66‑p(4) gives the Commission discretion (“may”) and that existing orders, impact analyses, and ongoing CLCPA implementation proceedings already satisfy any implied need for review. They argue that the petitioners have not met the burden to show that safe and adequate service or just‑and‑reasonable rates are at risk.  PULP and EJ‑oriented commenters stress that low‑income and disadvantaged communities stand to benefit from the CLCPA and that a hearing framed around costs and reliability could be used to justify delaying those benefits.  This is frustrating because it does not recognize their benefits are societal but the cost and reliability impacts personally affect low-income and disadvantaged community members.  The PEAK Coalition emphasizes the point that delays are unacceptable because local public health impacts improvements and peaker plant retirements would be delayed.  All these commenters do not recognize the risk that reliability events or bill spikes could politically endanger the very Environmental Justice‑oriented clean‑energy policies they want to protect.

Perplexity Summary

•            Most opposing parties reframe the petition as an attack on the CLCPA itself, not as an effort to use a statutory safeguard that the Legislature expressly included. This framing lets them avoid a granular debate over NYISO reliability indicators, actual bill trajectories, and implementation challenges.

•            There is heavy reliance on prior Commission orders and broad policy goals instead of a acknowledging the observed evidence of impacts on system reliability, project attrition, cost escalation, and deliverability constraints that have emerged since 2019.

•            Several commenters implicitly treat §66‑p(4) as a purely discretionary “safety valve” never actually meant to be opened, which risks reducing a substantive statute to symbolic surplusage.

•            Investor confidence, climate urgency, and EJ goals are repeatedly invoked as reasons not to hold a hearing but rarely balanced against the statutory obligation to ensure safe and adequate service and just and reasonable rates. A more balanced approach would treat a narrowly focused, evidence‑driven hearing as a way to protect those goals from backlash driven by reliability events or bill shocks.

Public Comments

In addition to the comments filed by parties to the cases, the PSC accepted public comments. In a previous post I described how the Independent Intervenors think the Public Service Commission should respond to the hundreds of identical comments opposing the petition.  From the very first comments submitted about the petition in early March until May 1, 2026, there were 3,789 public comments submitted in Case 15-E-0302 and 2,516 comments submitted in Case 22-M-0149.  Case 15-E-0302 covers a wide range of topics and there were some public comments submitted in this time frame addressing other topics.  Nonetheless there are thousands of comments that were essentially identical.  As described in the previous article, the arguments made do not warrant rejecting the petition or make a convincing argument that the PSL 66-P Renewable Energy Program obligations may not need to be temporarily suspended or modified to ensure safe, adequate, and affordable electricity.

Steve Helmin pointed out that there is a pattern to these nearly identical comments that suggests the use of automation in submitting to the DMM site.  This pattern and what has been observed in other proceedings suggests that advocacy organizations are collecting comments on their own servers and then pushing them to the PSC, as opposed to requiring commenters to navigate the DMM interface to submit comments.  This enables a “Click Button” knee jerk reaction that insulates commenters from any potential independent review of the case materials and enables an unrivaled single point of context for commenters as they never even see the DMM website.  This automation reinforces my opinion that State Agencies should not be swayed by the number of comments but judge each different opinion on its merits.  The stakeholder process in the Scoping Plan and the Energy Plan did not respond to comments in this manner.  This must change.

Discussion

Consider this quote from the PEAK Coalition comment:

The Coalition for Safe and Reliable Energy (“Petitioner”)—solely representing business interests—has requested a hearing to permanently suspend or modify the Renewable Energy Program pursuant to PSL § 66-p(4), alleging that the program and its associated CLCPA targets “might negatively impact electric reliability” (emphasis added) and may subsequently impede the Commission’s duty of ensuring safe and adequate electric service.

This illustrates a fundamental misunderstanding in common with many other opposition comments.  The petition is only requesting a hearing to determine if the Renewable Energy 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”.  If the hearing finds that there are problems, then the PSC “may temporarily suspend or modify the obligations” of the Renewable Energy Program.  In my opinion, the most likely outcome, given all the renewable energy deployment problems observed since 2019, is some modification to the schedule for renewable energy deployment. 

Opponents who demand that the request for the hearing consistent with PSL 66-P be denied suggests that they are not confident that renewable energy programs can provide safe and adequate electricity.  Given that there has never been a feasibility analysis confirming that the schedule and ambition of the Climate Act are possible and the fact that no jurisdiction has successfully implemented an electric system totally consistent with the Climate Act should be red flags.  Don’t forget that the Climate Act was passed during the 2019 budget process without the opportunity for the public to weigh in.  It is long past time that New Yorkers are given a complete accounting of what will be needed, what it will cost and how it will risk safe and adequate energy supply.  I naively hope that if there is a hearing that those issues will be addressed for the renewable energy system.

Conclusion

Opponents of the petition to hold a hearing to consider whether the Renewable Energy Program can provide safe, adequate, and affordable energy do not have strong arguments against holding a hearing.  I also believe that they oppose the hearing so much because they know that their support of the Program cannot be defended.  Finally, a hearing would expose the impacts of the Climate Act to many New Yorkers who are unaware of it.  I think those are three good reasons to hold the hearing.

PSL 66-P Safety Valve Stakeholder Process

New York Public Service Law (PSL) § 66-p establishes a renewable energy program for the Climate Act and includes a safety valve provision.  Yesterday I provided a status update that provides extensive background information.  In this post I describe the Independent Intervenor filing on April 16, 2026 that explained why the PSL 66-P stakeholder process must be changed from what was used in the Scoping Plan and the State Energy Plan.   

I am convinced that implementation of the Climate Act net-zero mandates will do more harm than good if the future electric system relies only on wind, solar, and energy storage because of reliability and affordability risks.  I have followed the Climate Act since it was first proposed, submitted comments on the Climate Act implementation plan, and have written nearly 650 articles about New York’s net-zero transition.  The opinions expressed in this article do not reflect the position of any of my previous employers or any other organization I have been associated with, these comments are mine alone.

Background

New York Public Service Law (PSL) § 66-p establishes a renewable energy program for the Climate Act.  It  provides that 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”.  This safety valve was included because even the lawmakers realized that it may not be possible to transition the electric system to “zero-emissions” by relying on renewable energy.  New York State never followed up with a feasibility study proving that it could be done, never pointed to another jurisdiction that implemented such a system successfully, and has not provided clear and comprehensive cost estimates. 

I have joined Richard Ellenbogen, Constantine Kontogiannis, and Francis Menton (“Independent Intervenors”) submitting comments in a few Public Service Commission proceedings.  I am a retired utility meteorologist, with extensive electric energy and environmental regulatory analysis experience.   Ellenbogen is an electrical engineer who is President of Allied Converters where he has pioneered how “green” manufacturing can work.  Constantine Kontogiannis is an engineer who has decades of experience providing energy consulting services.  Menton is a retired lawyer and now writes articles on his Manhattan Contrarian blog that analyze New York’s energy transition.  We have no financial interest in the Climate Act have received no funding from any outside interests, and have invested thousands of hours of our time in our efforts to explain why physics, engineering and economics prevent a Renewable Energy Program that powers a safe, adequate, and affordable electric system in New York State.

The Problem

At one time or other all the Independent Intervenors have submitted comments in proceedings that were ignored.  That prompted us to make this filing recommendation for a stakeholder process that meaningfully assures New Yorkers that all technical issues have been addressed.

New York’s Climate Act Scoping Plan and the 2025 State Energy Plan were both sold as products of robust “stakeholder engagement.” My experience participating in both processes suggests something very different: carefully choreographed exercises designed to check the stakeholder box without ever putting core assumptions, modeling, or policy direction at risk.

The Climate Act Scoping Plan was supposed to be built on a transparent public process that clarified feasibility, affordability, and reliability concerns. Instead, the stakeholder phase functioned more as a one‑way comment intake system with no meaningful response‑to‑comments record and no evidence that critical technical input affected the final product.

The 2025 Draft State Energy Plan was billed as a “comprehensive roadmap” developed with extensive stakeholder input. The actual process closely mirrored the Scoping Plan experience: scripted hearings, limited opportunities for real dialogue, no systematic response to comments, and no acknowledgment of stakeholder concerns reflected by revisions in the Plan.  I submitted formal comments on the stakeholder process that explained how the lack of any commitment to a response‑to‑comments document strip the process of credibility. As an example of a material problem that the State ignored, consider the Draft Energy Plan Air Quality Health Benefits Analysis Shortcomings article that showed flaws in the analytical methods and assumptions that were treated as obstacles rather than inputs to improve the Plan.

Our experience with comments in the Scoping Plan and Energy plan show a consistent pattern that we attempted to address in this filing:

  • Stakeholder engagement is emphasized in the marketing materials but minimized in the actual decision‑making.
  • Critical technical comments on feasibility, modeling, costs, and health benefits analysis are accepted but not addressed transparently.
  • Final documents move forward as if consensus exists, when in fact substantial unresolved issues were raised in the record.

Stakeholder Process Comments

On April 17, we submitted comments arguing that the PSC must establish a revised stakeholder process for any PSL § 66-p(4) hearing that is designed to develop a usable factual record on the statutory standards in the law. The requested process should replace prior stakeholder approaches for the Climate Act Scoping Plan and the New York State Energy Plan that relied primarily on broad public participation without a structured mechanism to identify, test, and resolve disputed technical issues bearing on reliability, system adequacy, affordability-related arrears, and consistency with existing obligations.

Specifically, we stated that the Commission should order the following process steps:

  1. A notice opening an initial comment period that gives all stakeholders a meaningful opportunity to identify issues relevant to the statutory findings required by PSL § 66-p(4).
  2. At the conclusion of the comment period, Commission Staff should prepare an issue list that categorizes and prioritizes the comments received into major technical subjects, including reliability, resource adequacy, transmission readiness, contract and compliance obligations, arrears and disconnections, and definitions of safe, adequate, and affordable service.
  3. The documentation should identify opposing positions on each material issue so that participants and Staff can see where there is consensus, where there is factual disagreement, and where methodological disagreements require focused review.
  4. The schedule must provide sufficient time for written comments, reply comments, and preparation of supporting technical materials so that the record is not limited to conclusory assertions.
  5. One or more technical conferences should be convened at which both sides of disputed issues are presented in a structured manner, with sufficient time for questions from Staff and stakeholders.
  6. A dedicated conference session addressing the meaning of “safe,” “adequate,” and “affordable” service should also be included, because those terms are central to the Commission’s statutory findings and need common definitions before competing analyses can be compared.
  7. A post-conference report prepared by Staff that summarizes the issues raised, the competing positions presented, the areas of agreement and disagreement, and explains how those discussions inform the Commission’s determination under PSL § 66-p(4).
  8. This information would enable the Commission to determine if it is necessary to temporarily suspend or modify obligations under the Renewable Energy Program.

Basis for the Petition

PSL § 66-p(4) does not authorize a policy-only exercise; it requires the Commission to conduct a hearing and make findings on whether the renewable energy program impedes safe and adequate electric service, is likely to impair existing obligations and agreements, or is related to significant increases in arrears or service disconnections. Those subjects turn on technical evidence, analytical assumptions, and transparent evaluation of conflicting claims, so the stakeholder process must be designed to identify and test those issues rather than obscure them.

New York State’s prior stakeholder processes in related planning exercises did not provide an adequate mechanism to acknowledge and resolve technical objections raised in comments. As a result, parties could submit technical concerns, but there was no reliable process to classify disputed issues, identify contrary positions, and explain how unresolved disagreements affected the final conclusions.

A revised process is also consistent with the statute’s structure. Section 66-p(2) requires the Commission to consider impacts on safe and adequate electric service under reasonably foreseeable conditions when establishing the renewable energy program, and Section 66-p(4) provides a hearing mechanism to suspend or modify obligations if the program later impedes safe and adequate service or triggers other statutory concerns.

Because both provisions depend on technically supportable judgments, the Commission should adopt a stakeholder framework that is structured enough to support findings pursuant to Public Service Law § 20, the statutory standard for Commission hearings, including contested matters and proceedings where the Commission is required to make findings on the record under Section 20 hearing standards and eventual Commission action.

Proposed Process Elements
We recommended the following process components.

Open Comment Period
The first step should be an open comment period that allows any stakeholder to identify issues relevant to the PSL § 66-p(4) standards. That period should be long enough to permit submission of technical analyses, not merely summary statements, because the statutory questions involve complex electric system and affordability matters.

Staff Issue List and Prioritization
After the initial comments, Staff should prepare a public issue list that groups submissions into discrete categories and ranks them by their significance to the statutory findings. This step would focus the proceeding on the issues that matter most to whether the renewable energy program is compatible with safe and adequate electric service and related legal obligations.

Opposing Positions
For each major issue, the process should identify the principal opposing positions and the key factual or methodological disputes separating them. Doing so would prevent a one-sided workshop format and would ensure that the record clearly distinguishes contested assertions from uncontested facts.

Technical Conferences
The Commission should convene technical conferences devoted to the prioritized issues, with balanced presentation of opposing analyses and active questioning by Staff. This format would better align the proceedings with the statute’s hearing purpose by creating an organized record on disputed technical issues instead of a generalized policy conversation.

Definitions Session
A separate session should address the definitions of safe, adequate, and affordable service. Without agreed or at least clearly stated definitions, parties may use those terms inconsistently, making it difficult for the Commission to determine whether the statutory thresholds in PSL § 66-p(4) have been met.

Staff Report
At the close of the technical conferences, Staff should issue a report that documents the issues discussed, the competing positions, the evidence relied upon, and the way those discussions bear on the statutory findings the Commission must make. That report would improve transparency and help ensure that final Commission determinations are traceable to the actual record developed in the proceedings.

Rationale
The proposed process is necessary because technical comments are useful only if the proceeding has a structure that can evaluate them and explain their effect on the ultimate decision. A revised process that classifies issues, identifies competing positions, allows time for technical support, and produces a documented record would materially improve the Commission’s ability to decide whether the renewable energy program impedes safe and adequate electric service within the meaning of PSL § 66-p(4).

The process would also provide a fairer and more credible framework for all participants. Supporters and critics of the renewable energy program would each have an opportunity to present their best technical case, respond to contrary analyses, and create a record that the Commission can use for findings that are legally and factually defensible.


Proposed Ordering Clauses
Our filing requested that the Commission issue an order:

Establishing a revised stakeholder process for any PSL § 66-p(4) hearing consistent with the process elements described above.

Directing Department of Public Service Staff to develop and publish a categorized and prioritized issue list based on stakeholder comments.

Requiring the identification of opposing positions on disputed technical issues material to the statutory standards in PSL § 66-p(4).

Scheduling technical conferences with adequate time for written submissions, replies, and conference presentations.

Including a dedicated session on the definitions of safe, adequate, and affordable electric service for purposes of the hearing record.

Requiring a post-conference Staff report that explains how the record developed through the stakeholder process informs the Commission’s determination whether the renewable energy program should be suspended or modified under PSL § 66-p(4).

Conclusion
New York’s climate and energy policy choices are too consequential to be based on engagement promises. Genuine stakeholder processes require open discussion of trade offs, clear documentation of how comments are handled, and a willingness to adjust course when the evidence points in a different direction. If a PSL 66-P hearing follows the approaches used in the Scoping Plan and Energy Plan, then all the arguments for a hearing will have been in vain.

PSL 66-P Safety Valve Status Update

This post summarizes the status of the Coalition for Safe and Reliable Energy petition with the Public Service Commission (PSC) requesting that “the Commission act expeditiously to hold a hearing pursuant to Public Service Law § 66-p (4) to evaluate whether to temporarily suspend or modify the obligations under the Renewable Energy Program established as part of the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act.”  On January 28, 2026, the New York State Public Service Commission issued a notice soliciting comments regarding a petition for a hearing to suspend or temporarily modify the Renewable Energy Program.  This week I am going to publish posts about this because comments are due on May 1.  I debated whether to include this material in a longer post but opted to go for a short post.  This provides background for the forthcoming articles and includes a reminder to submit a comment.

I am convinced that implementation of the Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act) net-zero mandates will do more harm than good if the future electric system relies only on wind, solar, and energy storage because of reliability and affordability risks.  I have followed the Climate Act since it was first proposed, submitted comments on the Climate Act implementation plan, and have written nearly 650 articles about New York’s net-zero transition.  The opinions expressed in this article do not reflect the position of any of my previous employers or any other organization I have been associated with, these comments are mine alone.  I acknowledge the use of Perplexity AI to generate an outline and references included in this document. 

Overview

New York Public Service Law (PSL) § 66-p establishes a renewable energy program for the Climate Act.  It  provides that 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”.  This safety valve was included because even the lawmakers realized that it may not be possible to transition the electric system to “zero-emissions” by relying on renewable energy.  New York State never followed up with a feasibility study proving that it could be done, never pointed to another jurisdiction that implemented such a system successfully, and has not provided clear and comprehensive cost estimates.  Conducting a hearing is a commonsense reality check.

In March Rory Christian, Chair and CEO of the Public Service Commission posted a brief status update regarding the Commission’s ability to make changes to the Climate Act.  He explained that they can only make changes to the electric sector targets established in the Public Service Law section of the Climate Act.  Although he did not explicitly mention PSL 66-P there is no question the electric sector targets in that law is what he is referring to.  I believe he was trying to placate Climate Act proponents who have been claiming that the petition somehow would temporarily suspend or modify all the obligations of the Climate Act.  That is simply not the case.

Filings and Background Information

I have been advocating for the use of the PSL §66‑p safety valve for a long time because of my concerns about relying on wind and solar resources as the backbone of the electric system.  The following blog posts describe my recommendations and the filings chronicle submittals and PSC notices.

Comments

I am impressed by the ability of green energy advocates to mobilize members in their organizations to submit form letters.  On April 27, 2026 alone for Case Number 22-M-0149 402 comments were submitted and nearly all were similar to the following:

Dear PSC Commissioners,

I urge the Public Service Commission (PSC) to reject the petition filed by the Coalition for Safe and Reliable Energy, which would improve neither safety nor reliability, and would instead raise utility costs by deepening New York’s reliance on expensive and volatile fossil fuels. With the cost of oil and gas skyrocketing as a result of the U.S. war on Iran, this is not the time for New York to be considering rollbacks to our renewable energy targets.

I urge the PSC to remain committed to the goals of the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA) and the Clean Energy Standard.  Temporarily modifying or suspending the clean energy mandates in the CLCPA will not benefit New Yorkers and is entirely unnecessary to maintain a reliable electric grid. In fact, any further investments in the fossil fuel economy will have a negative financial impact on New Yorkers. Costs of energy in New York are driven by the price of fossil fuels, which are highly volatile and affected by events outside of the control of New York, such as the invasion of the Ukraine by Russia and the U.S. war on Iran. Sticking to fossil fuels means unpredictable, unaffordable bills for New Yorkers. Renewable energy – which requires no fuel – offers predictable costs which makes families less vulnerable to energy price shocks.  Renewable energy is a long-term cost-saving strategy that will promote affordability and protect New York utility customers from the impacts of volatile fossil fuel prices. I urge the PSC to reject the unsupported request to hold a hearing to consider temporarily modifying or suspending the renewable energy and zero-emission energy goals.

In my opinion, this comment is long on emotion and opinion and sadly lacking in understanding of the electric system.  The claim that renewable energy is a long-term cost savings strategy is simply wrong.  The only reference to reliability is a throwaway comment that ignores all the concerns that have been raised by the New York State Independent System Operator.

In my next post I will describe the Independent Intervenor filing on April 16, 2026 that explained why the PSL 66-P stakeholder process must be changed from what was used in the Scoping Plan and the State Energy Plan.  In those cases, it seemed that the State valued the number of comments rather than the quality of the comments to support the plans.  I believe the State needs to respond to all comments and resolve all issues raised.  A subsequent post will use this form letter as an example of how all comments should be addressed.

Comment Submittal Instructions

I encourage you to submit comments supporting the petition because the hearing is a commonsense reality check  Comments were originally due on March 30 but the deadline has been delayed to May 1 at 4:30 PM EDT.  Instructions to submit a comment are included at the end of this post.

If you have not done so already, please follow these instructions to submit a comment.

  1. There are two cases.  Either go to this link at the Department of Public Service website:  https://documents.dps.ny.gov/public/Comments/PublicComments.aspx?MatterCaseNo=15-E-0302  or this link https://documents.dps.ny.gov/public/Comments/PublicComments.aspx?MatterCaseNo=22-M-0149   E-0302 is a huge proceeding so going to M-0149 will be faster.
  2. Enter your name, address, and email address.
  3. Copy and paste the following message into the comments field
  4. Click the “I understand…” box and the “I’m not a robot” Captcha box
  5. Wait until the Captcha completes and Click  Post Comment 
  6. That’s it. You’re done!

Here is a suggestion for a comment to paste.

I support the Coalition for Safe and Reliable Energy’s petition requesting that the Commission hold a hearing pursuant to Public Service Law (PSL) Section 66-p(4) to evaluate whether to temporarily suspend or modify the targets or provisions under the Renewable Energy Program established as part of the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA).

The law includes an explicit safety valve for reliability and affordability, conditioned on a hearing and the Coalition petition correctly invokes this mechanism.  There is credible reliability and arrears evidence that triggers the safety valve provisions.  Granting the hearing would implement, not undermine, the CLCPA by ensuring that its Renewable Energy Program is administered in a manner consistent with safe, adequate, and affordable electric service.

Calling Questions “Climate Denial” Won’t Keep the Lights On

On February 26, 2026 the Hochul Administration “leaked” a New York Energy Research & Development Authority (NYSERDA) memo that said that “full compliance with New York’s 2019 Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act could cost upstate households more than $4,000 a year – on top of what they are already paying today”. On March 5, 2026, a group of 29 New York Democratic state senators responded with a letter (“Democratic Letter”) to Governor Hochul saying they “categorically oppose any effort to roll back New York’s nation leading climate law” and urging Hochul to “stand strong in the face of misinformation” about affordability.  The letter insists that any pushback on the Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act) amounts to “climate denial” and that only their “bold” agenda will save New Yorkers money, clean the air, and protect a livable climate for our grandchildren. That framing gets the politics right, but the facts are wrong.

I am convinced that implementation of the Climate Act net-zero mandates will do more harm than good if the future electric system relies only on wind, solar, and energy storage because of reliability and affordability risks.  I have followed the Climate Act since it was first proposed, submitted comments on the Climate Act implementation plan, and have written over 600 articles about New York’s net-zero transition.  The opinions expressed in this article do not reflect the position of any of my previous employers or any other organization I have been associated with, these comments are mine alone.

Overview

The Climate Act established a New York “Net Zero” target (85% reduction in GHG emissions and 15% offset of emissions) by 2050.  It includes an interim reduction target of a 40% GHG reduction by 2030. Two targets address the electric sector: 70% of the electricity must come from renewable energy by 2030 and all electricity must be generated by “zero-emissions” resources by 2040. The Climate Action Council (CAC) was responsible for approving the Scoping Plan prepared by New York State Energy Research & Development Authority (NYSERDA) that outlined how to “achieve the State’s bold clean energy and climate agenda.” NYSERDA also prepared the recent State Energy Plan that was approved by Energy Planning Board (EPB).  Both the CAC and the EPB were composed of political appointees . 

I am not a climate denier.  The climate is always changing, and greenhouse gases affect climate, but the authors of the Democratic Letter do not acknowledge that climate uncertainty, natural variability, or observational constraints call for a realistic response. . I spent my 50-year career as an air pollution meteorologist working with real emissions, real regulations, and real power plants. The most disappointing aspect of the letter is that there is no recognition that as Dr. Matthew Wielcki has said  “energy is not merely an input to the economy, but the foundation of human flourishing”.  The question before New York is not whether climate change exists, but whether the package of mandates in the Climate Act is feasible, affordable, and effective. When it comes to those practical issues, the facts don’t sit well with the people throwing around the “denier” accusation.

Costs

Start with costs. When the Climate Act was passed, there was no honest, front‑end feasibility and cost analysis. Only after the targets were locked into law did agencies begin publishing scenarios showing the scale of spending required. Those scenarios all assume massive expansion of the electric grid, rapid electrification of heating and transportation, and large‑scale deployment of wind, solar, and batteries. None of this comes free. We are already seeing rising bills, growing arrears, and households struggling with basic energy costs, even before the most aggressive requirements take hold.

These lawmakers do not understand that NYSERDA’s cost estimates for the Climate Act Scoping Plan and the State Energy Plan are built on modeling choices that systematically understate the burden on New Yorkers: they embed Climate Act programs inside opaque “system” totals, use a “No Action” baseline that already includes other greenhouse‑gas policies, and present small percentage changes instead of the several‑hundred‑dollar‑per‑month increases that households will actually face. 

For example, the NYSERDA memo notes “absent changes, by 2031” that “Upstate oil and natural gas households would see costs in excess of $4,000 a year”.  I believe that these costs are underestimated.  Using State Energy Plan December 2025 data I determined costs to buy the equipment to meet the Climate Act household mandates for an Upstate New York moderate income household that uses natural gas for heat.  NYSERDA’s Affordability Analysis Overview Fact Sheet claims that the use of new, efficient equipment can cut energy spending by $100 to over $300 per month, but those estimates do not include the costs of equipment.  When equipment costs are included, the difference in monthly energy costs and levelized equipment costs between replacement with conventional equipment and electrification equipment consistent with Climate Act goals is $594 a month or $7,200 per year. For the only scenario where NYSERDA included equipment costs sum of those costs and those in the NYSERDA memo total compliance costs are $11,200 a year.

If these policies truly “saved New Yorkers money,” we would not need to hide behind slogans and carefully worded “average household savings” claims that depend on subsidies and optimistic modeling assumptions. We would see transparent accounting of rate impacts, program costs, and who pays when things go wrong. Instead, we get talking points and attacks on anyone who asks for a balance sheet.

Pollution

The pollution story is similarly oversold. New York dramatically cleaned up its air decades ago. We now live in one of the cleanest air basins in the country by traditional criteria pollutants. Additional greenhouse gas reductions here may be desirable, but they do not magically translate into big local health improvements when we are already near the floor. On climate itself, New York’s emissions are a tiny fraction of the global total. Even if we somehow hit every target in the Climate Act on time, the effect on global temperature would be too small to measure.

That does not mean “do nothing.” It does mean we should stop pretending that blowing up our energy system on an unrealistic timeline is a gift to the world’s climate and will have sufficient societal co-benefits to offset the actual costs. New York can and should reduce emissions, but it must do so in ways that maintain reliability, preserve affordability, and respect the limits of what one state can accomplish.

Reliability

The biggest gap in the “bold policy” rhetoric is reliability. A livable climate for our children and grandchildren does not include routine blackouts, shuttered industries, and a grid that fails under stress. Yet the very same politicians who decry “denial” are remarkably casual about the technical challenge of running a winter‑peaking system in a cold climate on weather‑dependent generation backed by storage that does not yet exist at the necessary scale.

Many lawmakers do not understand the electric system and advocate for a flexible electric grid.  They don’t understand that the electric system must be built around reliability during peak demand because that is when it is needed the most.  That is why utilities must invest so much in preparation for peak times.   While that adds to costs it  is also why ratepayers are assured power is always available.

The Climate Act proposes a weather-dependent electric system.  We already know what happens when extended periods of low wind and sun line up with high demand. Europe has experienced it and this winter’s weather showed what will happen in New York when there is a dark doldrum period where both wind and solar underperform for days. NYISO data clearly shows that the January 24-27 snowstorm caused both the utility-scale and rooftop solar resources to go to essentially zero on January 25th at the height of the storm.  The subsequent period of cold weather prevented melting of the snow covered panels through the end of the month.  On January 31, the winds tailed off and the total renewable energy resources only provided 2% of the total energy.  The current plans still have no proven, affordable solution for these worst‑case conditions, even as dispatchable fossil units are pushed toward early retirement. That is not bold; it is reckless.

Discussion

Calling anyone who raises these concerns a “denier” is a way of avoiding the hard work of fixing the plan. It flips reality on its head. The truly irresponsible position is to insist that the laws of politics can overrule the laws of physics and economics, and to dismiss the engineers, grid operators, and analysts who point out the contradictions.

New Yorkers deserve better than this false choice between blind faith in an untested transition and caricatures of anyone who dissents. A responsible path forward would:

  • Admit that the current schedule and mandates are not aligned with demonstrated technology and cost.
  • Use existing safety‑valve and review provisions to pause, reevaluate, and correct course where needed.
  • Prioritize reliability and affordability as co‑equal goals with emissions reduction, not afterthoughts.
  • Be honest about New York’s tiny share of global emissions and focus on scalable innovations that others might actually adopt.

You can call that pragmatism, skepticism, or just basic due diligence. What it is not, under any honest definition, is “climate denial.” If New York’s climate agenda is as strong as its supporters claim, it should be able to survive tough questions from people who pay the bills and rely on the grid. If it cannot, the problem is not the questions.

NYSERDA Climate Act Cost Estimate Bombshell

Rebecca Lewis has posted two City and State articles that found that the Hochul Administration recognizes that the  Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act) is so expensive that the Governor will propose changes to the Climate Act to reduce the costly clean energy transition. 

In the first article she explains that state budget director Blake Washington described the cost burdens of the green energy requirements on average New Yorkers as “own goals” at the Citizens Budget Commission breakfast on 2/25/26.  This apparently precipitated an update on the “likely costs of CLCPA compliance” documented in a memo dated Feb. 26 that Lewis notes “lays out average costs to New Yorkers by 2031 under a hypothetical cap-and-invest system that would be necessary to meet the emissions benchmarks laid out in the Climate Act.”  This memo references my work that suggests that even these costs are underestimated.

I am convinced that implementation of the Climate Act net-zero mandates will do more harm than good if the future electric system relies only on wind, solar, and energy storage because of reliability and affordability risks.  I have followed the Climate Act since it was first proposed, submitted comments on the Climate Act implementation plan, and have written over 600 articles about New York’s net-zero transition.  The opinions expressed in this article do not reflect the position of any of my previous employers or any other organization I have been associated with, these comments are mine alone.

Overview

The Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act) established a New York “Net Zero” target (85% reduction in GHG emissions and 15% offset of emissions) by 2050.  Among its interim 2030 targets is a reduction target of 40% less GHG emissions and a 70% renewable energy electricity mandate. 

My recent article describing current Climate Act issues described some of the issues raised.  I explained that there are significant Climate Act issues that can no longer be ignored.  Most targets are behind schedule, and the increased costs of the Climate Act will exacerbate the existing energy affordability crisis.  DEC needs to respond to the New York Cap-and-Invest (NYCI) economy wide emission reduction initiative requirements and will have to eventually respond to the litigation saying that the State must implement the regulations or amend the law.  PSC must also address the safety valve provisions of Publc Service Law 66-P. 

These latest revelations are nothing more than acknowledgement of reality.

Budget Director Remarks

In the first article, Lewis describes remarks made by Hochul’s Budget Director at the Citizens Budget Commission breakfast on 2/25/26.  Her article states:

Blake Washington called the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act “well-intentioned,” but said circumstances had changed since former Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed the law in 2019. “Sometimes you can change governmental rules to just fit the times and actually adapt to the realities, the realities before us, not how we wish them to be,” Washington said. He added that the estimated average cost to New Yorkers of the energy transition under current rules comes to roughly $3,000, a number the governor finds “unacceptable.”

Lewis noted:

Speaking to City & State after the CBC breakfast, Washington said state officials must have “honest conversations” about the goals currently in place the state must meet. “It’s important that we highlight the inequities that are before us,” Washington said. “If you were to follow the current law … follow the goals, you’re looking at upwards of $1.90 extra at the pump, which is not something the governor’s willing to tolerate.”

Washington strongly implied the governor wants to include changes to the climate law as part of the budget, though he stopped short of stating so explicitly and didn’t say when she would release her proposal. The executive chamber didn’t include the potential policy reforms as part of Hochul’s 30-day budget amendments, which are typically where a governor introduces new items they wish to negotiate. 

Clearly, the Hochul administration is going to do something regarding the Climate Act.

NYSERDA Cost Memo

In the second article Lewis described the contents of a NYSERDA memo from President and CEO of the New York State Energy Research & Development Authority Doreen Harris to Jackie Bray, Director of State Operations.  This appears to update some of the numbers that Washington quoted the day before.  Lewis notes also that Hochul commented on the cost issues in an unrelated press conference at the same time the memo was released.

Gov. Kathy Hochul suggested on Thursday that the cost of fully complying to the state’s climate law could cost average New Yorkers up to $3,500 each. A new memo shared with City & State from the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority places the estimated cost for upstate gas and oil households even higher. 

Lewis also notes that the memo emphasizes affordability concerns:

“If fully implemented with regulations to meet the 2030 targets, CLCPA’s original design – differing accounting standards from the internationally-accepted approach and inflexible near-term targets – would combine to yield high costs to New York households and businesses,” the memo reads. “Addressing this cost escalation is essential to deliver a policy that supports affordability and economic competitiveness and is necessary to ensure continued progress on decarbonization policy.”

She explains the ramifications and hints that there will be changes in the law:

“If fully implemented with regulations to meet the 2030 targets, CLCPA’s original design – differing accounting standards from the internationally-accepted approach and inflexible near-term targets – would combine to yield high costs to New York households and businesses,” the memo reads. “Addressing this cost escalation is essential to deliver a policy that supports affordability and economic competitiveness and is necessary to ensure continued progress on decarbonization policy.”

I was particularly interested in the cost impacts described.

Absent changes, by 2031, the impact of CLCPA on the price of gasoline could reach or exceed $2.23/gallon on top of current prices at that time; the cost for an MMBtu of natural gas $16.96; and comparable increases to other fuels. Upstate oil and natural gas households would see costs in excess of $4,000 a year and New York City natural gas households could anticipate annual gross costs of $2,300. Only a portion of these costs could be offset by current policy design.

The assumptions are not available.  However, the memo states “The estimated allowance price would begin in the neighborhood of $120/ton and rise to $179.80/ton by 2031 in real terms.”  I believe that the analysis assumes that NYCI is implemented such that the modeling forces compliance with the 2030 emission reduction target by not putting limits on the cost of allowances. (As an aside, that presumption assumes that high allowance prices will force emission reductions which is a stretch and topic for another post.)

The memo concludes

Current CLCPA targets escalate costs for New Yorkers as a result of a combination of factors. Primarily, the greenhouse gas accounting approach incorporated in statute and regulation, in combination with current emission reduction targets, mean that current law attributes higher emissions to New York than other leading jurisdictions do for the same activity, as well as higher emissions than under accepted science. This includes emissions from out-of-state fossil fuel production, which is not incorporated in jurisdictional inventories by the IPCC; attributing to bioenergy its combustion emissions and thus ignoring the treatment of the short carbon cycle by scientists and the IPCC; and the use of Global Warming Potential 20 (GWP-20), which the IPCC states is not standard practice in the scientific community and doesn’t comport with the Paris Agreement Rulebook. In addition, the targets as adopted in 2019 could not have foreseen the substantial reversal in the federal policy landscape, the disruptive and lingering impacts of COVID-19 and the subsequent supply chain crisis, the return of an inflationary economy, and the influence of geopolitical events on energy costs generally.

All this is fodder for arguments that Hochul will apparently use to claim that the Climate Act must be modified because of the expected costs.

NYSERDA Cost Underestimates

As high as these numbers are, I believe that the admitted costs in the memo are underestimated.  The State Energy Plan December 2025 Energy Affordability Data Annex spreadsheet (Annex Spreadsheet)  and the Energy Affordability Impacts Analysis (Impact Analysis) document provide the supporting documentation for the Fact Sheet. Using that data I compared costs for an Upstate New York moderate income household that uses natural gas for heat for replacement with conventional equipment and electrification equipment consistent with Climate Act goals.  The difference in monthly energy costs and levelized equipment costs necessary to comply with the Climate Act would be $594 a month greater as shown in Table 1. Details of the table contents are available here.  I believe that the cost of Climate Act compliance is the difference between replacement of conventional equipment and the highly efficient electrification equipment.  Row 10 shows this difference.  It lists the $594 increase in costs necessary for Climate Act compliance.  On an annual basis this is about $7,200.

Table 1: Upstate New York Moderate Income Household That Uses Natural Gas for Heat Projected Monthly Costs and Costs Necessary to Comply with the Climate Act

The articles and memo cost estimates are inconsistent with my evaluated cost of $7,200 per household.  Budget Director Davidson said that “the estimated average cost to New Yorkers of the energy transition under current rules comes to roughly $3,000.”  Lewis says that Gov. Kathy Hochul suggested that “the cost of fully complying to the state’s climate law could cost average New Yorkers up to $3,500 each.”  The memo states “Upstate oil and natural gas households would see costs in excess of $4,000 a year and New York City natural gas households could anticipate annual gross costs of $2,300.”  My costs are by household and the other numbers may be by person or household so that is a confounding factor.

A Perplexity AI search of the “entire Energy Affordability Impacts Analysis section of the adopted 2025 Energy Plan confirms zero mentions of cap-and-invest, carbon pricing, allowance costs, or the Clean Air Initiative anywhere in the affordability chapter.”  This means that my estimate of Climate Act costs do not include the cap-and-invest costs described in the NYSERDA memo.  For the Upstate natural gas household in the NYSERDA State Energy Plan analysis that included the costs of equipment necessary for Climate Act compliance the costs would be $11,200 a year.

Discussion

NYSERDA has never been upfront about Climate Act costs.  The NYSERDA CLCPA costs estimates use a “no action” baseline that excludes programs in place before the CLCPA was enacted but are necessary to achieve the CLCPA mandates.  That means that their analyses underestimate the costs of compliance even more than described here.  I described this misleading approach used in the State Energy Plan here and here.

Lewis described the initial response from the ideologues who unequivocally support Climate Act implementation:

Washington’s new comments also drew immediate condemnation from climate activists, who have criticized Hochul for delays in releasing key climate regulations and her willingness to expand natural gas use. Liz Moran, New York policy advocate for Earthjustice, said targeting the climate law isn’t the way to address the real utility squeeze residents are feeling. “The main driver of those increases is the cost of gas and gas pipes – not our climate law,” she said in a statement. “Failing to address gas as the problem is the actual ‘own goal.’ With the federal government decimating science-based climate protections every day, now is not the time for New York to do the same to our nation-leading climate law.”

With regards to the memo Lewis noted an even more unhinged response:

Environmental advocates immediately blasted the memo. Justin Balik, Evergreen Action’s vice president for states, said rather than running away from clean energy, Hochul should expand initiatives and programs she has already deployed, and seek opportunities for innovative clean energy solutions. “The answer here is, again, leaning into clean energy and not buying into some of these false claims from the fossil fuel community and the business lobby that somehow renewables are why people’s bills are going up,” Balik said. “And it’s troubling that those assertions are being entertained by the state right now.”

Most troubling to me is this Democratic lawmaker’s response:

“Yes we can address climate change, reduce costs for ratepayers, increase generation and create tens of thousands of good-pay jobs in the process,” state Sen. Pete Harckham, chair of the Senate Environmental Conservation Committee, said in a statement. “What we need is the political courage to do so.”

This is so wrong on so many levels that it beggars the mind.

Conclusion

Richard Ellenbogen summed this up well when he told me: “When you try to execute policies that defy physical law, costs are going to spiral out of control which is what has happened.  He concluded that “The entire CLCPA is fatally flawed, and that’s what you get when you turn energy planning over to ideologues with no knowledge of energy systems or economics.”

I have been advocating for an implementation pause for months.  Clearly the PSC must conduct a hearing to suspend or temporarily modify the Renewable Energy Program in Public Service Law 66-P.

Reasons to Hold a PSL 66-P Hearing – Transmission Needs

On 1/28/26 the Public Service Commission (PSC) issued a notice soliciting comments regarding the Coalition for Safe and Reliable Energy petition.  This post describes issues related to transmission planning that I think impede the Public Service law 66-P provision for safe and adequate service.  I will submit comments arguing  that these findings obligate the PSC to hold a public hearing to determine if these transmission issues impede safe and adequate service.

I am convinced that implementation of the New York Climate Act net-zero mandates will do more harm than good if the future electric system relies only on wind, solar, and energy storage because of reliability and affordability risks.  I have followed the Climate Act since it was first proposed, submitted comments on the Climate Act implementation plan, and have written over 600 articles about New York’s net-zero transition.  The opinions expressed in this article do not reflect the position of any of my previous employers or any other organization I have been associated with, these comments are mine alone. 

Background

There is a fundamental Climate Act implementation issue.  Clearly there are bounds on what New York State ratepayers can afford and there are reliability risk limits for a system reliant on weather-dependent resources.  The problem is that there are imprecise criteria for acceptable affordability bounds or reliability limits.

Proponents of the Climate Act argue that the transition strategies in the law must be implemented to meet the net-zero mandates regardless of affordability or reliability constraints because it is the law.  However, they do not acknowledge that Public Service Law (PSL) Section 66-P, Establishment of a Renewable Energy Program, is also a law. PSL 66-P requires the Commission to establish a program to ensure the State meets the 2030 and 2040 Climate Act obligations but includes bounds.  PSL 66-P (4) states: “The commission may temporarily suspend or modify the obligations under such program provided that the commission, after conducting a hearing as provided in section twenty of this chapter, makes a finding that the program impedes the provision of safe and adequate electric service; the program is likely to impair existing obligations and agreements; and/or that there is a significant increase in arrears or service disconnections that the commission determines is related to the program”. 

Two petitions have been filed calling for such a hearing.  On 8/12/25 the Independent Intervenors filing argued that there were affordability and reliability issues and that there was an explicit requirement for the hearing because the customers in arrears threshold has been exceeded.  The Coalition for Safe and Reliable Energy filing on 1/6/26 made a persuasive argument that there are sufficient observed threats to reliability that a hearing is necessary to ensure safe and adequate service.  On 1/28/26 the Public Service Commission issued a notice soliciting comments regarding the Coalition for Safe and Reliable Energy petition which are due on 3/30/26.

Onshore Transmission Requirements

A  grid relying on wind and solar cannot be implemented without significant transmission upgrades.  The New York Independent System Operator (NYISO) has noted that New York’s Climate Act renewable energy projects depend heavily on transmission because “most new renewable capacity is being built where the wind, sun, and land are available, not where the loads are, and the existing grid cannot move that energy to the major demand centers without large curtailments and reliability problems.” 

NYISO noted that dependence on a few critical transmission projects has risks. The 2024 RNA Report notes that the base case assumes timely completion of Champlain Hudson Power Express (CHPE) and Clean Path NY (CPNY) by 2027-2028.  The status of these projects could impede safe and adequate service.

CHPE is in late-stage construction and the developer is still targeting an in-service date of May 2026.  CHPE is a 1,250 MW HVDC line delivering clean hydropower into Astoria, New York City.  The contracted delivery is on the order of 10.4 TWh per year, corresponding to a high assumed capacity factor (around 95%) and 1,250 MW of firm capacity sales.  Hydro‑Québec has stated that deliveries will be split roughly half in winter and half in summer (10.4 TWh total, 5.2 TWh per season), with an incentive to use the full line capability.  ​However, the Hydro‑Québec bid “includes summer‑only unforced delivery rights,” with “no specific delivery obligations during the winter peak.”  NYISO’s Short‑Term Reliability Process Report states that while CHPE is expected to contribute to reliability in the summer, “the facility is not expected to provide any capacity in the winter.”  The future of energy availability on this transmission line is foreshadowed by the New England Clean Energy Connect (NECEC) HVDC line that had been energized only about a week when the January 23-27 winter storm hit. Power flows from Québec to New England from this line and others largely collapsed during the cold snap.

At least it will be operating in the summer.  The Clean Path New York project has been terminated.  It was initially selected and approved as part of the Tier 4 program in Case 15‑E‑0302 (Order Approving Contracts for the Purchase and Sale of Tier 4 Renewable Energy Credits, issued April 14, 2022. The associated 178‑mile HVDC transmission facility from Delhi to Queens was advanced in Case 22‑T‑0558, Application of NYPA and Clean Path New York LLC for a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Need.  NYSERDA and the Clean Path NY developers (NYPA plus the Forward Power JV of energyRe and Invenergy) “mutually agreed to terminate” the Tier 4 REC Purchase and Sale Agreement in late November 2024.  The termination reflected cost escalation after the original 2021 award; developers sought higher subsidies, but the state declined, leading to cancellation of the underpinning contract for the 175‑mile, ~1,300 MW HVDC line and associated renewables.  NYPA later sought Priority Transmission Project (PTP) designation for the ‘Clean Path Transmission Project’ in Case 20‑E‑0197; but the Commission denied that petition in its Order Denying Petition (issued August 14, 2025).  The PSC denied NYPA’s petition because the project did not meet criteria for PTP designation, in part because NYISO studies showed relatively low projected utilization compared with CHPE and concern about ratepayer cost recovery for a line whose major flows might not materialize for decades.

The NYISO 2025 Power Trends report transmission section states that without major transmission (CHPE, CPNY) project completion that NYC reliability margins will become deficient which could impede safe and adequate electric service.  The PSC must address in a heating whether the transmission line status will impede the ability to provide safe and adequate service.

Offshore Transmission Requirements

The Climate Act includes a requirement for 9,000 MW of offshore wind by 2035.  According to a Perplexity AI query response: “New York’s offshore wind transmission situation is defined by two contrasting realities: the projects already under construction are advancing their dedicated transmission lines despite federal disruptions, while the broader coordinated transmission planning effort for future projects has been shelved due to the Trump administration’s hostility toward offshore wind.”

There are two transmission lines under construction.

Empire Wind 1 (810 MW), developed by Equinor, is the first offshore wind project that will deliver power directly into New York City.  As of late 2025, export cable installation was actively underway. Equinor reported that trenching, cable-laying, and cable pulling were ongoing on the outer continental shelf, and the export cable was brought onshore in 2025. The onshore substation at SBMT was under construction with transformer delivery completed in early 2025. An offshore substation was scheduled for installation in early 2026. The project was approximately 60% complete as of late December 2025 when the Trump administration issued a stop-work order suspending the lease. A federal judge issued a temporary injunction in January 2026 allowing construction to resume while the legal case proceeds. Empire Wind aims to deliver first electricity by late 2026 and reach commercial operation by 2027.

Sunrise Wind (924 MW), developed by Ørsted, is the first U.S. offshore wind project to use High Voltage Direct Current (HVDC) transmission, which reduces the number of cables needed and improves efficiency.  As of December 2025, onshore transmission work — including the converter station and duct bank — was over 90% complete. Offshore, the export cable was being tunneled through the surf zone (at 11–60 ft deep), with nearshore installation to follow. Approximately 44 of 84 monopile foundations were installed, and the HVDC offshore substation arrived from Norway and was installed in September 2025. Like Empire Wind, Sunrise Wind’s lease was suspended by the Interior Department on December 22, 2025. A federal judge cleared the project to resume construction in early February 2026. The project is expected to be completed and operational in 2027.

Additional transmission would be needed to service the remaining 9,000 MW of mandated offshore wind.  This was supposed to be provided by the NYC Public Policy Transmission Need (PPTN) program. 

In June 2023, the PSC identified a Public Policy Requirement for new transmission facilities to deliver at least 4,770 MW — and up to 8 GW — of offshore wind energy into New York City by 2033. The NYISO launched a solicitation in April 2024 and received 28 proposals from four developers, with estimated costs ranging from $7.9 billion to $23.9 billion.

On July 17, 2025, the PSC voted to withdraw the PPTN determination, effectively cancelling the process. The Commission stated it could not responsibly commit ratepayers to billions in transmission costs when the federal government had halted offshore wind permitting and leasing, making it impossible to predict when new generation projects would move forward. PSC Chair Rory Christian emphasized that this was about timing and ratepayer protection, not abandoning offshore wind, stating “it is a matter of when, and not whether, offshore wind generation projects will move forward”.

The PSC must address in a heating whether these decisions about offshore wind will impede the ability to provide safe and adequate service.

Conclusion

The NYISO 2025 Power Trends conclusion states that there is a risk that cumulative factors (retirements, electrification, delays) will create reliability metric violations.  It is clear from the transmission status described here that there will be a lack of sufficient transmission to get the wind and solar energy from where it is collected to where it is needed to achieve the Climate Act schedule.  This will create reliability metric violations that are incompatible with safe and adequate electric service. In my comments on the petition request, I will argue that the PSC should hold a PSL 66-P hearing to determine whether to temporarily suspend or modify the obligations of the Renewable Energy Program is therefore appropriate.

NYISO Climate Act Concerns

I was recently asked to give a briefing about Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act) issues. While preparing my presentation I used Perplexity AI to generate a review of the New York Independent System Operator’s (NYISO) concerns with the Climate Act.  This article provides background documentation based on the response to that query.

I am convinced that implementation of the New York Climate Act net-zero mandates will do more harm than good if the future electric system relies only on wind, solar, and energy storage because of reliability and affordability risks.  I have followed the Climate Act since it was first proposed, submitted comments on the Climate Act implementation plan, and have written over 600 articles about New York’s net-zero transition.  The opinions expressed in this article do not reflect the position of any of my previous employers or any other organization I have been associated with, these comments are mine alone.

Overview

The Climate Act established a New York “Net Zero” target (85% reduction in GHG emissions and 15% offset of emissions) by 2050.  Among its interim targets is a 2030 70% renewable energy electricity mandate and a 2040 zero emissions requirement that are of particular concern to the NYISO.

I prepared a power point presentation for the briefing with supporting documentation that discussed Climate Act issues that need to be addressed.  The New York’s Legislative annual session revolves around  enacting the state’s April 1 budget.  The budget is an executive‑budget model which means that the Governor can stick in policy legislation like the Climate Act.  In my last post I described issues that the legislature should address this session.  This article describes concerns that the NYISO has with the Climate Act that supports my belief that the Public Service Commission (PSC) should conduct a hearing to consider suspending or modifying the obligations of the Climate Act because there are observed threats to reliability that threaten safe and adequate service.

Perplexity Summary

I used Perplexity AI to generate the following summaries of NYISO concerns.

Tightening reliability margins and resource adequacy

NYISO’s long‑term reliability and resource adequacy studies show that reserve margins are thinning as fossil units retire faster than new, firm replacement capacity and transmission arrive.

They point to:

  • A net loss of dispatchable capacity since the CLCPA was passed: several gigawatts of fossil capacity have retired while additions are largely intermittent renewables and limited-duration storage.
  • Projections in their Comprehensive Reliability Plan (CRP) and Reliability Needs Assessments that show:
    • Declining reliability margins in New York City and downstate.
    • Potential statewide shortfalls later in the 2020s/early 2030s if retirements continue at the current pace and clean resources, storage, and transmission are delayed.
  • Concern that the system is increasingly reliant on emergency procedures (demand response, voltage reductions, etc.) to meet resource adequacy criteria on peak days, which is not a sustainable operating strategy.

In short, CLCPA‑driven retirements and environmental constraints (e.g., peaker rule) are moving faster than the build‑out of firm, deliverable alternatives, tightening margins to what NYISO characterizes as “concerning” levels.

Coordination of fossil retirements with new entry

NYISO has repeatedly emphasized that fossil generator retirements must be carefully coordinated with the timing and performance of new resources:

  • They support the CLCPA recommendation to “retire fossil resources gradually and safely,” but warn that mandatory retirement schedules or environmental rules that force large blocks of capacity off the system by fixed dates, without assured replacement, can create reliability violations.
  • In New York City in particular, they highlight that:
    • Peaker rule and other environmental closures remove capacity that is both local and fast‑responding.
    • Replacement capacity must satisfy local transmission security and deliverability constraints, not just nameplate MW.
  • NYISO worries that policy and permitting processes affecting existing plants are often decided without a concrete, tested replacement portfolio in place, leaving them to fill gaps reactively through backstop reliability arrangements.

Their concern is not simply “don’t retire fossil,” but “do not retire fossil faster than the system can absorb given actual, not theoretical, replacements.”

Dependence on a few critical transmission projects

CLCPA strategies assume large amounts of new clean generation, including upstate renewables and Canadian hydro, will be deliverable to downstate load via specific major transmission projects. NYISO’s reliability plans highlight:

  • Heavy reliance on timely completion of projects like Champlain Hudson Power Express (CHPE) and other major bulk upgrades.
  • Findings that, without these projects in service on schedule, New York City’s reliability margins become extremely small or turn deficient for much of the 10‑year planning horizon.
  • Concern that delays or cancellations of such projects (or of offshore wind transmission solutions) leave the state with policy commitments that cannot be supported by the physical grid.

So one core concern is that the CLCPA architecture implicitly assumes a best‑case transmission build‑out path; NYISO’s studies are essentially saying, “If those assumptions slip, reliability breaks.”

Operational challenges from high levels of intermittent renewables

NYISO accepts that the CLCPA implies a massive increase in weather‑dependent resources, but highlights that:

  • High penetrations of wind and solar increase uncertainty in net load forecasts, requiring:
    • More operating reserves.
    • New reserve products (e.g., “uncertainty” or “dynamic” reserves) to cover forecast error and fast ramps.
  • Studies of high‑renewables scenarios show:
    • Substantial increases in required installed reserve margins to maintain the same loss‑of‑load expectation.
    • Need for significant quantities of flexible, fast‑ramping resources, including storage and responsive demand, to manage multi‑hour ramps and multi‑day low‑renewables events.
  • The system will be more exposed to extreme weather—heat waves and cold snaps—at the same time that dispatchable fossil capacity is reduced, increasing the risk that the system crosses a “tipping point” where it cannot serve load during stress events.

In other words, the CLCPA’s heavy reliance on intermittent resources forces a fundamental redesign of operating reserve and capacity constructs; NYISO’s concern is that policy timelines assume this redesign and the necessary resources will be ready and deliverable in time.

Need for “firm, zero‑emissions” and long‑duration solutions (technology gap)

NYISO has started to stress that, to meet CLCPA’s 2040 zero‑emissions grid requirement while staying reliable, New York will need:

  • Significant quantities of “firm, zero‑emission” capacity (e.g., hydrogen‑capable turbines, advanced nuclear, long‑duration storage, carbon capture, or other technologies that can run through multi‑day renewable droughts).
  • Far more total installed capacity by 2040 than today—often characterized as roughly three times current capacity—once electrification (buildings, transport, industry) and higher reserve needs are included.

Their concern is that:

  • The CLCPA and Scoping Plan implicitly assume large volumes of such technologies will be available, cost‑effective, and sited in New York by 2040, but there is no clear, concrete procurement or market framework yet that ensures they appear.
  • Current market designs and state programs are heavily tuned to 20‑year REC‑backed wind and solar, not to capital‑intensive firm resources with different risk profiles.

So NYISO is effectively warning of a technology and market design gap between what CLCPA requires in the 2030s–2040s and what is actually under contract or in queues today.

Documentation for NYISO Issues

The Perplexity AI response to my concerns of NYISO about Climate Act goals also generated a spreadsheet table of specific issues that lists the Issue Area, NYISO Document, Specific NYISO Finding/Concern, CLCPA Statutory Provision, CAC Scoping Plan Assumption/Strategy, Gap/Disconnect, and Talking Point for identified problems.  The following sections describe the NYISO documents that address specific NYISO findings and concerns listed in the spreadsheet.

NYISO has identified issues with resource adequacy associated with declining margins in multiple reports.  The 2025 Power Trends noted that there has been a net loss of 2,041 MW since the Climate Act was enacted (4,315 MW retired, 2,274 MW added).  The Executive Summary in the 2024 Reliability Needs Assessment (RNA) Report explains that statewide resource margins are declining so fast that by 2034 there will be no surplus power without further development.  The 2025 Q3 Short-Term Assessment of Reliability (STAR) Report identified a New York City (NYC) Zone J reliability need beginning in summer 2027 that requires peaker units that have been scheduled for retirement to be retained.

The timing of fossil retirements vs new entry timing is also an NYISO concern.  The 2025 Power Trends document noted that fossil retirements are outpacing new supply additions since 2021.

The 2024 RNA Report notes that the NYC reliability need in 2033 is driven by faster generator retirements than replacement resource development.  The 2025 Q3 STAR Report noted that the NYC Peaker Rule that forces retirement by 2027-2029 is impossible unless local replacement resources are developed.

NYISO also noted that dependence on a few critical transmission projects has risks. The 2024 RNA Report notes that the base case assumes timely completion of Champlain Hudson Power Express (CHPE) and Clean Path NY (CPNY) by 2027-2028.  The 2025 Power Trends report transmission section states that without major transmission (CHPE, CPNY) project completion that NYC reliability margins will become deficient.  The NYISO submitted comments on the Scoping Plan also noted that there will be a heavy dependence on specific transmission projects that may not get built as scheduled.

NYISO has raised intermittency and operating reserves concerns.  The 2024 RNA Report resource adequacy study explains that a high penetration of intermittent renewables requires new reserve products.  The 2025 Power Trends includes an intermittency discussion that notes that wind/solar variability will increase reserve requirements and ramp capability needs.  The

NYISO Uncertainty Reserve Requirement filing defines FERC approved Uncertainty Reserve Requirement for the forecast error from renewables.

There is a clear need for a new dispatchable emissions free resource (DEFR).  NYISO has addressed this requirement in its reports.  The 2024 RNA Report, scenarios analysis states that meeting 2040 zero-emissions requires “firm zero-emission” resources not yet identified. 

The 2025 Power Trends describes this technology gap explaining that the grid needs three times current capacity by 2040 with electrification and higher reserve margins.  NYISO comments on the Scoping Plan also described the technology gap stating that long-duration storage, hydrogen, advanced nuclear are not yet commercial at scale.

New York electric load is increasing and will increase more as Climate Act electrification programs progress.  NYISO addressed load trends in several reports.  The 2025 Power Trends, load forecast section notes that large loads (data centers  and semiconductors) will add 2,567 MW demand by 2035.  The 2024 RNA Report includes large loads assumptions that predict peak demand growth accelerating due to electrification and economic development.  The 2025 Load & Capacity Data Report aka Gold Book load forecast notes that load forecast uncertainty is higher than historical due to policy-driven electrification driven by the Climate Act.

New York City presents special challenges to the grid and for the Climate Act mandates.  NYISO found in the 2025 Q3 STAR Report, Zone J findings that the Zone J (NYC) summer 2027 reliability need is driven by load growth and retirements.  The 2024 RNA Report discussion of

NYC reliability needs 2033 found that the reliability need requires compensatory MW because there are limited local alternatives.  The 2025 Q2 STAR Report Peaker Rule analysis notes that the DEC Peaker Rule removes capacity exactly when NYC needs an increase.  This means that NYISO must delay the rule’s retirement dates.

The NYISO has also noted that there are market design and investment signals that affect their response to the Climate Act mandates.  The 2025 Power Trends, market design section explains that State procurement (ORECs, Tier 1 RECs) policies reduces market price signals. 

NYISO FERC filings on the capacity market notes that capacity market suppression from state-contracted resources undermines flexibility value. 

The political manipulation of the electric market mandated by the Climate Act creates issues with planning process coordination.  The NYISO comments on the Scoping Plan noted that the

State’s Climate Act Policy planning (NYSERDA Integration Analysis) uses different assumptions than NYISO reliability planning.  The 2024 RNA Report planning assumptions notes the lack of alignment between the Scoping Plan scenarios and NYISO base case reliability studies.

The Climate Act and Department of Environmental Conservation interpretation of it have eliminated the backlog of new fossil generating units. As a result the fossil fleet is aging.  The 2025 Power Trends notes that 11% of 2024 energy production is from generators greater than 50 years old.  The existing fleet analysis in the 2024 RNA Report states that 10,000+ MW (25% of total capacity) has been in operation  greater than 50 years.

There are risks related to the implementation pace required to meet the arbitrary Climate Act targets.  The 2024 RNA Report Executive Summary notes the narrowing margins driven by statewide resource shortfalls and the rapid change pace.  The 2025 Power Trends conclusion states that there is a risk that cumulative factors (retirements, electrification, delays) will create reliability metric violations.

The NYSERDA projections do not incorporate the reliability requirements that the NYISO must address.  The 2024 RNA Report capacity accreditation description notes that the NYSERDA Climate Act analyses focus on energy (MWh) but NYISO projections must ensure resource adequacy (MW capacity available).  The 2025 Power Trends description of reliability margin metrics notes that Intermittent resources have low capacity value and the NYISO must account for reliability contribution

Discussion

Please excuse the structure of this document.  If I had time, I would have combined the two sections into a single referenced description of NYISO concerns.

This article is intended to be a resource documenting NYISO concerns with Climate Act implementation.  It demonstrates that there are real problems that Climate Act apologists ignore..  Per Public Service Law 66-P two petitions have been filed calling for a hearing that stated that NYISO’s concerns are persuasive arguments that there are sufficient observed threats to reliability that a hearing is necessary to ensure safe and adequate service.  On 1/28/26 the Public Service Commission issued a notice soliciting comments regarding the Coalition for Safe and Reliable Energy petition.  Comments on the Coalition petition are due on 3/30/26.  This information will be useful to document the NYISO concerns.

Conclusion

These concerns about electric system reliability and resource adequacy are another indication that it is time to demand that the PSC conduct a hearing to consider suspending or modifying the obligations of the Climate Act by submitting comments on the Coalition petition.