Climate Act – Page 2 – Pragmatic Environmentalist of New York

Zero by 2040 Technoeconomic Assessment – Resource Comparison

The New York State Energy Research & Development Authority (NYSERDA ) recently announced the completion of its Zero by 40 Technoeconomic Assessment (Zero by 40 Report). The report directly addresses what I think is the biggest reliability risk of the Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act) net-zero electric system transition. I summarized the report in my previous post. This is a companion article that does not include the background information in the first article and just compares the technologies evaluated

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

Overview

The current focus of Climate Act implementation is on meeting the interim reduction target of a 40% GHG reduction by 2030 and the all electricity must be generated by “zero-emissions” resources by 2040 mandate. My previous post provides more background.

The previous post explains that the Zero by 40 report was prepared in response to the Public Service Commission (PSC) recognition that there is a “need for resources to ensure the reliability of the 2040 zero-emissions electric grid mandated by the Climate Act”. A May 2023 Order notes that the Climate Act directs the PSC to establish a program to ensure that the electric sector targets are achieved and explains that “there is a gap between the capabilities of existing renewable energy technology and expected future system reliability requirements.” It concludes: “This Order responds to the Petition and initiates a process to identify technologies that can close the gap between the capabilities of existing renewable energy technologies and future system reliability needs, and more broadly identify the actions needed to pursue attainment of the Zero Emission by 2040 Target.” This class of technologies has been dubbed Dispatchable Emissions-Free Resources (DEFR). This Zero by 40 Report responds to that order.

I acknowledge the use of Perplexity AI to generate a summary of the report used as an outline and to provide references included in this document.

Technologies Evaluated in the Zero by 40 Technoeconomic Assessment

I had originally planned only a second companion article about the implications to the Climate Act to my summary post but decided that I needed to describe the technologies too. Section 1.4 in the Zero by 40 Report describes the technologies evaluated:

This report evaluates potential resources that can provide firm energy and capacity in a zero-emissions power sector. The study examines seven technology categories that could serve as DEFRs. These technologies are grouped into three resource groups based on their expected operational characteristics. While some resources can be configured to serve different roles, these groupings reflect constraints on costs, emissions, and availability in New York State, which are discussed later in the report.

Low-capacity factor resources can be deployed during periods of high demand and low renewable generation, offering reliability, fast-ramping capabilities, and no duration limitations, assuming fuel availability, but are not operated as baseload units due to plant economics. Low-capacity factor Resources include:

Hydrogen (H₂)

Renewable natural gas (RNG) and renewable diesel (RD)

High-capacity factor resources operate the majority of the year and can provide reliable baseload power, including power during challenging events, but are less suitable for fast ramping or frequent starts and stops. High-capacity factor resources include:

Advanced nuclear

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) on thermal plants

Geothermal

Gap-rightsizing resources can help balance supply and demand to adjust the capacity gap. While they do not generate electricity directly, they enhance the utilization of other clean resources. Gap-rightsizing resources include:

Long duration energy storage (LDES) – Note that this refers to interday storage 10-36 hours

Virtual power plants (VPP)

Figure 1 provides an illustrative example of the role of these different DEFR resource groups. While renewables play a significant role in overall power generation, the high-capacity factor resources supplement renewables by providing an additional source of baseload power. Low-capacity factor resources help to meet peak demand when renewables are insufficient. Gap-rightsizing resources can shift generation or load, increasing the value of renewable generation by mitigating intermittency to balance supply with demand.

Figure 1. Role of DEFR Resource Types in Meeting Electricity Demand

Source: New York State Energy and Research Development Authority (NYSERDA). 2025. “Zero by 40 Technoeconomic Assessment, Final Report.” Prepared by Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA. Zero by 40 Technoeconomic Assessment

Operational Characteristics

Figure 2 from the Zero by 2040 Report describes the characteristics of the three functional categories. It is instructive to consider these resources relative to three categories of generating resource production over time.

Figure 2. Functional Categories of DEFR Resource Types

Technology Assessment Technologies Summary

Chapter 9 in the Zero by 2040 report compares the potential DEFR technologies. The report uses the following criteria: performance attributes, readiness by 2040, infrastructure and supply chain readiness dynamics, project lead times, emissions and other considerations, cost, and scalability for 2040. Instead of looking at individual technologies the Chapter 9 summary describes the results for the three functional DEFR categories.

The Report describes Low-capacity factor resources as follows:

Low-capacity factor resources offer high flexibility and responsiveness to grid needs. They can be deployed during periods of high demand and low renewable generation, offering reliability and fast-ramping capabilities without duration limitations, assuming fuel availability. These resources are expected to be critical in any future zero-emission grid. However, they are expected to operate for only a limited number of hours per year due to a high operating-to-capital cost ratio, primarily driven by the cost of fuel, as well as fuel availability constraints. The low capacity factor resources evaluated in this study are H2, RNG, and RD.

The Low-Capacity resource summary states:

Low-capacity factor resources are expected to critical in any future zero-emission grid, offering reliability and fast-ramping capabilities on days with the most extreme system needs. Each technology evaluated has advantages and challenges. Infrastructure constraints and high costs may limit the widespread availability of H2 in 2040, but low GHG emissions, especially for green H2, will likely provide value across various industries in 2040 and beyond, making investments in pilot projects and eventual strategic infrastructure deployment important from an economywide perspective.

RNG and RD may be the most viable low-capacity factor resources for 2040 deployment given their technology readiness, existing fuel transport infrastructure, and ability to serve as drop-in fuels in existing plants. However, the combination of feedstock limitations, competition for fuels from other sectors and states, and GHG considerations necessitates limiting their use to low capacity factor applications.

High-capacity resources are described as follows:

High-capacity factor resources operate the majority of the year, providing reliable baseload power. These technologies can meet existing and growing load, reducing the need for both high-cost low-capacity factor DEFRs and some intermittent renewable deployment, often with a lower land footprint on a per-capacity basis. They also typically provide inertia and other ancillary grid services to support a grid increasingly dependent on variable renewables. While they have some ramping capabilities, they are less suitable for fast ramping or frequent starts and stops. This analysis compares LLWRs, lwSMRs, non-water-cooled reactors, NG combined cycle plants with 95% carbon capture and storage (CCS), and next-generation geothermal systems.

The High-Capacity resource summary states:

High-capacity factor resources are valuable for meeting existing load and expected load growth. While renewables are projected to supply most of the energy demand in 2040, high-capacity factor resources can provide firm power and grid services that support reliability in a predominantly renewable grid. Their high energy density also helps mitigate potential land-use challenges associated with large-scale renewable deployment. High-capacity factor resources could also reduce the need for low capacity factor resources, which are expensive and mostly idle. However, high-capacity factor resource technologies require long lead times, often 10 years or more. To ensure they are operational by 2040, stakeholders must take early action.

Each technology offers unique advantages and faces specific challenges. From a deployment-readiness perspective, LLWRs and CCS are the most prepared for near-term implementation. However, lwSMRs and non-water-cooled reactors could also become commercially viable by 2040. Geothermal, while promising, has lower readiness and limited scalability in New York State.

Gap-Rightsizing Resources are described as:

Gap-rightsizing resources help balance supply and demand, addressing the firm capacity gap. While these technologies do not generate electricity directly, they enhance the potential of other clean resources. They are expected to have significant value even today due to opportunities for energy arbitrage and infrastructure cost avoidance but will not be sufficient on their own to meet all grid needs due to duration limitations and because they do not generate electricity on their own. This study considers two main categories of Gap-Rightsizing Resources: LDES and VPPs. LDES includes mechanical, electrochemical, and thermal storage technologies. Within each of these buckets are several technologies with a range of attributes.

The Zero by 2040 report does not summarize this category. Both of the gap-rightsizing resources LDES and VPP are largely ready for deployment. Costs for VPP are lower than other technologies but depend on costumer participation which makes availability uncertain. Furthermore, there are limits to the energy potential of this technology. LDES batteries will be more expensive, but “has the potential for longer discharge durations and higher operational certainty, but it is also a net load on the grid due to the need to recharge and round trip efficiency losses.”

Discussion

There are two missing pieces to the path forward for the May 2023 Order. Someday some is going to have make recommendations about these technologies. The PSC needs another order specifying how it intends to “identify the actions needed to pursue attainment of the Zero Emission by 2040 Target”

The following caveat in Chapter 9 suggests the other component needed to move forward:

Most of the comparison focuses on comparing technologies within three resource groups: low capacity factor resources (hydrogen and biofuels), high capacity factor resources (advanced nuclear, carbon capture and storage, and next-generation geothermal), and gap-rightsizing resources (LDES and VPPs). Because technologies in different resource groups serve different functions, are expected to operate with very different profiles, and provide fundamentally different value to the grid, direct comparisons across resource groups are difficult and can be misleading. Ultimately, electric system modeling will be needed to understand the least-cost mix of resources and each of their potential unique contributions, which falls outside the scope of this study.

This report says more work is needed. It states that “electric system modeling will be needed to understand the least-cost mix of resources and each of their potential unique contributions, which falls outside the scope of this study.” In my opinion, it is not just the least-cost mix, but also the mix that minimizes reliability risks and environmental impacts. I think that New Yorkers need to know the impacts of this approach relative to impacts of continued use of fossil fuels, a lower-carbon approach that combines increased use of nuclear energy supplemented with fossil fuels where appropriate, and an all-in approach that uses nuclear as much as possible to reduce GHG emissions as much as possible. This report is committed to a mix of resources that includes massive amounts of wind, solar, and energy storage resources.

I also want to comment on the lack of urgency regarding this initiative. Responsible New York agencies all agree that the new Dispatchable Emissions-Free Resource (DEFR) technologies described in this report are needed to make a solar and wind-reliant electric energy system viable during extended periods of low wind and solar resource availability. Every day that a determination whether there is a viable DEFR approach is delayed means the costs, reliability risks, and environmental impacts associated with a wind and solar potentially false solution increase.

Conclusion

This is another reason that New York State needs to pause Climate Act implementation. The Legislature is required by a court decision to revisit the Climate Act to modify the schedule. It would also be appropriate for the politicians who insisted on this course of action to define affordability, reliability risk, and environmental impact boundary conditions that would frame a feasibility analysis be addressed. I further suggest that appropriate metrics be developed that ensure that implementation stops if those boundary conditions are exceeded. New Yorkers need to demand that the politicians who passed the Climate Act become accountable for its impact.

Zero by 2040 Technoeconomic Assessment Summary

The New York State Energy Research & Development Authority (NYSERDA ) recently announced the completion of its Zero by 40 Technoeconomic Assessment. This report directly addresses what I think is the biggest reliability risk of the Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act) net-zero electric system transition so I believe understanding the implications of the report findings is important. This article provides a summary overview of the report. I will follow up with another post describing the implications.

Overview

The Climate Act established a New York “Net Zero” target by 2050. It includes an interim reduction target of a 40% GHG reduction by 2030. Two targets address the electric sector: 70% of the electricity must come from renewable energy by 2030 and all electricity must be generated by “zero-emissions” resources by 2040. The Climate Action Council (CAC) was responsible for preparing the Scoping Plan that outlined how to “achieve the State’s bold clean energy and climate agenda.” The Integration Analysis prepared by NYSERDA and its consultants quantified the impact of the electrification strategies. That material was used to develop the Draft Scoping Plan outline of strategies. After a year-long review, the Scoping Plan was finalized at the end of 2022. Since then, the State has been trying to implement the Scoping Plan recommendations through regulations, proceedings, and legislation.

One fundamental flaw in the Climate Act is the mistaken belief by the authors of the law that existing wind, solar, and energy storage would be sufficient and that no new technology would be required. In May 2023 the Public Service Commission (PSC) initiated a process “to examine the need for resources to ensure the reliability of the 2040 zero-emissions electric grid mandated by the Climate Act” that directly contradicted that presumption. The Order notes that the Climate Act directs the PSC to establish a program to ensure that the electric sector targets are achieved. It goes on:

However, several studies indicate that renewable energy resources may not be capable of meeting the full range of electric system reliability needs that will arise as fossil generation is replaced. These studies suggest that there is a gap between the capabilities of existing renewable energy technology and expected future system reliability requirements.

The Order concludes: “This Order responds to the Petition and initiates a process to identify technologies that can close the gap between the capabilities of existing renewable energy technologies and future system reliability needs, and more broadly identify the actions needed to pursue attainment of the Zero Emission by 2040 Target.” This report responds to that order.

Zero by 40 Technoeconomic Assessment

The announcement for the study stated:

NYSERDA is pleased to share that following yearslong thorough, deliberative analysis in partnership with State agency staff, it has completed its Zero by 40 Technoeconomic Assessment, which is intended to help inform the State’s assessment of the readiness and timing for the introduction of new technologies. The Assessment has been filed with the New York State Public Service Commission to inform stakeholders engaged in the Commission’s proceeding investigating different technologies that could contribute to a zero-emission electricity system.

This article will summarize the report. I acknowledge the use of Perplexity AI to generate a summary of the report and provide references included in this document.

The study was prepared by the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) under contract to NYSERDA.

The NYSERDA Zero by 40 Technoeconomic Assessment evaluates technologies needed for New York’s goal of a zero-emissions electric grid by 2040. NYSERDA and Department of Public Service staff “provided guidance, review, and strategic prioritization for this project.”

The Summary of the report gives a good overview. I have annotated the following quotes from the Summary below.

The Summary explains the reason for the report:

In May 2023, the New York State (NYS) Public Service Commission (PSC) issued an order initiating a process “to identify technologies that can close the gap between the capabilities of existing renewable energy technologies and future system reliability needs, and more broadly identify the actions needed to pursue attainment of [New York State’s] Zero Emission by 2040 target.” New York State has engaged in this process by conducting a study to evaluate candidate technologies that could close the gap.

The authors of the Climate Act relied on analyses that used a simplistic model of the electric system to conclude that no new technologies would be needed. The Summary describes the nuances not considered by the Climate Act authors:

A 2040 zero-emission grid will require resources with a mix of attributes to maintain reliability requirements. These include resources that can provide energy and capacity for long durations, that are dispatchable and flexible with quick-start and fast ramping capabilities over multiple starts in a day, and that can provide inertial response, frequency control, dynamic reactive control, and high short circuit current contribution to the grid. Every resource does not need to provide every attribute, but the grid needs enough of each to maintain reliability.

Meeting these needs will require a diverse set of resources. This includes intermittent zero-emission energy resources such as solar and land-based and offshore wind, short-duration energy storage, legacy resources like hydropower and existing nuclear, dispatchable emissions free resources (DEFRs), transmission infrastructure, and other technologies that can provide grid services, like grid-forming (GFM) inverters. This report focuses on DEFRs.

The Summary describes the technologies evaluated in the report:

This report evaluates seven candidate DEFR technology categories that could provide clean, firm power to the NYS grid to achieve a zero-emissions power sector. The candidate resources include hydrogen, biofuels (such as renewable natural gas [RNG] and renewable diesel [RD]), advanced nuclear, carbon capture and storage on thermal power plants, next-generation geothermal, long-duration energy storage (LDES), and virtual power plants (VPPs).

The next paragraph in the Summary describes the problem. In my opinion, the statements also reveal the bias of the EPRI authors and the guidance from NYSERDA and DPS. There is no consideration of the potential finding that nothing might be affordable and technically feasible within the constraints of the Climate Act. The report is skewed towards optimism that technologies can solve this challenge within the constraints of a net-zero grid.

Given that these technologies are not currently deployed at scale, each is expected to require a varying degree of innovation and deployment support. However, all of these technologies can still contribute usefully to the grid, and any present challenges faced by an individual technology should not exclude it from consideration. Even as certain technologies may see structural deployment obstacles in some regions—for example, near urban settings—smaller and more targeted deployments remain possible.

I had difficulty interpreting the following paragraph. I think it ranks the options. Things like hydrogen that require pipelines and fuel storage facilities are less preferable than the other options.

To continue reliably serving New York State’s energy needs, the State will need to deploy resources with more limited infrastructure barriers in the near term. Technologies that require significant infrastructure build, such as new pipelines, fuel storage facilities, and additional transmission, add costs and complexity. Therefore, resources with fewer infrastructure needs will play a crucial role in reliably and cost-effectively providing zero-emission electricity.

The next paragraph supports my belief that they are ranking the options.

Each resource has characteristics that make it better suited for some use cases over others. Figures S-1 and S-2 show how these candidate resources were classified for comparison in this report. This classification is based on resource performance, as well as technology-specific supply, cost, and emission constraints that could affect availability. This resource classification approach is a simplification—in some configurations, technologies could fit into multiple classes.

I think Figure S-2 has important ramifications. However, if I started to address these categories it would make this document too long. I will hold off further discussion for a subsequent post.

Technologies Evaluated

The report assesses seven candidate DEFR technologies based on performance, readiness, emissions, costs, and other factors:

Hydrogen: Explored for use in combustion turbines and fuel cells. This was the place holder DEFR technology in the Scoping Plan.
Biofuels: Recognized for near-term availability but limited by supply constraints.
Advanced Nuclear: Including small modular reactors (SMRs), noted for high-capacity factors and flexibility in meeting energy demands.
Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS): Evaluated for its potential to reduce emissions while utilizing existing fossil-fuel infrastructure.
Next-Generation Geothermal: Assessed for its capability to provide clean, firm power generation.
Long-Duration Energy Storage (LDES): Essential for addressing extended periods of low renewable output, beyond typical battery durations.
Virtual Power Plants (VPPs): Aggregated distributed energy resources that enhance grid flexibility and capacity.

Zero by 2050 Report Conclusions

In this summary article I will just list the conclusion highlights.

A 2040 zero-emission grid will require a mix of attributes to maintain reliability requirements, and meeting these needs will require diverse resources.
A mix of DEFR technologies within and across resource categories will best meet statewide needs, maximize benefits, and minimize the risk associated with overreliance on any one resource. The following three categories were identified:
Low capacity factor DEFR with fast ramping capabilities will play a vital role on days with the most extreme system needs and will be needed throughout New York State. Potential resources such as hydrogen and biofuels are expected to be needed throughout the State to support the grid during peaking events, but each type of fuel faces distinct geographic limitations and cost challenges.
High capacity factor DEFR can help meet growing loads, reduce the need for buildout of some intermittent renewables and mostly idle peaking plants, diversify the energy mix, and provide inertia and other critical grid services to support a grid increasingly dependent on variable renewables. Potential resources such as nuclear, Natural Gas combustion paired with carbon capture, and geothermal can increase energy diversity while meeting load growth, but projects face geographic limitations, high and uncertain capital costs per project, and timeline challenges.
Gap-rightsizing DEFR can balance supply and demand, reduce the need for upgrades to transmission and distribution infrastructure, and provide benefits to consumers even today. Regional variability may require different solutions in different locations. Potential resources such as VPPs and LDES can provide valuable support in balancing supply and demand and reducing infrastructure buildout needs, but they have inherent duration limitations.

The report described actions that can facilitate the readiness of these resources to achieve the scale needed for 2040.

Pursue a diverse set of resources to minimize the risk of overreliance on individual technologies.
Start early to increase the likelihood of readiness by 2040.
Invest in grid-enhancing technologies early to minimize the need for backstop resources.
Invest in innovation to enhance resource viability.
Develop strategies across industries for unlocking key resources with infrastructure hurdles.
Engage early with technology developers, end users, and other stakeholders.
Conduct grid modeling to understand tradeoffs of relying on different resources.
Conduct a regular assessment of options and remain flexible as new technology options come online.

Discussion

I think this report is a good first step towards addressing “the need for resources to ensure the reliability of the 2040 zero-emissions electric grid mandated by the Climate Act.” The question now is where do we go from here? Just like the Scoping Plan and the Draft Energy Plan, this document lists different technologies and their characteristics but does not include a feasibility analysis suitable for putting together an actual implementation plan. The Public Service Commission must propose a plan that can guide implementation, project the potential costs, and propose a realistic timeline. The Legislature should then revise the Climate Act to comply with those requirements.

I think there is a major issue with this report. The document is full of statements that when viewed objectively indicate that the schedule of the Climate Act is not realistic. That calls out for a re-assessment of the Climate Act itself. What is missing is that the authors did not address the presumption that an electric system reliant upon weather-dependent wind and solar resources can safely and affordably prevent a blackout during the worst-case renewable resource drought. I will address my arguments that this is not possible in my next post. In the meantime, I described the challenges just defining the worst case in a filing earlier this year.

Conclusion

In a rational world, New York politicians would announce that they wanted to develop regulations to achieve a zero emissions electric grid and then go to the organizations in New York responsible for the electric system and ask them for a plan. This report should be a component of a future plan to achieve zero emissions. There still is no feasibility analysis, comprehensive estimate of the costs, or realistic timeline to achieve the 2040 zero emissions goal. Instead, we have a Climate Act mandate to achieve a zero-emission electric grid by 2040 because the New York Legislature naively believed it was only a matter of political will. It is long past time that the Public Service Commission should break away from the ideology and admit that the Climate Act schedule and aspiration needs to be revisited.

Initial Thoughts on Energy Planning Board Meeting on 13 November 2025

Yesterday I published a post that described my thoughts about today’s State Energy Planning Board meeting that discussed public comments on the Draft State Energy Plan document. This post describes my initial thoughts about the meeting and compares my predictions for the outcome.

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

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.

I have provided background information and a list of previous articles on my Energy Plan page.

Meeting Overview

There were three items on the agenda: approval of last meeting minutes, discuss public comments on the Draft Energy Plan, and consider any new business. As has been the case for previous meetings Chair Doreen Harris added an Update on the status of the net-zero transition.

The highlight of the update discussion was not what was mentioned but what was not mentioned. I did not make a copy of the first slide that included impacts of Federal rollbacks on New York’s clean energy industry where it was mentioned that “reporting has estimated that more than 6,200 jobs and $2.5B in investments have been lost or delayed in 2025 due to the Trump administration’s energy policies.” Harris put in a plug for Governor Hochul’s $1 billion Sustainable Future Program. The following slide shows where the money is allocated.

Harris described the renewable directive and energy solicitation.

Harris also mentioned that the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) approved required permits for the proposed Northeast Supply Enhancement (NESE) pipeline project, that the Constitution pipeline application was withdrawn, and that the air permit for the Greenidge crypto mining facility had been approved. There also were a couple of slides for statewide updates.

That covers what was mentioned in the Update. Conspicuous by its absence, there was no mention of the Supreme Court decision described in yesterday’s post. On Oct. 24, 2025, New York Albany Supreme Court issued a decision in a case brought by environmental organizations that sued the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC). The judge ordered DEC to issue final regulations establishing economy-wide greenhouse gas emission (GHG) limits on or before Feb. 6, 2026 or go to the Legislature and get the Climate Act 2030 GHG reduction mandate changed. Importantly, the Attorney General Office supplemental letter submitted during the trial stated that the Climate Act target would cause “undue harm”:

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

In my opinion, the fact that the Attorney General said this is unaffordable and the Judge said they need to consider changing the law is important information relative to the Energy Plan so it was inappropriate to exclude this as part of the update.

Public Comment Discussions

My previous article highlighted four issues that I thought should be addressed in the discussion of the public comments. Unfortunately, the presentations gave no indication whatsoever that individual comments would be addressed. I will follow up with another post that describes the presentation specifics. For this post I will only describe my initial impression relative to issues raised yesterday.

In my first oral comments I stated that unless the process includes stakeholder meetings that give the public to ask clarifying questions and there is a commitment to document the response to all comments submitted, the stakeholder process will have no credibility. The fact that people asked for more meetings was mentioned during the meeting but no reason that they did not hold them was given. My suggestions for changes to make the comment process credible were ignored.

The New York Independent System Operator (NYISO) comments included recommendations that are sure to infuriate proponents of the Climate Act. They say that we are not ready to retire existing fossil-fired generating plants, the necessary resources to replace them will not be ready any time soon so we need to build new fossil-fired units, and maintaining existing nuclear facilities is necessary. I was very disappointed that the discussion of comments was just an overview and that the impression given was that the greater number of comments supporting a particular position the greater the value of the comment. NYISO had some unique opinions and there was no acknowledgement of their positions relative to others on things like the need to keep fossil fired infrastructure in place.

I submitted comments that described significant problems with the Health Benefits Analysis chapter including over-simplification of the air quality analysis used to predict health impacts, failure to correctly verify the new model used, claiming health benefits when there is no observed relationship between annual average PM_2.5 and emergency room visits related to asthma, and suggesting significant benefits when the effects are much less than the observed inter-annual variation. Another characteristic of the NYSERDA description of comments was that there was no indication that any of the numbers in the Draft Plan or Pathways Analysis were incorrect anywhere. The Energy Planning Board can only assume that the NYSERDA work is infallible and above reproach.

I also submitted comments that described why New York is not ready to eliminate the use of natural gas. I addressed natural gas use for transportation, unacknowledged advantages for natural gas used for electric generation, arbitrary permitting decisions that have blocked necessary infrastructure projects, and the use at peaking power plants that provide critical reliability support. As I will show in a subsequent post, this topic was popular. The following slide exemplifies the briefing approach as it only shows themes of the comments. There is nothing explicit in this to suggest a link to my concerns. I want to make the point that I never heard the word feasibility in any of the presentations. NYISO says you need natural gas but “others urge leaning further into renewables, energy storage, electrification, and/or the efficient use of energy to reduce reliance on fossil fuels. How will this contradiction get resolved?

Discussion

When the meeting materials are released, I will follow up with more observations on the comments. However, it is probably a waste of time because this process is not credible. While there are some indications that reality is dawning on the Hochul Administration, these presentations show that NYSERDA, undoubtedly at the behest of the Administration, is using the Energy Plan process to fulfill an obligation and further their energy agenda. Unfortunately for the Governor there is a loud faction of her party that demand doubling down on renewable energy resources at the same time reality is showing that simply will not work. This tradeoff colors everything related to energy policy. It appears that the Administration is going to try to placate both sides by not taking public positions on controversial issues.

All signs are that NYSERDA did not use the Energy Plan as an opportunity to consider the implications of the observed transition and improve the transition going forward. There is no indication that there will be any attempt to meaningfully engage with stakeholders and address feasibility.

Conclusion

The Energy Plan should be based on energy and physical reality. Unfortunately, there are clean energy ideologues who cannot accept that their presumptions are indefensible relative to those standards. Sooner or later this conflict must be resolved, and it will cause political fallout for the Governor. Holding the safety of the citizens of New York hostage for political gain will not end well.

Predictions for 13 November 2025 Energy Planning Board Meeting

On July 23, 2025, the Draft Energy Plan was released for comment and comments were due on October 6, 2025. On November 13 the State Energy Planning Board will meet to discuss public comments on the Draft document. I predict that the New York State Energy Research & Development Authority (NYSERDA) will avoid specifics and only describe the comments received in general terms. I have no expectations that NYSERDA will provide a summary of comments received or document how comments submitted were treated. The Draft Energy Plan also has addressed affordability, but it is not clear how that will be treated going forward. I will publish a summary soon after the meeting to verify my prediction.

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.

I have provided background information and a list of previous articles on my Energy Plan page. While there are some indications that reality is dawning on the Hochul Administration, the process has not given me a lot of confidence that those concerns will be addressed sufficiently. My biggest concerns are whether the Hochul Administration will use the Energy Plan process as an opportunity to consider the implications of the observed transition so far and if the advice of stakeholders in its stakeholder process will be treated as an opportunity to improve the transition or an obligation with no attempt to meaningfully engage with any comments inconsistent with the narrative.

Supreme Court Decision

There is another interesting angle to this meeting. I recently described the Oct. 24, 2025, New York Albany Supreme Court decision as a fork in the road. Multiple environmental organizations sued the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC). The judge ordered DEC to issue final regulations establishing economy-wide greenhouse gas emission (GHG) limits on or before Feb. 6, 2026 or go to the Legislature and get the Climate Act 2030 GHG reduction mandate changed. There has been no indication yet how this will be addressed.

This is relevant to the resolution of the Draft Energy Plan because during the legal process the State submitted a letter that addressed “two categories of new developments: (1) the publication of the 2025 Draft New York State Energy Plan by the New York State Energy Planning Board on July 23, 2025 and (2) additional actions by the federal government that impede New York’s efforts to achieve the Climate Act. The letter argued that it was inappropriate to implement regulations that would ensure compliance with the 2030 40% reduction in GHG emissions Climate Act mandate because meeting the target is “currently infeasible”.

Ordering achievement of the 2030 target would equate to even higher costs than the net zero scenarios and would affect consumers even sooner. Undoubtedly, greenhouse-gas reducing policies can lead to longer-term benefits such as health improvements. This does not, however, offset the insurmountable upfront costs that New Yorkers would face if DEC were forced to try to achieve the Legislature’s aspirational emissions reductions by the 2030 deadline rather than proceeding at an ambitious but sustainable pace.

The letter concluded that the Climate Act is unaffordable:

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

The biggest question for the State Energy Planning Board discuss of the resolution of the Draft Energy Plan is how this acknowledged affordability issue will be addressed.

Resolution of My Comments

My Energy Plan page lists 6 articles describing the Pathways Analysis that provided quantitative information for the Draft Energy Plan and 18 more articles about comments on the Plan. Here are some highlights that I will be watching for

I submitted comments that described significant problems with the Health Benefits Analysis chapter including over-simplification of the air quality analysis used to predict health impacts, failure to correctly verify the new model used, claiming health benefits when there is no observed relationship between annual average PM_2.5 and emergency room visits related to asthma, and suggesting significant benefits when the effects are much less than the observed inter-annual variation. This makes the Draft plan claims of benefits invalid. Will the final energy plan acknowledge this?

In my first oral comments I stated that unless the process includes stakeholder meetings that give the public to ask clarifying questions and there is a commitment to document the response to all comments submitted, the stakeholder process will have no credibility. NYSERDA never held a stakeholder meeting, and I doubt that the comment responses will be documented.

Discussion

This will be interesting. Despite my pessimism that NYSERDA will meaningfully respond to all stakeholder input, the meeting’s discussion of affordability relative to the position of the Attorney General’s supplemental letter will be fascinating. I also wonder if they will acknowledge that something must be done relative to the judge’s decision. In the best case, they will describe a path forward.

Stay tuned.

Climate Act Energy Affordability

Although proponents of the net-zero transition in New York and elsewhere continue to claim that building wind and solar energy resources is the cheapest resource, reality is catching up. If this is true, then why aren’t electricity bills going down? I believe that affordability is the biggest challenge for the Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act) net-zero transition mandate. This post addresses affordability and risks that proponents who claim it is cheaper ignore.

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

Lessons for an Energy Affordability Agenda

A recent article by Lauren Teixeira at the Ecomodernist Blog examines the affordability of renewable energy relying heavily on a new study from Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) by Ryan Wiser, Eric O’Shaughnessy, Galen Barbose, Peter Cappers, and Will Gorman (LBNL Report). The LBNL Report examined state-level trends in U.S. retail electricity prices. There is a wide range of state-level trends.

The LBNL Report and Teixeira emphasize that there are many facts affecting electricity prices. Teixeira explains that the LBNL Report distinguishes between market-driven renewables, which show a statistically insignificant negative effect on prices, and policy-mandated renewables that are linked to significant price increases. The LBNL Report found that generation mix effects are not the biggest drivers of electricity prices. Instead, the key factors driving price increases include utility infrastructure spending, load dynamics and factors like utility spending on wildfire mitigation are more influential on electricity prices.

There is an important finding relative to the Climate Act. The abstract for the LBNL Report notes:

States with the greatest price increases typically exhibited shrinking customer loads—partially linked to growth in behind-the-meter solar and end-use energy efficiency—and had renewables portfolio standards (RPS) that required additional renewable energy supply. By contrast, the 75 percent of recent utility-scale wind and solar deployment that occurred outside Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) programs had no broadly discernible positive impact on retail prices and had suggestive (weak) evidence of reducing prices over the most recent time periods.

This is an unacknowledged implementation constraint for the Climate Act. States with favorable renewable resources, like Texas, can lower prices without mandates but New York’s comparatively poor resources face higher costs because more capacity must be installed to produce the same amount of power, additional energy storage is required, and more transmission must be built for the greater capacity development. As a result, it is unlikely that renewable energy could ever be cheaper.

If affordability is a priority, Teixeira advocates removing subsidies and policies favoring specific energy sources with a focus on market efficiency. That is the fundamental problem with the Climate Act energy transition. The Climate Act requires subsidies and includes mandates for specific energy technologies. The article criticizes simplified narratives in the renewable energy debate, arguing for a nuanced understanding of the interactions between generation types, policies, and geographic factors. Given the importance of energy affordability she calls for a shift from technology advocacy to a focus on consumer affordability, recognizing the trade-offs inherent in energy policy.

There is one other aspect of Teixeira’s article that is relevant to the New York discussion. State agencies have claimed that renewable energy is cheaper because of lower price volatility. Teixeira’s explains that the merit order effect impacts that claim. The merit order effect explains how electricity prices are determined by the marginal costs of power plants, with cheaper sources like wind and solar being dispatched first. As a result, renewables, having near-zero marginal costs post-construction, push out more expensive fossil fuel generators, leading to lower wholesale electricity prices. However, without adequate energy storage in poor resource locations, it is impossible to push out fossil resources so it may be necessary to eventually subsidize them. In the short term, as renewable energy increases supply during peak periods, it shifts the supply curve, reducing prices for all generators due to marginal pricing. However, that means the costs necessary to support the resources that come on line during the worst peak periods must be secured during the peaks. That means that price volatility during peaks will be higher as a feature not a bug of the system.

Teixeira claims that the costs of solar and wind energy have dramatically decreased, with solar prices dropping by 88% since 2009. She notes that while renewables can lower prices, they may also lead to “price cannibalization,” where excess renewable generation during high output periods can depress prices, sometimes resulting in negative pricing. Parker Gallant explains how this led to Ontario ratepayers coughing up $14 million in two days. Finally, she argues that falling battery storage costs are expected to mitigate these challenges, enhancing the viability of renewables. I disagree with her expectation that renewables can be viable if the underlying resources are weak like New York.

In my opinion, the LBNL Report and Teixeira both miss the effect of what I think is the intractable problem associated with dark doldrums. Dark doldrums are extended periods of low wind and solar resource availability. The LBNL report analyzed 24 years of U.S. data and found that states with higher renewable energy penetration see lower electricity price increases over time. However, that reduction in prices does not account for the reliability risks of infrequent prolonged periods of low renewable resource availability. Using Texas as an example, while they have great wind and solar resources on average, in February 2021, the Texas electric grid failed to provide sufficient energy when it was needed. The storm and accompanying dark doldrum was the worst energy infrastructure failure in Texas history 4.5 million homes and residences were without power, at least 246 people died, and total damages were at least $195 billion. Apologists for renewables claim the disaster was caused because other resources did not cover the lack of wind and solar. In my opinion, electric market pricing must reflect the fact that wind and solar are intermittent and that the costs for backup during the worst periods should reflect that requirement. Proponents claim that renewables act as fuel-saving resources that reduce the operational need for costly gas and coal plants and that results in system-wide savings for consumers. However, if insufficient investments are made in backup resources, current policies are risking catastrophic blackouts that will wipe out all the savings and directly lead to injuries and death.

State Supplemental Letter

Even the New York State Attorney General office agrees that the current Climate Act implementation schedule will lead to infeasible costs. On Oct. 24, 2025, the New York Albany Supreme Court ruled that the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) failed to implement regulations necessary to comply with the Climate Act mandates. During the legal process the State submitted a letter that addressed “two categories of new developments: (1) the publication of the 2025 Draft New York State Energy Plan by the New York State Energy Planning Board on July 23, 2025 and (2) additional actions by the federal government that impede New York’s efforts to achieve the Climate Act. The letter argued that it was inappropriate to implement regulations that would ensure compliance with the 2030 40% reduction in GHG emissions Climate Act mandate because meeting the target is “currently infeasible”.

Ordering achievement of the 2030 target would equate to even higher costs than the net zero scenarios and would affect consumers even sooner. Undoubtedly, greenhouse-gas reducing policies can lead to longer-term benefits such as health improvements. This does not, however, offset the insurmountable upfront costs that New Yorkers would face if DEC were forced to try to achieve the Legislature’s aspirational emissions reductions by the 2030 deadline rather than proceeding at an ambitious but sustainable pace.

The letter concluded that the Climate Act is unaffordable:

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

Discussion

It is no longer possible to argue that New York can afford to implement the Climate Act mandates. The State Attorney General’s office argued that meeting the 2030 emission reduction mandate was infeasible. The LBNL Report found that States like New York that have RPS that require additional renewable energy supply but do not have adequate renewable energy resource potential for those resources to be developed without subsidies have seen and will continue to see higher retail energy prices.

Consistent with the Draft State Energy Plan, the LBNL Report found that renewable energy deployment was not the primary driver of increased electric prices. The LBNL Report noted price increases were associated with load dynamics, extreme weather, natural disasters, and wildfires contributed to sizable price increases in some states. The Draft State Energy Plan argued that electric energy prices increased because of infrastructure investment requirements, transmission system expansion, and distribution system upgrades as well as increasing loads.

However, there is no question that energy affordability is a problem. Governor Hochul has expressed concerns about the affordability impacts of Climate Act implementation, stating worries about costs and “collateral damage” to New York families. I have long argued that components of New York Public Service Law Section 66-p (4). “Establishment of a renewable energy program” should be considered because it includes safety valve conditions for affordability and reliability. § 66-p (4) states: “The commission may temporarily suspend or modify the obligations under such program provided that the commission, after conducting a hearing as provided in section twenty of this chapter, makes a finding that the program impedes the provision of safe and adequate electric service; the program is likely to impair existing obligations and agreements; and/or that there is a significant increase in arrears or service disconnections that the commission determines is related to the program”. The increase in arrears metric is an indirect indicator of affordability and I have shown that there has been a significant increase in arrears since Climate Act implementation began.

Even if Climate Act costs are not the primary driver of retail electric price increases can we afford to continue the net-zero transition? New York GHG emissions are less than one half of one percent of global emissions and global emissions have been increasing on average by more than one half of one percent per year since 1990. Anything we do is subsumed by increases elsewhere so that this is just political theater that negatively impacts those least able to afford energy increases.

Conclusion

The Attorney General office says compliance with 2030 emission reduction mandates is infeasible. The LBNL Report suggests that states like New York that have policies that mandate renewable deployment but have renewable resources that require subsidies will increase costs. Clearly, it is time for the New York Legislature to revisit the Climate Act and establish affordability metrics to protect New Yorkers.

Climate Act Fork in the Road

I recently described the Oct. 24, 2025, New York Albany Supreme Court decision pitting environmental organizations against the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC). The judge ordered DEC to issue final regulations establishing economy-wide greenhouse gas emission (GHG) limits on or before Feb. 6, 2026 or go to the Legislature and get the Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act) 2030 GHG reduction mandate changed. I have argued for months 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 consider modifications to the Climate Act. This post summarizes the findings by the State of New York that support that position.

For this overview of New York State findings, I acknowledge the use of Perplexity AI to generate summaries and references included in this document.

Court Decision

The most important reason that the Legislature should consider revisions to the Climate Act is the recent court case. Environmental organizations initiated this lawsuit because the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) did not promulgate regulations as mandated by the Climate Act. The State agued that regulations were inappropriate but Judge Schreibman’s decision stated that:

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

This decision should prompt the Legislature to address the concerns raised by DEC. Furthermore, there are other State analyses that indicate that changes are in order as described below.

State Supplemental Letter

As part of the legal wrangling associated with the trial Assistant Attorney General Meredith G. Lee-Clark submitted further correspondence related to the litigation. The State’s submittal addressed “two categories of new developments: (1) the publication of the 2025 Draft New York State Energy Plan by the New York State Energy Planning Board on July 23, 2025 and (2) additional actions by the federal government that impede New York’s efforts to achieve the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act’s (the Climate Act) goals in a timely manner.”

The State of New York argued that it was inappropriate to implement regulations that would ensure compliance with the 2030 40% reduction in GHG emissions Climate Act mandate because meeting the target is “currently infeasible”. The following paragraph concedes that there are significant upfront cost issues that out-weigh other benefits.

Ordering achievement of the 2030 target would equate to even higher costs than the net zero scenarios and would affect consumers even sooner. Undoubtedly, greenhouse-gas reducing policies can lead to longer-term benefits such as health improvements. This does not, however, offset the insurmountable upfront costs that New Yorkers would face if DEC were forced to try to achieve the Legislature’s aspirational emissions reductions by the 2030 deadline rather than proceeding at an ambitious but sustainable pace.

The letter concluded that the Climate Act is unaffordable:

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

Comptroller Audit

The New York State Comptroller Office audit of the NYSERDA and PSC implementation efforts for the Climate Act was an early acknowledgement that the implementation plan needs to be revised. The report titled Climate Act Goals – Planning, Procurements, and Progress Tracking (“Comptroller Report”) found issues that question the current plan. The Perplexity AI summary concludes that “the audit reveals critical deficiencies in planning, cost assessment, risk management, and progress tracking” and notes that “With outdated data, calculation errors, project cancellations, technology limitations, transmission constraints, and escalating costs all threatening goal achievement, the audit calls for immediate action to improve planning and transparency.”

Clean Energy Standard Biennial Review

The Public Service Commission (PSC) released the draft Clean Energy Standard Biennial Review Report (“Biennial Report”) in July 2024. It compares the renewable energy deployment progress relative to the Climate Act goal to obtain 70% of New York’s electricity from renewable sources by 2030 (the 70% goal). The final document found that 2030 goal will likely not be achieved until 2033. The Perplexity AI summary describes seven key factors impeding progress.

Global economic pressures,

Transmission system inadequacies,

Interconnection delays,

Capacity accreditation changes,

Federal policy uncertainty,

Siting and permitting complexity, and

Increasing electric load.

All these factors are part of the lessons learned since the implementation of the Climate Act that began five years ago. I think this shows that the Legislature needs to address the schedule and ambition of the law.

Second Informational Report

The Climate Act requires the Department of Public Service (DPS) to prepare an annual report as described in the following slide from the presentation that summarizes the report.

The Second Informational Report (Report) prepared by Department of Public Service (DPS) staff “focuses on Commission actions from January 2023 through August 2025, and includes the estimated costs and outcomes from 2023 through 2029 to provide the most up to date information.” According to the Perplexity AI summary there are four feasibility concerns: the 2030 renewable energy target is “likely unattainable”, offshore wind faces major obstacles, transmission remains a “critical bottleneck”, and grid reliability challenges are mounting. There also are cost trajectory concerns. Despite the report’s careful messaging—”emphasizing that CLCPA costs are not the primary bill driver and that multiple factors beyond climate policy contribute to rate increases” – it cannot hide the magnitude of the challenges to meet the Climate Act requirements schedule.

Draft State Energy Plan

The Energy Plan process is currently underway. The New York State Energy Research & Development Authority (NYSERDA) is processing stakeholder comments on the draft document for the Energy Planning Board to consider when it decides whether to approve the draft. I recently highlighted New York Independent System Operator (NYISO) comments on the Draft Energy Plan recommendations. There are six extensive quotations from the Draft Energy Plan that NYISO supports that represent previously unacknowledged concerns about the Climate Act ambition and schedule:

The State will need to be strategic about the pace of combustion unit retirements and/or replacement

Combustion generating units will remain essential parts of electric grid reliability and affordability. Retirement of these units will not be able to occur until resources that provide the same grid reliability attributes are put in place.

A primary challenge for New York’s energy system is its advancing age, which creates unique risks for reliability.

The State will need to be strategic in identifying and integrating clean firm technologies that have the attributes necessary to support the achievement of a zero emissions electric grid by 2040.

For the electricity system, continue to incorporate the impacts of climate change into future reliability planning scenarios.

Consider whether the current reliability-related metrics should be supplemented given the evolving nature of the grid and increased risks of high-impact reliability events

The Perplexity AI summary concludes that:

The 2025 Draft State Energy Plan represents New York’s effort to reconcile the CLCPA’s statutory mandates with economic, technical, and political realities that have emerged since 2019. By acknowledging that key deadlines will be missed while maintaining long-term decarbonization objectives, the plan shifts from aspirational targets to pragmatic pathways.

Discussion

Judge Schreibman’s decision is very straightforward. The law says that regulations must be promulgated to meet the Climate Act mandates so DEC must either do that or get the Legislature to modify the law. If the Hochul Administration cynically appeals the decision, it is simply a politically-motivated delaying tactic to kick the resolution off until after the gubernatorial primary and state-wide election in late 2026. Because there is so much evidence that the schedule and ambition of the law are infeasible, the Legislature should address the law, however unpopular lessons learned reality will be to the environmentalist community.

Bill Gates recently argued that climate change is not going to wipe out humanity and that we need to “put human welfare at the center of our climate strategies.”. That is another argument for modifying the Climate Act. Even if the premise of the Climate Act that human emissions of greenhouse gases is a primary driver of observed warming is true, New York cannot solve climate change by itself. New York GHG emissions are less than one half of one percent of global emissions and global emissions have been increasing on average by more than one half of one percent per year since 1990.

In my opinion, the best way to proceed is to modify the law. Revisions should couple a revised Climate Act schedule with clearly defined standards for affordability, reliability, and environmental impacts. A trackable metric for each should be developed and a tracking system put in place. The key point is that the law should be modified so that there are requirements to modify the mandates when those metrics are exceeded. In short, the safety valve provisions of Public Service Law (PSL) Section 66-P should be modified and incorporated into the Climate Act.

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

Conclusion

There is overwhelming evidence that something must give in the energy transition. The Climate Act has always been about politics and money. The authors of the Climate Act mistakenly believed that the energy transition would be simple and cheap. Experience shows otherwise. It is long past time for the politicians to revisit the Climate Act and make the proposed energy transition accountable. Unfortunately, there is a politically connected constituency that is dependent upon the status quo for their business plans.

NYISO Short-Term Assessment of Reliability October 2025 – Peaker Recommendations

On October 13, 2025 the New York Independent System Operator (NYISO) released its quarterly assessment of reliability of the bulk electric system. I recently published an overview of the report that mentioned I was uncomfortable about some aspects of the recommendations. This post describes the unique reliability rules for New York City that I think were not fully addressed relative to the replacement of New York City (NYC) peaker units.

STAR Report and New York City

The NYISO 2025 Quarter 3 Short-Term Assessment of Reliability (STAR report) was released on October 13, 2025. If you want background information about the report I refer you to my take and what Richard Ellenbogen had to say.

Environmental Justice organizations have made peaking power plants in New York City into an overblown issue, insisting that all peaking power plants must be shut down as soon as possible. Even though the presumption of egregious harm from these plants is based on selective choice of metrics, poor understanding of air quality health impacts, and ignorance of air quality trends, pressure by this special interest constituency resulted in the Build Public Renewables Act of 2023 (BPRA) that mandates shutdown of New York Power Authority peaking power plants by 2030. The NYPA units are state of the art, highly efficient, extremely low emissions, and only 27 years old.

The STAR report findings of interest for this post relate to two old, inefficient, and high emitting peaking turbine facilities that were supposed to be retired earlier based on a Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) rule if the shutdown did not threaten reliability. The STAR report explains:

In this 2025 Quarter 3 STAR, the Gowanus Gas Turbine 2-1 through 2-8, Gowanus Gas Turbine 3-1 through 3-8, Narrows Gas Turbine 1-1 through 1-8 and Narrows Gas Turbine 2-1 through 2-8 units (collectively “Gowanus and Narrows”) have completed their generator deactivation notices and are now all Initiating Generators, requiring the NYISO and Con Edison to evaluate in this STAR if there are any Generator Deactivation Reliability Needs.

The STAR report identified a short-term reliability need beginning in summer 2025 within New York City primarily driven by a combination of forecasted increases in peak demand and the assumed unavailability of certain generation in New York City affected by the DEC regulation to limit emissions of nitrogen oxides, known as the “DEC Peaker Rule”. The report states:

In accordance with the DEC Peaker Rule, the Gowanus and Narrows generators may extend operation for up to an additional two years (until May 1, 2029) if the NYISO or Con Edison determine that the reliability need still exists and a permanent solution has been identified and is in the process of construction but not yet online. The DEC Peaker Rule, however, does not provide for peaker generators to continue operating after this date without meeting the emissions requirements.

This STAR report concluded these facilities are needed until Bulk Power Transmission Facilities (BPTF) can replace them.

NYC Reliability Rules

Before discussing the Bulk Power Transmission Facilities (BPTF) solution it is necessary to understand the unique reliability rules in NYC. I acknowledge the use of Perplexity AI to generate a summary of these rules. The reason for these rules is that NYC is a load pocket and within the City there are areas that are also considered load pockets. To keep the lights on the following rules have been implemented:

Locational Capacity Requirements Framework – This rule establishes a minimum amount of capacity relative to the expected peak load.
Reliability Rule G.1: New York City System Operations – This rule includes a set of more stringent requirements than used in the rest of the state.
Reliability Rule G.2: Loss of Gas Supply – New York City – This rule requires the system to be operated so that the loss of a single gas facility does not cause a blackout. To meet this rule gas-fired units in the City must be able to burn liquid fuel.

STAR Solutions

This STAR report concluded that the Gowanus and Narrows facilities are needed until BPTF can replace them. A BPTF is basically all the components of the transmission system (lines, transformers, and control systems) needed to move large amounts of electricity to where it is needed.

Consistent with the findings in 2023, this STAR continues to find that the New York City locality (Zone J) would be deficient in the summer through the entire five-year horizon without the completion and energization of future planned projects. This includes deficiencies on the BPTF and non-BPTF within Zone J.

Keep in mind that these facilities are needed to provide power during system peak loads. There are four future BPTF projects described as components of the solution.

Gowanus-Greenwood 345/138 kV feeder – This project will upgrade the electric grid to resolve a local problem in NYC. I do not see any issues with this project.

Champlain Hudson Power Express, 1,250 MW HVDC – This project brings hydropower from Quebec through a dedicated transmission line to NYC. When it first was proposed the peak loads were in the summer. The contract does not guarantee power from Hydro Quebec if it is needed within the province. In the future of the Climate Act, peak loads will shift to the winter when New York winter peak loads increase due to heating electrification. Because this is when Quebec peak loads occur there is a high probability that power will not be available when NYC needs it. I am not sure how the reliability rules will handle that contingency.

Empire Wind, 816 MW offshore wind – According to Perplexity AI, this project is “under active construction and approximately 40% complete as of fall 2025. The project is progressing toward its targeted commercial operation date of 2027.” Summer peak loads occur during heat waves and the meteorological conditions that favor the warmest temperatures are high pressure systems that cause light winds. Those conditions will undoubtedly reduce offshore wind output. Without sufficient storage this facility will not provide anywhere near 816 MW of power when it is needed most.

Propel NY Public Policy Transmission Project According to Perplexity AI, is a major electric transmission infrastructure initiative developed jointly by the New York Power Authority (NYPA) and New York Transco LLC to strengthen the electric grid and enable greater renewable energy delivery across southeastern New York State. The infrastructure creates transmission capacity to deliver at least 3,000 megawatts (MW) of offshore wind energy from Long Island into the broader New York grid, This has the same limitation as the Empire Wind project. Without storage it will not provide energy when needed most. In addition, there are issues associated with additional offshore wind development that suggest that 3,000 MW of offshore wind is unlikely.

The STAR report explains that these projects could address the identified reliability needs. Note however that there is a caveat that these projects must “demonstrate their planned power capabilities before the Gowanus and Narrows generating stations can be retired.” Even then the STAR report mentions potential issues:

The range in the demand forecast for expected weather is driven by key assumptions, such as

population and economic growth, energy efficiency, the installation of behind-the-meter renewable energy resources, and electric vehicle adoption and charging patterns.

Once CHPE, Empire Wind, and the Propel NY Public Policy Transmission Project enter service and demonstrate their planned power capabilities, the margins improve substantially assuming all existing generators remain available, but gradually erode as forecasted demand for electricity grows. Even with the future planned projects delivering power according to schedule, there remains a risk of a Zone J deficiency in summer 2029, following the deactivation of Gowanus and Narrows, assuming all other generators in Zone J are available.

In my overview article on the STAR report I noted that there were issues associated with timing issues associated with the DEC Peaker Rule retirement deadline of May 1, 2029. In my opinion,I think it is unlikely that in-kind replacements will be available by the May 1, 2029 deadline and that means the regulation must be modified.

The Build Public Renewables Act of 2023 compounds the problem requiring retirement of New York Power Authority (NYPA) peaking plants. The STAR report notes that “Beyond 2030, these deficiencies are further exacerbated with increasing demand for electricity and the planned deactivation of the NYPA small plants.”

Discussion

Although NYISO has become increasingly more vocal about the challenges meeting peaking load in the absence of natural gas peaker generating units, I am uncomfortable with the proposed BPTF projects proposed to solve the Gowanus and Narrows energy shortfall.

The primary reason for the unique NYC reliability rules is experience with blackouts. For example, the NYC blackout of July 1977 occurred when a storm knocked out transmission lines coming into the city and there was insufficient in-city generation to keep the system going. Reliability Rule G.1 includes provisions for special operating rules during severe weather, enhanced operating reserves, and operating the system for a more stringent shutdown contingency that address the problems that led to the blackout.

I have great respect for the state’s electric resource planners. The electric system has been called the most complex machine because it is an extraordinarily intricate and vast network involving thousands of generating plants, millions of miles of transmission and distribution lines, and hundreds of millions of users continuously relying on it. The NYISO operators balance load and generation on a second-by-second basis, and the resource planners have provided the resources necessary for them to prevent blackouts. Those peaking units s all provide dispatchable power without weather limitations and provide other ancillary electric system services precisely where needed. Losing those resources makes the challenges even more difficult.

The STAR report warns that the grid is at a “significant inflection point” with converging threats including an aging generation fleet, rapid load growth, and difficulty developing new supply resources due to policy constraints, supply chain issues, and rising equipment costs. In the future Climate Act grid, the renewable resources are going to require Dispatchable Emissions Free Resources (DEFR) during dark doldrums when wind and solar resources are low to non-existent for extended periods to ensure that sufficient energy is available. Complicating the challenge is the fact that those conditions are also associated with extreme temperatures and peak loads. These factors all tweak the system in complex ways that may be too complicated to anticipate.

I know the NYISO and New York State Reliability Council planners are considering the impact of increasing reliance on weather-dependent resources. However, in my opinion, NYISO is not adequately acknowledging the intractable problem with an electric system that relies on renewables. To date the primary concerns about the commercially unavailable DEFR technology are expected to occur in the late 2030’s as renewable penetration increases. This may give time to address the issue.

However, I worry that this problem could become an issue in NYC sooner. The CHPE, Empire Wind, and the Propel NY Public Policy Transmission Project projects are all weather dependent, and I think there is underappreciated correlation between the generating sources. For an intense wintertime dark doldrum CHPE would not provide power if Hydro Quebec needs it for its ratepayers. If the dark doldrum started with a strong snowstorm that ushered in a large high-pressure system, NYC’s rooftop solar units could be covered with snow reducing their output. At the same time, the offshore wind resources could be becalmed. In that scenario short-term energy storage will not be sufficient, DEFR would be needed.

In a recent Capital Tonight segment Susan Arbetter interviewed Earthjustice attorney Rachel Spector.. I made a transcript and added my comments because I think the responses to her questions exemplify the position of environmental organizations that support the Climate Act. It is troubling that in response to a question about the implications of the STAR report, Spector said “Well, this is a complicated issue, and I could talk for a while about what the NYISO put forward but I will say New York is not facing an energy crisis and the reports that are coming out are extremely conservative.”

Fortunately, the NYISO recognizes their responsibility to protect the citizens of New York requires conservative approaches based on decades of experience. The STAR report recognizes that the BPTF projects must demonstrate their planned power capabilities before the peaking units can be retired. Furthermore, the Draft State Energy Plan found that reliability considerations will prevent the shutdown of any of the peaking power plants for the foreseeable future. If the NYISO warnings are heeded and the ideological zealots are ignored the worst-case catastrophe should be avoided.

Conclusion

Keeping the lights on in NYC during peak load conditions is challenging. In the future, the problem will become even more challenging because the meteorological conditions that cause the peak loads also are associated with low wind resource availability. The STAR report lays the foundation to address these challenges but the usual suspects are whining that their recommendations are too conservative.

The NYC peak load problem addressed by the STAR report cannot be endangered by risky unproven environmentalist strategies. Keeping the lights on is incredibly challenging at the best of times and a rushed transition away from existing system components is too risky to consider. The STAR report describes a safe transition approach. I believe that there is adequate time to address my concerns about the over-reliance on weather-dependent resources in the BPTF projects proposed.

NY Politicians Face Climate Act Decision

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

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

Decision Summary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The decision concludes:

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

Going Forward

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

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

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

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

The Greenberg Traurig article describes the third possible option:

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

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

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

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

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

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

My Recommendation

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

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

Conclusion

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

Fort Edward Solar Filings

On October 27, 2025, Fort Edward Solar responded to the Issues Statement, Party Status Request, and Public Comments on a Draft Permit. Simultaneously, the Office of Renewable Energy Siting (ORES) staff filed a responsive brief to the Petition for Full Party Status submitted by the Grassland Bird Trust for this project. I previously described this project and published Gary Abraham’s explanation why ORES ignores local stakeholders. In conjunction with Gary Abraham, this post describes the ORES responses and confirms my worst-case fears.

Gary Abraham is a lawyer who has been more deeply involved in the renewable energy siting process than I have. He represented a citizen group under State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) before Article 10 in the Everpower case (Town of Allegany). He represented municipalities or citizen groups in Article 10 proceedings in the cases of Cassadaga (the first Article 10 proceeding), Lighthouse Wind, and Alle-Catt and the Horseshoe Solar matter (Town of Rush) until it transferred to Office of Renewable Energy Siting under Exec. L. 94-c.

Overview

The Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act) established a New York “Net Zero” target (85% reduction in GHG emissions and 15% offset of emissions) by 2050. 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. However, this does not mean that there is a feasible plan that includes milestones, acceptability criteria for targets or boundary conditions that must be met to continue.

I think the crux of the problem is that the State never bothered to develop siting acceptability criteria to guide permitting decisions. Combined with the ORES monomaniacal focus on permitting renewable projects without consideration of local concerns, environmental protections developed over years are routinely ignored.

Fort Edward Solar Filings

In my previous posts on this topic I have argued that the Fort Edward, Washington Co., PSC No. 23-03023 project is a travesty of ORES environmental siting considerations. On October 27, 2025, Fort Edward Solar responded to the Issues Statement, Party Status Request, and Public Comments on Draft Permit. Filings included the Fort Edward Solar cover letter with a memorandum prepared by WSP USA, an engineering and professional services consultant responding to avian issues; a facility location map, their response to public comments, response to issue statements, and a couple of conservation easement documents. On the same day, ORES staff filed their Responsive Brief and Filing Letter.

Bird Habitats

The main issue with Fort Edward Solar is its location relative to grassland bird habitats. In my opinion, responsible solar siting would focus first on land that has the least ecological or agricultural value. As Abraham explains this is not the case:

The grassland bird habitat map (Figure 1) was submitted by my colleague Ben Wisniewski, representing the Grassland Bird Trust, Inc., showing that “the Project is proposed to inhabit a unique area of extreme importance to birds. The 1,828-acre project site (the ‘Project Site’) lies within the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (‘NYSDEC’) Washington County Grassland Bird Conservation Center (‘GBCC’). In addition, within the Washington County GBCC, the Washington County Grassland Wildlife Management Area (‘WMA’) serves as an anchor field for grassland birds.”

Figure 1: Attachment B Grassland Wildlife Conservation Areas near Fort Edward Solar Project

“The proposed Project Site surrounds the WMA and is situated within a recognized ecological area of critical importance for grassland birds . . .” Specifically, the WMA anchors the adjacent Audubon-designated Fort Edward Grasslands Important Bird Area (IBA), the NYNHP Raptor Winter Concentration Area, Grassland Bird Trust (GBT) properties, NYSDEC Grassland Wildlife Management Area, all areas known to be occupied by threatened and endangered bird species.

That’s why these areas are protected locally. The map, submitted with the party application, shows that the proposed solar project surrounds these areas, sharing their property lines. That is, as Ben showed, the project location is “inconsistent with the numerous special conservation designations and initiatives already applicable to the Facility Site.” ORES Staff now says none of that matters.

Avian Memorandum

WSP USA prepared an analysis that addressed the issues raised by Grassland Bird Trust (GBT). The analysis addresses the following issues presented in the Fort Edward Solar Avian Impact and Mitigation Assessment prepared by GBT:

Value of Proposed Project Site for Grassland Birds
Impacts of Proposed Project on Grassland Birds
No Proof that Proposed Mitigation Provides a Net Conservation Benefit
Default Permit Conditions are Insufficient to Mitigate Impacts to Grassland birds in theWildlife Management Area (WMA)

I am not a biologist so I cannot opine upon the quality of the analysis. However, I am familiar with the process. Site surveys to determine which birds are in the area to be disturbed must be conducted. As far as I can tell there is agreement about the species in the area. Site surveys to determine current and future land use are also necessary and this is the controversial bit. There isn’t agreement about the value of agricultural fields used as pasture lands or hay production relative to the quality of native forests, shrubland, and wetlands when “analyzed on a terrestrial habitat quality level.”

Another aspect of the process is that developers can mitigate impacts within the areas disturbed by their project by obtaining protecting land nearby that has the habitat characteristics desired. GBT argued that Fort Edward Solar would need to conserve substantially more land in order to provide a net conservation benefit. The WAP USA analysis cited ORES regulation § 1100-6.4(o)(3)(ix) that reads as follows:

If the permittee proposes a NCBP [net conservation benefit plan] involving permittee-implemented grassland bird habitat conservation in lieu of payment of a mitigation fee pursuant to subparagraph (viii) of this paragraph, the required mitigation ratio shall be 0.4 acres of mitigation for every acre of occupied grassland bird breeding habitat determined to be taken and 0.2 acres of mitigation for every acre of occupied grassland bird wintering habitat determined to be taken.

The wetlands offset ratios specified by New York Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) guidelines are typically 2:1 or 3:1 or much greater than the ORES regulation. At the risk of stepping outside my expertise, it seems to me that the ecological values of wetlands are greater than grasslands so the mitigation offset ratio should be higher not lower.

Gary Abraham has extensive experience with environmental permitting. He points out that in DEC permitting processes these tradeoffs would be addressed in the permitting process. ORES simply ignores the tradeoffs and does not give parties a chance to present their side of the issue. Abraham explains the differences.

The potential for adverse impacts on protected birds (a “significant” issue) is clearly proven by this map (making it a “substantive” issue, i.e., “a reasonable person would require further inquiry”, 16 NYCRR § 1100-8.3(c)(2)).

In its response to Ben’s petition for party status on behalf of GBT, ORES Staff issued a brief concluding that there is no reasonable basis to inquire further, and recommending that ORES reject GBT’s issue (which it will undoubtedly do).

I want to reiterate my belief that ORES has shortchanged DEC and other agency recommendations because ORES does not address tradeoffs. The politicians who wrote the law implementing ORES (the RAPID Act) did not write the regulations that are being applied here. The RAPID Act purpose is plainly to “ensur[e] the protection of the environment”. PSL Art. VIII, § 136. ORES simply failed to do that here. Abraham explains how this works.

Among other things, Staff says that the “NYSDEC Strategy for Grassland Bird Habitat Management and Conservation 2022-2027”, while in conflict with siting the project here, is not a required regulation, but rather a voluntary program. The Strategy (undoubtedly part of the state’s environmental policies) is thus magically not inconsistent with siting the project here (Staff says nothing in the Strategy “speaks to siting of the Facility in the proposed location”). The brief goes on to dismiss factual assertions that the project will adversely impact the other protected bird areas, including an Audubon’s Important Bird Area, despite the fact (acknowledged by Staff) that the project covers “15 percent of the IBA”. There is, according to Staff, no “authority that prohibits or limits siting of the Facility in this designated area.” But that’s because ORES does not site renewable energy facilities. Developers do that and are not required to consider alternative sites. ORES simply permits sites that developers select. It is a misnomer to say ORES sites projects. It does not. –Staff adds that the intervenor party has not “demonstrated that impacts have not been sufficiently identified” in the application. But that’s not the standard. The standard focuses on the potential for adverse impacts on the environment and whether, based on that potential, a reasonable person would want to know more about the impacts, not on legal prohibitions to renewable energy siting (which do not exist) which (as Staff argues) ought to preclude any further inquiry.

ORES Staff says it will be sufficient if the applicant makes a payment to the Endangered and Threatened Species Mitigation Bank Fund. See 19 NYCRR § 900-10.2(f)(1). But the ORES regulations require Staff to consider impacts on “Audubon Important Bird Areas”. NYCRR § 900-10.2(g)(3).

ORES says, for example, that a designated raptor wintering area, protecting endangered Short-Eared Owl and the threatened Northern Harrier, also located within the project area, is identified in the application which already acknowledges that the “wintering occupied habitat will be impacted”, but “the Office’s [ORES’s] Take Determination quantifies the impacts and therefore requires an NCBP [net conservation benefit plan]”, which in turn allows the applicant obtain a taking permit by doing no more than making a payment to the state’s E&T Species Mitigation Bank Fund.

Thus, because impacts on protected bird species are addressed in the application, there can be no significant issue. Therefore, there is no point to considering substantive proof on adverse impacts to the environment.

This is how ORES circumvents the “substantive” and “significant” standard for adjudicating issues that it inherited from NYSDEC (where it was an opportunity for public participation).

Public Comment Response

One of the filings on October 27 was a response to public comments. I want to note just one example of the hypocrisy of the Fort Edward Solar developers. The first comment from Janice Teft stated:

I am writing with respect to the plan by Fort Edward Solar to build a more than 1,828 acre solar Facility in Ft. Edward NY.

This project will cause great harm to grassland birds and endangered threatened raptors. It is the worst possible place for a solar facility. It’s time to stop taking land away from Wildlife in general.

I enjoy going there, especially in the Winter, to see the Snowy Owls. It’s an Audubon designated Important bird area.

The thought that this is even a possibly is so disturbing in so many ways.

All conserved land should be located in the important bird area, not some random place in NY.

And, the developer should work with the Grassland Bird Trust which has worked for over 15 years to protect this area.

Thank you for consideration of my comments

Janice Tefft

Here is the response of the developer:

The Applicant shares your commitment to environmental stewardship and has actively engaged with the appropriate regulatory agencies throughout the development of the project. Specifically, the Applicant has conducted consultations with the New York State Office of Renewable Energy Siting (ORES), the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). All documentation related to these consultations has been submitted and is publicly available within the official ORES docket for the Fort Edward Solar Project (Matter No. 23-03023).

The Applicant has been diligent in following the permitting process outlined by the State of New York, including comprehensive environmental assessments, coordination with regulatory agencies, and the development of mitigation strategies to address potential impacts to protected species and habitats. In support of this effort, the Applicant continues to work closely with qualified consultants to ensure thorough evaluation of all project components and the application of best practices.

The Applicant recognizes the ecological significance of the Fort Edward grasslands and understand the concerns regarding habitat loss and its potential effects on declining grassland bird populations. As such, the Applicant is committed to continue working with regulatory agencies, ORES, and stakeholders to develop mitigation measures that reflect the importance of this habitat.

This response has no substance; it simply reiterates that the developer followed the regulations and shows the environmental poverty of regulations. If Fort Edward Solar shared her commitment to environmental stewardship, then they would not have applied to build a solar facility on recognized ecological areas of critical importance. Presuming that there was no other place in the state for their development then they would have proposed to mitigate their impacts by protecting more critical habitat than the ORES minimum.

Discussion

I believe that the Climate Act net-zero transition plan will do more harm than good because of impacts on affordability, reliability and environment impacts. In my opinion, the Andrew Cuomo and Kathy Hochul Administrations have politicized all the New York agencies. Speed in approving developers’ sites has eclipsed the purpose of siting, to balance the need for renewable energy sites with the serious environmental degradation they often cause. Ultimately the problem is that the Hochul Administration has never defined acceptability criteria for such sites. The Climate Act and its progeny, the RAPID Act, have probably caused greater environmental degradation than it avoided. As shown here, because ORES is the final arbiter the DEC charged with protecting the environment has little leverage in the siting decisions.

In my opinion, responsible solar siting would focus development in areas that do not affect ecological areas of critical importance period. The WSP USA analysis incorporates every trick to minimize mitigation ratios. Because grasslands are an interim successional stage, they argue that were it not for their commitment to maintain the grasslands, then the land would be dominated by woody vegetation. So why doesn’t the developer build on land that is dominated by woody vegetation?

Conclusion

The ORES process ensures that renewable energy development causes more harm than good. It is long past time to reconsider a process that prioritizes building as much renewable energy capacity as possible as fast as possible without any siting criteria.

Ellenbogen Tries to Talk Sense to an Irate Ratepayer

The ongoing Consolidated Edison Company (Con Ed) rate case is going to raise rates. Unsurprisingly, ratepayers are upset. This post describes an email that was sent to the distribution list for the parties in the case by an individual who I think lives in New York City. She argues that the cost increases are unacceptable because “Hard working New Yorkers shouldn’t have to decide between a doctor’s visit or keeping the lights on.” She goes on to say this problem is made worse by climate change and claims “Con Ed continues to perpetuate our state’s dependence on fossil fuels by advocating for infrastructure like gas pipelines that would increase the cost burden on New York consumers and fail to adequately address the peak energy demands of our state and city.”

Unfortunately, she hasn’t made the connection that the Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act is part of the reason for the higher rates. Richard Ellenbogen and I share the same frustration that people like this fail to connect the dots. This post publishes his response to her email.

Ellenbogen Background

Richard Ellenbogen has been speaking to NY State policy makers and regulators since 2019 regarding the deficiencies inherent in NY State Energy policy. He has a proven record implementing carbon reduction programs at his own manufacturing business in Westchester County where it has reduced its electric utility load by 80% while reducing its carbon footprint by 30% – 40% below that of the downstate system. I have previously published other articles by Ellenbogen including a summary description of his issues with the Climate Act. In addition, he and I have submitted several joint filings in different venues.

STOP STOP HIKING RATES

On 10/28/2025 12:10 PM, Annie Pahlow sent an email about the Consolidated Edison rate case.

To whom it may concern New York electric and gas bills are already some of the highest in the country. It is absolutely inexcusable to approve a rate hike that would increase the cost burden on New Yorkers across the state when the company already makes billions in revenue. The monopoly Con Ed has on New York City delivery upcharges consumers while hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers struggle to pay their bills or even have their utilities shut off as a result. Energy is a human right and an absolute necessity. Hard working New Yorkers shouldn’t have to decide between a doctor’s visit or keeping the lights on.

With the worsening effects of climate change, summer heatwaves are becoming worse and more frequent, making summertime cooling essential for vulnerable populations. Due to the high cost of energy nearly 20% of New Yorkers who own air conditioners can’t afford to run them because of the financial burden to do so.

In the face of the climate crisis, Con Ed continues to perpetuate our state’s dependence on fossil fuels by advocating for infrastructure like gas pipelines that would increase the cost burden on New York consumers and fail to adequately address the peak energy demands of our state and city. They might claim this hike would fund clean energy investments but these are in bad faith as they continue to advocate for additional pipeline infrastructure that is unwarranted and unnecessary. It is abhorrent that Con Ed would dare to request a rate hike when failing to commit to transitioning away from fossil fuels completely, in accordance with our own state’s goals of being net zero by 2030.

30% of New Yorkers struggle to pay their energy bill and these rate hikes would only increase the cost for folks to stay cool in the summer, and warm in the winter. The proposed rate hikes for electric and gas would cost New Yorkers $30-$50 more per month and has drawn widespread criticism from elected officials across the board. That is why the New York Public Service Commission should outright reject the proposed rate hikes for electric and gas from Con Ed.

Ellenbogen Response

On October 28, 2025 2:34 PM Ellenbogen sent the following response:

You should get out of your ideological bubble and look at the math. The rates in the downstate region are too high but your proposals will raise them faster. I suggest that you read the New York Independent System Operator (NYISO) 2025-2034 Comprehensive Reliability Plan. It would be great to transition away from fossil fuels except the electricity doesn’t exist to do so and won’t exist for decades. Figure 16 from that report is included below. Everything below the black lines at “0” is a power failure and the margins will soon be supported by generation that is well past its usable life. Good luck running a heat pump with no electricity.

Source NYISO 2025-2034 Comprehensive Reliability Plan.

Further, the downstate region is only 5% renewable. That can be seen in the following pie chart from page 8 of the same document. Con Ed’s reliability analysis stopped at their borders but what happens when the electricity isn’t there for Con Ed to supply? The NYISO isn’t lying or exaggerating. I was called anti-electrification by someone on this email distribution list but the reality is that you can’t electrify without having enough electricity. This is quickly becoming a crisis that will result in loss of life. What I am against is killing people to support a policy that won’t have any environmental benefits.

The next graph is one I did for engineers at NYSERDA in 2019 and updated in 2023. Their engineers confirmed the numbers and the underlying math. I haven’t recalculated the rates for 2025, but electricity costs have been rising faster than gas making the disparity even higher, so if you really want to bankrupt ratepayers have them install electric heat. That’s why certain parties have been trying to get a special utility rate for heat pumps as part of this tariff hearing but those rates have to be subsidized by other ratepayers. Once everyone is on the special rate, who will subsidize it? And what about the rising costs for other ratepayers that have to pay the subsidies for a heating technology that doubles costs? If you want to replace oil combustion with heat pumps, that will lower people’s bills and you wouldn’t even need subsidies, but replacing locations with gas will not lower bills or emissions.

Another aspect of the New York transition is ignoring results elsewhere. Ellenbogen explains the problem:

If your answer is to install more solar and wind to increase electrical output, Germany has been trying that for 35 years since 1990 and has reached 34% renewable generation with electric rates 2 – 3 times higher than France next door despite spending hundreds of billions of dollars attempting it. They claim 42% but the last 8% is wood combustion with a higher carbon footprint than coal and far higher particulate emissions that cause respiratory diseases. The same time frame of 35 years would take New York State to 2061 with still no viable solution installed. If Germany is an example, the rates would be much higher than they are now. I could explain why that is the case, but it would take another full email.

The renewable technologies can help to lower CO2 emissions, but they don’t have the energy density or the reliability to fully support a modern society. Germany has added gas generation recently because the renewables can’t generate enough electricity. Further, the areas of NY State where there is room to install renewables are cloudy for a significant portion of the year and there is no existing storage technology that will carry energy for 6 months to heating season. Even if it could be built, the cost would be trillions of dollars (Yes, Trillions). The cost to install that storage technology would raise rates beyond anything we have seen to date. The money must come from somewhere so the people of New York State will either pay it through their utility rates or their taxes. Either way, it will make New York State less affordable.

There is another unacknowledged challenge for New York. Our renewable energy resources are less than other jurisdictions.

Extreme cold kills a lot more people every year than extreme heat but ideology promoting solutions that won’t work is going to waste time and resources that could be applied to fixing things. It will also raise utility rates with no climate benefit. You can’t compare New York State to California, Australia, Texas, or the Iberian Peninsula. Those are all warmer climates with a far superior renewable profile when compared to New York State so they have more efficient renewables and they don’t have nearly as large of a heating issue and in some cases, they have no heating issue which greatly reduces energy requirements.

Ellenbogen explains the basis for his claims.

And before someone tells me that I am inflammatory and unprofessional, keep in mind that I own two solar arrays, both installed in 2007, a home with the most efficient geo-thermal heat pump system in New York State, and my factory recycles 99% of its waste byproducts and generates 80% of its electrical energy onsite with a carbon footprint 30% – 40% lower than the Con Ed system. I have also driven a Tesla since 2017. I have 47 years of experience with energy systems, and I have written papers for the Public Service Commission, one of which was used to initiate a utility conference on line loss. As a result of that experience and training, I understand what works and what doesn’t because I understand the math and physics underlying the systems. My factory’s utility bills in the Con Ed Service Area have gone down by 4% over the past two years while everyone else has had theirs increase by about 14% because I have applied that knowledge to implement solutions that will work. Between October 2022 and October 2023, the factory’s utility bills were $69,999 and over the past twelve months through October 2025, they were $67,265. That amounts to $1.20 per square foot for the 55,000 square foot facility or about one-third the energy costs of the average commercial/industrial facility in NY State. Those are total energy costs for the facility and include both electricity and gas.

Ellenbogen concludes:

Ideology cannot supersede math, physics, or thermodynamics. In the end, reality will always rear its ugly head because it doesn’t care what anyone has to say about the issue. A failure to recognize that fact will reduce reliability and raise costs which is already happening across the state.

Final Comment

As shown in his response, Ellenbogen has the background and experience to build a low carbon system that works and knows what will not work. He has shown that the current New York plan will not work. I seriously doubt that people like Annie Pahlow will listen to his expertise until the blackouts he expects occur. I give him an E for effort.