Category: Climate Act

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.

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.

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.

  1. Global economic pressures,
  2. Transmission system inadequacies,
  3. Interconnection delays,
  4. Capacity accreditation changes,
  5. Federal policy uncertainty,
  6. Siting and permitting complexity, and
  7. 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:

  1. The State will need to be strategic about the pace of combustion unit retirements and/or replacement
  2. 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.
  3. A primary challenge for New York’s energy system is its advancing age, which creates unique risks for reliability.
  4. 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.
  5. For the electricity system, continue to incorporate the impacts of climate change into future reliability planning scenarios.
  6. 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. 

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.

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:

  1. DEC was required to set emission limits for the reduction targets;
  2. 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
  3. 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.

Differences Between Article 10 and ORES Shortchange Local Concerns

A recent post, New York Solar Siting Travesty, explained why I think  the deployment of solar resources exemplifies the poor planning inherent in the Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act) net-zero transition plan.  I asked members of the Stop Energy Sprawl coalition for any thoughts on the post and Gary Abraham provided corrections and clarifications that are too good not to share.  In fact, he provided enough information for two posts.  This post describes how the Office of Renewable Energy Siting (ORES) ignores local stakeholders.

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 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.  Climate Act implementation under the Scoping Plan consists of building as many renewable energy resources as possible, as fast as possible without regard to the wishes of those people affected by those resources all the while hoping that it will all work out.

Gary Abraham provided corrections and clarifications to my description of the ongoing solar siting debacle that I described recently.  My post explained that the Department of Agriculture & Markets and Department of Environmental Conservation land protection guidance has been ignored by the ORES when making permit decisions.  Gary offered his insight into the process.

Public Participation for Renewable Projects

My post noted that ORES was put in place because the existing permitting process was slow.  Based on my industry experience I said the process was slow and burdensome because there are extensive public participation requirements.  Gary corrected my perception saying, “That’s not only incomplete, as a standalone assertion, it’s not true.”  He explained:

Renewables developers are slow and can be burdensome NOT because there are extensive public participation requirements, but because developers commonly submit sloppy applications that require multiple rounds of agency comments identifying items that make the application incomplete, not ready for agency review. Agencies don’t want to and will not do developers’ work for them. Renewable energy developers (alone among industrial developers) think that New York’s generous policies will carry their applications through, even if deficient. They frequently don’t have enough money to do a professional job of planning and designing their projects, because they don’t get lucrative payments from government sources until after operations commence.

Gary described public participation in previous power plant permitting programs, Article X and the unimaginatively named successor Article 10.  I spent a lot of time preparing the analyses for permit applications under those programs but never became involved in the subsequent process.  Gary explains:

Public participation requirements have been gutted by ORES. Article 10 carried over the public participation requirements for power plants from its predecessor; Article X. Article 10 basically just added renewables and a few procedures tailored to renewables but treated large-scale wind and solar projects as power plants. Articles X and 10 both give local stakeholders intervenor party status as a right and the right to apply for intervenor funds. Article 10 also required the state Siting Board to consider the same range and depth of potential adverse impacts as would be considered under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), making its legal preemption of SEQRA reasonable. ORES has denied party status to all municipalities, even those seeking to defend the reasonability of their local land use laws, as well as most local stakeholders.

The crux of the problem for me is that ORES ignores local stakeholders. Abraham lays out this problem.

The ORES framework represents a fundamental recalibration of state-local power dynamics for renewable energy siting. Municipalities and other local stakeholders no longer have the right to participate in a permit proceeding.

Article 10 requires the applicant to reach out to the local community with activities “designed to encourage participation by stakeholders”. Article 10’s public participation mandate is presumed to require funding for experts and legal counsel both to identify and present stakeholders’ issues, and to prove the issues are real in the hearing. The permitting agency staff generally raise issues too.

 Article 10 provides that intervenor funds are available in two rounds.  In the pre-application phase where the applicant’s proposal is confronted with issues identified by local stakeholders, and the application phase where a complete application is on the table.  In the first phase the applicant, agency and intervenor issues are adjudicated, and applicants must provide $350 per megawatt of design capacity.  In the second round the required funding for intervenors is $1,000 per MW. For a 300 MW large-scale renewable project, that’s $105,000 and $300,000 for the two phases of review. Half of those funds must be provided for municipalities, the remainder for non-municipal stakeholders.

Under the ORES regime, stakeholders’ issues now must be supported by evidence and legal argument showing the issues are “substantive” and “significant”, a standard adopted from NYSDEC regulations. I represented municipalities and local stakeholders in NYSDEC permit proceedings and never had a problem meeting this standard for noise, odor and community character impacts. It’s a threshold test for whether to bring issues to an evidentiary hearing, where testimony from experts is heard. A “substantive” issue is one that, if proven, could require additional permit conditions or agency denial of a permit. A “significant” issue is one that is backed by an adequate offer of proof, generally supported by the proposed testimony of an expert about facts that could lead to the same result. An issue is “significant” if, based on the offer of proof, a reasonable person would want to inquire further. Thus, a hearing officer examines issues to decide whether a hearing to test the evidence offered by an intervenor party is warranted.

But there is no pre-application funding under ORES, and issues are consistently rejected in the application phase. As a result, stakeholders are almost always denied party status, and never given an opportunity to prove their issues have legs.

In denying party status, ORES has refused to apply the “reasonable person” standard required by its own regulations. Instead, no matter how much evidence the public provides in support of legitimate concerns, ORES routinely denies there are any issues because the Applicant and ORES Staff have their own experts with different conclusions. In any other litigation, barring opposing parties from putting on their case would be a fundamental denial of due process.

Examples

Abraham gave some examples and explained how ORES ignores local interests:

For example, in a recent case in Montgomery County, ORES held a site-specific visual impact report prepared by an independent consulting firm at a cost of nearly $60,000 did not raise a single issue warranting further review. In another case 650-foot-tall wind turbines visible from Cayuga, Otisco, and Skaneateles Lakes were proposed, ORES held that actual measurements by a town’s retained engineer demonstrating non-compliance with applicable standards were “speculative”, “conclusory”, and “mere opinion”. And even when expert input isn’t required, such as when a local stakeholder group recently demonstrated a developer was unable to obtain an interest in multiple parcels of land necessary for construction of the project, ORES refused to hold a hearing because landowner affirmations are not “expert reports”.

There is no hearing and a “general permit” (unknown under Article 10 or NYSDEC permitting practice) is granted, occasionally (but not always) accompanied by a few site-specific conditions. Applicants engage in the bare minimum of community outreach in advance of submitting an application, and therefore host municipalities and residents often find out about the project proposal too late to adequately present their issues. Even when municipalities attempt in good faith to raise issues before an application is due, developers are empowered by ORES to simply ignore local concerns. This contrasts with Article 10, where outreach plans are required, and often go through multiple rounds of comments from DPS Staff before accepted.

Perhaps the most egregious example of ORES’s over-reliance on “uniform standard conditions” (the general permit) is an ongoing case in Washington County. There, ORES recently issued a Draft Permit holding the “standard” mitigation requirement for impacts to grassland birds is appropriate. However, the project is not proposed to be sited in a standard location. The project surrounds a New York State DEC owned Wildlife Management Area for grassland birds.  Furthermore, it is in the center of the New York State designated Washington County Grassland Bird Concentration Area, an Audubon designated Important Bird Area, and Raptor Winter Concentration Area (“RWCA”) designated under the New York Natural Heritage Program. A local conservation group raised concerns that the “standard” mitigation provisions are not appropriate here and sought the assignment of a mediation judge. To date, ORES has failed to respond in any way. This sequence of events would never have occurred under Article 10, as the now-abandoned mandatory preapplication scoping would have prevented an agency from failing to appreciate such exceptional and unique local circumstances.

Both Article 10 and the ORES regime require a final decision within 12 months of receiving a complete application. But under Article 10 (and under NYSDEC permitting practice for industrial facilities), completing the application is a process subject to public participation. The application must comply with the regulatory requirements for applications. Under ORES, completing the application is a process shrouded in mystery, controlled by the agency outside the public’s eye.  

Going Forward

Abraham also has a recommendation for arguing for changes in these policies.

It won’t do to just identify the consequences of New York’s energy policy on farmland. The basis for the policy must be questioned. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) recent sixth Assessment Report (see Work Group 1, chapter 12, Table 12.12) concludes that evidence with reasonable confidence does not exist that global warming (which has occurred: about 1.5ᴼF since ~1850) has caused any change in the frequency or intensity of most extreme weather events. Only heat waves and milder winters can be shown to have increased–with a net benefit to humanity, since more people die of cold than of heat.

IPCC has also said the extreme future scenario that powers the modeling of global temperature change out to 2100 in previous ARs (RCP8.5) is now implausible, not just unlikely. IPCC now says that the most likely future will see temperatures reach 2-3ᴼC over 1850 levels in the second half of this century and begin to decline by 2100. But NYSDEC’s sea level rise guidance (and most its projections for the future) is based on RCP8.5 projections.

We can implement measures to protect people and property from extreme weather (which isn’t new), but it is highly uncertain that we can change the climate. Nothing humanity has done so far (including substantial decarbonization in the last 50 years as new efficiencies have been adopted across the economy) has had any effect.

Climate alarmists in and out government need to be confronted with IPCC’s report on the state of the science, as well as the energy engineers who say “climate policy” is taking our electric systems off a cliff.

I often argue that New York’s emissions are only a half a percent of global emissions and global emissions are rising by more than that every year as proof we are on the wrong track.  Abraham’s rationale is more comprehensive and eviscerates all the counter arguments.  Very well said!

Conclusion

Although my experience with environmental permitting is extensive, it also is incomplete because it was limited to air quality assessments, and I was the specialist responsible for just that component.  Air quality permitting is like a cookbook where every input, analytical step, and result is consistent with well-established guidelines and checked by the Department of Environmental Conservation.  The results are compared against specific standards and acceptability is based on quantitative results.  In that world, public participation is mostly explanation of the process and results.  If the standards are met, then local communities have little say in the outcome.

On the other hand, wind and solar permitting projects deal almost exclusively in qualitative terms.  It is extremely frustrating to me that the few quantitative limits developed by state agency staff have been cast aside by ORES.  For example, in the Alle-Catt case, the NYS Department of Health testified that the 45-decibel limit on wind turbine noise now found in the ORES standard permit would put the public health in the host communities at risk. That’s five towns across three counties. Based on the best research available, the Health Department recommended a limit that is 6 decibels lower.   When ORES excludes all community input then the process is out of control and must be changed.

NYISO Short-Term Assessment of Reliability October 2025 – Overview

On October 13, 2025 the New York Independent System Operator (NYISO) released its quarterly assessment of reliability of the bulk electric system.  The analysis found a deficit in reliability margins for the New York City area and Long Island beginning in summer 2026. As a result, something must be done or there will be unacceptable risks to reliability that could cause power outages.  This post provides an overview of these findings.  If you want a good non-technical summary of this report, then I recommend Brendan Lyons article: NY’s electric grid operator warns of looming ‘reliability shortfalls’

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.

STAR Report

NYISO describes the report as follows:

This report sets forth the 2025 Quarter 3 Short-Term Assessment of Reliability (“STAR”) findings for the five-year study period of July 15, 2025, through July 15, 2030, considering forecasts of peak power demand, planned upgrades to the transmission system, and changes to the generation mix over the next five years.

The risk of deficiencies beyond the needs identified in this STAR is even greater when considering a range of plausible futures with combined risks, such as the statistical likelihood of further generator retirements or failures. New York’s generation fleet is among the oldest in the country, and as these generators age, they are experiencing more frequent and longer outages. The 2025-2034 Comprehensive Reliability Plan, to be issued by the end of 2025, will provide further information regarding reliability risks over the next ten years.

New York City

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 that mandates shutdown of New York Power Authority peaking power plants by 2030.  The Draft Energy Plan found that reliability considerations will prevent the shutdown of any of the peaking power plants for the foreseeable future. 

There are 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.

In the 2023 Quarter 2 STAR, the NYISO 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”.

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 concluded these facilities are needed until Bulk Power Transmission Facilities (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 from generating stations 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. The future planned projects include:

• Gowanus-Greenwood 345/138 kV feeder – May 2026

• Champlain Hudson Power Express, 1,250 MW HVDC – May 2026

• Empire Wind, 816 MW offshore wind – July 2027

• Propel NY Public Policy Transmission Project – May 2030

The STAR goes on to explain that the NYISO analysis 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 there are 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. Specifically, Zone J may be deficient by 68 MW over 5 hours (871 MWh) in 2029, which grows to 148 MW over 6 hours (1,249 MWh) in 2030. Beyond 2030, these deficiencies are further exacerbated with increasing demand for electricity and the planned deactivation of the NYPA small plants.

Clearly, there are timing issues associated with retiring the peaking units, demonstrating that the planned power capabilities work, and nagging issues associated with increasing load and the potential that other generators may retire or break down.

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.

In my opinion,I think it is unlikely that in-kind replacements will be available by the May 1, 2029 deadline.  Eventually another NYISO STAR report will make a similar finding and NYISO will recommend extending the operation of these units. 

These are not the only NYC issues identified.  The closure of these units would also affect the Lower Hudson Valley.  The STAR also notes longer term concerns:

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. Specifically, Zone J may be deficient by 68 MW over 5 hours (871 MWh) in 2029, which grows to 148 MW over 6 hours (1,249 MWh) in 2030. Beyond 2030, these deficiencies are further exacerbated with increasing demand for electricity and the planned deactivation of the NYPA small plants.

The NYPA small peaking plants are state of the art, highly efficient, extremely low emissions, and only 27 years old.  In my opinion shutting them down is not only virtue signaling but dangerous because of the reliability issues. 

Will the political appointees who run DEC allow revisions to the DEC Peaker Rule?  Will the politicians who passed Build Public Renewables Act of 2023 come to their senses when the deadline for those units comes up.   Stay tuned.

Long Island

In this 2025 Quarter 3 STAR NYISO also described similar issues for generators on Long Island.  The Pinelawn Power 1 (“Pinelawn”) and Far Rockaway Gas Turbine 1 and 2 (“Far Rockaway GTs”) completed their generator deactivation notices requiring the NYISO and LIPA determine if there are any generator deactivation reliability needs.  The bulk system deficiencies are driven by the deactivation of Far Rockaway and Pinelawn generators (203 MW nameplate total) in combination with the same factors that affected the New York City units.  NYISO explained:

This STAR finds that the BPTF in the Long Island locality (Zone K) is deficient, beginning in summer 2027 and continuing through the remaining five-year horizon, primarily driven by the deactivation of Pinelawn (82 MW nameplate) and the Far Rockaway GTs (121 MW nameplate total). In addition to the BPTF deficiency, LIPA also identified non-BPTF system deficiencies on the 69 kV system through the entire five-year horizon.

Once Sunrise Wind is delivering power as planned, the margins improve in summer 2028, followed by dramatic improvement in 2030 with the planned energization of the Propel NY project such that margins remain positive throughout the remainder of the planning horizon.

Like New York City the NYISO found:

In accordance with filed compliance plans for the DEC Peaker Rule, the Glenwood GT 3 and Shoreham 1 generators are assumed available until May 1, 2027 and unavailable thereafter. Additionally, the assumed capacity purchases from ISO New England into Zone K have been adjusted to account for a LIPA import of 288 MW from ISO-NE until April 2027, with zero flow scheduled thereafter. If these additional resources are available through the five-year horizon, the observed reliability need on the BTPF would be eliminated.

Discussion

This report deserves the attention that it has received but its results were treated differently by stakeholders. The American Public Power Association description exemplified industry takes on the results that simply expressed support for the highlights like I did here.  In a statement, the New York State Building Congress called it a “wakeup call” and called for urgent action that “means building, not delaying, critical projects such as the Northeast Supply Enhancement project, expanding transmission, adding storage, and modernizing our generation fleet.” 

On the other hand, Earth Justice ignored the conclusions saying that “Governor Hochul must accelerate transmission and battery storage to save New Yorkers money, not prop up expensive, polluting gas plants.”  They claimed without evidence that “new battery storage can supply most or all the identified need, and more electric transmission (particularly into New York City) can solve longer-term issues.” Their press release blamed cancellation of transmission projects and stalled projects in the interconnection queue that “would have supplied New York with abundant, affordable, clean energy.”

I mention these differing thoughts about the STAR because I am uncomfortable about some aspects of the recommendations.  I will follow up with another post that describes the unique reliability rules for New York City that I think were not fully addressed.  I also want to look at the solutions and the underlying problem because I think there is a disconnect.  Stay tuned.

Conclusion

If you ever wanted evidence that environmental organizations will never be happy and that they ignore experts when their results don’t fit their preconceived notions look no further than the Earth Justice response.  The NYISO is responsible for keeping the lights on.  Thomas Sowell has been quoted as saying: “It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong”.  In this instance, there is nothing more stupid or dangerous than ignoring the people who will pay the price if there are problems with the electric system.

Assembly Hearing Protecting Residential Ratepayers from Certain Increased Energy Costs

As electric energy prices increase substantially the blame game starts.  On October 23, 2025 the New York State Assembly Standing Committee on Energy had a public hearing “Protecting Residential Ratepayers from Certain Increased Energy Costs”.   This article explains why I think this heating misses the point of the affordability crisis affecting New Yorkers.

I am convinced that implementation of the New York Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act) net-zero mandates will do more harm than good if the future electric system relies only on wind, solar, and energy storage because of reliability and affordability risks.  I have followed the Climate Act since it was first proposed, submitted comments on the Climate Act implementation plan, and have written 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. 

Hearing Announcement

The hearing announcement states:

The United States Energy Information Administration’s April 2025 “Annual Energy Outlook” estimates that electricity consumption in the United States will increase to record highs in 2026, from 4,097 billion Kilowatt Hours (kWh) in 2024, to 4,283 billion kWh by 2026, driven primarily by large energy users such as computing services. The New York Independent System Operator’s (NYISO) “2025 Power Trends Report” confirms that this trend will likely also occur in New York, estimating that an additional 1,600 megawatts of power could be needed by 2030, driven primarily by these large energy users.

This increased energy demand, along with the accompanying need for infrastructure and generation, is expected to lead to higher utility bills for consumers in the coming years. This phenomenon has been seen in other states, such as in Illinois where data has shown that Commonwealth Edison’s existing customers paid over 91% of the costs associated with new large energy users. However, some states, such as Georgia and Oregon, have taken action to protect residential customers from such rate increases. The purpose of this hearing is to examine measures that may be effective in protecting residential ratepayers against increased energy costs associated with the integration of new large energy users.

I think this hearing is part of an effort by supporters of the fossil fuel transition to net-zero is deflect concerns about costs away from the Climate Act.  They argue that infrastructure costs associated with increased load driven primarily by large energy users such as computing services is driving the utility rate increases. 

The hearing announcement references the New York Independent System Operator’s (NYISO) “2025 Power Trends Report” estimates that an additional 1,600 megawatts of power could be needed by 2030, “driven primarily by these large energy users”.  Climate Act proponents are deflecting net-zero transition costs by blaming load growth due to energy centers and semiconductor manufacturing plants.  There is no question that this load growth impacts electric bills in New York, but context is important.  While those costs are substantial, they are dwarfed by the infrastructure support needed for electric grid transition to wind, solar, and energy storage displacement of fossil fuels.

Impact of New Large Loads on Electric Bills ​

I acknowledge the use of Perplexity AI to generate this summary of potential impacts on electric bills. The proposed Clay, NY Micron chip fabrication plant could use 16,000 gigawatt-hours annually which is more than the energy used by Vermont and New Hampshire and works out to be about 11% of New York’s total usage. ​ Loudoun County, Virginia—specifically the “Data Center Alley” area around Ashburn and Sterling—hosts the world’s highest concentration of data centers, with approximately 199 operational facilities as of 2025 and 40GW of contracted capacity. The higher demand from these sources leads to increased wholesale electricity prices.  In addition utilities must also invest in infrastructure upgrades for these large loads, resulting in higher delivery charges that are typically socialized across all ratepayers.

New York Assemblyman Jonathan Jackobson has proposed legislation that aims to prevent the transfer of infrastructure costs from large users to everyday consumers, targeting costs specifically to data centers and chip fabs. Meanwhile, discussions are ongoing about special contracts that would require major users to cover their infrastructure costs and reduce load during peak times, but these measures are not yet widespread. ​

On the other hand, increased electricity sales could help spread fixed costs, potentially lowering per-kWh delivery rates.  Sadly, this effect is usually less than the impact of new loads. ​There is the potential for demand response agreements with large users that could enhance system reliability and mitigate severe price spikes. ​

New York Future Loads

​I looked at load projections for New York.  The NYISO 2025 Load & Capacity Data Report (Gold Book) includes two spreadsheets: 2025 Gold Book Higher Demand Scenario Tables and the 2025 Lower Demand Scenario Tables that report future energy usage (GWh).  I used these tables to extract the expected sources of future load growth.  Unfortunately, the Gold Book does not break out the energy capacity (MW) for the same categories as the NYISO Power Trends report which makes comparison to the hearing announcement projection difficult.  Because ratepayers pay for energy and not capacity, I think the better metric is energy.

 In the following table I combined Gold Book projected annual energy load forecast (GWh) tables I-15a: and I-16a.  I extracted the NYISO projected future load for five different load categories: storage net energy consumption, electric vehicles, building electrification, large load projects and electrolysis.  Table 1 compares the large load projects energy relative to GHG reduction programs.  The GHG reduction programs are the sum of the other four categories that, were it not for efforts to reduce GHG emissions by the Climate Act, legacy New York programs and Federal policies, would not exist.  According to the NYISO Gold Book projections, in 2025 1.2% expected energy use is due to the GHG reduction programs and 2.4% is due to large load projects for the lower demand forecast and 1.4% due to the GHG reduction programs and 2.4% for large load projects for the higher demand forecast. 

Table 1: Gold Book Projected Annual Energy Load Lower and Higher Demand Forecasts – GWh

Assembly Bill A9064 presumes that prohibiting utilities from passing along the “costs of capital expenditures or maintenance of infrastructure resulting from the building or operation of a data center or semiconductor fabrication plant” will substantively reduce ratepayer costs.  While true it ignores the fact that GHG emission reduction load increase will be more than double the energy load increase expected for the large load projects.

Discussion

The ideologues who insist that the net-zero transition must proceed on the arbitrary schedule of the Climate Act do not generally support development of data centers and semiconductor fabrication plants.  I think continuing operations of crypto mining are also on their hit list.  In all three instances, they argue that they require a lot of energy and water and are responsible for electricity price increases. 

In my opinion, the analyses supporting their arguments were contrived to support the concept that they increase electricity prices.  Another characteristic of the analyses is that they ignore any potential positive impacts.  Vilifying chip fab plans ignores the tremendous economic benefits of hundreds of jobs, for example.  Ideologues tend to ignore any tradeoffs and that does not make for rational policy.

Conclusion

There is an energy affordability crisis.  The scramble to find excuses for higher electric prices to cover the costs of decarbonizing the energy system is on.  It is long past time for Climate Act supporters to define acceptable affordability, track where we stand relative to their metric, and commit to stop the insanity when costs inevitably exceed their limit.  Blaming data centers and chip fabrication plants is misdirection.

Ellenbogen on Recent NYISO Reliability Concerns

On October 13, 2025 the New York Independent System Operator (NYISO) released its quarterly assessment of reliability of the bulk electric system.  The analysis found a deficit in reliability margins for the New York City area beginning in summer 2026. NYISO also released the draft  2025-2034 Comprehensive Reliability Plan (CRP), that provides a plan to maintain a reliable electric grid over a ten-year planning period.  This post presents Richard Ellenbogen’s take on the issues raised.

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.

This post is based on an Ellenbogen email. In his introduction he note that he has been warning about this situation since the gas moratorium commenced in 2019.  When he started looking at the issue it took him about 8 hours total across two evenings to realize that the state’s plan didn’t have “A snowballs chance in Hell” of working.  He joined the PSC Case 15-E-0302 in July, 2023 because he was so concerned about this situation.  His August 2023 filing lists all of the problems with the current plan that he had been addressing with state legislators, NYSERDA, and the PSC since 2019.  Keep in mind that many of the solutions that have been proposed are from parties that have a monetary stake in the various outcomes, or from climate activists or biologists that have absolutely no idea how the system works.  Ellenbogen hasn’t taken a penny from anyone for any of the thousands of hours of work that he has put into this.  He just wants to see the lights stay on and to not have anyone die in a power failure.  He states: “This is entirely about protecting the state’s energy system in general and the downstate system in particular because that is at a far higher risk of failure.”  

Alternative Approach

In my opinion, the biggest reason to pay attention to his work is that he walks the walk.  He has reduced GHG emissions at his home and factory.  In addition, his home was powered though the entirety of a week-long power outage after Sandy and his factory can operate at 50% capacity during a power failure.  He is working on bringing that up to 100% within a year. As a result, his recommendations are based on experience and not theory.  The following quotes are from his email but include clarifying references.

Despite the mess that we are currently in, there is a viable solution to the problems described by the NYISO.  The equipment could be here by 2028-2029 and installed by 2030-2032.  However, it will require a sea change in the group think about natural gas. This will need to be done quickly as the rapid increase in data center construction is going to increase the lead times for this equipment.  The lead time for new gas turbines from GE Vernova is now out to 2028 when I checked recently.

Retooling the three Long Island Power Plants, Port Jefferson, E F Barret, and Northport could increase their energy output and reduce their carbon emissions by about 50%.  LILCO/LIPA wanted to do this in 2015 but was rebuffed by state planners that insisted on offshore wind, however that was never going to work, even before Trump.  The wind bids in 2023 came in at $155/MWh, over twice that of other energy costs in the state.  That is because of the Jones Act driving up installation costs or making them almost impossible to install entirely.  As a comparison, offshore wind costs in the UK bid at that time, came in at $75 – $80/MWh showing the effect of the Jones Act on costs.  Wind costs in Texas are at $25/MWh which is why they are having such a rapid expansion of the technology there.  Additionally, wind speeds during the summer off the coast of Long Island are slower and would not support the summer peak electric demand even had the wind farms been installed. 

The reason that such large CO2 reductions are possible with the new plants is that they are combined cycle.  The three plants that I mentioned are steam plants, date to the 1960’s and 1970’s, and are 30% to 33% efficient in turning fuel into electricity.  67% -70% of the energy goes up the chimney.  A combined cycle plant uses a gas turbine on the front end to make electricity at about a 33% efficiency but then captures the heat exhaust and uses that to make steam which is then fed to a steam turbine.  The combined efficiency of the entire plant is about 60% – 65% plus the newer plants have better technology for reducing NOx, SOx and particulate emissions (PM2.5, PM5, and PM 10).  NOx has a carbon footprint 100 times that of CO2.  The emissions profiles of the three plants mentioned plus the Caithness plant are shown on the graph from the report.  Caithness is combined cycle and they wanted to build Caitness 2 but that was rebuffed because the plant was so efficient that it would have rendered the other plants worthless and there was a legal agreement signed when National Grid took them over from LILCO.  You can see the radical difference in emissions in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Emissions from Long Island Power Plants (Survey of National Grid Generation Formerly Owned By LILCO)

The higher efficiency reduces the energy costs and will cut the gas use nearly in half for each plant, freeing up capacity for Caithness 2 or to install larger generators at each location so that the peaker plants in NY City could be shut down if local transmission issues are resolved.  Further, because there are already generating plants at the locations, the transmission infrastructure and fuel infrastructure already exists so there will be a minimal cost to bring it up to modern standards or if the capacities are increased making it a much less expensive option than the current plans.

I wrote a paper for the PSC in February that showed how NY State could combine the newer plants with carbon capture technology and achieve a 90% carbon reduction.  The equipment exists but the generating plants would have to be increased in size by about 25% to net the same power output because that much energy would be needed to liquefy the CO2 and pump it two miles underneath the ocean floor.  They would still use 25% less fuel for the same amount of usable energy but would be 90% carbon free.  Babcock and Wilcox has that technology available now as do some other companies.  Even without the carbon capture, the combined cycle plants are extremely worthwhile and could be retrofitted with the Carbon Capture technology later as long as they were oversized now to generate sufficient energy to supply the utility loads and liquefy the CO2.

Natural Gas

Ellenbogen and I agree that the state’s position on natural gas is a problem.

Regarding the natural gas issue that has proved to be such an albatross around the state’s neck, the idea originated at Stanford with Professor Jacobsen in about 2012 and was adopted by  Professor Howarth at Cornell.  I offered to debate Howarth at Cornell but he declined.  I told him in 2019 that his ideas were misguided, and recent studies have proven him wrong.  Howarth sat on the Climate Action Council and infected it with his thinking.  They stated that the rapid rise of methane in the atmosphere was due to fracking and leaking pipes in the streets.  However, a study from 2022 that scooped methane out of the atmosphere found that atmospheric methane has the wrong carbon isotope to be from fossil fuels.  Instead, it is primarily from organic decay so NY State reducing gas usage will have almost no effect on methane emissions but it will leave us with no electricity.  The Gas Stove study from the Rocky Mountain Institute that claimed that gas stoves caused childhood asthma was equally misguided. 

Another solution that could be implemented even more quickly is to replace all of the older train cars on the MTA system.  I joined three other independent intervenors in the Con Ed rate case tried to have that included, to no avail.  Presently, only about 25% of the MTA subway cars have regeneration.  By replacing the other 75% of the older cars with newer ones that have regeneration, we could reduce the peak load on the downstate system by about 500 Megawatts and save hundreds of Gigawatt-hours of energy annually.  Now, when the cars slow down their brakes get hot requiring more maintenance.  By adding regeneration, cars that slow down would put electric energy back into the system where other trains could use it to operate without needing additional generation.  As rush hour coincides with peak utility usage between 4 PM and 10 PM, the maximum energy savings would be occurring exactly when it was needed.  The energy savings and the reduced brake maintenance would decrease the costs of operating the system.  The 500 Megawatts is also more than the capacity of the oil fired peaker plants around the city.  As more lower- and middle-class people use mass transit, that is actual climate justice.  We have spoken to people at the MTA and they agree that this would work.

All of the above expenditures will yield monetary savings and provide the region with sufficient energy while also greatly reducing carbon emissions.   Additionally, load increases from building electrification should be curtailed until we have enough generation to support it.  If they want to engage in energy efficiency and carbon reduction, they can do the following which will reduce energy and electric use while also saving the ratepayers money:

  • Have people eliminate oil combustion which has 50% higher emissions than gas and also has higher particulate emissions.  Switch them to either gas or electric heat pumps.  Oil is also much more expensive than either alternative.
  • Subsidize homeowners that have electric radiant heat and get them to switch to heat pumps.  It will cut their bills and their energy usage by about 60%.  That technology is more prevalent upstate.
  • Wrap all heating pipes with insulation to reduce heating loss and improve building envelopes (windows and insulation)
  • Encourage large energy users to install CHP Systems.  It’s the technology that I use in my factory and I have saved about $1 million in utility bills over the past 14-16 years while also reducing our carbon emissions by about 30% – 40%.  Large apartment buildings in close proximity could also Siamese their heating systems and cooling systems and install CHP systems to run them with a great benefit.
  • Add rooftop solar.  As it doesn’t need transmission infrastructure it is relatively inexpensive to install and it not only reduces energy use but it also reduces transmission line losses which average to 7% over the course of the year and up to 11% during the summer when the solar arrays make most of their power.
  • Get rid of NY Steam and use the steam from that plant to generate electricity.  Convert NY Steam users to alternative electric heating and cooling.  That will provide additional electric energy and NY Steam is a technology that has outlived its usefulness in the modern era.  All of those steam puffs rising out of the streets are lost energy, the system needs a huge amount of maintenance, and because a large portion of it is “open loop”, huge amounts of hot condensate are dumped into the sewers every year putting more strain on that system and greatly increasing fresh water usage.  Disposing of all of that hot water is also energy loss.  They could still use the steam system for the closed loop portion of the system that is located near the steam plant.  This will anger Con Ed because NY Steam is a Cash Cow for them but is being operated to the detriment of NY State residents and to the environment.

Conclusion

I am in complete agreement with Ellenbogen’s concluding remarks:

One of the reasons that Roger Caiazza and I filed the article 78 against the PSC and the state energy policy is not because I am against carbon reductions or energy efficiency but instead because the present plan is unworkable and based upon an unattainable fantasy.  If the legislature doesn’t fix the mess that it has created by revising these policies, for lack of a better term, we are all screwed.  The PSC is stuck trying to adhere to a state policy that isn’t going to work.  I said as much when I addressed the NY Senate Energy and Telecommunications committee this past March.

That fantasy is now running headlong into reality and maybe now, people will finally understand what I have been warning about for six years.

If someone wants to install solar or wind and it is cost effective, then fine but we need sources of firm generation now.

New York Solar Siting Travesty

UPDATE 10/18/2025 – In response to a comment the Fort Edward Solar Site Map compared to Washington County Grasslands Wildlife Management Area has been added

In my opinion, the deployment of solar resources exemplifies the poor planning inherent in the Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act) net-zero transition plan.  One of my concerns is that the state process is not emphasizing responsible solar siting because facilities have been built on prime farmland.  I recently found out about a project that is going to be built adjacent to Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) protected grasslands.  This is another “you have to be kidding me” solar siting travesty and indicates a bigger underlying issue.

I acknowledge the use of Perplexity AI to generate summaries and references included in this document.  Ethics-wise I also acknowledge that I am pushing the bounds of plagiarism simply because I don’t have time to re-write everything to dispel all claims of plagiarism.  I will, however, provide links to the Perplexity source material.  Note that my Perplexity queries are made through my account.  The AI program apparently keeps track of my queries and background so they include disconcerting, to me anyway, references to myself.

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.

Overview

The Climate Act established a New York “Net Zero” target (85% reduction in GHG emissions and 15% offset of emissions) by 2050.  The Climate Action Council (CAC) was responsible for preparing the Scoping Plan that outlined how to “achieve the State’s bold clean energy and climate agenda.”  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 plan that includes milestones, acceptability criteria for targets or boundary conditions that must be met to continue.  As far as I am concerned, Climate Act implementation consists of building as many renewable energy resources as possible, as fast as possible without regard to the wishes of those people affected by those resources and hoping that it will all work out.

Renewable Permitting

Early in the process Climate Act proponents found that the New York State permitting process was slow.  I am familiar with those processes because I was involved with many projects over my career and I admit that they are slow and can be burdensome because there are extensive public participation requirements.  To make progress against those who just don’t want anything in their backyards, responsible State agencies developed extensive siting requirements.  If the proposed facility met all those requirements, then the public participation process incorporated them and worked with the public, so everyone understood what was necessary and made sure the proposal was consistent.

However, that takes time, and the Climate Act has an ambitious schedule.  Climate Act proponents successfully convinced the Legislature that a new siting process was necessary, and the Office of Renewable Energy Siting (ORES) was established.  My Perplexity research explains:

ORES, established under Executive Law Section 94-c through the 2020 Accelerated Renewable Energy Growth and Community Benefit Act, has authority to override local zoning and land use laws for major renewable energy facilities—those 25 megawatts or larger (with projects 20-25 MW able to opt in). This creates a two-tiered system where large solar farms fall under state jurisdiction while smaller projects remain subject to local control.​

The enabling statute explicitly grants ORES power to “elect not to apply, in whole or in part, any local law or ordinance” if it finds such laws “unreasonably burdensome in view of the CLCPA targets and the environmental benefits of the proposed facility”. This waiver authority operates on a case-by-case basis rather than creating blanket preemption.

I have been tracking solar permitting and its impact on prime farmland.  It is extremely disappointing that ORES has ignored guidance from other state agencies.  My latest article provides background on solar mandates   I also have a solar siting issues page that documents my concerns. 

Farmland Protection

The New York Department of Agriculture and Markets has guidelines for solar siting.  New York Department of Agriculture and Markets testimony notes that “The Department’s goal is for projects to limit the conversion of agricultural areas within the Project Areas, to no more than 10% of soils classified by the Department’s NYS Agricultural Land Classification mineral soil groups 1-4, generally Prime Farmland soils, which represent the State’s most productive farmland.”  That seems reasonable to me because they are the Agency responsible for supporting New York agriculture.

I keep track of the status of projects with this guideline with a Prime Farmland Scorecard.  In May 2025 only 12 of the 25 facilities with data available at the Office of Renewable Energy Permit Applications site meet those guidelines.  Two facilities had no impacts on prime farmland.  If they can do it, why can’t others.

In my last article on the status of prime farmland, I noted that it is extremely frustrating to me that the Department of Ag and Markets recommendation was not adopted as a matter of course for solar development permitting.  Instead, the New York State Energy Research & Development Authority (NYSERDA) is studying the issue.

Last May I noted that I did not see any sign of urgency to finalize and implement farmland protections using the NYSERDA  scorecard.  The Smart Siting Scorecard Specialist Committee had three meetings early in this year but according to the website there hasn’t been any meetings since then.  Worse it does not appear that a solar development can get a failing grade for not doing smart siting.  In my opinion, this is lip service to the issue.

DEC Protected Land

I recently came across another example of ORES ignoring other state agency land use priorities.  In this case the Washington County Grasslands Wildlife Management Area (WMA) is threatened by the development of the Boralex Fort Edward Solar project.  My first Perplexity query produced this description of the WMA:

The Washington County Grasslands Wildlife Management Area (WMA) encompasses 478 acres of protected former agricultural lands in the town of Fort Edward, Washington County. The primary purposes are for wildlife management, wildlife habitat management, and wildlife-dependent recreation. The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation acquired these lands through multiple purchases:​

When I asked Perplexity AI how close the WMA was to the Boralex Fort Edward Solar Farm I got this response: “The Boralex Fort Edward Solar project is not merely “close to” the DEC-protected grasslands—the project is located directly on top of and within these protected areas, creating an unprecedented conflict between renewable energy development and established conservation designations.” 

Source: https://houseofgreen.substack.com/p/no-your-eyes-arent-deceiving-you

Alexandra Fasulo writing at the House of Green Substack has described this situation   She posed the obvious question:   

So how could it be that a New York State DEC Grassland Wildlife Management Area could play host to a solar corporation that plans to clear the vegetation and anchor solar panels deep into the earth’s soil?

I called the DEC to ask them this very question. Their answer was discouraging. The DEC told me that since ORES (Office of Renewable Energy Siting) was created in 2020 to “streamline the environmental review process” and circumvent local town laws/pushback that are deemed “burdensome,” the DEC has been largely shut out of all environmental conversations related to solar and wind “farms.”

The individual at the DEC shared in my exasperation and then told me he had not heard of this Fort Edward Solar project. I said to him, “This is a massive solar project that’s going in on top of DEC-protected and fragile habitat! How could this be?”

Again, he shared in my frustration and told me that the future of this land rests with ORES.

Discussion

I have allied myself with the Stop Energy Sprawl coalition because of our shared concerns.  In fact, this post was prompted by Fasulo’s presentation at a recent meeting.  We all share the same vision of a clean environmental legacy but are convinced that New York State’s implementation of the Climate Act is causing significant and irreparable harm to rural communities.  Everyone in the coalition shares the same frustration with ORES. My Perplexity research condenses our local community concern:

In practice, ORES’s authority creates what amounts to state preemption of home rule for large-scale solar development, though with important procedural protection. The statutory framework acknowledges this by requiring ORES to apply local laws unless they’re found unreasonably burdensome—establishing a presumption in favor of local requirements that must be overcome through specific findings.​

However, the “unreasonably burdensome” standard is evaluated explicitly in relation to statewide CLCPA mandates. This inherently weights the analysis toward state energy policy goals over local land use preferences.

It is not only the home rule implications.  I am positive that staff in the state agencies responsible for prime farmland protection and wildlife management areas share the frustration that their guidance is being ignored as illustrated by the responses to Fasulo.  I believe that all this is the consequence of the failure to plan the transition to Net-zero.  The blame for that can be placed squarely on the Climate Action Council who approved the Scoping Plan without including provisions for the development of a feasible transition consistent with existing environmental guidance and recommendations. 

The failure to plan has had negative consequences.  The decision to not require developers to meet the Department of Ag & Markets prime farmland protection guideline has led to the destruction of 6,650 acres of prime farmland.  Renewable developers have blown off Agency comments by saying that their guidance is only a recommendation.  If Boralex is allowed to destroy rare grassland habitat, then this will be a sad day for the environment of New York.

This was all preventable.  The claim that these programs had to be implemented as fast as possible because of the existential threat of climate change is no excuse.  If New York were able to eliminate all its GHG emissions, the effect of global emission increases elsewhere would supplant our efforts in one year.  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.  It is long past time to pause this process until safeguards consistent with State Agency guidance are incorporated into the ORES permitting decisions.  I also think that the public should be aware of the destruction of home rule actions by ORES.

Conclusion

This finding is a great example why I believe the Climate Act implementation can only do more harm than good.  It is time to hold the politicians who were responsible for this debacle accountable for their actions.  Revisions to the laws are necessary to prevent further harm.

Update 10/18/2025 in response to comment

Fort Edward Solar Site Map

Washington County Grasslands Wildlife Management Area

Overlay Two Maps – Approximate Fit- However, the point is that the Boralex Fort Edward Solar panels will be close to the WMA and will impact similar land use types that the DEC is trying to protect. Given all the possible locations for solar projects, why does ORES allow development on this kind of land?