Category: Climate Act

Energy Plan Board Meeting Misleading Information – Climate Change Impacts are Here

I recently wrote an article about the claim that renewable energy can reduce costs in the presentation by Jeff Freedman from the Atmospheric Sciences Research Center, University at Albany at the Energy Planning Board on March 3, 2025.  I concluded that the claim is based on hope not evidence.  Dr. Freedman’s presentation also included slides that support the Hochul Administration narrative that Greenhouse Gases (GHG) are the cause of the observed increases in global temperature and that the impacts of that warming are evident today.  This article explains why I disagree with those claims in Freedman’s presentation.

I am convinced that implementation of the New York 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 over 500 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.

Energy Plan Overview

According to the New York State Energy Plan website (Accessed 3/16/25):

The State Energy Plan is a comprehensive roadmap to build a clean, resilient, and affordable energy system for all New Yorkers. The Plan provides broad program and policy development direction to guide energy-related decision-making in the public and private sectors within New York State.

The current Plan was initially published in 2015, and updated in 2020, when it was amended to align with the objectives of the 2019 Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (Climate Act). Since the last update, the Climate Action Council produced its Scoping Plan, examining many of the energy issues that contribute to climate change and offering recommendations that are currently being implemented by the State.

On September 9, 2024, the Hochul Administration initiated the State Energy Plan process to update the Plan consistent with the Climate Act.  The goal of the planning process is to “map the state’s energy future by showing how the state can ensure adequate supplies of power, reduce demand through new technologies and energy efficiency, preserve the environment, reduce dependence on imported gas and oil, stimulate economic growth, and preserve the individual welfare of New York citizens and energy users.” The major question that must be addressed is whether the Hochul Administration will use the energy planning process as an opportunity to consider the advice of stakeholders in its stakeholder process or just an obligation with no attempt to meaningfully engage with any comments inconsistent with the narrative.

If the March 3 meeting is any indication, then the Energy Plan will be another political show extolling the virtues of the Climate Act and ignoring anything inconsistent with the political narrative.  In other words, it looks just like the Scoping Plan process.  Many of the appointees to the Climate Action Council chosen to approve the Scoping Plan were chosen because of their position within the Hochul Administration or political connections and not their technical expertise.  One feature of the Scoping Plan process was the New York State Energy Research & Development Authority (NYSERDA) strict adherence to the political narrative rather than full disclosure of inconsistent issues.  This article addresses several arguments made in the NYSERDA presentation by Freedman that misled the Energy Planning Board members.

Narrative Support

Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act Section 1. Legislative findings and declaration, subsection 3 defines the narrative:

Action undertaken by New York to reduce greenhouse emissions will have an impact on global greenhouse gas emissions and the rate of climate change. In addition, such action will encourage other jurisdictions to implement complementary greenhouse gas reduction strategies and provide an example of how such strategies can be implemented. It will also advance the development of green technologies and sustainable practices within the private sector, which can have far-reaching impacts such as a reduction in the cost of renewable energy components, and the creation of jobs and tax revenues in New York.

The  presentation slides for the March 3 meeting included Freedman’s Key Findings slide that support this narrative.   The first finding says that “Climate change is already constraining some sources of energy supply and stressing transmission and distribution infrastructure through extreme heat, changes in precipitation, and increasing storm intensity”.  The implication is that reducing GHG emissions in New York will affect the rate of climate change which they claim has already become evident.  The second finding that “Patterns of energy demand are shifting due to climate change and are expected to continue evolving over the coming decades” explicitly states that impacts are observable.

These findings were presented to the Energy Planning Boad as unequivocal statements of fact.  In reality, there is significant uncertainty that should be considered in the draft Energy Plan.

Comparison of CO2 and Global Temperature

The common basis of the threat of climate change caused by human emissions of GHG is the graph comparing the concentration of CO2 and global temperatures that was included in Freedman’s presentation.  There is no question that increasing the concentration of GHG in the atmosphere will reduce the out-going long wave radiation which will warm the atmosphere, and the graph shows a correlation.  However, the conclusion that reducing New York’s GHG will affect global temperatures and the alleged weather impacts given the small contribution to the global concentration is unwarranted.

Esteemed climate scientist Richard Lindzen describes the energy budget in context:

The energy budget of this system involves the absorption and re-emission of about 200 watts per square meter. Doubling CO2 involves a 2% perturbation to this budget. So do minor changes in clouds and other features, and such changes are common. In this complex multifactor system, what is the likelihood of the climate (which, itself, consists in many variables and not just globally averaged temperature anomaly) is controlled by this 2% perturbation in a single variable?

Lindzen points out that believing this is “pretty close to believing in magic”.  Nonetheless, Freedman presents the graph of CO2 concentration and global temperature without any mention of the shortcomings and complexities of the climate system.

My point is that this is not as obvious a relationship as claimed.  Sabine Hossenfelder produces You Tube videos on science and technology.  Her climate change-related videos generally adhere to the narrative, but she has shown signs of waking up to reality. Peter Ridd commented on her awakening noting that she does not quite get there.  I call your attention to Ridd’s commentary where he talks about uncertainties about how the earth’s weather system works. Especially relevant to Freedman’s graphic is Ridd’s explanation of temperature and CO2 concentrations going further back in time than Freedman’s graph.  Ridd points out in the following graph that temperatures were higher many times in the last 10,000 years at the same time that CO2 concentrations were lower.  That directly contradicts the notion that global temperature is primarily driven by anthropogenic CO2 concentrations.

Climate vs. Weather

Freedman perpetuates the Climate Act myth that climate change is increasing extreme heat, changes in precipitation, and increasing storm intensity with a graph that shows increasing storm events in New York from 2001 to 2024.  In general, climate is what you expect, and weather is what you get.  To determine what you expect from climate, meteorologists use a 30-year climatological average.  Therefore, to have a climate trend you need to look at the difference between two 30-year averages at a minimum.  Freedman’s graph is a weather average trend unsuitable for making any climate trends claims.

After I drafted this article Anthony Watts summed up my problems with claims that climate change is an existential threat in a post entitled “Is Climate Change Real? Short Answer: Yes — But It’s Complicated.”  I published an article that quoted the article with my annotated comments relating the points he made to the Climate Act.  I highly recommend reading that aartilce.

Basis for Narrative Claims

Expert presentations designed to promote the Climate Act narrative to an audience such as the Energy Planning Board often cite the results of modeling.  In this instance there is a slide that describes the “effects of climate change on renewable energy distribution in New York State” based on “results from high-resolution dynamic downscaling”.  Sounds very scientific and above reproach.

The grid size for CMIP5 (Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5) climate models typically ranges between 125 km to 300 km.  This is too coarse for predicting the impacts of climate change on New York so higher-resolution regional models have been used in projects sponsored by NYSERDA to project impacts.  This process is called dynamical downscaling.  Unmentioned are the errors and inherited biases in the process from the Global Climate Models (GCM) for the following:

  • Temperature trends: Persistent warm/cold biases in coastal and inland regions, exacerbated by future GCM projections exceeding historical maxima.
  • Precipitation patterns: Systematic underestimation of seasonal rainfall in regions like the Caribbean and Southern Africa.
  • Extreme events: Misrepresentation of high-frequency, low-intensity rainfall (“drizzle problem”) due to GCM limitations.

I think that those issues underestimate the problems because the fact is the GCM projections do not include the physics of clouds.  The problem is that coarse grid size cannot incorporate precipitation or extreme events.  This is not to say that the models don’t predict storms, just keep in mind that they are little more than guesses strongly influenced by the biases of the modelers. 

There are structural RCM limitations that introduce their own errors despite higher grid size resolution:

  • Simplified physics: Inadequate representation of convective processes and local interactions (e.g., lake effects).
  • Scale mismatches: Difficulty resolving sub-grid features even at 10–50 km resolutions.
  • Computational constraints: Limited ability to run multiple GCM-RCM combinations, reducing uncertainty sampling.

Those limitations are relevant to the purported New York results.  For five months of the year much of Upstate weather is strongly influenced by the Great Lakes.  Convective processes and local interactions like lake effect are erroneous in the RCM because the scale of the lake effects is smaller than the resolution of the models.  I have been working with weather models and Upstate mesoscale weather regimes for decades and I am positive that the model projections are poor at best.   Combined with the fact that the projections use a totally unrealistic estimate of future emissions (the RCP 8.5 scenario), I do not believe the results presented have any value. 

Discussion

NYSERDA scripted the presentation to the Energy Board so that it was completely consistent with the narrative that climate change impacts are occurring today.  I recently showed that the uncertainty of the historical temperature measurements is similar to the alleged temperature increase due to GHG emissions.  This post explains that the claimed trend in storm events is not a climatic trend because the time range is too short, and that the model projections of weather have limited value. As a result, the Energy Planning Board came away from the meeting erroneously believing that the effects of climate change are occurring now and that reducing New York GHG emissions will reduce those impacts.

This is not in the best interests of New York.  The New York energy plan is supposed to be a roadmap for a “clean, resilient, and affordable energy system for all New Yorkers.”   There are conflicting priorities and challenges for those three goals.  The State Energy Planning Board should be given all the information so that they can “focus on strategies to meet future energy needs and advance economy-wide decarbonization, while balancing reliability, affordability, environmental and public health impacts and economic growth.”  The presentation did not give any of the qualifying information about uncertainties, so it gave the Board a false basis for evaluating the Climate Act approach and schedule.

The basic strategy for decarbonizing the economy is electrification of all sectors.  Authors of the Climate Act believed that no new technology was needed for the transition of the electric sector to “zero emissions” using wind, solar, and hydro.  All the organizations responsible for electric system reliability agree that a new dispatchable, emissions-free resource is necessary for extended periods of low wind and solar resource availability so that presumption is wrong.  That means that the schedule must be adjusted to account for the necessity to develop, test, and deploy this new technology. 

 A primary driver for the Climate Act schedule was the perceived necessity to do something immediately because the effects of climate change are evident now.  As shown here, that argument is not supported when temperature trend uncertainty is considered, long-term trends of weather events are evaluated, and the weaknesses of global climate models are acknowledged.  Those results do not necessarily mean that it is inappropriate to do something, but the results do mean that the claims we must act immediately are unwarranted.  We have time to do this right.  I think that is a primary concept that should be incorporated into the Energy Plan.

Conclusion

I am disappointed that NYSERDA has become so politicized.  The NYSERDA presentation by Dr. Freedman gave the Energy Planning Board misleading information about the threat of climate change and the need to act immediately.  It is becoming increasingly evident that there are so many unanticipated issues associated with the Climate Act implementation that a pause to re-evaluate the schedule and goals is in order.  If NYSERDA documentation had not been politicized the Scoping Plan could have included caveats and achievement milestones to provide an off-ramp to a Plan B that is clearly necessary.  As it stands now, admitting delays and unavailable technologies will be a political embarrassment.  However, it is necessary to ensure that reliability, affordability, environmental and public health impacts, and economic growth goals can be achieved.

Grifters Follow the Money

A recent letter to the editor of the Syracuse Post Standard Focus on economic benefits of NY’s renewable energy projects is the subject of this post.  I am very frustrated with the New York Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act) net zero transition because claims made by the supporters are so misleading that it beggars my mind that editors publish the letters.  The reality is that there are so many issues coming up with the schedule and ambition of the Climate Act that it is obvious that we need to pause implementation and figure out how best to proceed.

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 500 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. The Climate Action Council (CAC) was responsible for preparing the Scoping Plan that outlined how to “achieve the State’s bold clean energy and climate agenda.”  After a year-long review, the Scoping Plan was finalized at the end of 2022.  Since then, the State has been trying to implement the Scoping Plan recommendations through regulations, proceedings, and legislation. 

Letter to the Editor

The following letter was written by Marguerite Wells from Ithaca, NY. 

Keeping an open mind is one of the hardest things to do. With a constant stream of social media, information and communication, we can develop opinions and stances that are very hard to change.

When I first entered New York’s renewable energy conversation as a farmer in Central New York, my focus was on protecting air and water quality and not relying on foreign sources for our energy. While these goals are admirable, it was harder to answer the more personal questions, “How does this help me, my farm, and my family?” I wasn’t the only one asking that question.

When you hear of a solar or wind farm being proposed near you, it’s fair to ask, “How will this help me?”

While these projects will contribute to our statewide energy transition, those who most stand to benefit are the towns and landowners who host these projects.

It isn’t just about climate goals. It is about the deli down the street getting more customers during and after construction. It is about towns receiving funds to fix the roads, or build a new park. It is about our children’s public school receiving millions from tax agreements from these private companies. Projects such as Morris Ridge Solar, New York’s largest solar farm, will pay $1.6 million in direct community payments each year, according to public data. This is an example of how these types of investments bring real, tangible benefits to local communities.

As a farmer, I was also drawn to the fact that these projects help preserve agricultural land. Rather than being permanently lost to real estate development, developing wind and solar can offer a lifeline to our family farms, providing them with new revenue, and helping keep farmland in the family for future generations.

Skepticism is good. Questions are good. Preconceived notions that don’t allow you to hear the facts are not.

Whether you’re a farmer, a town official, an everyday citizen or a skeptic, I invite you to continue this conversation. Join us at the 21st Annual Symposium on Energy on April 4 at the SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry in Syracuse. Learn more at energy21symposium.org.

Marguerite Wells

Ithaca

Comments

Faced with incessant media messaging that the green energy transition is necessary and will save the planet keeping an open mind is indeed difficult.  Here is one aspect of the issue not pursued by the mass media. Robert Bryce describes the IRA lobbying frenzy currently underway in Washington:

The late economist Milton Friedman famously declared that “nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program.”

Friedman’s line comes to mind because a lobbying frenzy is underway in Washington, DC. Some of the city’s most powerful special interests are working to prevent a repeal or reduction of the lavish energy-related tax credits in the Inflation Reduction Act. No lobby group is working harder than the American Clean Power Association.

Why is the ACPA pushing so hard? The answer is simple: Its members have collected tens of billions of dollars in federal subsidies, loans, and loan guarantees over the past few years to install solar energy, wind energy, batteries, and other forms of alt-energy, and they don’t want that geyser of federal money to stop.

In the face of mounting evidence that the Climate Act net-zero transition is not going according to plan and should be paused for a re-assessment, New York’s green energy special interests are also pushing hard.  This letter is an example.

When I read the letter, my impression was that the author was a farmer who was only interested in the renewable energy conversation.  Her name was somewhat familiar, but it was not until I read an announcement for the New Yorkers for Clean Power April Renewables Supporters Speaker Series agenda for “Insights on Onshore Wind” that I made the connection.  The announcement said that Marguerite Wellswas an expert in onshore wind energy development and policy and she is the Executive Director at the Alliance for Clean Energy New York (ACE NY).  ACE NY mission is “to promote the use of clean, renewable electricity technologies and energy efficiency in New York state, in order to increase energy diversity and security, boost economic development, improve public health, and reduce air pollution.” My first observation is that readers deserve to know that Wells is not just a farmer but has more than a passing personal interest in the renewable energy transition.

Her association with ACE NY biases the letter contents.  Advocates like Wells invariably repeat the talking point that green energy will protect air and water quality while decreasing reliance on foreign sources for our energy. Russ Schussler compiled a document that addresses many green energy talking points.  He explains that claiming that green energy is environmentally neutral ignores the adverse impacts of renewable energy development. New York has not updated the environmental assessment of the cumulative impacts for the projected onshore wind, offshore wind, solar, and energy storage resources projected by the State in the Scoping Plan completed at the end of 2022.  The Final Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement (SGEIS) on the proposed Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act was accepted in September 2020.  Since then, the projections for renewable resources have increased.  The Scoping Plan projects 830 additional 3 MW onshore wind turbines, 439 additional 18 MW offshore wind turbines, and over 100 million 350-watt solar panels compared to the SGEIS. There also were no projections for energy storage or Dispatchable Emissions-Free Resources that the Scoping Plan has determined are necessary for a zero-emissions electric generating system.  The Scoping Plan considered life-cycle impacts of fossil fuels but ignored the adverse impacts related to their operation and disposal of wind and solar components.  Recycling is challenging to impossible for the large structural components and also the scarce resources needed for energy conversion.

Another point that this letter ignores is the magnitude of the resources necessary and the resulting sprawl across New York.  The New York State Office of Renewable Energy Siting and Electric Transmission (ORES) and the Department of Public Service (DPS) have a new interactive map of solar and wind project siting status.  Here are the total capacity and the land covered by existing renewable energy sprawl.

The Scoping Plan’s Integration Analysis (IA) included three scenarios that projected future resources necessary (Strategic Use of Low-Carbon Fuels, Accelerated Transition from Combustion, and Beyond 85% Reduction) and the New York Independent System Operator made two projections too.  The number of acres required for those resources shown below is staggering.

According to Wells the development of wind and solar resources “bring real, tangible benefits to local communities” and help preserve agricultural land.  Wells mentions that the Morris Ridge Solar will pay $1.6 million in direct community payments each year and notes that rental payments “can offer a lifeline to our family farms, providing them with new revenue”.  One of the unintended consequences of extensive solar development is that it affects the viability of farmers that must rent land for their operations.  An agronomist and environmental planner in western New York explained that the problem is that farmers are now competing with solar developers who are paid direct and indirect subsidies that enable them to offer land owners up to ten times the current agricultural annual lease rates.   This raises the concern that farmers will not have enough available farmland to support the investment they have made in facilities, livestock, or equipment.  Furthermore, claims that these projects will support the agricultural economy overall is simply wrong.  It will reduce farm jobs when farmers rent their land rather than farm so economic activity may be improved during construction but once the facility is operational there are very few economic benefits to essential local businesses.

Wells claims that wind and solar development will “help preserve agricultural land”.  She does not mention that the New York state utility-scale solar siting program does not ensure responsible solar siting that protects agricultural land.  I have documented some of the issues with solar siting.  For example, the Department of Agriculture and Markets (“Department”) has a solar project siting goal “to limit the conversion of agricultural areas within the Project Areas, to no more than 10% of soils classified by the Department’s NYS Agricultural Land Classification soil groups 1-4, generally Prime Farmland soils, which represent the State’s most productive farmland.”  Undoubtedly due to lobbying pressure, the Department has submitted comments raising the issue when solar projects apply for permits but no application has been modified when the limit is exceeded.  The Morris Ridge Solar project is the biggest project in the state, and they did not convert any prime farmland so it can be done.  The Prime Farmland Scorecard at my solar issues page lists 35 solar projects and only 12 meet the Department goal and the average over all projects is 18%.  The total prime farmland converted to solar factories is 10,952 acres.

In her closing arguments she says that skepticism and questions are good, but “preconceived notions that don’t allow you to hear the facts are not.”  This leads up to an invitation to “continue this conversation at the 21st Annual Symposium on Energy in the 21st Century on April 4 at the SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry in Syracuse. This annual gathering of the grifters of the green energy scam is an example of the many ways that green energy can pay out.  I am familiar with examples of symposiums on issues of the day that provided the organizer with enough money to forgo full-time work.  I have little doubts that this symposium is any different.

Worse these purveyors of doom and gloom who claim it can be solved with their green energy solutions are a real danger to society.  Bryce provides two relevant reasons related to the Federal programs that are also applicable to New York:

First and foremost, the ITC and PTC are, to use the title of Meredith Angwin’s excellent 2020 book, shorting the grid. The massive subsidies for weather-dependent forms of generation are distorting electricity markets and contributing to the premature closure of the thermal plants needed to assure the affordability, reliability, and resilience of our electric grid.

Second, these subsidies are fueling the landscape-wrecking, bird-and-bat killing, property-value-destroying energy sprawl that comes with the expansion of Big Solar and Big Wind. They are also fueling the insane expansion of offshore wind energy into the known habitat of the critically endangered North Atlantic Right Whale and other marine mammals.

Conclusion

The Scoping Plan and all the proposed green energy programs are crimes against physics.  The energy density of wind and solar energy is too low and the resource intermittency too variable so that no electric system relying on those resources for most of its energy can ever hope to provide reliable electricity.  If this reality is not acknowledged soon and these policies paused, then the enormous costs of this futile gesture to control the climate will bankrupt the state. 

Despite all the evidence that this can never work, the Hochul Administration continues to push the Climate Act, supporters like Wells continue to get misleading opinions published, and people flock to meetings to congratulate each other on their virtuous plans.  I believe that ultimately the reason for the continuing support is the money.  For every advocate motivated to save the planet for selfless reasons, there is someone whose primary motivation is cashing in on the scam.

There is No Existential Threat from Climate Change

Anthony Watts has summed up my problems with claims that climate change is an existential threat in a post entitled “Is Climate Change Real? Short Answer: Yes — But It’s Complicated.”  This post reproduces the article with my annotated comments.

I am convinced that implementation of the New York 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 over 500 articles about New York’s net-zero transition.  I also am an air pollution meteorologist with bachelor and master of science degrees in meteorology and was a Certified Consulting Meteorologist before I retired with nearly 50 years of experience. 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.  The Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act Section 1. Legislative findings and declaration, subsection 3 defines the alleged threat and goal: “Action undertaken by New York to reduce greenhouse emissions will have an impact on global greenhouse gas emissions and the rate of climate change.”  I have tried to argue against this point many times, but I think Watts has provided a concise well-documented case that the basic premise that New York can have an effect on the rate of climate change is misplaced.

Is Climate Change Real?

Anthony Watts prepared the post addressing this question because he gets asked this a lot.  His response to the question shows that New York does not need to rush to comply with the aspirational Climate Act schedule and targets set by politicians during the always rushed and hectic New York budget process.  Watts provides a simple primer that makes five key points.  Note that all the bold passages in the following quotes were highlighted by Watts.

1. The Basics: Climate Does Change

His first point cuts to the nub of the problem.  Climate change is real and is always occurring.  That makes it easy for everyone to have an impression that the climate isn’t what it used to be.

First, let’s be clear — climate change is real in the literal sense. The Earth’s climate has been changing for billions of years. We have geological records showing periods that were much warmer (like the Eocene, with crocodiles in the Arctic), and much colder (like the Ice Ages that covered North America in glaciers).

Even more recently, we have the Holocene Climate Optimum, significantly warmer than present day:

Watts explains that there is a nuance to the fact that the climate is changing.  Those nuances are being ignored as he notes:

So, yes — the climate changes, and it always has. The debate isn’t about whether it changes, but why, how fast, and how much humans are influencing it today. The debate is also about how accurately we are able to detect temperature change, plus the overreliance on climate models to predict the future rather than actual data.

2. What the “Consensus” Says — and Where It Falls Short

Folks like me who publicly decry the claim of an existential threat must confront the consensus argument he describes. 

The mainstream position (IPCC, NOAA, NASA, etc.) holds that recent warming — roughly 1.1°C since the late 1800s — is largely due to increased CO₂ from human activity, mainly fossil fuels.

But here’s the rub: this view is heavily dependent on climate models, which are notoriously uncertain.

The fact that the extreme risks claimed are based on models is frustrating because I know the limitations of model projections and they never get mentioned in the mainstream coverage of climate change. The only thing I would add to his remarks is that he could have included many more issues.

As someone with a meteorology background, I can tell you models struggle with cloud feedbacks, ocean cycles, solar variability, and regional forecasts — all of which are crucial to understanding climate.

When models are run backward, they often fail to replicate past climate variability accurately — like the Medieval Warm Period or the Little Ice Age — unless they’re tuned heavily. That calls into question their reliability for long-term projections.

3. Natural Variability: The Elephant in the Room

As Watts explains, natural variability is not understood well.  I think the thing to keep in mind is that this variability is driven in large part by the patterns of the upper air steering currents like the jet stream.  The massive flooding due to Helene in western North Carolina was caused by a rare weather pattern that stalled the storm in one place.  A similar pattern occurred in 1916 so today’s level of CO2 and warming were not the cause.  Unfortunately, we don’t know what caused that pattern or if it was just normal variability.  Watts describes the variability of observed warming:

A lot of warming in the 20th century happened before CO₂ rose sharply post-WWII. For example:

  • The warming from 1910 to 1940 occurred with much lower CO₂ levels.
  • Then there was a cooling trend from the 1940s to 1970s, despite rising CO₂ emissions during that time period.

Clearly, natural factors — like solar cycles, ocean oscillations (PDO, AMO), volcanic activity, and cloud dynamics — are still in play and possibly underestimated in mainstream assessments.

Keep in mind that the consensus says that the recent warming was caused by GHG emissions, but I don’t see any big difference between that warming and the previous one that was “natural”.  We know there are natural factors in play but we don’t understand them well enough to be able to discern what the impact of the greenhouse effect is relative to them.

4. The CO₂ Connection: Overstated?

The second complicating factor is that the greenhouse effect is real and increased CO2 in the atmosphere should also increase warming.  However, as Watts explains even that fact is conditional on at least one factor rarely mentioned.

CO₂ is a greenhouse gas, no question. But its effect on temperature is logarithmic — meaning, the more CO₂ you add, the less warming you get per unit. The first 100 ppm has the biggest impact, and we’re well past that as seen in the figure below.

Moreover, satellite data from UAH and RSS shows a slower warming trend than surface datasets like HadCRUT or GISS. That discrepancy raises questions about data adjustments, urban heat island effects, and instrument biases.

I addressed a couple of warming trend issues in two recent articles about measuring temperature trends here and here.  This primer just touches the surfaces of isues.

5. Are We in a Crisis?

Ultimately the only reason we are being forced to endure the insane transition policies that defy physics, math, and economics is the existential threat.  Watts points out problems with that claim. 

Even if we accept that humans are influencing climate, the notion that we’re in an “existential crisis” is unproven. Extreme weather trends (hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts) don’t show clear worsening patterns once you account for improved detection and population growth in vulnerable areas such as coastal developments.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) agrees, suggesting a “low confidence” in many current and future weather events being affected by climate change. The “existential crisis” view is heavily dependent on climate model projections, which are notoriously uncertain and refuted by data.

Sea level is rising — but at a slow, linear pace of about 3 mm/year. That’s about 12 inches per century, similar to what’s been observed since before industrial CO₂ emissions.

Away from the bluster and hype in the real-world evidence is clear that even if there is a potential for massive impacts due to climate change, the pace observed is slow and not accelerating.  That means that we have time to consider and modify the politically motivated schedule of the New York Climate Act.

Bottom Line

I cannot conclude this post any better than Anthony Watts did in his bottom line.

Yes, the climate is changing. It always has. The idea that global climate must be unchanging is simply wrongheaded. The real issue is how much of today’s change is due to human activity, how reliable our predictions are, and whether proposed policy responses are justified — or likely to do more harm than good.

At Watts Up With That, we’ve been pointing out for years that this issue is riddled with confirmation bias, model overconfidence, and selective reporting. There is no justification for shutting down economies or reshaping civilization based on the incomplete science of climate change.

So yes, climate change is real, but no, it’s not a crisis.

Upstate New York Air Source Heat Pump Experience

 “Green energy” advocates continue to lobby for the NY HEAT Act that would end “New York’s gas mandate and forced ratepayer subsidies for gas expansion”.  This is part of their irrational war on natural gas which will only be successful if they prevent the use of natural gas in the future which means a switch to heat pumps for heating.   Constantine Kontogiannis  has calculated the costs of heat pumps Upstate that complements an earlier analysis by Richard Ellenbogen for Downstate.

I am convinced that implementation of the New York 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 over 500 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

The “NY HEAT Act that would end the gas mandate that proponents claim means that “a single home that wants to stay on the gas system can prevent an entire neighborhood from having the opportunity to receive cheaper, cleaner heating alternatives from their utility.”

I recently posted an article in collaboration with Rich Ellenbogen that detailed the excessive winter operating cost of a geothermal-source heat pump (GSHP) system at his Westchester County residence, using his secondary heating source (a high-efficiency natural gas boiler) for comparison). After it was posted I was contacted by Constantine Kontogiannis who offered to describe his experience with a heat pump.  Mr. Kontogiannis is a mechanical engineer by training with over 25 years of energy related experience.   I jumped at the opportunity for him to describe his heat pump experience.  The following is his lightly edited submittal.

Another Heat Pump Experience – Constantine Kontogiannis

If your readers are wondering how relevant Rich’s experience is to a typical participant of the NYS Clean Heat Program, I have some additional information that might be of interest.  In 2023, I installed a cold climate air-source heat pump (ccASHP) system at my residence in Albany.  According to the NYS Clean Heat 2022 Annual Report, ccASHP systems are much more common than GSHP systems in residential applications, with approximately 18,730 ccASHPs installed in New York State in 2022 (not including Long Island), compared to approximately 670 GSHPs.  That’s a ratio of about 28 to 1 in favor of ccASHP systems.

The stated goal of the NYS Clean Heat Program (which commenced in 2020) is to convert 100,000 homes to heat pumps statewide, and based on the 2022 Annual Report I would estimate that the program is nearly 75% of the way towards that objective.  The data collected so far implies that the vast majority of these heat pumps will be ccASHP systems just like the one that I recently installed.

When I was researching my various heat pump options, I was concerned about their cost effectiveness in heating mode.  So I decided to retain my existing natural gas heating system, which consists of a condensing boiler and radiant underfloor piping.  In hindsight, this proved to be a wise decision, as my 2023/24 heating costs were nearly double what they had been previously.  

For the 2024/25 heating season, I decided to switch back to using my natural gas heating system instead.  Sure enough, my heating costs dropped substantially – even though this winter seemed to be much colder.  To confirm this, I found the following comparison of Heating Degree Days (HDDs) over the past two winters:

From this table, it’s pretty clear that the winter of 2024/25 was much colder than last year.  Here in Albany, our cumulative HDD for this winter was within 3% of a “Normal” heating season, which makes it an ideal time window to calculate the respective heat pump and natural gas system heating costs over a typical winter.  That’s what I decided to do, and to get started, I compiled a summary of my most recent energy and cost data:

(If you’re wondering why my electric consumption is so high from Thanksgiving to Valentines Day, it’s our exterior Christmas lights – they’re all LED, but maybe we go a bit overboard.)

From the table above, I used 988 Therms this winter at a total cost of roughly $817.  I have low temperature (110 degF) radiant underfloor piping, so my boiler is always set to operate in fully condensing mode at the rated 96% AFUE.  If I had chosen to use my heat pumps this winter, I would have needed approximately 948.5 equivalent Therms (988 x 0.96).  This translates to 27,791 kWh at a COP of 1, which is how much energy would be needed if I was using electric resistance heat (948.5 x 100,000 / 3,413).  

The appeal of heat pumps is their vastly improved COP compared to electric resistance heat.  To determine the seasonal COP of my ccASHP system in heating mode, it’s available in the manufacturer’s product data:

My heat pump system uses ducted 3-ton units – this is a common application, particularly when heat pumps are replacing an existing natural gas furnace and air conditioner combination.  Since ducted units retain the existing heating and cooling distribution ductwork, they are significantly less costly to install and more effective in heating dominant climates when compared to the alternative of using multiple split-system terminals throughout the house (in a ducted system, there’s generally at least one supply air register in each room).  

From the table above, my heat pumps have an HSPF2 rating of 10.0 (the left “Ducted” column).  This is a typical HSPF2 value for ccASHPs installed through the NYS Clean Heat Program, which requires a higher efficiency for program participation than generally stipulated by building code.  

To calculate the seasonal COP, we take the HSPF2, divide it by 0.85 and multiply it by 0.293, which is approximately 3.4 for my system.  Here’s the calculator .   

I discovered something interesting about the HSPF2 rating – it’s based on heating performance in a warmer region – Climate Zone 4, which only includes eight downstate counties in New York from Westchester to NYC through Long Island.  See the definitions at the bottom of this webpage  and the map.  

A higher resolution climate zone map with a table of the individual NY counties in each zone was used in this analysis.  From the earlier HDD table, the upstate cities in Climate Zone 5 (Albany, Syracuse, Rochester, and Buffalo) have roughly 40% more heating degree days than NYC, which is in Climate Zone 4.  So it’s likely that since I live in Climate Zone 5, the true seasonal COP of my heat pump system is lower than the value calculated from an HSPF2 rating in Climate Zone 4.  

But let’s put that aside for now – we’ll just be conservative and utilize the seasonal COP of 3.4 derived from the HSPF2 rating.  In an earlier paragraph, I calculated the equivalent energy at a COP of 1 required to heat my home this winter at 27,791 kWh.  Dividing this by the seasonal COP of 3.4 for our ccASHP system, our estimated heating energy consumption this winter would be 8,174 kWh.  

At my current winter electric rate of $0.214/kWh, this translates to a seasonal heating bill of $1,749.  That’s more than double my $817 natural gas bill this winter, 114% more to be exact.    

To offset a portion of the installation cost, the NYS Clean Heat Program provides an average rebate of $4,600 to replace a gas furnace with a ccASHP, and a $2,000 tax credit is also applicable.  But if the system costs between $8,000 and $12,000 to install, and then adds $900 to the utility bill every year, the rebate and tax credit aren’t very helpful.  Over a 15-year equipment lifespan, the detrimental cost impact could add up to $16,000 or more.  

Caiazza Comment

Proponents of NY HEAT suggest that one advantage of the legislation is to save money.  The New York State Energy Research & Development Authority (NYSERDA) produces featured stories  that “provide insights into New York’s clean energy transition and offer practical information for New Yorkers to incorporate clean energy into their homes and businesses.”  The Experience the Comfort of Clean Heat story does not explicitly address costs.  Kontogiannis and I agree that at one time NYSERDA claimed universal savings. To their credit NYSERDA’s Heat Pump Program description does explicitly state that replacing oil, propane, or electric baseboards with air source heat pumps as your primary heating source is a more efficient way to keep your home comfortable. I recently heard an advertisement by approved contractor who did not explain that savings were unlikely for a home that burns natural gas, apparently without any pushback from the program administrator.

The five-year estimate (2017-2021) of space heating totals of occupied housing units in New York shows that there are 7,530,150 housing units and 59.6% or 4,489,695 of them use utility gas for space heating.  The two analyses that compared heat pump costs and NYSERDA agree that natural gas heating is cheaper.  Kontogiannis estimates that at least 30,000 heat pumps installed through this NYSERDA program have replaced natural gas.  He notes that according to the 2022 summary report, “very few of the installations include the decommissioning of the previous heating system”.  As a result we are skeptical of any carbon savings claims. The bottom line is that the Climate Act will make home heat more costly for more than half of the state but I have not seen any advocate admitting that fact.

My thanks to Rich Ellenbogen and onstantine Kontogiannis for their insights.

Assemblyman Stirpe and New York Cap and Invest

In a recent letter to the editor of the Syracuse Post Standard, Cicero Assemblyman Al Stirpe Jr. and Ethan Gormley from Citizen Action of New York, argued that Governor Hochul should “get moving on cap and invest.”  This post documents my response.  It is timely to revisit the New York Cap and Invest (NYCI) Program because the long promised next regulatory action is due any day now.  I believe that it is time for NYCI advocates to be held accountable for their magical solutions to a problem that New York cannot unilaterally solve.

I have followed the Climate Act since it was first proposed, submitted comments on the Climate Act implementation plan, and have written over 500 articles about New York’s net-zero transition.  I worked on every market-based program from the start that affected electric generating facilities in New York including the Acid Rain Program, Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), and several Nitrogen Oxide programs. I follow and write about the RGGI and New York carbon pricing initiatives so my background is particularly suited for NYCI.   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.  The Climate Action Council (CAC) was responsible for preparing the Scoping Plan that outlined how to “achieve the State’s bold clean energy and climate agenda.” The Integration Analysis prepared by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) and its consultants quantifies the impact of the electrification strategies.  That material was used to develop the Draft Scoping Plan outline of strategies.  After a year-long review, the Scoping Plan was finalized at the end of 2022. 

Cap-and-Invest

The CAC’s Scoping Plan recommended a market-based economywide cap-and-invest program.  NYCI is supposed to work by setting an annual cap on the amount of greenhouse gas pollution that is permitted to be emitted in New York: “The declining cap ensures annual emissions are reduced, setting the state on a trajectory to meet our greenhouse gas emission reduction requirements of 40% by 2030, and at least 85% from 1990 levels by 2050, as mandated by the Climate Act.”  The prevailing perception of NYCI is exemplified by Colin Kinniburgh’s description in New York Focus.  He describes the theory of a cap-and-invest program as a program that will kill two birds with one stone.  “It simultaneously puts a limit on the tons of pollution companies can emit — ‘cap’ — while making them pay for each ton, funding projects to help move the state away from polluting energy sources — ‘invest.'”  

In my opinion, the delays in the NYCI regulatory process suggest that the Hochul Administration is having second thoughts about the program.  I have no illusions that the concerns are related to the fundamental flaws of carbon pricing.  It is all about politics.  Kinniburgh described the last-minute decision to pull any mention of timing about NYCI from the State of the State briefing book.  Samanth Maldonado’s article Green Lawmakers Pressure Hochul to Speed up Action on Climate Act summarizes the status of NYCI last month. I also did an article about the response to the NYCI Delay. Since then, the political focus of the state has been on the budget.  Tellingly there hasn’t been much mention of NYCI.  Against that backdrop Stirpe and Gromley submitted a letter to the editor imploring Governor Hochul to get moving on cap and invest.

Letter to the Editor

The following letter to the editor of the Syracuse Post Standard was published on the electronic edition on March 18, 2025 and in the print edition on March 23, 2025.

It’s been over 50 days since Gov. Kathy Hochul’s State of the State address. That’s 50-plus days since the governor revealed that she was delaying crucial climate action in New York.

In that time, President Donald Trump has been steadily advancing the interests of oil and gas billionaires, wiping crucial climate resources from government websites and removing environmental justice workers from their positions. And that’s not all. The current situation at the federal level will have lasting, harmful impacts on our environment, frontline communities and transition to a clean, affordable, renewable energy economy.

Yet even as we see these damaging actions coming from the climate change denier in the Oval Office, Hochul continues to delay climate action by suppressing regulations for Cap and Invest.

The crucial Cap and Invest program is needed to fund New York state’s Climate Law, reduce pollution and invest in our communities. It puts corporate polluters on the hook for the amount that they pollute into the atmosphere while also reducing their emissions over time.

REVENUE WOULD HELP COMMUNITY

Perhaps just as importantly, the Cap and Invest revenue from corporate polluters has the potential to greatly benefit areas like Central New York.

Through this program, we can see new funds made available for energy affordability, which is especially important as National Grid seeks massive rate hikes across Upstate New York. Not only that, Cap and Invest has the ability to improve Central New York homes by funding projects to increase energy efficiency measures, like insulation and important home repairs, while also assisting in the transition to clean electric heat pumps to heat and cool homes without the use of polluting and harmful gas.

Had Cap and Invest been rolled out already, the state Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) and New York State Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) estimated that we could see somewhere between $3 billion and $5.1 billion in revenue in 2025.

At a time when federal funding is under threat, it’s imperative that we consider creative and fair sources of revenue to invest in our communities, clean our air and cut consumer costs.

Done well, the Cap and Invest program can do just that.

STOP DELAYING REGULATIONS

The Cap and Invest regulations were supposed to be released to the public last year. Those regulations would then be rightfully subject to public engagement through hearings and public comments. Unfortunately, Hochul is suppressing those regulations from the public and has proposed a much delayed timeline for their release. Organizations, businesses, faith groups and unions across the state have already spoken out urging Hochul to promptly release all the regulations.

It’s been over 50 days since we learned about the governor’s latest efforts to slow-walk Cap and Invest. Every additional day that goes by without the regulations is another day of delayed climate action, polluter accountability and much needed investment in our communities. With so much at stake at the federal level, New York needs to be a climate leader.

Gov. Hochul: Please release all the regs immediately and fund climate now. Al Stirpe Jr. Cicero, Member of Assembly, 127th District

Ethan Gormley Clay, Climate Justice Organizer, Citizen Action of New York

Response Letter

I submitted the following 250 word response on March 26, 2025:

In a recent letter to the editor, Cicero Assemblyman Al Stirpe Jr. and Ethan Gormley Citizen Action of New York, argued that Governor Hochul should get moving on cap and invest. 

The proposed New York Cap and Invest (NYCI) program is a magical solution.  In theory corporate polluters will pay for their emissions, the proceeds will be used to reduce costs while simultaneously funding emission reduction projects.  In reality, NYCI is nothing more than a regressive tax that will not live up to its promises.

NYCI will require gasoline distribution companies to pay for each ton emitted.  The authors state that we could see somewhere between $3 billion and $5.1 billion.  The latest NYCI proposal outline suggested prices that work out to an increase in gasoline prices of 21 cents per gallon in 2025, 48 cents per gallon in 2027 and 57 cents per gallon in 2030.  It is magical thinking to suggest that the companies will not simply pass those costs on.

The authors go on to say: “Through this program, we can see new funds made available for energy affordability”.  It is magical thinking to presume that the increased gasoline prices will get reimbursed in a timely fashion for those who cannot afford the increases.  Just think of the tracking logistics needed to ensure that the price paid for gas can be made affordable.

It is time for Climate Act proponents to be held accountable for their magical solutions to a problem that New York cannot unilaterally solve.

What I Really Wanted to Say

The succinct response to the Stirpe and Gormley letter is best described by Vinny Gambini.

Alas that response is in the wrong medium.  A proper response requires more description than possible in 250 words.  Alberto Brandolini explains: “The amount of energy necessary to refute BS is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it.”   Space considerations preclude documenting all the problems in a newspaper response.  But I can do that here.

The proposed New York Cap and Invest (NYCI) program is a magical solution.  In theory corporate polluters will be put on the hook for their emissions, the proceeds will be used to reduce citizen costs while simultaneously funding emission reduction projects.  In reality, carbon pricing schemes like NYCI are nothing more than a regressive tax that will not live up to the hype.  Earlier this year I described questions about NYCI that I believe need to be resolved before proceeding.  Last year the Citizen’s Budget Commission commented on NYCI.  In this post I want to focus on the issues associated with gasoline impacts that I mentioned in my response letter.

Stirpe and Gormley insinuate that the costs of the program will be absorbed by “corporate polluters”.  With respect to gasoline prices the implication is that the oil companies will provide revenues that “has the potential to greatly benefit areas like Central New York.”

In 2023 Washington State started their version of cap and invest and their gasoline prices immediately jumped.  I published articles on what happened.  Washington State Gasoline Prices Are a Precursor to New York’s Future was a variation of an article published at Watts Up With That – Do Washington State Residents Know Why Their Gasoline Prices Are So High Now?.  I also published Washington State Gasoline Prices and Public Perceptions that consolidated responses from Washington residents in the comments from the Watts Up With That article. 

There is no official position on expected revenues for NYCI.  At the Energy Access and Equity Research webinar sponsored by the NYU Institute for Policy Integrity on May 13, 2024 Jonathan Binder stated that the New York Cap and Invest Program would generate proceeds of “between $6 and $12 billion per year” by 2030. Administration officials estimate that NYCI auctions will generate “between $6 [billion] and $12 billion per year” by 2030.

I used those estimates to project potential gasoline costs. The last NYCI proposal outline analyzed allowance prices starting at $23 per ton of CO2 in 2025 with 5% escalation for 2026, and an increase to a higher ceiling in 2027, escalating by 6% annually thereafter. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, 17.86 pounds of CO2 are emitted per gallon of finished motor gasoline; 112 gallons burned equals 1 ton of CO2. A price of $23 per ton of CO2 translates to an increase in gasoline prices of 21 cents per gallon in 2025, 48 cents per gallon in 2027 and 57 cents per gallon in 2030.

NYCI will require gasoline distribution companies to purchase authorizations to emit each ton of GHG pollution.  It is magical thinking to suggest that the polluting corporations will not simply pass those costs on.  Those companies cannot do anything to reduce their emissions.  As a result, it is the consumer who will end up paying for emissions.

Stirpe and Gromley go on to say: “Through this program, we can see new funds made available for energy affordability”.  Hochul’s five core principles for NYCI includes affordability: “Governor Hochul’s Consumer Climate Action Account will deliver at least 30 percent in future cap-and-invest proceeds to New Yorkers every year to mitigate consumer costs.”  These slogans are well intentioned, but the reality is that making the gasoline price increases affordable is a logistical nightmare.  Consider the following issues.

The first issue is eligibility.  To make gasoline cost increases affordable for those least able to afford the increase a program must be put in place to reimburse them.  I think that reimbursements should target the rural poor who have no other alternatives and thus are most affected by the increased cost of gasoline. 

Consider reimbursement fairness.  The most impacted are those who rely on their vehicles the most.  This means that a flat rebate is unfair and that necessitates rebates based on fuel use.  Tracking fuel use for reimbursement will be a logistical headache.  Affected New Yorkers will have to keep receipts and submit claims then wait for reimbursement.  Worse, the time lag between paying the higher price and the mitigation on consumer costs is a real hardship for those least able to afford it.

Theory and Reality

The theory of carbon pricing schemes is that the higher prices due to the price of carbon will incentivize corporate polluters to seek lower carbon and lower price alternatives.  However, the corporate gasoline distribution companies have no incentives to do either.  They will simply pass the costs on as if this were a tax. 

Proponents of these schemes argue that higher fuel prices will make people want to buy electric cars so the fuel prices are not impactful.  There are many tradeoffs for electric vehicles that make them not one for one choice, so I think this is a weak argument.  Moreover, the Governor’s affordability rebates reduce this incentive. 

The rebates also reduce the amount available for the transition.  It is appropriate to ask just how much infrastructure would be required to make electric vehicles a viable alternative.  Think of all the public charging infrastructure necessary to provide equivalent capacity to today’s cars.  Don’t forget that the electric power requirements will also need upgrades and that because electric vehicles are more expensive subsidies are needed.  Will the proceeds from NYCI be enough?

The cap and invest variant dilutes the original intent that the carbon price would trigger a free-market response.  Advocates for this feature argue that the free-market is more efficient than a government dictate but cap and invest provides revenues for the government to invest.  New York’s investment record for infrastructure projects peaked with the completion of the Erie Canal 200 years ago and has gone downhill ever since.

The book by Danny Cullenward and David Victor Making Climate Policy Work shows how the “politics of creating and maintaining market-based policies render them ineffective nearly everywhere they have been applied.”    They go on to explain that this vision has completely failed:

Many pollution markets exist, but nearly all are smokescreens that create the impression that market forces are cutting emissions when, in fact, other policies are doing most of the real work of decarbonization. Almost everywhere that market systems are in place they operate at prices that are so low as to have little impact on key decisions such as whether to invest in or deploy new technologies.

Two years ago I explained why the conclusions of this book are relevant to NYCI and later argued in my comments on the draft rules that a reassessment was necessary.  Under the Hochul Administration, state agencies consider the stakeholder process an obligation and not an opportunity to improve the rules.  There is no real attempt to consider comments received and pretty much zero acknowledgement much less action for any comments received.  There never has been a response indicating that anyone has read the book.

Conclusion

The issues described here have not been addressed so far during the discussion of NYCI.  The only noise is from advocates who argue without any evidence that the program will simultaneously raise money, ensure compliance, and be affordable.  It is long past due for proponents of the NYCI and the Climate Act like Assemblyman Stirpe to acknowledge that the transition to zero emissions has irreconcilable challenges that risk affordability and reliability.  All this is purely political so when the inevitable negative consequences occur, supporters should be held accountable.

JP Morgan Energy Study and the Climate Act

Energy Bad Boys Isaac Orr and Mitch Rolling describe nine takeaways in the JP Morgan Chase 15th Annual Energy Paper that provide more reasons why the New York net-zero transition should be paused. 

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 500 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

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. The Climate Action Council (CAC) was responsible for preparing the Scoping Plan that outlined how to “achieve the State’s bold clean energy and climate agenda.” The Integration Analysis prepared by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) and its consultants quantified the impact of the electrification strategies.  After a year-long review, the Scoping Plan was finalized at the end of 2022.

Orr and Rolling introduce their post:

On March 4th, JP Morgan Chase released its 15th Annual Energy Paper (hereinafter “JPMC”). The report, written by Michael Cembalest, is a 55-page analysis with hundreds of graphs and charts on the state of the energy industry.  It spans most aspects of the energy industry, discussing costs for wind and solar, conventional fuels, electrification and heat pump adoption, a status update on the deindustrialization of Europe, and the use of green hydrogen.

I am documenting  reasons to pause the Climate Act and this article explains how the takeaways are relevant to the Climate Act implementation and why the findings are more reasons to pause the Climate Act implementation until the issues raised are resolved.

Takeaways

Wind and solar prices continue to rise. 

According to the JP Morgan Chase Report, power purchase agreement (PPAs) prices for wind have more than doubled since 2019, and solar PPAs are near $60 per megawatt hour.  Prices are rising due to US tariffs on Chinese solar panels, a tripling of insurance premiums in MISO, ERCOT, and SPP due to weather events, supply/demand gaps due to permitting delays, higher interest rates, and increased corporate demand for green power. Keep in mind that PPAs almost always show the subsidized cost of an energy source, so in reality, the cost of these resources is even higher.

The Scoping Plan was based on the Integration Analysis quantitative assessment of emission reduction strategies and cost estimates.  The Integration Analysis included projections starting in 2020.  I believe that the cost projections for wind and solar were projected to decrease and here is evidence that is not happening.  It is time to verify that the projections in the Scoping Plan are tracking with reality. 

Battery costs are coming down

Battery storage prices are falling again after a price spike in 2022. According to Energy Storage News, the main drivers of the fall are cell manufacturing overcapacity, economies of scale, low metal and component prices, a slowdown in the EV market, and increased adoption of lithium iron phosphate (LFP) batteries, which are cheaper than nickel manganese cobalt (NMC) batteries.

On the face of it this is good news.  However, the costs are still extraordinarily high.  The Scoping Plan needs to be re-assessed to determine consistency with the cost observations and whether the main drivers in the cost decreases will continue to lower prices.  Most importantly, there must be an honest assessment of the battery price point that makes battery energy storage “affordable”.

US Transmission Line Growth is far below DOE Targets

The JPMC report notes that annual additions of transmission lines are far, far below the levels envisioned by the Biden Administration’s Department of Energy, as you can see in the graph below.

I do not know where New York transmission line growth stands relative to the needs of the Climate Act.  The status of the buildout relative to the Scoping Plan needs to be assessed to determine if the Climate Act schedule is achievable.

Wind and solar do not replace reliable capacity

The JPMC report acknowledge just how ineffective wind and solar are at reducing our dependency on dispatchable generators.  The graph below from the report shows that for every megawatt of wind or solar installed in various regions, it only offsets 10 to 20 percent of gas capacity.

Making the numbers easier to understand, installing 10 MW of wind or solar in MISO would only offset the need for natural gas capacity by 2 MW. In the Southeast, adding 10 MW of wind or solar would only offset the need for 1 MW.

Adding 10 MW wind or solar in New York would only offset the need for natural gas capacity by a little over 1 MW.  I do not believe that the Integration Analysis modeling incorporates this observed effect.  There are clear implications for the Climate Act transition of this observed effect.

MISO and PJM Are Concerned About Reliability

MISO continues to see its reserve margin dwindle as its margin for error sits at just four percent. The JPMC report notes MISO’s warnings of “serious challenges to grid reliability due to increased exposure to wind/solar intermittency, having averted a capacity shortfall in 2023 only due to postponement of planned thermal capacity retirements.”

The post also includes a figure showing the risks for different regional transmission operators.

Fortunately, New York’s strong commitment to reliability means that there is a low likelihood of electricity supply shortfall assuming that the Progressive politicians keep their paws off the electric sector.  Nonetheless, the Scoping Plan presumes significant imports from outside new York and this result indicates that those imports may not be available.  This risk should be evaluated.

Fossil Fuels, Nuclear, and Hydro Power U.S. Data Centers

The JPMC report notes, “Hyperscalers will probably have to walk back green power commitments and run data centers primarily on natural gas, as they have been. The pie chart shows power consumption of US data centers based on their respective locations, their MW of maximum power consumption and the grid mix in that state.”

Projections for New York load also show increases.  The plans for the proposed Micron chip fab plant that will add load equivalent to the load of New Hampshire and Vermont call for the use of renewables.  This major source of load was not included in the Scoping Plan and needs to be considered in a reassessment.

High Electricity Prices Impede Electrification

Wind and solar advocates argue we must rapidly “electrify everything” by using electric vehicles and converting our home heating systems from natural gas, propane, or fuel oil to electric heat pumps. The problem? Doing so costs much more than using natural gas to keep warm in winter.

The JPMC report states:

“The high cost of electricity compared to natural gas (particularly in places without a carbon tax) is another impediment to electrification that is not easy to solve since this ratio reflects relative total costs of production and distribution.”

Natural gas remains much more affordable than using electricity for home heating in states throughout the country, and even heating oil and propane are more affordable than electricity on a nationwide basis.

The high cost of electricity versus natural gas is a major hinderance to converting to heat pumps.  The Scoping Plan presumption that New Yorkers would willing convert to a more expensive, less resilient, and likely less comfortable source of heating is not likely to occur.  How will this affect implementation?

Green Deindustrialization Continues Apace in Europe

The JPMC report notes: “Europe is the world leader with respect to the pace of decarbonization. However, Europe is paying a steep price for this transition. Its energy prices have risen from 2x to 4x US levels, and its residential electricity prices are now 5x-7x higher than in China and India.

The report also touched on Germany’s coming Energieweimar. Despite Deutschland’s heavy investments in wind and solar, the country has become a net importer of electricity. Long story short, installed power capacity continues to rise but actual generation is falling. The same story is unfolding in the United Kingdom.

The Scoping Plan claims that special carve outs and concessions to energy intensive and trade exposed industries will keep them viable in New York.  The results in the UK and Germany indicate otherwise.  The State needs to reassess these impacts.

Grim Realities for the Green Hydrogen Hype Train

Despite heavy subsidies and much hype, the so-called green hydrogen industry is floundering. Quarterly mentions of hydrogen project delays and cancelations are skyrocketing in the news and in company disclosures.

The report included this quote, with the caveat that it somewhat exaggerates the plight of green hydrogen:

“Electrolyzers, which do not exist, are supposed to use surplus electricity, which does not exist, to feed hydrogen into a network that does not exist in order to operate power plants that do not exist. Alternatively, the hydrogen is to be transported via ships and harbors, which do not exist, from supplier countries, which – you guessed it – also do not exist.”

According to the report:

“Hydrogen has an “original sin” problem: early estimates of lectrolier costs were too low. It started with an influential IRENA paper in 2020 estimating electrolyzer costs at $750 per kW. The European Energy Transitions Commission now concedes that costs are far higher, at least when sourced from Western manufacturers; the latest estimates for 2024 range from $2,100 to $3,200 per kW. This revised assessment had led to a 5x increase in Western 2030 electrolyzer cost projections from BNEF and the Hydrogen Council relative to initial projections.”

This quote pretty much sums up the “energy transition.” Boosters of unproven and expensive technologies assure us that their preferred energy sources are already cheaper, or will soon be much cheaper, than the reliable, affordable technologies we already use. Within a few years, the promises fail to materialize, and they move on to some other unicorn technology, and the hype cycle repeats itself.

A key reason for the problems plaguing green hydrogen is the cost. Even after assuming optimal electrolyzer utilization rates (which won’t materialize in the real world if they are, in fact, powered by wind and solar), the cost is still massive. In Texas, green hydrogen production is around $6.50 per kilogram (kg). In New York, the cost is around $7.50 per kg.

It takes approximately 7.4 kg of hydrogen to produce 1 million British thermal units (MMBtu) of energy, and it takes 10 MMBtus to produce one megawatt hour (MWh) of electricity in a combustion turbine power plant. This means the fuel cost of green hydrogen is approximately $481/MWh in Texas and $555/MWh in New York. At that price, it’s no wonder the industry is hitting hard times.

The Scoping Plan placeholder technology for the dispatchable emissions-free resource (DEFR) acknowledged as necessary is green hydrogen.  These results show that the “solution” is unlikely to be viable. The fundamental problem is that the wind, solar, and energy storage approach envisioned in the Scoping Plan will only work if DEFR is developed and deployed. In my opinion, the most promising DEFR backup technology is nuclear generation because it is the only candidate resource that is technologically ready, can be expanded as needed, and does not suffer from limitations of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. If the only viable DEFR solution is nuclear, then renewables cannot be implemented without it.  But nuclear can replace renewables, eliminating the need for a massive DEFR backup resource.  It is obviously prudent to pause renewable development until DEFR feasibility is proven because nuclear generation may be the only viable path to zero emissions

Conclusion

Orr and Rolling conclude:

There is a lot to digest in the report, but the long and short of it is that the so-called energy transition is hitting the brick wall of reality. Let’s hope policymakers come to their senses and end the subsidies for wind and solar so we can get back to rational energy policies.

I hope that the brick wall of reality reaches New York. I believe the best way to ensure that policymakers come to their senses is to pause the program and reevaluate the presumptions and projections.

Charlatan Comeuppance

I have had a continuing problem with Climate Action Council misinformation as I documented here.  Council leadership failed to call out members of the Council who were saying things that were inconsistent with the State analyses because the work conveniently supports the narrative that there is an existential threat from climate change caused by man-made greenhouse emissions and that existing technology can rapidly move away from fossil fuels and rely on wind, sun, and hydro.  It turns out that a couple of the acclaimed champions of this narrative have lost recent legal battles that I believe discredit their claims further.

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 500 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

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. Two targets address the electric sector: 70% of the electricity must come from renewable energy by 2030 and all electricity must be generated by “zero-emissions” resources by 2040. The Climate Action Council (CAC) was responsible for preparing the Scoping Plan that outlined how to “achieve the State’s bold clean energy and climate agenda.” The Integration Analysis prepared by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) and its consultants quantified the impact of the electrification strategies.  After a year-long review, the Scoping Plan was finalized at the end of 2022. 

Charlatans

Wordnik defines charlatan as “A person who makes elaborate, fraudulent, and often voluble claims to skill or knowledge.”  Put another way these people pretend to have knowledge, skills, or expertise they do not possess, apparently with the “intention of deceiving others for personal gain, such as money, power, or fame.” I think that applies to two perceived champions of the climate change and green energy crusade because both of their claims to fame do not stand up to scrutiny.  Robert Bryce describes instances where each of these individuals has tried lawsuits against their critics but have failed. 

Michael Mann was the primary proponent of the Hockey Stick graph that claims that Northern Hemisphere temperatures over the last 1,000 years were relatively flat and only increased rapidly with the advent of anthropogenic GHG emissions.  His claim wiped out the widely accepted existence of the Medieval Warming Period, but this extraordinary claim was not backed by extraordinary proof.  I believe that the Hockey Stick graphic is BS on many levels and other critics said so too.  In response to his critics Michael Mann filed a lawsuit claiming that his work was proven because of peer review and that the critics had caused him to lose grant funding.  The basis of the hockey stick graph is a unique statistical approach that may have passed peer review in a climate journal but certainly could not pass peer review in a statistical journal.  

Bryce explains that that:

 In his ruling , the judge on the case, Alfred S. Irving, Jr., said that Mann and his lawyers: “Each knowingly made a false statement of fact to the Court and Dr. Mann knowingly participated in the falsehood, endeavoring to make the strongest case possible even if it required using erroneous and misleading information.

Bryce references a  report by Roger Pielke Jr. that explains that a federal court in Washington, DC, ruled that Mann and his lawyers acted in “bad faith” and “made false representations to the jury and the Court regarding damages stemming from loss of grant funding.”  Francis Menton provides more details and makes the point that Mann never tried to defend his scientific claims.

Of more interest to New York is that Mark Jacobson is the other example.  Jacobson is the co-author with Dr Robert Howarth of the paper that strongly influenced the Climate Act.  Bryce includes a concise summary of Jacobson’s shenanigans:

In 2017, as I reported in National Review, Jacobson filed a $10 million defamation lawsuit against the National Academy of Sciences and Chris Clack, the lead author of a paper the NAS published that year that had thoroughly debunked one of Jacobson’s papers. Jacobson, a thin-skinned engineering professor, had written a paper claiming the US could run entirely on alt-energy by 2050. I explained that Clack’s paper found that:

“Jacobson had overstated hydropower’s potential by a factor of ten or so. The land-use requirements for wind power were equally cartoonish. Clack determined that Jacobson’s all-renewable scheme would require covering more than 190,000 square miles with turbines — an area larger than the state of California. Given the burgeoning coast-to-coast backlash against Big Wind, such a notion is absurd on its face.”

Jacobson’s lawsuit claimed that the paper had damaged his reputation and made him and his co-authors look bad. Rather than debate the issues, Jacobson sued.

Bryce recounts what happened then:

In February 2018, Jacobson, in an apparent act of remorse, suddenly withdrew his lawsuit against NAS and Clack. But the case wasn’t forgotten. As I explained in Forbes in 2020, a federal court judge in Washington, DC, sided with NAS and Clack and ordered Jacobson to pay their legal fees.

Bryce explains that since then “Jacobson has spent years bobbing and weaving his way through the courts in an ongoing attempt to avoid paying those fees.”   It is not clear if the NAS fees were paid but Clack told Bryson that Jacobson paid what was owed to him.  Finally, Bryce notes that “In 2022, Jacobson sued Stanford. That case was apparently settled in 2023. In February 2024, according to Retraction Watch, Jacobson lost in his appeal to avoid paying the NAS’s fees.”

Howarth’s statement approving the Scoping Plan states that:

I further wish to acknowledge the incredible role that Prof. Mark Jacobson of Stanford has played in moving the entire world towards a carbon-free future, including New York State. A decade ago, Jacobson, I and others laid out a specific plan for New York (Jacobson et al. 2013). In that peer-reviewed analysis, we demonstrated that our State could rapidly move away from fossil fuels and instead be fueled completely by the power of the wind, the sun, and hydro. We further demonstrated that it could be done completely with technologies available at that time (a decade ago), that it could be cost effective, that it would be hugely beneficial for public health and energy security, and that it would stimulate a large increase in well-paying jobs.

In response to critics of his work Jacobson did not engage in open dialogue but instead took the critics to court.  In my opinion that indicates that he realized that the claims would not hold up to scrutiny.  For example, the claim that no new technology is needed runs contrary to reputable analyses of the future New York electric system that agree that new Dispatchable Emissions-Free Resource (DEFR)  technologies are necessary to keep the lights on during periods of extended low wind and solar resource availability.  Clearly Howarth’s claim based on Jacobson’s approach is incorrect.     

Discussion

It is a sad situation that the Climate Act is built upon analyses that were so weak that the authors could not resolve criticism by open dialogue.  The iconic “Hockey Stick” graph showing the purported undeniable relationship between global temperatures and greenhouse gases has been cited as proof of an existential threat.  Despite claims that it has been vindicated, it is invalid. The Scoping Plan transition plan is based on the Climate Act belief that no new technologies would be required to make a transition to an energy system relying on wind, solar, and hydro. This is also wrong.

The claim about no new technology is needed is more troublesome.  It is the basis of the aspirational schedule and has been cited as proof that the wind, solar, and energy storage approach will work.  The problem is that it will only work if DEFR is developed and deployed.  In my opinion, the most promising DEFR backup technology is nuclear generation because it is the only candidate resource that is technologically ready, can be expanded as needed, and does not suffer from limitations of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. If the only viable DEFR solution is nuclear, then renewables cannot be implemented without it.  But nuclear can replace renewables, eliminating the need for a massive DEFR backup resource.  It is obviously prudent to pause renewable development until DEFR feasibility is proven because nuclear generation may be the only viable path to zero emissions.  The Howarth/Jacobson myth has contributed to the lack of more serious consideration of nuclear.

Conclusion

This is another example of the weak rationale for the Climate Act.  I cannot see any scenario where this will end well.

New York Budget Articles

I have never closely followed New York State’s budgeting process before because I never felt connected to Albany politics, and it seemed so complicated.  My obsession with the unfolding disaster of the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (Climate Act) net-zero transition has prompted me to take an interest in the process.  The latest New York Focus Newsletter describes budget articles that include an overview of the process and discussion of funding proposals with one article focused on funding for the ambitious climate goals.  I recommend all the stories to New York readers.

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 500 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.

Budget Overview

Sam Mellins answers questions about the state’s notoriously opaque budget process.  His article addresses the following questions:

  • What is the state budget?  It is likely to allocate over $250 billion with “biggest shares going to healthcare and education.  He makes the critical point that the budgeting legislation is also used to “enact laws that don’t involve spending money.”  Guess how the Climate Act was passed.
  • Where does the money come from?  Most of the money allocated in the budget comes from the taxes that New Yorkers pay to the state government. But a sizable portion is cash that the federal government gives New York to provide services “ranging from highways and transit to health insurance for low-income residents.”
  • What are the major steps in the budget process?  This description summarizes the process that is used to pass the budget.
  • Who are the key players?  I was aware that the budget negotiations boiled down to a few individuals. Mellins explains that “Three key parties dominate the process: the governor, the Senate majority leader, and the Assembly speaker.”
  • How does our process compare to other states?  This is a must-read section: “In a 2015 analysis by the Center for Public Integrity, New York ranked dead last among all states for accountability and transparency in its budget process.”  Not surprisingly the politicians ignore State Constitution requirements and push things through at the last minute.
  • Is the entire budget up for negotiation?   Mellins explains that most of the budget is more or less on autopilot so only “optional” items cause debate.
  • How does the public get involved?  Mellins notes that the budget process is always accompanied by a flurry of lobbying, activism, and advocacy and that “Any New Yorker can submit written testimony during budget hearings.” 

Funding the Green Transition

Colin Kinniburgh describes how the Senate, Assembly and Governor stand on funding Climate Act implementation.  As this is my primary focus, I will quote his article in its entirety with my annotated comments.  He introduces the article with this: ” If Albany is planning to rally against the Trump administration’s attack on its climate plans, it’s not showing in the budget.”

The New York Cap and Invest program is of special interest to me.  Establishing any cost on carbon like this program is no more than a hidden and regressive tax.  The slow pace of implementation may be the result of dawning realization that the costs involved may be politically inimical to its political supporters.  Kinniburgh describes the status:

In New York, the governor sets the budget agenda. That’s particularly clear on climate this year. Breaking two years of promises, Governor Kathy Hochul in January dropped the climate funding program known as “cap and invest” from her 2025 agenda. Her agencies have been writing the rules to structure the carbon pricing program, but the legislature would likely have needed to approve spending the resulting revenue — about $3 billion a year and growing — setting up what could have been a major budget fight.

Hochul effectively brushed that plan off the table, and the legislature isn’t making any big moves to bring it back.

The reality is that this is a major undertaking but despite the challenge the Department of Environmental Conservation managed to get draft rules put together.  The reason that they have not been released is solely due to politics and the inevitable need to show the costs.  No amount of gilding the pig with slogans will be able to hide the costs.  But funds are still needed if the Climate Act transition is to proceed.

In the place of the permanent program, Hochul offered a one-time, $1 billion budget line to fund a variety of climate initiatives over the next five years. The Senate and Assembly have both accepted that amount, though they want more guardrails on how it’s spent. Hochul’s proposal lists a few broad areas she wants to fund, like renewables and building retrofits, but gives little further detail.

The Senate wants to give legislative leaders a chance to review the governor’s spending plan. The Assembly has gone further, divvying the $1 billion between seven programs advancing building decarbonization and electric vehicles, particularly school buses and charging infrastructure.

“The governor and Senate have a slush fund, the Assembly makes clear allocations,” said Liz Moran, Northeast policy advocate at Earthjustice, in a text message.

In this political process the missing piece by the Governor and the legislators is the reality that they don’t have the expertise to set energy policy funding priorities.  Selective listening to supposed authoritative sources all the while ignoring the experts who have the responsibility to keep the lights on, choosing winners and losers based on lobbyist effectiveness, and setting priorities based on the whims of favored constituencies is sure to result in poor policy.

The Senate also includes a nod to cap and invest in its budget resolution, urging the governor to “immediately issue all draft regulations necessary” to implement the program. (Hochul has said her agencies need more time to complete the rules, but internal emails reported by Politico show that they were ready to go before she abruptly hit the brakes in January.) There’s little chance that the message will revive cap and invest in this year’s budget, but it adds to a growing chorus. (Green groups’ call to release the regulations may soon be backed up by a lawsuit, according to Michael Gerrard, director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University.)

This paragraph scares me.  The only thing that could foul up the proposed cap-and-invest program more than the provisions inserted in the draft regulations to comport with the Climate Act would be for politicians to get involved with implementation details.  Well maybe it would be worse if some judge decides how to do the implementation.  Kinniburgh goes on to describe other “big-ticket climate items.”

The NY HEAT Act, a top priority for green groups, once again faces an uphill battle. For the third year running, the Senate has included the bill — which would allow the state to gradually transition homes off fossil fuels — in its budget proposal. But the chamber is alone in doing so. Last year, Hochul included a version of the bill in her budget, but the Assembly blocked it in final negotiations.

There’s no sign in its budget proposal that the Assembly is warming to the HEAT Act this year. Two assembly members told New York Focus that its omission reflected the chamber’s longstanding — and inconsistently held — position that policy does not belong in the budget, but they expected it to be on the table in final talks.

I could not agree more with the admonition that policy does not belong in the budget.  What is absolutely necessary for the climate budgeting strategy is a clear, transparent, and well documented description of the costs, emission reductions, realistic implementation schedules, and expected revenue streams for the strategies proposed to meet the Climate Act mandates.  The time for only providing the slogan that the cost of inaction is more than the cost of action has long since passed.  New Yorkers deserve the details.  The total costs to implement the NY Heat Act is a prime example of this need.

There is one new climate item that the legislature has aligned on: solar tax credits. The current $5,000 credit for homeowners who install solar power took effect in 2006 and has not been updated since. The Assembly and Senate want to increase the maximum credit to $10,000 and make it easier for co-op and low-income residents to receive it.

The tweak would give a further boost to small-scale solar, the only area where New York has outpaced its climate targets. The state closed out last year with 6.6 gigawatts of rooftop and community solar, beating its 2025 goal. But research has found that the subsidies fueling that growth go disproportionately to high-income homeowners. This year’s budget legislation, with newfound support from the Assembly, aims to shift the balance.

This is a perfect example of political ambition outrunning reality.  It is accepted by all credible sources that to support a reliable New York State electric grid that depends primarily upon wind, solar, and short-term storage resources that a new dispatchable and emissions-free resource (DEFR) must be deployed.  In my opinion, the most promising DEFR technology is nuclear generation because it is the only candidate resource that is technologically ready, can be expanded as needed, and does not suffer from limitations of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. If the only viable DEFR solution is nuclear, then renewables cannot be implemented without it.  But nuclear power runs best as baseload generation so it can replace renewables, eliminating the need for a massive DEFR backup resource.  Therefore, it would be prudent to pause all actions that encourage further renewable development until DEFR feasibility is proven because nuclear generation may be the only viable path to zero emissions.

Kinniburgh concludes:

Solar boost aside, the Senate and Assembly’s proposals leave climate issues largely where Hochul did: in the margins of budget talks. Almost six years after New York passed a climate law promising to shift its economy away from fossil fuels, the state has committed no consistent funding to do so, and it looks like this year’s budget will not change that.

I would only add that six years after the law passed the Hochul Administration has still not opened the books on the expected costs.  In these budget debates those costs are absolutely necessary.

Other Articles

The newsletter included links to other articles about the budget.  There is one about budget showdown hot topics including millionaire tax hikes and inflation rebate checks. Another article dives into the proposal for a “middle-class” tax cut.  The legislature has proposed more money for child care than proposed by the Governor.  Another item raised by the legislature are changes to the school funding formula.  The legislature has proposed a boost to nonprofits and safety net programs serving New York’s neediest.  After the recent prison strikes actions on prisons and public safety policies will be debated.

Conclusion

As a New Yorker I am not sure what is the biggest embarrassment.  Is it a plan to completely transform the economy to eliminate fossil fuels without doing a feasibility analysis before implementing it?  Or is it the annual budget process back-room shenanigans described in these New York Focus articles.  The only thing I am sure of is that the impacts of both are not in the best interests of New York.

Ellenbogen: Another Reason to Pause the Climate Act – Electric Trucks

Manhattan Contrarian Francis Menton’s recent article on electric truck deployment prompted Rich Ellenbogen to write an email to his distribution list that deserves a wider distribution.  I have collaborated with both gentlemen because we all agree that the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (Climate Act) net-zero transition mandates are bound to fail simply because the ambition is too great.  Nowhere is this more evident than the magical thinking associated with heavy-duty trucks.

Ellenbogen is the President [BIO] Allied Converters and frequently copies me on emails that address various issues associated with the Climate Act. I have published other articles by Ellenbogen including a description of his keynote address to the Business Council of New York 2023 Renewable Energy Conference Energy titled: “Energy on Demand as the Life Blood of Business and Entrepreneurship in the State -video here:  Why NY State Must Rethink Its Energy Plan and Ten Suggestions to Help Fix the Problems” and another video presentation he developed describing problems with Climate Act implementation.   He comes to the table as an engineer who truly cares about the environment but has practical experience that forces him to conclude that New York’s plans simply will not work.

Menton on Electric Trucks

Menton’s article makes the point that so far the impossible mandates of the Climate Act have all been so far in the future that reality has not been evident.  He points out that:

In 2021 Governor Hochul sought to do the Climate Act one better by adopting a regulation called the Advanced Clean Truck Rule. This Rule requires a certain percentage of heavy duty trucks sold in New York to be “zero emissions,” i.e., all-electric. It so happens that New York copied this Rule and its percentages from California. For the 2025 model year, now under way, the relevant percentage is 7%.

He continues:

All-electric heavy duty trucks? Did anyone think this one through? Clearly not. The New York Post today reports that two upstate legislators of the Democratic Party have now introduced legislation to postpone the electric heavy-duty truck mandate until 2027. The legislators are Jeremy Coney Cooney of Rochester and Donna Lupardo of Binghamton. The two call the mandate “nearly impossible for the trucking industry to comply with.” Here is one among several noted problems: “The legislators noted that an average diesel truck can be refilled in about 10 minutes and can drive for about 2,000 miles. By comparison, an electric, zero-emission heavy-duty truck takes approximately 10 hours to charge and can run for about 500 miles. . . . “Battery charging times are . . . a challenge and will remain so until new technology emerges and is commercialized,” [Lupardo] said.

Menton argues that there is no way that these issues can be resolved in a couple of years.  There is no way the battery challenges s are going to be resolved that soon.  Throw in lack of charging infrastructure and costs (a fully-electric heavy-duty truck can be as much as triple that of a diesel competitor with comparable load capacity) and this is clearly unworkable.  He also describes the difficulties trying to enforce a mandate on electric vehicle sales quotas.  Despite the wails and gnashing of the teeth of the environmental advocates, Menton concludes that reality will win and this mandate will have to eventually be rescinded.  I recommend the entire article for additional facts and context.

Ellenbogen Trucking Challenges

The following is Ellenbogen’s lightly edited email.

The electric truck situation is even more complex than Francis mentions and more unworkable.    It’s more than the fact that the truck would cost three times as much as the Post clip said.   Physics and energy math are getting in their way again.  The truck would be so heavy that it couldn’t carry nearly the same amount of freight.  It is apparent that whoever wrote the truck rules knew nothing about EV’s, long haul trucking, or Federal highway rules.  They just didn’t like diesel fuel so they said, “Let’s make them electric” without thinking about what that would entail.  Also, the following statement about comparable load capacity defies physics: “On the cost front, it the Post reports that the price of a fully-electric heavy-duty truck can be as much as triple that of a diesel competitor with comparable load capacity.”

We load large trucks several times per week at my factory and we must be very conscious of Gross Vehicle Weight.  In the US, for an 18-wheeler with 5 axles, that is 80,000 pounds max or about 16,000 pounds per axle.  Of those 80,000 pounds, about 35,000 pounds is the tractor and trailer including about 4000 pounds of fuel when fully loaded.  We can safely load a truck with about 43,500 pounds of freight and stay below the weight limit without worrying about the fuel weight. We also must be careful to balance the load so that the weight is evenly distributed.  If a trucker hits a weigh scale and there is too much weight on one axle or if the truck is overweight, they will be subject to fines in the thousands of dollars.

My Tesla X weighs 5400 pounds and can travel about 300 miles with a 100 KWh battery.  A 100 KWh battery can weigh about 675 Kg or about 1500 pounds.   If 1500 pounds of Lithium batteries can store enough energy to move 5400 pounds for 300 miles and energy used is proportional to distance and mass, then assuming the same velocity it would take almost fifteen times as much storage to move 80,000 pounds 300 miles, or about 22,500 pounds of batteries, 18,500 pounds more than the weight of the diesel fuel.

If we subtract 18,500 pounds from the 43,500 pounds of freight to meet Federal Highway Laws, no truck could carry more than 25,000 pounds of freight for 300 miles at a time so it would need almost two EV truck trips for one diesel truck trip.  As diesel engines are about 43% energy efficient and EV’s are about 75% energy efficient, it would take 15% more energy to move the same amount of freight using an EV than with a diesel truck.  It would also take two times as much labor to just move the freight within a very small radius.   We ship truckloads across the country, and they will get there in three or four days.  Hours of Service regulations require them to drive no more than 11 hours within a 14-hour window. They must take a mandatory 30-minute break after eight hours of driving.  The EV truck couldn’t even make a round trip to Syracuse from my factory just north of New York City without stopping for charging.  Diesel truck operations are limited by Federal regulations whereas electric trucks can only drive 4 – 5 hours before charging.  As a result, about 4 hours of the 14 hours would be lost charging and the truck would lose at least 60 miles of range per day, or about 10% best case.  Also, to charge a 1500 KWh battery pack in four hours would require the capacity of four to five Tesla chargers.

An enormous amount of the energy would be expended just moving the batteries, not the freight.  It will use about 15% more energy per pound of freight, which is absolutely not “green” and it will use at least six times the amount of labor if you figure in charging stops.  If you figure in generation losses if the energy is fossil fuel based, then you can at least double the energy use of the electric truck and the 15% becomes 100% more energy per pound of freight.

UPS has ordered several electric trucks but they aren’t doing long hauling with those and their freight is less dense so they might be able to stay below the 25,000 pound limit so it may work for them.  For large, long-haul trucks, it will be logistically impossible.  Sea containers can weigh 44,000 pounds.   There isn’t a physical way to build an electric truck that could legally haul them to or from a pier.

We’re shipping 80,000 pounds of freight to Philadelphia next Tuesday on two trucks.  The total fright cost is about $1800 or about 2.25 cents per pound.  With electric trucks, the freight costs would be substantially higher.  Just the fact that it would take twice the number of loads to move the same amount of freight would double the price but then you must figure in that the truck owner is amortizing three times the cost of the equipment and lost labor during charging, so the cost would likely triple or more.

Almost everything moves by a long-haul truck.  If you want to see inflation, add that to the cost of every delivery if you could even find enough truck drivers to logistically drive all the extra loads that would be required.  The entire idea is unworkable. It sounds like another not well thought out “only a matter of political will plan” from New York State and California.

Caiazza Conclusion

Menton and Ellenbogen describe insurmountable issues with the heavy-duty truck mandates.  There is no way that the Climate Act heavy duty truck mandates can be achieved on schedule and probably not ever.  This is another reason to pause the Climate Act implementation and rethink the ambition and schedule of all the mandates.  Until the feasibility of each requirement has been proven it is utter folly to throw more money at these magical dreams.

Renewables are Cheaper Because of Fuel Volatility

I have run into a couple of instances where New York Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act) proponents have claimed that renewable energy development can reduce costs.  This article responds to the argument that reduced fuel price volatility will make renewables cheaper.

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 500 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.

Renewable Energy Can Reduce Costs

I am disappointed that the renewable energy can reduce costs claim has made it into the New York State Energy Plan process.  The Energy Plan is “a comprehensive roadmap to build a clean, resilient, and affordable energy system for all New Yorkers”.  When the Energy Planning Board met on March 3, 2025 to adopt the scope for the state energy plan the claim was mentioned.  One item on the agenda was a discussion of the “planned approach for techno-economic pathways analysis”.  This is the analysis work whereby the state agencies and their consultants will “prove” the pre-conceived notion that the Climate Act net-zero transition concocted by politicians will work. 

The presentation by Jeff Freedman from the Atmospheric Sciences Research Center, University at Albany, Albany, New York included the following slide that makes the claim that renewable energy can reduce costs. One characteristic of the New York State Energy Research & Development Authority (NYSERDA) documentation for the implementation plan is inadequate documentation, so it is not surprising that the justification for the claim is not readily available.

Table 6-1 was in New York State Climate Impacts Assessment Chapter 06: Energy.  That chapter does not address renewable energy costs specifically.  I searched for references for costs in the chapter and found only one relevant reference on page 370:

Energy costs: Fossil fuel prices are increasingly volatile, largely because they are traded on global markets. In contrast, a power sector composed of large volumes of renewable resources that have no fuel costs could lead to less volatile energy bills due to the elimination of this driver of variability in energy costs. The presence of distributed resources amplifies this effect. Whether the costs of a clean power sector are lower than, comparable to, or higher than the status quo, they will be more predictable and less likely to create indirect costs that arise from unexpected price changes.

I am aware of one other instance where this rationale was mentioned.  The December 18, 2024 New York Assembly Committee on Energy public hearing enabled legislators to question NYSERDA and the New York State Department of Public Service (DPS) staff about Climate Act progress. When Jessica Waldorf, Chief of Staff & Director of Policy Implementation, DPS was asked what impact Climate Act GHG emission reductions would have given that New York emissions are smaller than the observed annual increases in global GHG emissions. Waldorf said that there are other reasons “to build renewable energy resources in New York that are not just related to emissions.”  She gave two reasons: energy security and price volatility. 

The other thing I would say about energy security is price volatility.  Customers are beholden to the whims of the fossil fuel industry and the up and down markets that we see from fossil fuels.  Localizing our energy production and renewables allows us for price stability.  That is definitely a benefit of building resources here. 

The presumption in this article is that the basis of these claims that renewable energy will be cheaper and less volatile is that a renewable energy dependent electric system will have less unstable fuel costs resulting in cheaper and more secure energy.  This in turn is based on two presumptions: fuel prices are volatile because of global markets and renewables would eliminate this cost driver.

Fuel Volatility

The US Energy Information Administration (EIA) noted in June 2024 that fossil fuel price volatility has shown significant changes over time, with recent years experiencing particularly high levels of volatility: “In 2022, natural gas price volatility reached extreme levels, with historical volatility peaking at 171% in February 2022, the highest since at least 1994.”  Note that EIA is only discussing natural gas volatility which has become a much larger electric generating fuel source in recent years.  In my opinion, the increasing reliance on a single fuel could be the fundamental reason for the observed increase in volatility.

In any case, the New York agency global market argument picks just one driver for fuel price volatility.  The EIA  gave other reasons for natural gas variability in August 2022:

Increased uncertainty about market conditions that affect natural gas supply and demand can result in high price volatility. Events that have contributed to changing market conditions include:

  • Production freeze-offs
  • Storms
  • Unplanned pipeline maintenance and outages
  • Significant departures from normal weather
  • Changes in inventory levels
  • Availability of substitute fuels
  • Changes in imports or exports
  • Other sudden changes in demand

U.S. natural gas prices are typically more volatile during the first quarter of a year because of the fluctuating demand for natural gas for space heating as weather changes. Factors that contributed to heightened volatility in the first three months of this year include:

Of the eight events that contribute to changing market conditions and fuel volatility is the only one is related to global market conditions.

Jurisdictional Proof

When I get around to submitting a comment on the weakness of this argument, I intend to demand that the proponents of the Climate Act offer an example of a jurisdiction where the electric system has become reliant on wind and solar renewable generation and consumer costs have gone down because the fuel volatility has decreased.  To my knowledge, all jurisdictions have seen consumer cost increases. 

I used Perplexity AI to research electric energy prices as a function of wind and solar deployment.  My experience showed the weaknesses of AI research.  The response to the question whether consumers in any jurisdiction have seen decreased costs when transitioning their electric system to rely on wind and solar claimed that it was true.  The response said: “This trend is driven by the rapidly declining costs of renewable energy technologies and their increasing cost-competitiveness compared to conventional fossil fuel sources.”  The reference cited was from Ember-Energy “a global energy think tank that accelerates the clean energy transition with data and policy” that can hardly be considered an unbiased source.  The response also does not address consumer rate costs.  It makes the mistaken claim that the cost of developing renewable technologies has little relation to the delivered cost of electricity to consumers. In the real world, the cost of storage to address intermittency, the cost of additional transmission support to address diffuse wind and solar, and the cost to provide the ancillary transmission support services not available from wind and solar, make renewables much more expensive than fossil fuels.   I was unable to frame a question that provided an answer that acknowledged that the costs necessary to provide consumers with reliable power made delivered renewable energy more expensive.

German Experience

However, if the claim is true then proponents should be able to point to jurisdictions where wind, solar, and energy storage have make electric prices cheaper.  The best example of the claim that renewable energy is cheaper because it reduces fuel volatility should be Germany.  Oil, coal and gas prices spiked in the immediate aftermath of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and have been volatile ever since. Germany’s Energiewende is the country’s planned transition to a low-carbon, nuclear-free economy and is often cited as an example of what New York should do. Enerdata reports that “According to the German Federal Network Agency, the installed renewable power capacity in Germany increased by nearly 20 GW (+12%) to nearly 190 GW in 2024.” If the proponent’s claim is true then prices should be trending down.  However, since 2000, electricity prices for German households have risen by 116%, from 13.94 to 30.43 cents per kilowatt-hour in 2019 .  As of April 1, 2024, households with basic supplier contracts were paying around 46 cents per kilowatt-hour, making it “the most expensive option compared to other providers or special contracts” .

Another way to look at the claim is to compare electricity prices within the European Union.  I highly recommend  the Nemeth Report for its coverage of European energy issues. The post EU Action Plan for Affordable Energy  includes just such a comparison.  It quotes Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, as saying: “We’re driving energy prices down and competitiveness up. We have already significantly reduced energy prices in Europe by doubling down on renewables. “

However, the data in the following figure do not support her claim. 

The analysis states that:

Note that the household price average shows a large difference between EU countries that use coal, nuclear, and gas vs those that have focused on wind and solar. For example, as shown in the chart above, according to Statista, using 2023 data, Hungary’s electricity price was 9.68 Eurocents/kwh (50% of their electricity is from nuclear, 38% coal & gas) and Bulgaria which relies mostly on coal and nuclear was around 11 Eurocents/kwh, whereas Germany, which has “doubled down on renewables” (and closed down its nuclear), was the highest at 44.97 Eurocents/kwh and Denmark which has a small population and a whole lot of windmills was at 39.44 Eurocents/kwh! 

Data sources and the year of the data matters. Eurostat uses numbers from the first quarter of 2024 which reorder some of the countries but the overall argument, that countries that “doubled down on renewables” and made other poor choices of shutting down nuclear power plants and/or coal experienced higher prices, remains supported. 

Discussion

Roger Pielke, Jr recently posted an article about the politicization of expertise that is relevant here.  He argues that society needs to depend on the expertise of specialists in many fields – “Nobody knows enough to run the government”.  As a result, society needs all of us.  He explains that “We do not have to agree on everything, but we do have to work together”.  Then he points out that “In recent years, credential expertise—like many things—has become pathologically politicized.”         

Such is the case shown by the politicization of the Climate Act implementation led by NYSERDA.   Consider, for example, the presentation by Jeff Freedman to the Planning Board.  It is concerning on a couple of levels.  In the first place, the Planning Board is composed of agency heads and political appointees who for the most part do not have background and experience in the energy sector.  Freedman was presented as an expert from the energy sector whose claim that “renewable energy can reduce costs” was probably taken as the gospel.  However, his main research focus is on “renewable energy and atmospheric boundary layer (ABL) processes” so his bias is towards renewable energy virtues and he has no energy sector experience that qualifies him to make such a statement.  He was a spokesman because of his adherence to the narrative.

In the second place, the presentations at the meeting suggest that NYSERDA will follow the Scoping Plan approach in the stakeholder process for the Energy Plan.  The primary purpose of the meeting was to approve the final scope of the Energy Plan.  As was the case with the Climate Act Scoping Plan the NYSERDA response to stakeholder comments is to document the number of comments received by category and provide general descriptions of key themes and “responsive Scope revisions”.  My problem with this is that if anyone provides specific comments or raises specific issues with claims, there is no documentation that the submittal was addressed, and nothing included to respond to the issue raised.  For example, the claim that renewable energy can reduce costs was undocumented in Freedman’s presentation.  I have no doubts that NYSERDA will continue the charade that renewable energy can reduce costs and that costs of inaction are worse than the costs of action.  They have never responded to related issues raised and will continue to do so as long as they can get away with it.  In my opinion this is another instance of pathologically politicized expertise by NYSERDA because they are so arrogant that they don’t see any need to respond to stakeholder comments.

Conclusion

The biggest threat to Climate Act progress is the inevitable extraordinary cost of implementation.  The Hochul Administration has ducked the issue since the Climate Act was passed.  They can only hide reality for so long.  The question is whether the issues associated with the net-zero transition will be addressed before New York’s economy is severely compromised.

In the meantime, if you ever hear anyone say renewable energy can reduce costs, please ask them why German electric prices are so high or to cite an example of any jurisdiction that is transitioning their electric system that has reduced ratepayer bill costs when using the Climate Act strategy to rely wind, solar, and energy storage resources.