Category: Climate Act

In a recent post I observed that Governor Hochul is becoming aware that reality always wins relative to New York’s Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act).  In particular, the governor said the state’s climate goals are something she “would love to meet, but also the cost has gone up so much. I now have to step back and say, ‘What is the cost on the typical New York family?’ Just like I did with congestion pricing.”  I also referenced Susan Arbetter’s Capital Tonight  interview with a couple of agency heads and noted that there was enough material for a follow up post.  This post addresses the agency head’s refusal to address reality.

I have followed the Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act) since it was first proposed, submitted comments on the Climate Act implementation plan, and have written over 400 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 company I have been associated with, these comments are mine alone.

Overview

The Climate Act established a New York “Net Zero” target (85% reduction in GHG emissions and 15% offset of emissions) by 2050.  It includes an interim 2030 reduction target of a 40% reduction by 2030 and a requirement that all electricity generated be “zero-emissions” by 2040. The Climate Action Council (CAC) was responsible for preparing the Scoping Plan that outlined how to “achieve the State’s bold clean energy and climate agenda.” The Integration Analysis prepared by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) and its consultants quantifies the impact of the electrification strategies.  That material was used to develop the Draft Scoping Plan outline of strategies.  After a year-long review, the Scoping Plan was finalized at the end of 2022.  Since then, State agencies and the legislature have been attempting to implement the plans.

The original article suggesting that Hochul seems to accept that several recent reports show that implementation of the Climate Act is not going as planned.  The Public Service Commission (PSC) recently released Clean Energy Standard Biennial Review Report (“Biennial Report”) 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.  It projects that the goal will not be achieved until 2033 when historic renewable resource deployments are considered.  The New York State Comptroller Office released an audit of the NYSERDA and PSC implementation efforts for the Climate Act titled Climate Act Goals – Planning, Procurements, and Progress Tracking. It found that “the costs of transitioning to renewable energy are not known, nor have they been reasonably estimated”.  The final report by the New York Independent System Operator (NYISO) is its annual Power Trends that describes factors influencing New York State’s power grid and wholesale electricity markets.  The findings suggest that there will be reliability risks for the Climate Act transition on the mandated schedule.  I also referred to a couple of articles that suggest that Hochul has broached the possibility that the Climate Act might have to be paused.

Arbetter Interview

Susan Arbetter interviewed  NYSERDA President and CEO Doreen Harris and Rory Christian, Chair and CEO of the PSC for Capital Tonight.  For me it was a frustrating interview because the responses to the questions posed did not reflect the issues raised in the recent reports. 

Arbetter opened the interview obliquely referencing the question on everybody’s minds who is following the Climate Act – how much is this going to cost?  She noted that Hochul paused the New York City congestion pricing initiative because as she stated: “Now my job is not to make it harder or more expensive for New Yorkers to live in our state – working hard, make ends meet, raise their families.”   Arbetter asked if Hochul was “preparing to pause or delay the state’s clean energy goals”.

Harris did not directly respond to the question.  Instead, she said: “we look at our goals objectively”.  She referenced the Clean Energy Standard Biennial Review Report and its evaluation of progress towards the 2030 goal of 70% renewable energy saying that it “did reveal specific challenges that we are facing”.  She went on to say that since implementation it has been “tumultuous” with respect to a global energy crisis, Covid and supply chain constraints, etc.”.  Then she said that report reveals that “we are making very good progress”.  She also admitted that it is not just renewables that are an issue.  It is also EV adoption, but she claimed that has improved 400% since 2021.

The Biennial Report admits that the schedule will not be met and Arbetter asked if this meant there would have to be a pause.  Harris just gave obviously scripted excuses.  The final version of the Scoping Plan was completed in the Fall of 2021 at which time issues related to Covid were well known.  The global energy crisis following the Russian invasion of Ukraine started in February 2022 so that could not have been included in the implementation plan.  Supply chain issues were triggered by the Covid epidemic, but it should have been obvious that when New York started competing with all the other jurisdictions for limited amounts of renewable energy equipment that delays would be inevitable. So at least two out of the three excuses are marginal.

My bigger issue with NYSERDA and Harris is the use of unverifiable and misleading claims.  She claimed EV adoption has gone up 400% since 2021 but did not qualify that to mean the number of EVs sold or the number on the road.  It is a number that cannot be easily checked using the NYSERDA Electric Vehicle Registration Map because the data are presented in diagrams and the original values are not available except in a database with every vehicle registration in the state.  A table with EVs sold or on the road by year is not available.  Nonetheless, I was able to compare the Integration Analysis projection that there would be 215,935 battery-electric and plug in hybrids on the road in Scenario 2: Strategic Use of Low-Carbon Fuels to the NYSERDA data.  That data indicated that there are only 154,766 EVs presently on the road.  Even if sales are up 400% that boast is misleading because they are 28% behind the planned adoption levels.

The Harris response did not address the question, so Arbetter tried again: “I just want make sure that while there are factors that have contributed to the delay in implementation of our energy goals, is there anything leading the Administration to delay this because of cost.” (Note that this is not an exact quote but it is pretty close – check out the video at 1:40/9:00).  Harris responded: “The proceeding that is before the PSC is intended to look at just that”.  Harris explained: “How much progress have we made, do we need to make, and specifically they look at all this in the context of consumer cost”. 

While this may be apropos of nothing, but a search in the Biennial Report for “consumer” yields three results: one for consumer price index and the other two in a paragraph describing the motivation for deregulating the power sector of New York.  That may not disprove the claim that the report looks at all of this in the context of consumer costs, but my review of the Biennial Report so far has not found any sections addressing consumer cost.  During the Draft Scoping Plan review by the Climate Action Council, members Gavin Donohue and Donna DeCarolis repeatedly asked for consumer price cost projections.  Co-chair Harris did not provide that information then and appears to be stonewalling now.

Arbetter accepted the claim that the Biennial Review addressed consumer cost and asked when the Proceeding will be finished.  Christian responded: “Well it has begun and what we try to do in the released report is to highlight progress to date and the various challenges that we need to overcome”.  He went to expand the list of excuses used by Harris saying that rising inflation and interest rates were factors as well as significant load growth.  He pivoted the load growth challenge into an argument that load growth represents a “great opportunity” for the economy. 

Arbetter paraphrased Christian saying that it is great that the economic development is happening, but it means we must catch up by producing more electricity.  He came back with the argument that this means “we have to look at the progress we have made to date and understand what we can do to get to that next step”.  He went on to suggest that the load growth was a primary driver of whether the 2030 goal could be met.  It “looks like 2033 if the load growth happens the way we are seeing it, but the 2030 goal could still be met if load growth is lower or higher if load growth increases”.

I interpret this to mean that the Christian is arguing that the primary reason that the schedule will not be met is unanticipated load growth since the time the Integration Analysis implantation schedule was developed.  One way to compare how the expected load in 2030 has changed over time is to compare the annual energy reports in the NYISO annual load and capacity data report (universally known as the “Gold Book”) from 2021 when the Integration Analysis projections were prepared to projections in more recent years.  The following table shows that load forecasts for New York have increased markedly since 2021 or 2022 for that matter.  Regarding Christain’s claim however note that the load projection increased 13,090 GWh in 2030 but that the Biennial Report gap between the 70% goal and anticipated renewable energy is 42,145 GWh.  The projected increase in load is less than a third of the expected gap so deflecting blame to unanticipated load growth is misleading.

Arbetter confirmed with Christian that the Biennial Report essentially said that the State is three years behind the 2030 70% renewable energy goal but it could possibly meet it or miss by more.  He said that the Biennial Report is part of the planning process and that the released report is not final.  It’s “a report highlighting where we are listing a number of recommendations and options for how best to proceed”.  As far as I can tell he did not answer Arbetter’s question about the timing of the response to the draft Biennial Report.

In my opinion, at this point the interview switched from asking questions about reaching the Climate Act goals to lobbying support for the Act. Arbetter said: “When the climate blueprint was created, the overarching reason, the fundamental thing that held it up was that it would be much more costly to do nothing than to actually create this climate transition”.  Then she asked if that was still the case. 

This is a paraphrase of the cost benefit slogan repeated at every opportunity by Harris: “The costs of inaction are more than the costs of action”.  I have argued for years, including my verbal comments on the draft Scoping Plan to Harris and Climate Action Council Co-Chair Basil Seggos, that the slogan is  misleading and inaccurate.  I described some of the manipulations used to contrive the slogan here.  The biggest problem is that it does not account for the full costs to implement the Climate Act targets.  Instead, it only evaluates the costs of the Climate Act mandates and excludes decarbonization programs that were “already implemented”.  The already implemented programs included Zero-emission vehicle mandate (8% LDV ZEV stock share by 2030) and the Clean Energy Standard, including technology carveouts: (6 GW of behind-the-meter solar by 2025, 3 GW of battery storage by 2030, 9 GW of offshore wind by 2035, 1.25 GW of Tier 4 renewables by 2030).  That means that the slogan really means that the costs of inaction are more than the costs of action excluding the costs of 6 GW of behind-the-meter solar, 3 GW of hattery storage and 9 GW of offshore wind among other things.   

Harris responded to the setup question that the benefits outweigh the costs: “It certainly is” and “We look carefully at costs but we also look at benefits.”  She then claimed that there are very strong reasons for doing what we are doing.  In my opinion, NYSERDA’s Scoping Plan evaluation has never been held accountable.  The agency has never responded to technical comments on issues, never addressed my comments on the cost-benefit analysis, and has never reconciled the differences between their projections for the electric system with the NYISO projections.  The public should be aware that the costs were underestimated in most instances and the benefits were overestimated in every instance.

Next Arbetter parroted the common claim that we are already seeing the effects of climate change.  She said the “climate is changing in a bad way”.  For examples she cited the tornado in Rome, NY, Hurricane Beryl, and Canadian wildfire smoke.  “We are seeing this all the time”.  After listing the examples of alleged climate change, she went on to say: “This is all costing taxpayers money, Right?”.  

Christian agreed saying “We look at these costs in making determinations for what actions to take”.  I waited in vain for Arbetter to ask just how much of an effect the Climate Act emission reductions would have on the alleged effects.  After all, if the state is looking at the costs of climate impacts, then we should look at the potential benefits for our actions on those climate impacts.  The fact is that the State has never acknowledged that 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 will be supplanted by emissions elsewhere in less than a year. Neither has the State estimated how much NY emission reductions would affect global temperatures.  I believe that is because the change would be too small to measure.

It gets worse.  One of my problems with the existential threat of climate change narrative is the consistent linking of any extreme weather event to climate change.  On my list of articles to write is a review of Roger Pielke, Jr’s multi-part series (Part 1 here Part 2 here, Part 3 here, and  Part 4) on climate fueled extreme weather. He explains that “the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) spends much time and effort on assessing the science of the detection and attribution of changes in climate.“  Then he notes that “Given widespread popular beliefs and media-friendly experts willing to cater to those beliefs, many are surprised, shocked even, to learn that the IPCC has arrived at conclusions on extreme events and climate change that are completely at odds with conventional wisdom and popular opinion.”  The point that is universally ignored by the Hochul Administratin and, in this case by Arbetter, is “In fact, the IPCC currently concludes that we will not this century be able to detect with high confidence changes in the statistics of most weather events beyond internal variability”.  The IPCC concluded that there is no climate change signal for tropical cyclones, severe windstorms, or fire weather.  Point of emphasis that means the IPCC says there is no current climate impact signal for any of the weather events cited by Arbetter and confirmed by Christian. 

Christian went on to argue that the existing system must be changed: “Very few of us are willing to tolerate technology from the 1950’s” and said the grid today is built on that foundation.  He said: “We are modernizing the grid not to just take on the challenge of adopting more renewable energy but to create greater flexibility, greater resiliency and the ability to recover more quickly in the face of these extreme climate events”. 

I disagree with all those arguments.  Most of us don’t care about the age of the technology.  We just want affordable electricity that is always available.  Note that this age of technology argument ignores the fact that wind power is a centuries old technology so why are we going there?  I am not sure how renewables provide more flexibility, so I am not going to respond to that.  The claim that the proposed electric system will provide greater resiliency is absurd.  Going from a New York system that is largely unaffected by weather conditions using generating units that independently produce power to the proposed system that relies on wind and solar that are completely at the whim of weather conditions and are strongly correlated with each other is anything but resilient.  I believe that the approach is fatally flawed.  Designing the electric grid for weather related low resource events will always have to consider the tradeoff between practical limitations say for planning based on an event that occurs once every 25 years and the consequences of a catastrophic blackout when a less frequent low resource event inevitably occurs.  The claim that a weather-dependent electric system will be able to more quickly respond to extreme weather events is beyond absurd.  Just imagine what will happen when a hurricane roars through the 9GW of offshore wind turbines. There is a strong possibility that most turbines will be damaged, and some destroyed completely.  How long will it take to rebuild them?  It boils down to the fact that the Climate Act “solution” do not work all the time and the periods when they don’t work are the times they are needed most.

Arbetter returned to asking questions when she said “Everybody wants this” but specifically asked about the Comptroller Audit report noting that it was critical of some of what they are doing.  She asked then if the criticisms were warranted and are you taking corrective action. 

Christian responded: “I want to start with where they acknowledged success” citing their “recognition of the efforts that both of our organizations have made in moving us towards those goals”.  I am sure that if the Comptroller had given them a participation trophy as part of that acknowledgment the irony would have gone over his head.  He responded to the criticisms by claiming that they are doing many of the things that they are recommending already.  He claimed the problems cited were due to miscommunication and said that they will work with them to get the issues resolved.

The Comptroller’s audit report made the following key recommendations:

•            Begin the required comprehensive review of the Climate Act, including assessment of progress toward the goals, distribution of systems by load and size, and annual funding commitments and expenditures.

•            Continuously analyze the existing and emerging risks and known issues to ensure they are evaluated and addressed to minimize impact on the State’s ability to meet Climate Act goals.

•            Conduct a detailed analysis of cost estimates to transition to renewable energy sources and meet Climate Act goals. Periodically update and report the results of the analysis to the public.

•            Assess the extent to which ratepayers can reasonably assume the responsibility for covering Climate Act implementation costs. Identify potential alternative funding sources.

I have seen no evidence that any of those reviews, analyses, or assessments are available anywhere.  I have no doubt that the work has been done but the fact is that it does not count if it is unavailable.  Moreover, it is not acceptable if questions raised about the assumptions, methodologies and results are ignored.  I would bet a lot that the reason these results are unavailable is that they are so damning that if they were released the whole net-zero transition would implode.

I will give credit to Arbetter because she tried again to get an answer whether Hochul was “preparing to pause or delay the state’s clean energy goals”.  This time Harris responded:

Absolutely not. And instead, what we are seeing is this market response. Clearly, change takes time but at the same time, when we set these goals, we see the market responding in ways that are truly transforming our economy and, and, benefitting New Yorkers. So, our commitment remains firm.

I cannot help but draw a comparison between this situation and the Biden presidential bid.  Bari Weiss masterfully describes the “Era of the noble lie” that has created a crisis of trust.  With regards to Biden withdrawing from the presidential race she notes: “the reason the most basic elements of the Democratic (and democratic) process are being so dramatically challenged—is because of the lie that everyone around Joe Biden told themselves and then told the public.”  Weiss explains

It’s not just that they knew about Biden’s condition and lied about it. They knew they were lying and believed they could dupe their supporters at least through November 5, 2024. In other words: double talk. One message in public. A different message in private. Until it became impossible to sustain.

I think Harris and Christian are doing the same thing.  The implementation of the Climate Act is not going to plan and the costs are so extraordinary that if they were honestly reported the outrage would be universal.  Their responses in this interview attempted to dupe the public.  They avoided answering the questions directly and responded with platitudes and slogans.  They can continue to pretend that this will work but reality is catching up fast.

The remainder of the interview went back to lobbying for the Climate Act.  The availability of programs and funding for home electrification were presented.

Conclusion

The Climate Act has always been a political ploy with little basis for reality.  This interview was an honest attempt to get substantive answers, but the responses were political theater.  The recent reports hint at the reality to come.  The agencies can continue to downplay the obvious and say everything is fine, but reality will inevitably destroy the narrative. 

Several recent reports show that New York’s Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act) is not going as planned.  It appears that Governor Hochul is becoming aware that reality always wins but the climate activists will explode if she acknowledges reality. Interesting times.

I have followed the Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act) since it was first proposed, submitted comments on the Climate Act implementation plan, and have written over 400 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 company I have been associated with, these comments are mine alone.

Overview

The Climate Act established a New York “Net Zero” target (85% reduction in GHG emissions and 15% offset of emissions) by 2050.  It includes an interim 2030 reduction target of a 40% reduction by 2030 and a requirement that all electricity generated be “zero-emissions” by 2040. The Climate Action Council (CAC) was responsible for preparing the Scoping Plan that outlined how to “achieve the State’s bold clean energy and climate agenda.” The Integration Analysis prepared by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) and its consultants quantifies the impact of the electrification strategies.  That material was used to develop the Draft Scoping Plan outline of strategies.  After a year-long review, the Scoping Plan was finalized at the end of 2022.  Since then, State agencies and the legislature have been attempting to implement the plans.

Three recent relevant reports have come out in the last month.

Climate Act Reality Flashes

The Public Service Commission (PSC) recently released the Clean Energy Standard Biennial Review Report (“Biennial Report”) that 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).  It found that “there is a renewable energy supply deficit of 42,145 GWhthat would have to be addressed through future procurements in order to reach the 70% goal amount of 115,437 GWh.  This gap is greater than the sum of the operational renewable generation in 2022, imports of renewable energy in that year, and generation from projects operational since then.  The report admits that “the maximum annual new project development rate would likely be in the range of 6,000-7,000 GWh per year at least in the near term” and projects that the 70% renewable energy goal will not be achieved until 2033 when the historic renewable resource deployments are considered. 

The New York State Comptroller Office released an audit of the NYSERDA and PSC  implementation efforts for the Climate Act titled Climate Act Goals – Planning, Procurements, and Progress Tracking (“Comptroller Report”).  The audit found that: “While PSC and NYSERDA have taken considerable steps to plan for the transition to renewable energy in accordance with the Climate Act and CES, their plans did not comprise all essential components, including assessing risks to meeting goals and projecting costs.”  It noted that the “PSC is using outdated data, and, at times, incorrect calculations, for planning purposes and has not started to address all current and emerging issues that could significantly increase electricity demand and lower projected generation”.  Regarding costs the audit notes that “The costs of transitioning to renewable energy are not known, nor have they been reasonably estimated” and goes on to point out that the sources of funding have not been identified.

In June the New York Independent System Operator (NYISO) released the latest edition of its Power Trends report that describes factors influencing New York State’s power grid and wholesale electricity markets.  The report described current and future challenges for the electric system.  The description of the system status concludes that “electricity supplies are adequate to meet expected summer demand under normal conditions, but extreme weather and other factors pose reliability risks” but also noted that declining reliability margins are concerning.  The report notes that increases in load are expected due to Climate Act electrification strategies and new energy-intensive projects. Power Trends addressed the Climate Act schedule and noted that there have been delays in projects and planning processes take time.  Of particular concern is that new technologies, collectively referred to as Dispatchable Emission Free Resources (DEFRs), must be deployed as wind and solar resources are developed but these technologies do not exist yet on a commercial scale. Taken as a whole, these findings suggest that there will be significant reliability risks for the Climate Act transition on the mandated schedule.

Comptroller Report Reality

Marie French from Politico wrote that Gov. Kathy Hochul was asked by the Times Union’s Dan Clark about Comptroller Tom DiNapoli’s audit finding issues with the planning for the 70% goal the governor herself has touted. She said those goals were set based on information at the time and “predates” the then-lieutenant governor. “That was pre-pandemic, pre-supply chain disruptions,” she said.  “We continue to power forward, but there’s some things that are out of our control,” Hochul said, noting the public isn’t rapidly adopting electric vehicles despite the state’s efforts. The governor said the state’s climate goals are something she “would love to meet, but also the cost has gone up so much. I now have to step back and say, ‘What is the cost on the typical New York family?’ Just like I did with congestion pricing.”

Politico also noted that her comments would raise even more concerns from environmental groups about Hochul’s commitment to meeting the statutory targets. It also raises more questions about whether the state will move forward with a cap-and-trade program. “if you’re a family with three kids living in upstate New York … and your energy source is oil or even natural gas, what is the cost of that transition to you?” Hochul asked.  “We’re going to get to our goals. If we miss it by a couple of years, which is probably what will happen, the goals are still worthy, but we have to think about the collateral damage of these decisions,” Hochul said. “Either mitigate them or rethink them.”

The Politico article included responses from climate activists:

NYLCV president and CEO Julie Tighe said it was “mind-boggling” to hear Hochul’s comments a day after she toured storm damage in Rome. “I had not heard her say that before. I think some of the goals are obviously near term, but we have a long-term goal, and that is still well within reach,” Tighe said. “Coming on the heels of her pausing congestion pricing, you start to wonder if this is a trend.”

The Nature Conservancy’s New York executive director, Bill Ufelder, urged the governor to commit to the goals in the law and zeroed in on her opening the door to “rethink” the goals. “The science on climate change has not changed; we are at a critical moment in the fight to ensure the health, well-being, and economic strength of our state,” he said in a statement.

Democratic Sen. Liz Krueger posted on X in response to Hochul’s comments: “The passage of time does not change the law and it doesn’t make the climate crisis magically disappear. We are dangerously behind on the science-based mandates in CLCPA. It’s time to redouble our efforts, and build a more affordable, healthier, livable future for New Yorkers.”

Clean Energy Standard Biennial Report Reality

POLITICO’s Marie J. French also wrote about the effect of the Biennial Report on the schedule noting that “New York is on track to miss most of the looming targets the legislation set. Gov. Kathy Hochul’s administration acknowledged in a July 1 report that the state was not going to meet the 70 percent renewable electricity by 2030 target — as offshore wind projects and upstate wind and solar development have faltered.”

French noted that other targets are in danger:

New York is expected to miss targets for energy efficiency, energy storage and electrification of vehicles and homes. Overall, the state as of 2021 had only reduced emissions 10 percent from the 1990 baseline. Much more progress will be needed to meet the 2030 target of a 40 percent reduction in the climate law.

She also noted that:

Environmental advocates worry Hochul won’t commit the resources needed to get New York on track to slash emissions and avoid the worsening impacts of climate change. “How many heat waves are we going to experience, and how many people are going to die in those heat waves?” said Jessica Azulay, program director of Alliance for a Green Economy. “We’re in a race against time, and we can’t really negotiate with greenhouse gas emissions.”

A North Country Public Radio interview with Colin Kinniburgh, a climate journalist with New York Focus, acknowledged that the “total overhaul of basically how we run our economy” has forced the Hochul Administration to “wobble on some aspects of the law” particularly relative to costs.  He believes that the building out rooftop and smaller-scale solar is going well.  On the other hand, he noted that the rollout of the proposed cap-and-dividend program will be the biggest signal of the Administration’s commitment to the Climate Act:

It’s going to affect the entire state’s economy. It’s called a price ceiling. They set a limit on how expensive it would be to pollute. That’s pretty crucial because if it’s low then you could argue that it gives polluters a pass. So that’s by far the biggest thing.

Agency Response

Marie French interviewed NYSERDA President and CEO Doreen Harris who claimed that the state is making headway. Harris said: “We have moved these markets in a very significant way”.  “The whole reason for setting goals … is to provide market sizing for the private sector to respond to.”

Susan Arbetter Capital Tonight also interviewed Harris and Rory Christian, chair and CEO of the PSC.  There is so much material in this interview that I am going to devote an article to it.  The highlight came when Arbetter asked if the Hochul Administration had plans to pause the implementation of its already delayed climate goals.   Harris responded:

“Absolutely not. And instead, what we are seeing is this market response. Clearly, change takes time but at the same time, when we set these goals, we see the market responding in ways that are truly transforming our economy and, and, benefiting New Yorkers. So, our commitment remains firm,” she said.

Both Harris and Christian maintained that everything is fine and gave a very optimistic interpretation of the Comptroller and Biennial Reports.  I wonder if they hope that the politicians bail them out when reality strikes and it is no longer possible to ignore the three reports described.  In the meantime, they are following the narrative.

Conclusion

In the last month three reports have raised concerns about meeting the schedule, documenting the costs, and potential risks to reliability.  Climate activists and their considerable lobbying power deny the importance of these reports.  The Administration will be forced to choose between the expert conclusions and the pervasive and emotional demands of the activists.  I think that Hochul has caught on to the fact that the biggest force, the unsuspecting populace of New York, is starting to realize how much this will affect their lives and bank accounts.  These irresistible forces are converging so stay tuned because when they collide the shocks will reverberate around New York.

On July 16, 2024 the New York State Comptroller Office released an audit of the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) and Public Service Commission (PSC) of their implementation efforts for the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (Climate Act) titled Climate Act Goals – Planning, Procurements, and Progress Tracking.  The key finding summary states: “While PSC and NYSERDA have taken considerable steps to plan for the transition to renewable energy in accordance with the Climate Act and CES, their plans did not comprise all essential components, including assessing risks to meeting goals and projecting costs.”  As much as I would like to do a post on this, I am stretched too thin.  Fortunately, Richard Ellenbogen sent along his thoughts that I have incorporated into my overview of the background and context of this report.

Ellenbogen is the President [BIO] Allied Converters and frequently copies me on emails that address various issues associated with the Climate Act I have published other articles by Ellenbogen and collaborated on a position paper on New York City’s Local Law 97 with him. There are only a few people in New York that are trying to educate people about the risks of the Climate Act with as much passion as I am, but Richard certainly fits that description.  He comes at the problem as an engineer who truly cares about the environment and how best to improve the environment without unintended consequences.  He has spent an enormous amount of time honing his presentation summarizing the problems he sees but most of all the environmental performance record of his business shows that he is walking the walk.  

Overview

The Climate Act established a New York “Net Zero” target (85% reduction in GHG emissions and 15% offset of emissions) by 2050.  It includes an interim 2030 reduction target of a 40% reduction by 2030 and a requirement that all electricity generated be “zero-emissions” by 2040. The Climate Action Council (CAC) was responsible for preparing the Scoping Plan that outlined how to “achieve the State’s bold clean energy and climate agenda.” The Integration Analysis prepared by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) and its consultants quantifies the impact of the electrification strategies.  That material was used to develop the Draft Scoping Plan outline of strategies.  After a year-long review, the Scoping Plan was finalized at the end of 2022.  Since then, State agencies and the legislature have been attempting to implement the plans through regulations, PSC orders, and legislation. 

The New York State Comptroller Office audit of NYSERDA and PSC is available in  Climate Act Goals – Planning, Procurements, and Progress Tracking as a pdf format file.  The Audit Highlights section of the report lists the key findings and key recommendations:

Key Findings

While PSC and NYSERDA have taken considerable steps to plan for the transition to renewable energy in accordance with the Climate Act and CES, their plans did not comprise all essential components, including assessing risks to meeting goals and projecting costs. Specifically:

• PSC is using outdated data, and, at times, incorrect calculations, for planning purposes and has not started to address all current and emerging issues that could significantly increase electricity demand and lower projected generation, such as increased push to transition to electric vehicles by 2035 and the cancellation or delay in renewable energy projects. Between 2005 and April 2023, 12% of contracted large-scale renewable projects were canceled. 
• The costs of transitioning to renewable energy are not known, nor have they been reasonably estimated. Moreover, funding sources to cover those costs have not been identified, leaving the ratepayers as the primary source of funding. The lack of alternative funding sources adds additional risk to whether the State can meet its goals timely. Data shows utility costs have already risen sharply over the last two decades and more New Yorkers are having difficulty paying their utility bills. 
• PSC has taken steps to address some risks and issues; however, it has not yet begun to formally review progress toward Climate Act goals with updated generation and electricity demand forecasts. While PSC noted it has until July 2024 to begin this assessment, waiting until that point to fully review all efforts and costs of the transition to renewable energy increases the risk that Climate Act goals will not be met within the established time frame.

Finally, a formal backup plan has not been established in the event Climate Act goals are found to be unachievable within the prescribed time frames, other than PSC suspending or modifying the obligations under the Climate Act and relying on the continued use of fossil fuels to generate electricity until sufficient renewable electric generation is developed. However, continuing to use fossil fuels as a backup plan would delay emission reductions and increase the burden on ratepayers by forcing them to continue to support fossil-fuel generation that otherwise could be retired—including the additional cost of the infrastructure to safely transport the fossil fuels to where they will be used to generate energy.

Key Recommendations

•            Begin the required comprehensive review of the Climate Act, including assessment of progress toward the goals, distribution of systems by load and size, and annual funding commitments and expenditures.

•            Continuously analyze the existing and emerging risks and known issues to ensure they are evaluated and addressed to minimize impact on the State’s ability to meet Climate Act goals.

•            Conduct a detailed analysis of cost estimates to transition to renewable energy sources and meet Climate Act goals. Periodically update and report the results of the analysis to the public.

•            Assess the extent to which ratepayers can reasonably assume the responsibility for covering Climate Act implementation costs. Identify potential alternative funding sources.

Note that the key finding that states that the PSC “has not yet begun to formally review progress toward Climate Act goals with updated generation and electricity demand forecasts.”  It goes on to say that “While PSC noted it has until July 2024 to begin this assessment, waiting until that point to fully review all efforts and costs of the transition to renewable energy increases the risk that Climate Act goals will not be met within the established time frame.”  A couple of weeks ago the PSC released the Clean Energy Standard Biennial Review Report.  I do not think that report uses “updated generation and electricity demand forecasts” but it does conclude that the 2030 goal requiring 70% of the electricity supplied to the grid come from renewable sources will not be met without extraordinary efforts.

In addition, the biennial report does not address costs.  It states that:

Appendix A also provides CES funding and expenditures for recent years through 2023. Forward-looking cost estimates for the CES and other costs associated with pursuit of the CLCPA goals are provided separately in the Department of Public Service (DPS) Annual CLCPA Report.  The most recent such report was filed on July 20, 2024. Case 22-M-0149, Proceeding on Motion of the Commission Assessing Implementation of and Compliance with the Requirements and Targets of the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act, New York State Department of Public Service First Annual Informational Report on Overall Implementation of the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (filed July 20, 2024). The next report is expected to be filed later in 2024.

In other words the biennial reports are not going to provide the cost data that the Comptroller audit recommends.

Ellenbogen Commentary

The following was included in an email from Ellenbogen on 17 July 2024.  I have made a few edits for consistency with this article and have added a couple of annotations.

Regarding DiNapoli’s request for more transparent information mentioned in the audit report, he is correct but he is directing his arrows at the wrong targets.  While I have major issues with some of the things that NYSERDA has done over the past couple of years, primarily their silence on the CLCPA, the PSC and NYSERDA are not the ultimate culprits here.  At the BCNYS Renewable Energy Conference, I asked the NYISO speaker why they were screaming between the lines and not just coming out and saying that the entire process is devoid of reality because the people that need to hear it can’t, or are unwilling to, read between the lines.  The NYISO says that, “Because we shut down gas generation too quickly, the system is compromised and has inadequate excess generation during times of extremely high load” which translates to, “If we have too many hot days in a row, there is going to be a blackout and people are going to die.”

In their 2022 6 GW storage report, NYSERDA stated that to get the system to work would require 1000+ hours of storage and the cost at the time was $560 per KWh.  Doing the math, that was $3.36 Trillion dollars for storage that would last only ten years.  That doesn’t include the renewables and transmission that would be required or the hundreds of billions of dollars to electrify the buildings.  The actual cost will be at least ten times NY State’s annual budget, if not more.   It will impose a tax burden on every New Yorker that none of them will be able to afford.  NYSERDA put the number out there, but everyone ignored it and just plowed along as though they could somehow overcome that little detail.  The cost also ignores logistical issues that I have mentioned on numerous occasions.

The problem with agency cost estimates is that they are buried in different reports. The Scoping Plan that outlined how to “achieve the State’s bold clean energy and climate agenda” is the logical place to provide comprehensive cost estimates for all the strategies proposed to achieve the Climate Act mandates.  However, the cost documentation is incomplete, sparsely referenced, and misleading, in short it does not provide the necessary information for estimating ratepayer costs to New Yorkers. 

This is a problem because New York Public Service Law  § 66-p (4), “Establishment of a renewable energy program”, 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”.  It is only possible to determine the impact on ratepayers in arrears or service disconnections if full cost estimates are available.  The Comptroller audit appropriately addresses this shortcoming with the recommendation to “Conduct a detailed analysis of cost estimates to transition to renewable energy sources and meet Climate Act goals” and “Periodically update and report the results of the analysis to the public.”

I agree with Ellenbogen’s following explanation why this information is not available:

No one wants to put the actual number into the public domain because it is so astronomical that the minute it was announced, the project would implode, and the political fallout will be staggering.  Further, I’m sure that the lesson of what happened to Justin Driscoll of NYPA when he told the truth about the process is fresh in everyone’s mind.  The acolytes of this process wanted to hang him upside down from a light pole, as was done to Mussolini.  He was just telling them the truth but that evidently doesn’t mean anything in NY State.  No sane person wants to put that number down on paper and get pilloried for it and called a liar.  Everyone at the state level that knows better is required by law to implement this ridiculous plan that can’t be implemented.  So, they can tell the truth and get fired or they can duck and cover and hope that the law gets changed when it becomes brutally obvious how flawed it really is.  In the interim, everyone is finger pointing, including the state comptroller.

The real targets for DiNapoli should be the Climate Action Council and the legislature that proposed this insanity based upon fantasies with no grounding in reality.  No realistic cost analysis was ever done prior to voting to pass the Climate Act.  The cost analysis for the Draft Scoping Plan was inadequate but the Climate Act Scoping Plan was still approved and that is the fault of the Climate Action Council (CAC).  The few numbers that I have seen in the Climate Act Scoping Plan are so devoid from reality that they would be funny if the situation wasn’t so serious.   You can make stuff up as the Climate Action Council did, but with math and physics, reality will eventually rear its ugly head and that is what is happening now.

In a second email Ellenbogen continued:

The issue isn’t that the PSC and NYSERDA aren’t planning properly.  If you look at the three key findings quoted from the Audit highlights above, they are unachievable under any circumstances.  It wouldn’t matter what NYSERDA and the PSC did.  They can’t pull rabbits out of hats last I checked.

There is a Climate Action Council mandate (section 16 of § 75-0103) to consider efforts at other jurisdictions: “The council shall identify existing climate change mitigation and adaptation efforts at the federal, state, and local levels and may make recommendations regarding how such policies may improve the state’s efforts”. Ellenbogen points out the there are lessons to be learned at other jurisdictions that have attempted to decarbonize using wind and solar that have been ignored.  Why?

The math behind the solar and wind utility system doesn’t work.  It hasn’t worked anywhere it has been tried and the time frames have been measured in decades to get to a fraction of a renewable system, not 10 years or 20 years like the CLCPA requires.  Germany is 34 years in, controls the banking system in their jurisdiction which NY State does not, and they’ve only gotten to 34% renewables after about 34 years with energy costs twice those of France next door.  Their politicians are paying for that.  The costs are rising because they are being required to install transmission that only operates 15% of the time for solar or 30% for wind where it would operate 93% of the time for fossil or nuclear.  That increases the transmission cost per megawatt-hour.   Offshore wind bids are coming in at three times the price of current generation.  Projects are being canceled because of high transmission costs and material costs.  Building electrification is prohibitively expensive.  How can you plan for that?  

Why didn’t the legislature request a cost analysis prior to passing the bill?  Why didn’t the Climate Action Council do a cost analysis of what they were proposing?  It’s because it was driven by a couple of college professors that have absolutely no understanding of procurement, energy, economics, or basically anything else in the real world.  In their minds, no cost was too high to eliminate fossil fuels from the state.  The question for politicians today is whether spiraling energy costs brought on by this bill are going to make re-election more difficult.

The net-zero transition plan requires “Distributed Emission Free Resources” or DEFR’s that don’t exist in the present day aside from nuclear and that is a dirty word in NY State.  Even if the State made the rational decision to decarbonize the electric sector with nuclear instead of wind and solar, it would also take about 30 – 40 years to build enough nuclear capacity to meet the state’s needs if they started today.  Waiting for an alternative new technology to fulfill the DEFR requirement will take even longer.  None of these time frames fits within the CLCPA mandate.

The only mistake that the PSC and NYSERDA made was not speaking up in 2019 before this mess was passed but Cuomo was ruling with an iron hand at the time.  What makes this all so senseless is that nothing NY State does is going to impact Climate Change.  I’m not saying that we should do nothing, but we should be intelligent in our planning.  Saying that NY State is an energy leader is a joke.  We’re only a leader in chasing our businesses to other states where they are assured of an adequate energy supply.  In 20 years NY State is going to be an example of what not to do.

The backup plan for the near term to ensure sufficient generation would require the construction of fossil fuel plants which will draw the ire of the lunatic fringe that has no understanding of energy or math.  I gave them a backup plan in comments I submitted to the record for Department of Public Service Proceeding 15-E-0302 but numerous groups will fight against that.  When the level of desperation gets high enough, they will be implemented.  Unfortunately, there may have to be a major blackout to bring people to their senses.

Conclusion

The Comptroller Climate Act Goals – Planning, Procurements, and Progress Tracking and the PSC Clean Energy Standard Biennial Review Report both acknowledge that Climate Act implementation is not going as planned.  I believe Ellenbogen agrees with me that all the recommendations in the audit report should be implemented as soon as possible:

•            Begin the required comprehensive review of the Climate Act, including assessment of progress toward the goals, distribution of systems by load and size, and annual funding commitments and expenditures.

•            Continuously analyze the existing and emerging risks and known issues to ensure they are evaluated and addressed to minimize impact on the State’s ability to meet Climate Act goals.

•            Conduct a detailed analysis of cost estimates to transition to renewable energy sources and meet Climate Act goals. Periodically update and report the results of the analysis to the public.

•            Assess the extent to which ratepayers can reasonably assume the responsibility for covering Climate Act implementation costs. Identify potential alternative funding sources.

Richard Ellenbogen and I have long argued that a clear and transparent accounting of all the costs to meet the Climate Act goals is not available.  It is heartening to see that the Comptroller audit agrees with our position that this information is necessary.  The biennial review report concludes that the 2030 electric grid goal for 70% renewable energy is not likely.  It is time for New York State to acknowledge these problems should be resolved before continuing.  I recommend a pause in implementation until all the recommendations in the audit report are implemented and a feasibility study reconciles the electric system projections in the Scoping Plan and the New York Independent System Operator resource adequacy analyses.

Ellenbogen sums up the situation:

There is nothing happening now that I didn’t tell them would happen five years ago.  I’m not Nostradamus.  I just know how to count.

The Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act) requires that the Public Service Commission (PSC) issue a review for notice and comment that considers “(a) progress in meeting the overall targets for deployment of renewable energy systems and zero emission sources, including factors that will or are likely to frustrate progress toward the targets; (b) distribution of systems by size and load zone; and (c) annual funding commitments and expenditures.”  The recently released Clean Energy Standard Biennial Review Report contains a lot of information that will be addressed in future posts.  This post provides my first impression of the document.  Spoiler – there is no chance that the 2030 mandate for the 70% renewable electric energy will be met.

I have followed the Climate act since it was first proposed, submitted comments on the Climate Act implementation plan, and have written over 400 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 company I have been associated with, these comments are mine alone.

Overview

The Climate Act established a New York “Net Zero” target (85% reduction in GHG emissions and 15% offset of emissions) by 2050.  It includes an interim 2030 reduction target of a 40% reduction by 2030, a requirement for 70% renewable energy for electric production by 2030, and a requirement that all electricity generated be “zero-emissions” by 2040. The Climate Action Council (CAC) was responsible for preparing the Scoping Plan that outlined how to “achieve the State’s bold clean energy and climate agenda.” The Integration Analysis prepared by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) and its consultants quantifies the impact of the electrification strategies.  That material was used to develop the Draft Scoping Plan outline of strategies.  After a year-long review, the Scoping Plan was finalized at the end of 2022. 

Biennial Report

The Introduction to the report states:

The Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA) of 2019 requires that the Public Service Commission (PSC) issue a review for notice and comment that considers “(a) progress in meeting the overall targets for deployment of renewable energy systems and zero emission sources, including factors that will or are likely to frustrate progress toward the targets; (b) distribution of systems by size and load zone; and (c) annual funding commitments and expenditures.” This Report serves to inform the Commission’s review. It summarizes the progress made toward the renewable energy and zero emission goals set by the CLCPA since the establishment of New York State’s Clean Energy Standard (CES), assesses what remains to be done to achieve those goals, presents policy options and proposals, and invites comments from stakeholders and the public on these or any other matters raised in this Report. The Report focuses in particular on New York’s goal to obtain 70% of New York’s electricity from renewable sources by 2030 (the 70% goal) and the related goal of 9 gigawatts (GW) of offshore wind by 2035.

The footnote for the first sentence states: PSL §66-p(3). PSL §66-p(4) provides the Commission with authority to “temporarily suspend or modify” the obligations created by the Program if, after conducting a hearing, it finds that the Program “impedes the provision of safe and adequate electric service,” “is likely to impair existing obligations and agreements,” and/or is related to “a significant increase in arrears or service disconnections.”  The Introduction goes on:

Section 1 identifies the key regulatory actions taken to date to support renewable energy deployment in New York, including the establishment of the CES. Section 2 summarizes progress to date in achieving the CLCPA and CES goals in terms of current contributions of operational renewable energy systems and zero-emission sources to the State’s energy portfolio. Section 3 offers a detailed assessment of major factors that have affected and will likely continue to affect progress towards the goals. Section 4 reports on the pipeline of contracted renewables from previous Tier 1 and offshore wind solicitations. Section 5 accesses the amount of renewables that would need to be procured, under the CES or a modified version of the program, to achieve the 70% goal and recommends adjustments to NYSERDA’s procurement authorization that may be necessary to do so. Section 6 considers other programmatic options for accelerating development and construction of renewable energy resources. Policy options and proposals under consideration in this Report are limited to the CES itself.

I could do a post on each section and may end up doing that.  It is encouraging that the PSC acknowledges the safety valve mechanism in Public Service Law §66 that I have mentioned on many occasions. Optimistically could this signal recognition that if the aspirational scheduled mandates of the Climate Act are not feasible that the schedule must be modified?

Progress to Date

Section 5 summarizes the “Path to the 70% goal”.  The description of the Table 8 “Summary of progress” states:

Under the base case load forecast assumption of 164,910 GWh by 2030 as described above, the 70% goal equates to 115,437 GWh. Table 8 below summarizes the contributions towards the goal from currently operational and contracted renewables, as set out above in Section 2 and Section 4 of this Report. In addition, it projects 10 GW of distributed generation by 2030 secured outside the CES framework.

I will follow up with a post addressing the assumptions used to calculate the numbers in Table 8.  Sections 2 and 4 described how operational and contracted/awarded renewable estimates were projected and that discussion is also worthy of its own post.  At this time it is notable that one of the key points in the report is the admission that contracted projects don’t always get built.   

The report describes Table 8:

With these conservative assumptions, the expected amount of renewable generation from operational and awarded/contracted sources in 2030 totals 73,292 GWh. Under the base case forecast for the 2030 statewide electric load, there is a renewable energy supply deficit of 42,145 GWh that would have to be addressed through future procurements in order to reach the 70% goal amount of 115,437 GWh.

Consider these numbers in context.  There is an admitted gap of 42,145 GWh which is greater than the total operational renewable generation in 2022, 2022 imports and operational after 2022 (37.692 GWh).  Trying to cover that gap is an ambitious challenge.

2030 Projected Renewables

The Biennial report proposes to double down on building renewables to cover the gap and meet the target. 

To fill the expected gap, three Tier 1 annual solicitations – those for 2024, 2025, and 2026 – are currently scheduled and will seek projects capable of deploying by 2030. However, the amounts procured in these solicitations would need to be adjusted to secure the needed quantity of 42,145 GWh. The analysis suggests NYSERDA would have to procure approximately 14,048 GWh per solicitation, assuming no project attrition, or, assuming a 30% attrition rate, an amount of 20,068 GWh per solicitation. This volume is significantly higher than the annual procurement quantity of 4,500 GWh per Tier 1 solicitation (before attrition) estimated in the 2020 CES White Paper and 2020 CES Order.

The best efforts of the State to date for renewable solicitations are far lower than what is needed.  The report admits that “the maximum annual new project development rate would likely be in the range of 6,000-7,000 GWh per year at least in the near term” and that is contingent on meeting a number of conditions.  Table 9 below describes what the report argues is feasible.

Even under the revised assumptions the PSC projects that the 70% renewable energy goal will not be achieved until 2033 when the historic renewable resource deployments are considered.

Conclusion

The State has never done a feasibility analysis to prove that their plan to rely on wind and solar will work.  The Climate Act deadlines were set arbitrarily by politicians so achieving that is another level of wishful thinking.

Get out the popcorn.  Reality is catching up to the Climate Act net-zero transition.  This report is the first indication that things are not going as planned.  How will the Hochul Administration handle the obvious need to relax the deadlines? 

Stay tuned for future articles on this important report.