Climate Act – Page 44 – Pragmatic Environmentalist of New York

New York’s Irrational and Unsupportable Methane Obsession

One “baked-in” aspect of the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (Climate Act) is its obsession that using natural gas, aka methane, is such a danger to climate change that its use must be curtailed now and eliminated as soon as possible. I say “baked-in” because the language of the Climate Act was written to deliberately and uniquely emphasize its alleged impacts on global warming. A paper by van Wijngaarden & Happer makes a persuasive case that New York’s obsession to reduce methane is wrong. Unfortunately, the paper is very technical and my attempt to describe it for a wider audience has resulted in a dense post that probably won’t be much help to many.

Here are the key points to keep in mind as you read this post. The van Wijngaarden & Happer paper describes an analysis that used many observations of the greenhouse effect to develop a general relationship that can be used to predict the effect of increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases. New York Climate Act guidance is based on claims that methane has a more potent impact on the greenhouse effect than carbon dioxide but the van Wijngaarden & Happer derived relationship shows that methane cannot cause significant changes to the greenhouse effect itself. The analysis shows this is because of the saturation effect, the amount and type of radiation emitted from the surface, the numerical realities of infrared absorption, and the physical properties of the real atmosphere related to the greenhouse effect.

Everyone wants to do right by the environment to the extent that they can afford to and not be unduly burdened by the effects of environmental policies. I submitted comments on the Climate Act implementation plan and have written extensively on New York’s net-zero transition because I believe the ambitions for a zero-emissions economy embodied in the Climate Act outstrip available renewable technology such that this supposed cure will be worse than the disease. Although the implementation process claims to adhere to the “science” I have found many examples where the claims are not supportable. The opinions expressed in this post do not reflect the position of any of my previous employers or any other company I have been associated with, these comments are mine alone.

Background

The goal of the Climate Act is to reduce emissions from 1990 levels to net-zero by 2050. Previously I explained that the language of the law mandates a unique accounting system for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The result is that New York’s GHG baseline inventory for 1990 is nearly double previous inventories that were consistent with GHG emission accounting methodologies used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the United States Environmental Protection Agency. There are three primary reasons for the near doubling of the emissions inventory. The Climate Act inventory adds a requirement to include not only direct emissions but also emissions associated with upstream emissions. The second change modified the potential effect of methane on global warming by changing the time horizons and, finally, the emission factors used are inconsistent with other jurisdictions.

I believe that the primary source of this methane obsession in the Climate Act is Dr. Robert Howarth. As one of the authors of the Climate Act, he was in a position to incorporate the anti-natural gas language. He is also a member of the Climate Action Council that is responsible for developing an implementation outline for the transition to net-zero. In that role he disparages the continued use of natural gas at every opportunity. Howarth is the David R. Atkinson Professor of Ecology and Environmental Biology at Cornell University. His training was in oceanography, much of his research still focuses on coastal marine ecosystems, and he also works on freshwater systems (both rivers and lakes). Despite his lack of meteorological and air quality background and education he has followed the money to become a shill for the special interest foundations opposed to natural gas use and has conned the state into obsessing about the global warming impact of methane in the Climate Act.

Infrared Forcing by Greenhouse Gases

In order to explain why New York’s methane obsession is misplaced it is unfortunately necessary to go into the technical details of the paper by van Wijngaarden & Happer “Infrared Forcing by Greenhouse Gases”. Fortunately, there are several descriptions of the paper that are more understandable. Dr. C. A. Lange prepared a summary of the paper that he thought a lay person could understand. In my opinion, it is still a challenge primarily because there are few illustrations in his summary. Dr Thomas P Sheahen prepared a video presentation on the paper and I will incorporate his illustrations into my simplified description why methane is irrelevant. I followed his explanation approach and recommend the video itself. Finally, an amicus curiae brief from a just convened court case provides another description of the aspects covered in the paper. Hopefully this article will distill the information from those references to provide an explanation that more people can understand.

At its core, the global warming concern is that changes in the earth’s radiation budget will increase the energy in the atmosphere that will lead to warming at the earth’s surface. Sheahen included the following figure that shows the earth’s energy budget as percentages of the solar energy coming to earth. Incoming solar energy or sunlight is in the form of shortwave radiation. A total of 30% of the radiation is reflected back out to space from the atmosphere, clouds and the earth’s surface as shown in the yellow arrows pointing up. The atmosphere absorbs 16% of the solar energy and clouds absorb another 3%. The remaining 51% is absorbed by land and oceans. The absorbed energy at the earth’s surface is radiated back into the atmosphere as longwave radiation.

As an aside: One problem deciphering these technical reports is that the same phenomenon can have different names. In this case longwave radiation is also called infrared radiation per the title of the paper in question.

Gases in the atmosphere have different capabilities for absorbing this longwave radiation. Greenhouse gases absorb that energy and can radiate it back to the earth’s surface, to other greenhouse gases or out into space. Increasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere increases the amount radiated back to the earth’s surface and increases atmospheric temperatures. Eventually, as shown by the red upward facing arrows, 70% of the energy is radiated back into space mostly from the clouds and atmosphere (64%) and 6% is radiated directly from the earth’s surface.

Saturation Effect

The Climate Act regulates the following greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and carbon tetrafluoride, and sulfur hexafluoride. The fact that their effect on longwave radiation decreases as their concentrations increase is an aspect of these gases that has been ignored by the Climate Act and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This is called the saturation effect.

On October 14, 2022 an opening brief was filed at the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, Concerned Household Electricity Consumers Council (CHECC) v. EPA, that challenges EPA’s 2009 Finding that CO2 and other greenhouse gases constitute a “danger” to human health and welfare. A week later an amicus curiae brief was filed in support of CHECC by the CO2 Coalition together with Professors William Happer of Princeton and Richard Lindzen of MIT. On page 29 of the brief the saturation effect is described:

Drs. Happer and Lindzen have special expertise in radiation transfer, the prime mover of the greenhouse effect in Earth’s atmosphere. It is important to understand the radiation physics of what the effect is of adding CO2 at current atmospheric concentrations. CO2 becomes a less effective greenhouse gas at higher concentrations because of what in physics is called “saturation,” shown in the chart below.

This version of the saturation curve projects that the carbon dioxide CO₂ warming effect is increased between 0.6^oC and 0.8^o C when the atmospheric concentration is increased from 100 ppm to 150 ppm. The total expected effect of CO₂is the sum of all the bars. It does not mean that there will be no effect of added greenhouse gases but that the effect is reduced. The takeaway message from this graph is that if today’s CO₂ concentration of around 400 ppm were doubled to 800 ppm the expected increase is the sum of all the bars to the right of the red arrow that I estimate to be about 1^o C of additional warming. That is on the order of one third of what the IPCC claims. The brief sums it up: “This means that, from now on, our emissions from burning fossil fuels will have a modest and a declining impact on greenhouse-induced warming”.

In order to make projections of future GHG impacts the IPCC uses global climate models (GCM) that simulate all the physical processes in the atmosphere that affect climate. The radiative processes described here are only one, and frankly a small one at that, of the processes that affect the climate. Individually we have a good understanding of the laws of physics but solving them as necessary to make climate projections is extremely difficult if not impossible. Although the IPCC Third Assessment Report admitted this “The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future exact climate states is not possible”, this point has been largely ignored since. In order to get any kind of an answer requires the modeling analysis to make many simplifying assumptions. Our concern here is just one component: atmospheric radiative physics, that is to say the interaction of all the components of the atmosphere with the shortwave and longwave radiation that ultimately drives the greenhouse effect. It turns out that the IPCC GCMs have “not been able to replicate the increasing number of very diverse observations that are gradually becoming available” for this component. The comparison of results from this component of the GCMs relative to observations shows poor correspondence and indicates their treatment of the saturation effect is likely incorrect.

Amount and Type of Radiation Affecting the Greenhouse Effect

Observations of the amount and type of radiation emitted from the surface were the primary driver of the analysis by van Wijngaarden & Happer. Their focus on the radiation emissions combined state-of-the-art physics with the best observations available of the radiative processes in the atmosphere to determine just how much of the longwave radiation will be reduced and how much the greenhouse effect will be increased. In particular they used the HITRAN database which is a compilation of measurements used to predict and simulate the transmission and emission of energy in the atmosphere. This is a database that includes thousands of observations of the shortwave and longwave radiation processes that affect the intensity of the greenhouse effect.

Recall that white sunlight (the shortwave radiation described before) is made up of a spectrum or bands of different wavelengths seen as different colors. This is the physics behind rainbows. Rainbows are formed as a result of the dispersion of white light split into seven colors after passing through a raindrop. Each color represents a different band of wavelengths.

The following diagram from the Amicus Brief shows the longwave spectrum of energy coming from the earth’s surface. The smooth blue curve represents the expected radiation from a black body aka Plank’s Law. The brief explains that “The area under the blue curve is “the heat the Earth would radiate to space if our atmosphere had no greenhouse gases or clouds, and if the surface temperature were 60° F”. The black curve represents measurements of the actual radiation coming from the earth so the area under the jagged black curve is the heat radiation that is actually observed. The area between the blue and black curves represents the greenhouse effect. Note that the greenhouse gases, water vapor (H₂O), nitrous oxide (N₂O), carbon dioxide (CO₂), ozone (O₃), and methane (CH₄), affect different areas of the curve.

The black curve represents today’s conditions at 60° F and the figure shows the effect of zero and doubled CO₂. The green curve shows radiation to space if there was no CO₂. Clearly CO₂has the largest effect on today’s greenhouse effect. The red curve is the radiation to space if CO₂ concentrations were to be doubled from 400 ppm to 800 ppm, with no changes in other greenhouse gases. One can barely make out the difference, about 1.1% of the radiation before doubling. For this change in the greenhouse effect, we expect that the surface temperature would increase by a trivial amount, about 1° C (1.8° F) or less.

The van Wijngaarden & Happer paper analyzed thousands of radiation measurements of the black curve and developed a theoretical relationship to predict how changes in ambient conditions, including concentrations, would affect the spectrum of wavelengths. Their derived relationship represents conditions in the actual atmosphere not the theoretical and simplified atmosphere used by the IPCC and EPA. Importantly, all five GHGs were considered at the same time using their observed concentrations. When the derived relationship is compared to observations for different locations on the earth the results are remarkably similar.

Sheahen argues that this represents the correct use of the Scientific Method and the fundamental truth that observations always trump model output. Because there is good agreement between projections estimated from their derived relationship and actual measurements, we have a “computational method that is trustworthy”. As a result, “we can now conduct numerical experiments with CO₂ doubled, halved, etc”. The IPCC theoretical results do not meet this fundamental test and should not be trusted.

For example, we can use the derived relationship to consider the effect of adding different increments of CO₂as shown in the following diagram that focuses on one portion of the curve. Remember that the greenhouse effect is represented by the difference between black smooth curve and the jagged curves below it. The diagram shows that there is a very small greenhouse effect due to increased CO₂. This is primarily because of the saturation effect discussed previously.

Numerical Realities

The biggest reason that methane is irrelevant is because of the numerical realities of infrared absorption. The following diagram varies methane (CH₄) instead of CO₂. The wavelengths affected by methane are to the right of the peak of the curve. Remember that the greenhouse effect is represented by the area between the blue curve and the other curves. Because the section of the curve where methane affects longwave radiation is smaller than the section at the peak of the curve where CO2 has its primary effect, methane simply cannot ever cause as much of a change in the greenhouse effect. Also note the methane greenhouse effect at current concentration levels is only the small difference between the green line and the black line because of the saturation effect. If methane is doubled (the red curve) there is no visible change in the greenhouse effect at this resolution.

The next diagram expands the resolution enough to see the doubled concentration effect (the red line) but it is clear that there is no significant effect for methane and that current levels of methane are not a significant factor in the overall greenhouse effect.

Nitrous oxide (N₂O) has also been vilified because of its high global warming potential so I have included the analogous diagrams. In this case there is potential for more of a significant impact because the longwave frequencies where N₂O reduces transmission include an area near the peak of the curve. The results due to the saturation effect are the same and there is there is no visible effect for a doubling of current concentrations. There is another reason N₂O is inconsequential that will be discussed in the next section.

At an increased resolution level, the greenhouse effect is visible but appears to be even less significant than methane.

Physical Properties of the Real Atmosphere

The observed greenhouse effect impacts of methane and nitrous oxides relative to carbon dioxide should be considered when they are compared. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Environmental Protection Agency, and New York State Value of Carbon guidance all use the global warming potential (GWP) to enable intercomparison of greenhouse gases. Happer & van Wijngaarden explained that this parameter is calculated based on per-molecule forcings in a hypothetical, optically thin atmosphere, where there is negligible saturation of the absorption bands, or interference of one type of greenhouse gas with others. In other words, global warming potential values are based on molecular theory with multiple technical simplifications and are not based on observations of the physical properties of the atmosphere.

Table 2 in the New York State Value of Carbon guidance document specifies the Global Warming Potential (GWP) values used in New York. The IPCC 100-year GWP values for methane indicate that using this methodology that methane exacerbates the greenhouse effect 28 times more than carbon dioxide and nitrous oxides are 265 times worse. New York’s vilification of methane is even worse because the law specifically mandates that the 20-year GWP values be used. The 20-year GWP methane value claims that methane is 84 times worse than carbon dioxide. The van Wijngaarden & Happer paper proves that those estimates are incorrect.

Table 2: Physical Properties of Example Greenhouse Gases (IPCC Fifth Assessment Report)
Greenhouse gas	Lifespan (years)	100-YEAR GWP	20-YEAR GWP
Carbon dioxide (CO2)	~10045	1	1
Methane (CH4)	12.4	28	84
Nitrous oxide (N2O)	121	265	264
Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs)
HFC-134A	13.4	1300	3710
HFC-125	28.2	3170	6090
HFC-32	5.2	677	2430
HFC-143A	47.1	4800	6940
Perfluorocarbons (PFCs)
PFC-14	50,000	6630	4880
PFC-116	10,000	11100	8210
PFC-218	2,600	8900	6640
PFC-318	3,200	9540	7110
Sulfur hexafluoride (SF6)	3,200	23500	17500

There are other physical properties of the real atmosphere ignored in the global warming potential approach to methane. GWP does not consider actual concentrations in the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide concentrations were 415 ppm in 2021 while methane concentrations are less than 2 ppm and nitrous oxides concentrations are even less. . Molecules in tiny concentrations have less effect and that is not considered. Finally, there is no recognition that the methane atmospheric residence time is only 12 years so it does not accumulate like carbon dioxide.

Discussion

In summary, the van Wijngaarden & Happer analysis used many measurements of the observed greenhouse effect to develop a general relationship that can be used to predict the effect of increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases. The paper shows that show that increased CO₂ will have a modest and decreasing effect on the greenhouse effect if concentrations are doubled. The primary driver of this observation is the saturation effect. New York Climate Act guidance for methane is based on claims that methane has a more potent impact on the greenhouse effect than carbon dioxide. However. that guidance is based on a molecule-by-molecule relationship that does not account for the situation in the atmosphere. van Wijngaarden & Happer’s relationship proves that increased atmospheric concentrations of methane and nitrous oxides will have an imperceptible effect on the overall greenhouse effect. For methane the reality of the infrared absorption curve is that the wavelengths where it enhances the greenhouse effect are much smaller than the peak of the curve where CO₂ affects it. Finally, there are some physical properties of the real atmosphere related to the greenhouse effect that mean that the potential impact of methane and nitrous oxides are much less than CO₂ so the global warming potential approach is invalid. Also note that methane and nitrous oxide emissions are far lower than CO₂ emissions so the likelihood that their atmospheric concentrations could substantially increase in the atmosphere is nil.

Sheahen points out there are also scientific implications. He argues out that agreement between theory and experiment is the hallmark of good science and states that the method of van Wijngaarden & Happer meets that criterion. The IPCC approach in their Global Climate Models consistently over-estimates the greenhouse effect so the model predicts too high temperatures as compared to observations. Thus, their approach does not meet the good science criterion.

Conclusion

I hope my attempt to explain this important paper is understandable. I have two conclusions based on the analysis. On one hand the theory that human emissions of greenhouse gases are the primary driver of climate change because of the greenhouse effect is causing an existential threat is widely accepted. However, I agree with Richard P. Feynman’s quote: “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.” The experimental evidence compiled by Wijngaarden & Happer does not agree with the theory that human emissions of greenhouse gases substantially affect atmospheric warming. The existential threat theory is unsupportable.

Viewed through a pragmatic lens, the New York obsession with eliminating natural gas is irrational. Increased use of natural gas has been responsible for the majority of electric generation emission reductions observed in the state. Natural gas provides efficient, resilient, and safe energy to homes and businesses. Not so long ago the idea that natural gas could also be used a bridge fuel until the aspirational “green” generating resources and energy storage technologies could be tested at the scale needed, perform like a natural gas fired generating unit, and provide power at a similar cost, was generally accepted as a rational approach. Unfortunately, the Climate Act does not allow this approach. The analogy for skipping the need for a bridge fuel is that proponents want to jump out of a perfectly good airplane without a parachute because they assume that the concept of a parachute will be developed, proven technically and economically feasible, and then delivered in time to provide a soft landing. This paper shows that there isn’t even a valid reason to jump out of the airplane.

New York City Clean Heat for All Challenge

This article describes the Clean Heat for All Challenge and the disconnect between the plan and reality. New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA), New York Power Authority (NYPA) and New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) launched the Clean Heat for All Challenge as “an industry competition directed at heating and cooling equipment manufacturers to develop a new electrification product that can better serve the needs of existing multifamily buildings and hasten the transition to fossil-free heating sources”. Sounds wonderful until you look at the details and differences with New York’s net-zero transition plan.

Everyone wants to do right by the environment to the extent that they can afford to and not be unduly burdened by the effects of environmental policies. I have written extensively on New York’s net-zero transition and the implementation strategies needed for it because I believe the ambitions for a zero-emissions economy outstrip available renewable technology such that this supposed cure will be worse than the disease. Moreover, many of the implementation requirements are going to increase costs tremendously. The opinions expressed in this post do not reflect the position of any of my previous employers or any other company I have been associated with, these comments are mine alone.

Background

The impetus for the need clean heat is driven by the multifamily buildings electrification transition required for New York’s Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (Climate Act) and New York City’s Local Law 97. Both the Climate Act and Local Law 97 are intended to meet a “Net Zero” target (85% reduction and 15% offset of emissions) by 2050. The Climate Action Council has been working to develop plans to implement the Climate Act. Over the summer of 2021 the New York State Energy Research & Development Authority (NYSERDA) and its consultant Energy + Environmental Economics (E3) prepared an Integration Analysis to “estimate the economy-wide benefits, costs, and GHG emissions reductions associated with pathways that achieve the Climate Act GHG emission limits and carbon neutrality goal”. Integration Analysis implementation strategies were incorporated into the Draft Scoping Plan when it was released at the end of 2021 for public comment. The multifamily electrification documentation for the Integration Analysis was used in this post.

Clean Heat for All Challenge

The press release for announcing this initiative was titled “NYCHA, NYPA and NYSERDA Announce Global Innovation Challenge to Decarbonize NYCHA Buildings Using New Heat Pump Electrification Technologies”. Because GHG emissions from buildings is the largest remaining sector in the State, the Integration Analysis proposes to replace all fossil-fired generation with electric heat pump options. The press release describes the goals of the challenge:

The challenge calls upon manufacturers to develop a packaged cold climate heat pump that can be installed through an existing window opening to provide heating and cooling on a room-by-room basis. The envisioned product would enable rapid, low-cost electrification of multifamily buildings by reducing or eliminating many of the cost drivers inherent to existing heat pump technologies when used in resident occupied apartments. These include costly electrical upgrades, long refrigerant pipe runs, drilling through walls and floors and other construction aspects which result in high project costs, and significant disruption to residents.

The Clean Heat for All Challenge directly supports the goals of New York State’s Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (Climate Act) and the New York City Climate Mobilization Act, which both call for greenhouse gas emissions from buildings to be reduced by 40 percent by the year 2030. The partnership between the New York City Housing Authority, New York Power Authority, and New York State Energy Research and Development Authority and will test innovative products and proposals for cost-effective heating and cooling solutions for NYCHA building portfolio, which includes 2,198 residential dwelling buildings. Additionally, NYCHA, NYPA, and NYSERDA have also engaged with the Consortium of Energy Efficiency (CEE) to engage manufacturers and encourage broad industry participation in the Clean Heat for All Challenge.

The RFP issued by NYPA identifies a list of product specifications that manufacturers will be challenged to meet. To incentivize participation, NYCHA will commit to purchasing the first 24,000 units from the awarded vendor(s) that will be installed at six developments currently slated for heating plant replacement over the next five years. NYSERDA is supporting the effort by providing additional funding from the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative operating plan, which calls for the electrification of heating in New York City public housing to improve energy performance, decrease emissions, and improve resident comfort. NYSERDA will provide assistance drafting the product specifications and performing commissioning as well as measurement and verification for the demonstration units. NYCHA will invest $250 million, in addition to the NYSERDA grant, to purchase and install the new equipment as well as provide additional improvements to the building envelopes and hot water systems.

830 Amsterdam Avenue Example

The Clean Air for All Challenge press release described another partnership to reduce GHG emissions from a New York City high rise complex. I will come back to the Challenge in a subsequent post but for now will discuss the 830 Amsterdam Ave Pilot Project:

NYCHA and NYPA are also partnering to replace the aging gas-and-oil-fueled heating and hot water systems at 830 Amsterdam Ave, a 20-story high-rise in Manhattan, with a high-efficient electric Variable Flow Refrigerant (VRF) heat pump system. The $28 million design-build electrification project will eliminate the use of on-site fossil fuel for heating and hot water while also providing central heating and cooling to 100 percent of apartments, replacing the old, inefficient window air conditioning units that have come to define many New York City-based facades.

This new and more efficient heating and hot water system will reduce local greenhouse gas emissions by more than 590 metric tons, the equivalent of removing approximately 130 cars from the road. The heat pump system, which would be the first of its kind at a public housing facility in New York State, will operate entirely on the grid without the need of a fossil fuel source. Once complete, residents will be able to individually control the temperature in each room of their apartment, a significant improvement over the current system, which does not provide any individual apartment temperature control.

NYCHA 830 Amsterdam Ave

According to MYNYCHA 830 Amsterdam Ave. is a 20-story building completed on August 31, 1965. The building has 159 apartments and 346 residents. According to the Heating Action Plan there are two boilers that can burn fuel oil #2 or natural gas. The boilers are 23 years old and no major challenges are listed.

Despite manufacturer claims about benefits using a Variable Flow Refrigerant heat pump system for this kind of structure, it is generally untested technology so this project can be considered a field test. It appears that the system checks off all the building’s needs and it will meet all the energy needs of the building without the need of a fossil fuel source. However, the “design-build electrification project” has a projected cost of $28 million and will only reduce emissions by 590 metric tons. That works out to an astounding $47,458 per ton reduced or $176,100 per residence. This is far above New York’s estimate of societal costs of carbon ($172 per ton in 2050).

The reality is that I don’t think this is an affordable electrification option. NYCHA has 267 developments with a total of nearly 162,000 apartments for about 340,000 people. If this technology were used for all those apartments the cost would be $28.5 billion. Using Integration Analysis data. I estimate that there are 2,050,000 large multifamily residences in New York. If this technology were used to electrify those homes the expected cost would be over $360 billion. Even of the costs could be reduced by an order of magnitude costs are still over $36 billion for just this residential electrification sub-sector.

Integration Analysis Ramifications

There are some issues related to the Integration Analysis. There are differences in the treatment of this building sector. The total costs for all the devices for any option in the Integration Analysis are far lower than the cost per apartment. In order for heat pump technology to maintain comfortable temperatures when temperatures drop below 20^o F the building shell has to be upgraded or resistance heating has to be used. The efficiency of heat pumps is a great benefit but the inefficiency of resistance heating is a big disadvantage. The device costs for the “Basic” building shell upgrades for large multifamily residences in the Integration Analysis are double ($28,000) the cost as the heat pumps themselves ($14,000). It is not clear if this “design-build electrification project” includes building shell upgrades.

These differences should be reconciled. However, the response to Draft Scoping Plan comments has only described general themes of comments related to the Draft Scoping Plan document itself. The comment response focus is entirely on the narrative in the text and what needs to be changed for the Final Scoping Plan. There is no suggestion that there are any clarification or methodology issues related to the Integration Analysis that need to be addressed by the Climate Action Council.

This example illustrates just one issue for a single component. The assumptions used to determine the device costs for heat pumps for the large multifamily building sector are inconsistent with this project. NYCHA and NYPA determined that the appropriate electrification solution for this large multifamily building was a whole building variable flow refrigerant heat pump system. Unfortunately, the costs of this approach are much higher than assumed in the Integration Analysis. Did the Integration Analysis consider the fact that the existing boiler systems provide heat and hot water? Is this the norm or an outlier for electrification in this sub-sector? My point is that there are issues related to the Integration Analysis that could affect the State’s contention that the costs of inaction outweigh the costs of action. None of them have been addressed in the response to comments.

Conclusion

I am working on another post related to the Clean Heat for All Challenge and noticed the description of the 830 Amsterdam Ave project. As has been the case for every detail associated with New York’s plans for the transition to net-zero my review has found that implementation will be more complicated and likely more expensive than the description in the Draft Scoping Plan. In this instance the 830 Amsterdam Ave NYCHA and NYPA electrification prototype project is extraordinarily expensive relative to the residences served ($176,100 per residence) and the New York societal value of carbon ($47,458 per ton reduced vs. societal benefits of $172 per ton in 2050).

In addition, there are differences between these projections and the Integration Analysis cost estimates that should be addressed. Unfortunately, the Climate Action Council has shown no inclination to mention much less address any issues with the Integration Analysis that underpins the Draft Scoping Plan. As a result, the fundamental assertion that the costs of inaction are greater than the costs of implementing the Climate Act transition are not supportable.

The totally ignored safety aspect of this and all the Draft Scoping Plan electrification plans also should be considered. At this time 830 Amsterdam has a boiler system that can burn #2 fuel oil or natural gas and every apartment owner can install an electric space heater. That is triple redundancy for heating the apartments. The implementation plan is to convert completely to electric and make the safety of the residents dependent upon electric heat. No where does the Scoping Plan address this inevitable “what if” impact. The benefits of the Climate Act are mostly imaginary but the costs will be real.

Climate Act Comparison of Generating Resources: Integration Analysis Mitigation Scenarios vs. NYISO Resource Outlook

At the October 25, 2022 Climate Action Council meeting Carl Mas compared the New York Independent System Operator (NYISO) 2021-2040 System & Resource Outlook and Integration Analysis generating resource projections for the net-zero transition plan required by New York’s Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (Climate Act). I have long advocated for such a comparison but I remain concerned that this is more of an empty gesture than the start of an open and transparent comparison and discussion of the implications of differences in the projections.

Everyone wants to do right by the environment to the extent that they can afford to and not be unduly burdened by the effects of environmental policies. I submitted comments on the Climate Act implementation plan and have written extensively on New York’s net-zero transition because I believe the ambitions for a zero-emissions economy embodied in the Climate Act outstrip available renewable technology such that this supposed cure will do more harm than good. The opinions expressed in this post do not reflect the position of any of my previous employers or any other company I have been associated with, these comments are mine alone.

Background

The implementation for the New York’s Climate Act “Net Zero” target (85% reduction and 15% offset of emissions) by 2050 is underway. The Climate Action Council has been working to develop plans to implement the Climate Act. Over the summer of 2021 the New York State Energy Research & Development Authority (NYSERDA) and its consultant Energy + Environmental Economics (E3) prepared an Integration Analysis to “estimate the economy-wide benefits, costs, and GHG emissions reductions associated with pathways that achieve the Climate Act GHG emission limits and carbon neutrality goal”. Integration Analysis implementation strategies were incorporated into the Draft Scoping Plan when it was released at the end of 2021 for public comment. Since the end of the public comment period in early July 2022 the Climate Action Council has been addressing the comments received as part of the development of the Final Scoping Plan that is supposed to provide a guide for the net-zero transition.

I have previously written that the Climate Action Council has not confronted reliability issues raised by New York agencies responsible for keeping the lights on. The only token response was a special speaker’s session for reliability on August 2, 2021 where six speakers discussed their concerns. Because subsequent analyses have raised issues, I published four more articles on this topic. The first post (New York Climate Act: Is Anyone Listening to the Experts?) described the NYISO 2021-2030 Comprehensive Reliability Plan (CRP) report (appendices) released late last year and the difficulties raised in the report are large. The second post (New York Climate Act: What the Experts are Saying Now) highlighted results shown in a draft presentation for the 2021-2040 System & Resource Outlook that all but admitted meeting the net-zero goals of the Climate Act are impossible on the mandated schedule. Recently I wrote about the “For discussion purposes only” draft of the 2021-2040 System & Resource Outlook report described in the previous article and the concerns raised. Most recently I compared the NYISO Resource Outlook and Draft Scoping Plan Generating Resource Projections and argued that they needed to be reconciled. Fortunately, there was a request from the Council for a comparison and at the October 25, 2022 Climate Action Council meeting (presentation and recording) Carl Mas described the differences between the NYISO resource projections and his Integration Analysis projections.

Integration Analysis Update

At 48:20 of the meeting recording Carl Mas presents the comparison of the Resource Outlook and Integration Analysis mitigation scenarios. The evaluation compared Integration Analysis (IA) mitigation scenario 2, Strategic Use of Low-Carbon Fuels with NYISO Resource Outlook Scenario 2 as shown in the following slide. Outlook Scenario 2 is “most aligned” with Integration Analysis (IA) scenario 2. Both analyses used the same load shapes and meet the Climate Act resource targets. Even though Mas claimed that the results were “well aligned” there are some key model differences. There are different assumptions, treatments of the electric system components are not the same, and imports are handled differently. The IA scenario includes load that they think is needed to generate hydrogen needed for the dispatchable emissions-free resource requirement and the NYISO analysis does not.

The 2030 comparison of results discussion starts at 53:00 of the meeting recording. Mas claims that the results of the two analyses are largely the same. His standard for agreement is that the directionality is the same and that the results are the same order of magnitude. In my opinion that is a pretty low bar. While I agree that the overall agreement is encouraging, I also think that the devil is in the details. Both analyses agree that Dispatchable Emissions-Free Resources (DEFR) are a necessary component of the zero-emission electric system of the future. I will address specific differences in the next section.

The 2040 comparison of results discussion starts at 55:35 in the video recording. Again, Mas claimed that the results are largely the same. During the question-and-answer session, Robert Howarth asked about the relative capacity to generation differences. Specifically, the NYISO capacity is greater than IA capacity but the NYISO generation is smaller than the IA generation. Mas said that they were still trying to figure out the difference but thought that curtailment was a factor. Because the NYISO analysis uses a more detailed transmission simulation their projections factor in more situations where the transmission system is unable to get the renewable generation where it is needed when it is needed. As a result, more capacity has to be built to ensure reliability.

Dennis Elsenbeck suggested that Mas and his modeling team work with the NYISO modelers to produce as joint reconciliation statement. Mas said that they will be engaging with the NYISO in the coming years but did not promise to reconcile all the differences. I will note some particular issues that I believe need to be reconciled and questions that I would like answered by both modeling teams in an open, transparent, and documented manner.

Comparison of Scenarios

The following table lists the data for the two NYISO Outlook scenarios and Integration Analysis Scenario 2, Strategic Use of Low-Carbon Fuels that I believe were used to produce the graphs. Per usual Mas has not documented the numbers in the graphical presentations so I am assuming that there have been no changes to the Integration Analysis numbers since the last update. I have provided the spreadsheet that I used to prepare this table and the input data extracted from the NYISO and Integration Analysis spreadsheet used. In my last post on this topic, I described each of the resource categories in the table. I am not going to repeat my description of the differences I noticed but will only address differences in the resource categories discussed at the Council meeting.

Mas thinks that the reason for fossil generation differences between NYISO Outlook Scenario 2 and the Integration Analysis Scenario is because NYISO treats the fossil resources differently. The Integration Analysis scenario considers the strategic use of low-carbon fuels, but NYISO does not assume that existing power plants will use alternate fuels in 2040.

In my opinion low-carbon fuel is the crux of an issue raised by Gavin Donohue. Donohue argued that the DEFR technologies cannot be evaluated until the Public Service Commission defines what fuels can be used and whether any fuel can be combusted. There are members of the Council that believe that combustion is outlawed in the Climate Act but the Council has not made a decision about a recommendation. I agree with Donohue that this should be decided sooner rather than later.

Mas noted that the Integration Analysis used higher capacity factors for wind and solar resources than the NYISO used. The following table compares the capacity factors for the resources. I have calculated New York land-based wind capacity factors since 2006 based on NYISO data. I agree with the NYISO 2019 capacity factor of 25% but the 2020 Integration Analysis capacity factor of 28.6% does not agree with the observed capacity factor of 23.9%. In fact, it is 19.3% higher than the observed value. Note that I submitted a comment that argued the land-based wind capacity factors were biased high and recommended that the final scoping plan correct that bias. There never has been any acknowledgment of that comment or anything related to the Integration Analysis itself at the Climate Action Council meetings. Dennis Elsenbeck asked if there was data available from existing systems because of the dangers that the data might not confirm the projections. Based on this, the answer is the data are being ignored and that means how can the Scoping Plan be finalized if there are errors in the Integration Analysis?

There are differences in the renewable resource category projections between the NYISO Outlook and the Integration Analysis scenarios. In my opinion, the overview discussion of results did not satisfactorily address the significance of these differences and the potential that they could represent feasibility implementation problems.

In the land-based wind (LBW) resource category, the NYISO Outlook scenarios both project 19,087 MW in 2040 but the Integration Analysis projection is only 12,242 MW (>35% different). That could be related to the unrealistic capacity factors the Integration Analysis used but it may also be related to the relative weighting of land-based and offshore wind.

The NYISO production resource model apparently does not think that offshore wind is a cost-effective option because both scenarios do not increase the projected capacity significantly beyond the Climate Act mandate of 9,000 MW. On the other hand, the Integration Analysis scenarios nearly double the amount of offshore wind resources projected. Overall, the NYISO Outlook offshore wind capacity is 40% lower than the average of the Integration Analysis scenarios and generation is 43% lower.

In the solar resource discussion, Mas explained that the difference between the Integration Analysis and NYISO Outlook Scenario 2 solar implementation transition was that the Champlain Hudson Power Express transmission line implementation was handled differently. As a result, more solar was added earlier in the Integration Analysis. The final resource allocation was the same. However, he did not address the fact that NYISO Outlook Scenario 1 is significantly different than all the other projections. The capacity is 63% lower and the generation is 71% lower than the averages of the other scenarios.

The energy storage resource category capacity values are pretty much the same all the scenarios. However, the numbers used for the generation projections are presented differently so that it is not possible to compare them. The Mas presentation did not explain the different methodologies.

As noted in the NYISO Outlook report, the Dispatchable Emissions-Free Resource (DEFR) category is a proxy generator type that represents a yet unavailable future technology that would be dispatchable and produces emissions-free energy (e.g., hydrogen, RNG, nuclear, other long-term season storage, etc.). The DEFR capacity and generation is substantially higher in Resource Outlook Scenario 1 than all the other scenarios. Even Resource Outlook Scenario 2 is higher than the Integration Analysis scenarios. In addition, Resource Outlook Scenario 1 capacity factor is 9% whereas the others are all around 2%. Mas did not address these differences.

On the other hand, there was considerable discussion about DEFR itself. As mentioned above, Donohue’s question about acceptable future fuel was related to DEFR. Thomas Falcone also commented on DEFR but I disagree with him. Paraphrasing he said:

“We don’t have to decide right now what they are”
“Nobody’s crystal ball is that accurate to predict the future”
“The nature of technology is evolution
“We don’t have to solve the 2035 DEFR problem based on 2022 technology information”
“Don’t rule anything out today”

On one level those are reasonable assertions but there are caveats that I don’t think the Council on a whole understands. Unless there is a major change in emphasis to accept nuclear as the only scalable proven DEFR, all the options are unproven technologies. In the first place counting on an untested technology to be available, permitted, and constructed by 2035 is an ambitious challenge. In addition, the alternatives are pushing the limits of physics. Long duration storage options must overcome the Second Law of Physics. The Draft Scoping Plan chose green hydrogen as its candidate resource and in order to prove that it can work a comprehensive feasibility analysis is required. If the Council were to actually consider doing a feasibility analysis of the affordability, reliability, and permitting acceptability of the DEFR options I believe that we could rule out some of these potential technologies. That could have major ramifications for the Scoping Plan.

Donna DeCarolis asked about the difference between NYISO Outlook Scenarios 1 and 2. Mas described Scenario 1 as a “highly unmanaged future”. Outlook Scenario 2 and all the Integration Analysis mitigation scenarios presume that load can be managed dynamically. That means that electric vehicle charging could be limited at times so that system load is reduced. It may also mean that homes and businesses might be required to be on smart meters so that electricity for heating and cooling load can also be reduced as needed. Mas described NYISO Outlook Scenario 1 as the worst-case benchmark where energy efficiency does not work as expected and heat pumps don’t perform as claimed in very old weather. My impression is the scenario as using a more realistic estimate of future load in the highest demand periods.

Mas offered several key takeaways. He said he was “really pleased about amount of similarity” but as shown he did not address potentially significant differences. He admitted that there are some things we can learn but did not make any suggestions how those lessons could be incorporated into the Scoping Plan. He also promised that they will be engaging with NYISO in the coming years. I will comment on that remark in the discussion below.

Discussion

The Climate Act has prompted a massive revamping of New York’s energy system. The Scoping Plan that is supposed to inform the future Energy Plan depends on an Integration Analysis that has not documented its control strategies and costs. The overall plan depends upon electrification of everything but the Integration Analysis generation resource projections have not been reconciled with the projections prepared by the NYISO who is responsible for operating and planning for a reliable electric grid. I fear that this short discussion is all that the Climate Action Council will consider before the Scoping Plan is finalized.

Dennis Elsenbeck suggested a joint reconciliation statement to address differences. He suggested it would allow the Council to compare differences in the perceptions of the modelers. In my opinion, such a statement should be the ultimate product of a process where the discussions between the NYISO and Integration Analysis modelers are open and the opportunity for stakeholder input is included. The forum could address issues raised about the Integration Analysis but ignored in the response to comments.

One missing component in the response to comments thus far has been any mention of Integration Analysis technical issues raised by stakeholder comments. I mentioned a couple of examples above but I am particularly concerned about one aspect of all this modeling. It is not clear to me how the worst-case renewable energy resource is treated. At some point any projection for future generating resources has to account for the fact that there are prolonged periods of light winds during the winter so there are limits to how much energy will be available from wind and solar resources. I submitted an unacknowledged comment explaining that I do not think that the Integration Analysis treatment of this condition is adequate. I am not familiar with the NYISO methodology for the worst case but I think it does a better job than the Integration Analysis. I believe this should be a primary topic for a reconciliation process.

Both modeling approaches are designed to force the system to meet the 70% zero-emissions generation by 2030 mandate. That metric is based on generation not capacity. As a result, DEFR is not needed until later because existing fossil generation can fill in where needed. That also means that it would be inappropriate to retire fossil capacity prematurely just because it is not used much. Peaking generation plants provide dedicated energy where and when it is needed. They cannot be replaced until DEFR provides equivalent energy at the location within the system where it is needed from resources that are dedicated to that service. That is significant feasibility hurdle so far ignored by the Council.

There was another implementation issue mentioned but not really addressed. The difference in some generating resources depends on whether imports include fossil generation. Anyone who mentioned this said that the Climate Act clearly precludes fossil imports. Based on many years of tracking power plant emissions I believe that no one knows how that could be tracked on a real-time basis so that the NYISO system operators can dispatch and meet the criterion. More importantly, is that requirement so important that the dispatcher is supposed to start rolling blackouts instead of accepting imported fossil-fired power?

I had a thought when Mas said that they will be engaging with the NYISO in the coming years. At what point does Mas shut down his New York State Energy Research & Development Authority modeling empire and the State put its trust in the existing reliability planning process by the organizations responsible for electric system reliability. The NYISO process has worked for years and should be the standard going forward. Having two sets of modeling results is confusing and the NYISO process has checks and balances on its modeling that are not included in the Mas modeling analyses.

I have one overriding question. What are the expected costs? Both analyses incorporate cost estimates to choose the least-expensive solution but neither one has provided any detailed numbers. That would be a prime consideration for the differences discussion. For example, offshore wind is minimized in the NYISO modeling which I suspect is because their cost estimates are much higher than the Integration Analysis that projects over 50% more offshore wind capacity in 2040. Without more information we won’t know and cannot decide which is the more appropriate approach.

Conclusion

In response to Climate Action Council member requests the October 25, 2022 Council meeting finally offered a token comparison of the difference between the generating resources projected by the Integration Analysis and the latest NYISO analysis. The presentation was covered in three slides and lasted about 20 minutes with questions. I have long advocated for such a comparison but I remain concerned that this is more of an empty gesture than the start of an open and transparent comparison and discussion of the implications of differences in the projections.

I cannot over-emphasize that reconciliation makes a difference. Just because Carl Mas said that there is “close agreement” between the scenarios does not mean that there are no implications. For example, NYISO and I agree that current land-based wind capacity is under 25% but the Integration Analysis uses a factor that is 19% higher than observed. Therefore, at a minimum, the Integration Analysis land-based wind capacity projected is 19% lower than necessary to meet the generation requirement. The Council has not responded to any of my technical comments and questions that showed in every instance the Integration Analysis over-estimated benefits and under-estimated costs. Add that to the fact that the Scoping Plan does not include a feasibility analysis of the affordability, reliability, and permitting acceptability of the propose implementation strategies leads me to conclude that the Scoping Plan process could easily lead to negative consequences far greater than any climate change effects attributable to New York GHG emissions.

New York Siting Board Garnet Solar Project Application Decision

Last year I was contacted by one of the organizers of Conquest Against Industrial Solar and since then I have been following the Article 10 application of the Garnet Energy Center. On October 27,2022 the New York State Board on Electric Generation Siting and the Environment (Siting Board) “granted approval to Garnet Energy Center, LLC to build and operate a 200-megawatt (MW) solar farm in the Town of Conquest, Cayuga County, with 20 MWs of battery storage capacity, one of the largest approved to date”. While I am terribly disappointed with the approval from the standpoint of the local impacts to most of the residents of Conquest there are larger ramifications. I describe two problems with this approval: the impact on local agriculture across the state and the failure of the Hochul Administration to protect local agricultural communities.

New York’s Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (Climate Act) Act establishes a “Net Zero” target (85% reduction and 15% offset of emissions) by 2050. I have written extensively on implementation of the Climate Act. Everyone wants to do right by the environment to the extent that efforts will make a positive impact at an affordable level but actions like this do more harm than good. The opinions expressed in this post do not reflect the position of any of my previous employers or any other company I have been associated with, these comments are mine alone.

Solar Siting Issues

I have written enough articles on solar siting issues that I have setup a page that summarizes them all. I became aware of the particular issues of utility-scale solar development on agriculture after I had a couple of people contact my blog describing issues that they had and suggested that I look into the issue. The problems that they raised are real, the solutions are available, but in the rush to develop as many renewable resources as quickly as possible the State of New York has dropped the ball on responsible utility-scale solar development. Given the massive amount of projected utility-scale solar generation capacity required to meet Climate Act goals the rush to develop solar projects could easily lead to the permanent loss of significant amounts of prime farmland that will hurt farming communities and endanger Climate Act strategies to sequester carbon in soil.

Solar developers are quick to point out that a landowner gets revenue when a solar project is developed. However, when land is taken out of production it will reduce farm jobs and the economic activity may be improved during construction but once the facility is operational there are very few economic benefits to essential local businesses. Furthermore, taking the land out of production may make other farmers who have been renting that land to make their operations viable will not be able

to support investments made in facilities, livestock, or equipment.

Press Release Announcement

The press release announcing the siting decision describes the project:

The project will consist of commercial-scale solar arrays, access roads, buried electric collection lines, a collection substation, and electrical interconnection facilities. Additional facilities would include a 345-kV switchyard which will be transferred to New York Power Authority to own, maintain, and operate. The project will be located on land leased from owners of private property. The project will include a 20 MW energy storage system which will charge exclusively off the solar array.

The press release goes on to say:

The project area is about 2,289 vacant acres, and the project footprint is about 900 acres. The solar farm is expected to begin commercial operation in 2023. Through land agreements, the project developer says it supports the agricultural economy by infusing revenue into family farms and diversifying their income.

The focus of this article will be on these statements. In the first place the 2,298 “vacant” acres include a “total of approximately 1,234.2 acres of NYSORPS classified Agricultural Land (Code 100)”. Clearly agricultural land is not vacant. I hope that was a typo, but if not, it is a sad testament to the disconnect between the Hochul Administration and the agricultural community.

The bigger issue is the claim that the project supports the agricultural economy. The New York State Department of Agriculture & Markets (AGM) testimony concluded that the project will have “significant and adverse disproportionate agricultural impact upon the local farming community”. This article will explain why the best interests of the state as exemplified by the AGM testimony have been cast aside in the unplanned rush to build renewables as part of the transition of the economy to net-zero.

NextEra Response to Testimony

On March 10, 2022 Michael Saviola of the New York State Department of Agriculture & Markets (AGM) submitted prepared testimony on the Garnet Energy Center application. On April 12, 2022 NextEra Energy Resources responded to the comments in Garnet Rebuttal Panel Testimony. In the following I am going to discuss two issues where the Siting Board chose the developer’s rationale over the AGM.

The two issues are addressed in the Panel response to Saviola on page 124 at line 6 of their rebuttal testimony. Question: “Please address the direct testimony of AGM staff’s witness Mr. Michael Saviola.” The answer:

Mr. Saviola states that AGM “discourages the conversion of farmland to a non-agricultural use” (AGM staff Testimony, p. 6, ll. 4–5). With respect to utility-scale renewable energy projects, Mr. Saviola states that “[t]he 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” (AGM staff Testimony, p. 7, l. 21–p. 8, l. 2).

On page 125 line 3 the rebuttal testimony poses the question: “Does siting the Project on Prime Farmland soils amount to a permanent conversion of agricultural soils to a non-agricultural use, as Mr. Saviola argues (AGM staff Testimony, p. 8, ll. 18–20)? The response states:

No. Although agricultural land within the LOD will not be available for farming during the life of the Project, the soils will be suitable for agricultural use after the Project is decommissioned.

Saviola’s testimony explained the AGM concern:

Due to increasing NYS energy goals encouraging renewable energy development, we see no reason facilities will not be upgraded and re-leased to maintain the growing or static renewable energy demand, in this case, 35 years from energization. The Department further asserts that as long as NYS incentives for the development of renewable energy exists, the complete decommissioning of solar electric energy generation, and full resumption to agricultural use is not likely to occur.

The developer’s response to this claimed it was speculation on the part of Saviola and reveals their development rationale and the shortcomings of current State policy. On Page 127 line 4 the rebuttal testimony states: “In our view, however, it is equally speculative that State incentives will remain constant, that no participating landowners will elect to resume agricultural activities within the Project Area, and that all participating landowners will agree to release their land for solar generation at that time.” Parsing out “State incentives will remain constant”, it is obvious that the developer believes that without state incentives aka subsidies they would not consider redeveloping the site. It seems to me that they admit that solar development in the future will still depend on subsidies. The decision to return to farming or leasing to farmers is primarily driven by money. While I have no personal animosity towards landowners that offer their land for solar development, the fact is that the NYS solar incentives provide more than enough money to outbid the value and risks of farming so it is an easy choice for land owners. However, if nearby farmers were renting land used for solar, there is no hope that they can compete with the state money. AGM developed guidelines so that solar development would not reward a favored few at the expense of the entire agricultural community. They are saying you have to keep most of the Prime Farmland available for farming purposes. The Siting Board and Climate Action Council have failed to support the AGM opinion that “the facility will result in or contribute to a significant and adverse disproportionate agricultural impact upon the local farming community”.

NextEra arguments hinge on the definition of permanent. It points out that on page 126 line 15 that:

As the Siting Board has previously explained, although agricultural lands will be converted to non-agricultural use during the life of the Project, decommissioning and post-decommissioning restoration measures “result in minimal permanent impacts to agricultural resources.”

In my opinion the implicit concern of AGM is that even during the life of this project the loss of Prime Farmland is to be avoided. Even if the project area is restored the avoided minimal permanent impacts likely are limited to the farmland itself. It is unlikely that the failed family farms who depended on renting that property and the local businesses that went out of business when all the affected farms stopped farming will startup when the solar leases end and the land becomes available to farm again. While solar developers want to be able to install panels on land that requires less work to maximize their profits, clearly it is in the best interest of the State to encourage responsible solar development that avoids installation of solar panels on Prime Farmland and directs it towards land with less value.

On page 124 line 19 the rebuttal testimony gets to the crux of the problem:

Article 10, the State Energy Plan, the CLCPA and the recently enacted Accelerated Renewable Energy Growth and Community Benefit Act (“Accelerated Renewables Act”) do not specify any agricultural standards that must be satisfied, nor do they attempt to usurp the rights of private landowners to voluntarily decide if they wish to grow food on all their land or use a portion of it to allow the generation of renewable electricity in order to support their farm operations.

This is all completely true and is the license which out-of-state developers are using to usurp the AGM’s attempts to protect to protect the state’s most productive farmland. It is evidence of the Administration and Climate Action Council’s failure to act in the best interests of the state’s agricultural community. The State has a responsible solar siting policy option roadmap for the proposed 10 GW of distributed solar development. However, there is not an equivalent set of policies for utility-scale solar development. Clearly there should have been a moratorium on utility-scale solar development permit approvals until those policies are put in place and I submitted a comment on the Draft Scoping Plan that made that suggestion. Without responsible solar siting guidelines, the solar developers can thumb their noses at the AGM and the agricultural community they are trying to protect.

On page 128 line 1 of the rebuttal testimony responds to the question “Does the Project minimize permanent conversion of Prime Farmland soils to the maximum extent practicable in accordance with AGM’s 10% goal (AGM staff Testimony at p. 12, l. 22 – p. 13, l. 3)?”. The answer:

Yes. The Project’s LOD encompasses approximately 1,054 acres. As a result of the Applicant’s Update to the Application (January 2022), approximately 185 acres of solar arrays have already been eliminated from the Project layout (see App. Ex. 4 Update at 1). This reduction of arrays resulted in an overall reduction of Prime Farmland within the LOD by approximately 37 acres and reduced permanent impacts to Prime Farmland by approximately 2 acres. Approximately 492.2 acres of land within the LOD is classified as Prime Farmland. However, only approximately 12.6 acres (approximately 2.6% of Prime Farmland within the LOD) will be permanently impacted by the installation of Project Components (id.). The rest of the land will be restored and maintained in compliance with the AGM Guidelines to the maximum extent practicable. This permanent impact is well within AGM’s 10% goal.

The Garnet application Updated Exhibit 4. Land Use describes the project area impacts to agricultural land:

The Project Area was evaluated to determine impacts to Agricultural Land, including mapped Agricultural Districts, as part of the Project. A total of approximately 1,234.2 acres of NYSORPS classified Agricultural Land (Code 100) is mapped within the Project Area. The Project will have a fenced-in area of approximately 901.6 acres. Although the Project is sited entirely within mapped Agricultural Districts, the fenced area will only occupy 0.3 percent of all lands designated as mapped Agricultural Districts within Cayuga County and 5.0 percent of all lands designated as Agricultural Districts within the Town of Conquest. Finally, of the 1,054.1 acres of LOD, only 464.7 acres will occur on land classified as Prime Farmland which is only 6.5 percent of all Prime Farmland within the Town of Conquest, and 0.25 percent of all Prime Farmland within Cayuga County.

When I look at the numbers, I get a different result. The total project area is 2288.7 acres, 464.7 acres of prime farmland will be on Prime Farmland and that works out to 20% of the project. That is double the AGM guidelines that led to the conclusion that the project will have “significant and adverse disproportionate agricultural impact upon the local farming community”. The percentages of prime farmland in the town and county are only listed to give the appearance that this is not a big deal but there are not standards for those parameters.

There was another paragraph responding to this question:

In addition, no statutory or regulatory support is cited for AGM’s proposed 10% or less Prime Farmland soil conversion “goal” that “the production of food is more essential than the generation of [renewable] electricity,” or that soil classifications 1-4 should be avoided, even if it means interfering with the development of a renewable facility contracted to sell renewable energy credits to NYSERDA. The Certificate Conditions conserve and protect agricultural lands; it is the responsibility of AGM, and not private solar developers, to encourage the development of farming. That charge cannot be used to thwart the renewable energy goals of the State.

I was shocked at the tone of this rebuttal to Saviola’s testimony. In this example we have out-of-state developers lecturing state agencies on policy. Of course, their only concern is throwing up as many solar panels as possible as soon as possible before the Administration figures out that there are negative consequences to irresponsible solar development that should be considered and not ignored. Sadly, the lack of a planning by the Climate Action Council has resulted in no regulatory guidelines so developers are free to thumb their noses at the agencies.

Finally, there is no more tone-deaf response to the AGM arguments than on page 127 line 8: “New York State is combatting the devasting impacts of climate change now”. This pathetic attempt to appeal to emotions demands a response. Given that New York’s total annual GHG emissions are less than the annual increase in global emissions averaged since 1990 the likelihood that the climate change value of this solar project is greater than the “significant and adverse disproportionate agricultural impact upon the local farming community” is vanishingly small.

Conclusion

New York State has stacked the deck against home rule and the consequence is going to be a disaster for communities dependent upon local agriculture when vast swaths of Prime Farmland are converted to solar panels over the life of the project. I am terribly disappointed with the Garnet Energy Center project approval because I believe it will have local consequences that will out-weigh any climate change benefits due to the solar development. Unfortunately, it is just a symptom of a much larger disease.

Since I started tracking solar development project approvals a total of five applications have been approved for a total of 1,120 MW. The total project areas cover 14,812 acres and the project footprints total 5,728 acres. Despite the best efforts of AGM staff to prevent the loss of Prime Farmland the area unavailable for farming in these projects totals 3,920 acres or 26% of the combined project areas. This is bad enough but all three Draft Scoping Plan mitigation scenarios call for over 40,000 MW of solar development. Unless the Climate Action Council institutes responsible solar siting guidelines similar to the policy option roadmap for the proposed 10 GW of distributed solar development there will be significant and irreplaceable loss of Prime Farmland and damage to farming communities across the state.

The Garnet Energy Center project approval is an example of the State’s net-zero transition unfolding disaster. As NextEra states “Article 10, the State Energy Plan, the CLCPA and the recently enacted Accelerated Renewable Energy Growth and Community Benefit Act do not specify any agricultural standards that must be satisfied” so developers are free to use as much Prime Farmland as they want. In addition, there are no solar capability standards so developers are free to install fixed panel racking systems that cost less but do not meet the capacity expectations of the Draft Scoping Plan. The state has not updated its cumulative environmental impact assessment for the larger renewable energy capacities in the mitigation scenarios so the consequences of the necessary level of development are unknown. Finally, the State has not released actual cost estimates of their proposed control strategies. To sum up, current state policy does not protect Prime Farmland, unless guidelines are promulgated even more solar capacity will be required causing even more undefined cumulative environmental impacts, and there is no estimate how much this will all cost. What could possibly go wrong?

Climate Act Emissions in Graphical Context

This post was updated on 10/24/22 to replace the second graph included and include data to 2019

The Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (Climate Act) establishes a “Net Zero” target by 2050. The Draft Scoping Plan defines how to “achieve the State’s bold clean energy and climate agenda” and claims that there are significant direct and indirect benefits if New York’s greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) are reduced to net-zero but there is no mention of New York’s emissions relative to the rest of the world. I explained that any claim of benefits is illusory because in the context of global impacts New York’s contribution is miniscule. This short post puts the numbers into a couple of graphs.

Everyone wants to do right by the environment to the extent that they can afford to and not be unduly burdened by the effects of environmental policies. I submitted comments on the Climate Act implementation plan and have written extensively on New York’s net-zero transition because I believe the ambitions for a zero-emissions economy embodied in the Climate Act outstrip available renewable technology such that this supposed cure will be worse than the disease. The opinions expressed in this post do not reflect the position of any of my previous employers or any other company I have been associated with, these comments are mine alone.

New York and Global GHG Emissions

The purpose of this post is to illustrate how New York GHG relate to global emission increases. I found CO2 and GHG emissions data for the world’s countries and consolidated the data in a spreadsheet earlier this year. I downloaded the data again for this post and found data out to 2019. The following graph shows global and CO2 emissions for the world and New York plotted on the same graph. New York emissions are essentially zero.

The trend results indicate that the year-to-year trend in GHG emissions was positive 21 of 26 years and for CO2 emissions was positive 24 of 30 years. In order to show this information graphically I calculated the rolling 3-year average change in emissions by year. The following graph shows that rate of change in emissions has been consistently higher than New York emissions since 1990.

Conclusion

By any measure New York’s complete elimination of GHG emissions is so small that there will not be any effect on the state’s climate and global climate change impacts to New York. I previously showed that although New York’s economy would be ranked ninth relative to other countries, New York’s emissions are only 0.45% of global emissions which ranks 35^th. This post graphically shows New York emissions are negligible compared to global emissions. The change to global warming from eliminating New York GHG emissions is only 0.01°C by the year 2100 which is too small to be measured much less have an effect on any of the purported damages of greenhouse gas emissions. Finally, this post shows global emissions have increased more than New York’s total share of global emissions consistently since 1990. In other words, whatever New York does to reduce emissions will be supplanted by global emissions increases in a year.

The only possible conclusion is that the Climate Act emissions reduction program is nothing more than virtue-signaling. Given the likely significant costs, risks to reliability, and other impacts to New York society, I think that the schedule and ambition of the Climate Act targets needs to be re-assessed for such an empty gesture.

Climate Act Cost of Inaction Misinformation

I have argued repeatedly that claims that reliance on intermittent wind and solar resources to meet the net-zero Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (Climate Act) mandated targets have no potential reliability issues is simply incorrect. My other big concern is affordability and this article addresses the supposed cost benefits of the Climate Act. In particular, a recent segment by Spectrum News report Nick Reisman addressed the costs of the Climate Act that included an argument that the cost of inaction is far greater than the cost of action. I believe that is also simply incorrect.

Everyone wants to do right by the environment to the extent that they can afford to and not be unduly burdened by the effects of environmental policies. I submitted comments on the Climate Act implementation plan and have written extensively on New York’s net-zero transition because I believe the ambitions for a zero-emissions economy embodied in the Climate Act outstrip available renewable technology such that this supposed cure will be worse than the disease. The opinions expressed in this post do not reflect the position of any of my previous employers or any other company I have been associated with, these comments are mine alone.

Climate Act Implementation Background

The Climate Act establishes a “Net Zero” target (85% reduction and 15% offset of emissions) by 2050. The Climate Action Council is responsible for preparing the Scoping Plan that will “achieve the State’s bold clean energy and climate agenda”. They were assisted by Advisory Panels who developed and presented strategies to the meet the goals to the Council. Those strategies were used to develop the Integration Analysis prepared by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) and its consultants that tried to quantify the impact of the strategies. That material was used to write a Draft Scoping Plan that was released for public comment at the end of 2021. Following a six month public comment period, the Climate Action Council states that it will revise the Draft Scoping Plan based on comments and other expert input in 2022 with the goal to finalize the Scoping Plan by the end of the year.

I have written multiple articles (summarized here) documenting my belief that the Climate Action Council has not confronted reliability issues raised by New York agencies responsible for keeping the lights on. Because those agencies have raised substantive issue based on the work of their subject matter experts I believe that the members of the Council that have downplayed reliability as a concern and have claimed that those concerns are misinformation are the ones guilty of misinformation. This post addresses the public’s perception of the claim that the costs of inaction are greater than the costs of action.

Can clean energy changes avoid dinging New Yorkers’ wallets?

The Nick Reisman story addressed the costs of the Climate Act and included a discussion of costs. I think the genesis of the presentation was Children’s Environmental Health Day where advocates gathered at the State Capitol to urge the Climate Action Council to release a strong Climate Action Plan. Reisman interviewed a local politician to explain the rationale for the request:

Elected officials and climate advocates are pushing for an aggressive plan to address global warming and reduce pollution. New Lebanon Supervisor Tistrya Houghtling says her community is especially vulnerable to extreme weather. A school bus garage is vulnerable to flooding and farmers are hurt by fluctuations in weather and temperature. “Between the drought and the flooding, and kind of what I call our bipolar weather where it goes back and forth so quickly, a lot of our farmers are struggling with their crops and other things,” she said.

For once there appears to be recognition that there is a difference between weather and climate because Houghtling correctly says that weather is causing the problems. Nonetheless the implication is that a strong Climate Action Plan could affect these weather events. No New York State regulatory policy related to climate change has ever quantified the potential effect of the regulation on global warming itself. The reason is simple. I have calculated the expected impact on global warming as only 0.01°C by the year 2100 if New York’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are eliminated. That change is simply too small to be measured much less have a meaningful effect on any New York weather event.

The interview goes on: “But at the same time, she does not want the changes to hit the wallets of her neighbors, especially lower income people who may struggle to pay to upgrade their homes with an electric car charging or a new heat pump.” Reisman provides some background on the requirements:

In the coming years, New York plans to phase out gas-powered cars for electric vehicles. Buildings and homes will be electrified. The transition will mean a major change for how homes and businesses are powered, requiring major infrastructure upgrades along the way.

Of course, these actions will cost money and it is not clear just how much. The news report notes:

Republicans, including Senate Minority Leader Robert Ortt, are skeptical utility ratepayers won’t take the brunt of the costs. “What is the cost of these policies? Can we do these things?” Ortt said at a news conference recently.

New Yorkers have already been contending with high gas prices and an expected increase in home heating bills this winter. “It’s not going to be at the pump so much that it’s going to be in their mailbox,” he said. “It’s going to be their utility bills. And it’s going to be the cost to heat their homes.”

The final interview is the reason I prepared this post. In rebuttal to Ortt:

New Paltz Mayor Tim Rogers says the cost of inaction on climate is far greater. “If we don’t make these investments,” he said, “if we don’t make these conversions, we will be paying many trillions more in costs for our communities.”

There are egregious mistakes in Rogers’ quote. As noted previously, the presumption that implementation of the Climate Act reductions will actually have any effect on the observed weather and associated impacts is wrong simply because any New York emission reductions are simply too small to affect global warming. In addition, New York GHG emissions have to be considered relative to global emissions. I found that New York emissions are less than one half of one percent of global emissions. On average, global emissions have been increasing by more than one half of one per cent per year for many years. Therefore, any effect New York could possibly have on global warming will be offset by global emission increases in a year.

Draft Scoping Plan Cost and Benefits Claims

There is another egregious mistake in Rogers’ quote, namely the implication that reducing New York emissions prevent trillions in costs. The Draft Scoping Plan estimates of potential benefits are much lower. In order to bolster the claim that the costs of inaction are greater than the costs of action the Draft Scoping Plan conjures up as many speculative benefits as possible. Figure 46 in the Draft Scoping Plan lists the net present value of benefits from 2020 to 2050 and the largest estimate is $420 billion or less than one half a trillion dollars.

There is another problem. I think the cost-benefit analysis is flawed and said so in my comments. Because I have seen no indication in recent Climate Action Council meetings of any suggestion that stakeholder comments questioned the Draft Scoping Plan cost benefits claims I think it appropriate to summarize those comments.

The first problem is the lack of detailed cost documentation in the Draft Scoping Plan. In my opinion the lack of detailed cost information in the Plan and the lack of response to questions about them is politically motivated because the costs will be eye watering. Moreover, I maintain that the cost information provided is misleading. In my comments on the Draft Scoping Plan I showed that in order to further the narrative that there is value to the Climate Act’s costs the reported numbers are carefully presented to give the impression that the cost of inaction is greater than the cost of action. I documented a trick used to deceive the public that benefits out-weigh costs by excluding legitimate Climate Act costs. For example, the analysis did not include the costs of the 2035 zero-emission vehicle mandate as part of the modeling comparison case because the “program was already implemented”. That decreased the costs of compliance. In addition, the Plan incorrectly interprets guidance to inflate the societal benefits of avoided emissions. That increases the alleged benefits. When those errors are corrected the costs are greater than the benefits.

There is another issue with the benefit claims. James Hanley from the Empire Center submitted written testimony to the Climate Action Council that addressed the cost and benefits of the Climate Act. Although the messaging is that the benefits surpass the costs, Hanley commented that:

But what is obfuscated in this message is that all the costs fall on New Yorkers, while they receive only a portion of the benefits. Avoided economic costs due to reduced greenhouse gas emissions estimated at $260 billion are global benefits, although the plan fails to specify this important detail. This becomes clear only to those who are aware that the $260 billion estimate is based on the Department of Environmental Conservation’s social cost of carbon, which in accordance with the CLCPA is explicitly a global benefit. This is not clearly specified in the Scoping Plan, leaving the unwary reader with the mistaken impression that the benefit to New York outweighs the cost to New York.

He goes on to explain that a careful analysis of the Draft Scoping Plan shows that the costs are greater than the benefits:

Nor does the Integration Analysis prepared by Energy+Environmental Economics make any attempt to disaggregate that $260 billion global benefit to discern what share accrues to the people who will be paying for it. But New York contributes approximately four-tenths of one percent of global greenhouse gas emissions. If we assume the state receives roughly the same share of the benefit, New York’s share of that benefit is only $1.4 billion. If we generously multiply that by 10 (assuming for the state what is likely a highly disproportionate share of the benefit), the benefit to New York would be $10.4 billion. If we subtract the $260 billion from the claimed $420 to $430 billion in benefits, then add back in that assumed benefit of $10.4 billion, we get a total net benefit to New York of $170.4-180.4 billion. Against a cost of $280 – $340 billion, this means there is no net benefit to New Yorkers, but a net loss of $100-170 billion. Simply put, by the state’s own analysis the cost to New York outweighs the benefit to New York.

Conclusion

Despite the far-reaching impacts of the Climate Act, I remain convinced that most New Yorkers are unaware of what is coming. In that context Spectrum News is to be congratulated for addressing this topic. Unfortunately, like the majority of other news stories on this topic it accepts the basic talking points of both sides of the story without any investigation. Advocates for action rely on talking points and typically respond to criticism by dismissing it as “misinformation”.

Investigation into the statements by both politicians would show their comments are real misinformation. Houghtling implied that the Climate Act can reduce the potential risks to her jurisdiction but the State has never quantified those impacts or admitted that New York’s emissions relative to global emission increases negates anything we can do. Rogers’ claim “if we don’t make these conversions, we will be paying many trillions more in costs for our communities” is not supported by the Draft Scoping Plan that projects benefits on the order of half a trillion over the period 2020-2050. Finally, careful review of the claimed benefits show that there are methodological issues and, importantly, that most of the benefits will accrue outside of New York. The costs will be real but the benefits are imaginary.

The news story interviewed politicians who supported a strong Climate Action Plan. They don’t understand or don’t want to understand the enormous costs associated with the net-zero transition implementation. To their defense the Hochul Administration has not provided sufficient information for anyone to find out what the state expects those costs to be. Shouldn’t the fact that the Administration has refused to provide specific cost information for the proposed control strategies for a program that will radically transform the entire energy system of the state be the real story?

Climate Action Council Response to Comments Is Worse Than I Thought

The Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (Climate Act) has a legal mandate for New York State greenhouse gas emissions to meet the ambitious net-zero goal by 2050. I have not posted recently on the Climate Action Council response to Draft Scoping Plan comments because I have been on vacation and have not bothered to follow the most recent meetings. Based on what I observed at the September 29 meeting (presentation and recording), there appears to be no consideration of any comments that are inconsistent with the Hochul administration transition narrative.

Everyone wants to do right by the environment to the extent that they can afford to and not be unduly burdened by the effects of environmental policies. I submitted comments on the Climate Act implementation plan and have written extensively on New York’s net-zero transition because I believe the ambitions for a zero-emissions economy embodied in the Climate Act outstrip available renewable technology such that this supposed cure will be worse than the disease. The opinions expressed in this post do not reflect the position of any of my previous employers or any other company I have been associated with, these comments are mine alone.

Climate Act Background

The Climate Act establishes a “Net Zero” target (85% reduction and 15% offset of emissions) by 2050. The Climate Action Council is responsible for preparing the Scoping Plan that will “achieve the State’s bold clean energy and climate agenda”. They were assisted by Advisory Panels who developed and presented strategies to the meet the goals to the Council. Those strategies were used to develop the integration analysis prepared by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) and its consultants that tried to quantify the impact of the strategies. That material was used to write a Draft Scoping Plan that was released for public comment at the end of 2021. The Climate Action Council states that it will revise the Draft Scoping Plan based on comments and other expert input in 2022 with the goal to finalize the Scoping Plan by the end of the year.

Last May I posted an article describing the composition, responsibilities and consideration requirement mandates in the Climate Act related to the Climate Action Council. Based on the activities of the Council from the start of 2022 I believe that the Climate Action Council is going through the motions of addressing public comments. If the public comments were truly going to be considered then I think it would have been appropriate to make comment distillation an on-going process from the get go. At the time I also said I didn’t see why the comments had not been posted to the website. It would be relatively easy to just provide a list of comments as they were received and there is no reason why they couldn’t also list the comments in some broad categories. As I write this on October 9, 2022 three months after the close of the comment period the comments have not been posted to https://climate.ny.gov/ as promised last May. This post highlights further indications of the gameplan from the September 29, 2022 Climate Action Council meeting.

Reliability

I have spent enough time educating myself about the operations of the electric grid over the last 40 years that I am well aware of reliability challenges for the New York electric system. More importantly, I know people who are subject matter experts and they all share my concerns that the Integration Analysis and the Draft Scoping Plan have not adequately addressed the feasibility of the transition in the mitigation scenarios. On the other hand, some of the more vocal members of the Council have downplayed reliability as a concern and have gone so far to claim that those concerns are misinformation.

I have previously written that the Climate Action Council has not confronted reliability issues raised by New York agencies responsible for keeping the lights on. The first post (New York Climate Act: Is Anyone Listening to the Experts?) described the New York Independent System Operator (NYISO) 2021-2030 Comprehensive Reliability Plan (CRP) report (appendices) released late last year and the difficulties raised in the report are large. The second post (New York Climate Act: What the Experts are Saying Now) highlighted results shown in a draft presentation for the 2021-2040 System & Resource Outlook that all but admitted meeting the net-zero goals of the Climate Act are impossible on the mandated schedule. Recently I wrote about the “For discussion purposes only” draft of the 2021-2040 System & Resource Outlook report described in the previous article and the concerns raised. Most recently, I detailed the differences between the Resource Outlook and the Draft Scoping Plan Integration Analysis and recommended that those differences be reconciled in a public forum.

At the September 29 Climate Action Council meeting Gavin Donohue asked about dispatchable emissions-free resources (DEFR) at 1:05:25 of the meeting recording. DEFR refers to a generating resource that can provide power as needed to keep the lights on. It is a critical component but there is no commercially available resource that meets the specifications. The main point of my articles described in the previous paragraph is that the organizations responsible for electric system reliability have raised questions that have not been addressed including DEFR viability. Donohue apparently agrees with me and asked about the risks of not specifying exactly how DEFR will be used in the transition and how that could affect costs. The response by the lead modeler, Carl Mas, was that they did look at it at the end of last year and found that the costs would change. He acknowledged that it has not been resolved whether the hydrogen would be used in combustion turbines or in fuel cells and that should be resolved. Donohue pressed him that it needs to be resolved as part of the process. Mas said that it was a previous sensitivity from last year and it is “good to bring it back up”.

Later in the same meeting Dennis Elsenbeck pointed out (2:58:40 of the meeting recording) that the NYISO Resource Outlook raised issues that haven’t been addressed in the Draft Scoping Plan. He asked how do we reconcile what the subject matter experts are saying versus what’s in the scoping document. He also asked if that is a conversation that we need to have during this process or are we beyond that? The Climate Action Council Executive Director, Sarah Osgood, said “it would be interesting to hear from other council members and said she didn’t know if the modeling analyses were comparable. She said that “at this late stage” it might be difficult to compare the analyses and wasn’t sure whether it would be worthwhile.

Carl Mas said they could determine whether there is enough time to do at least a little side by side analysis of some of the key issues. At this point he said there is uncertainty as to, for example, imports vary between the analyses. He noted that the NYISO did adopt one of the Integration Analysis load scenarios in their analysis. He said the Integration Analysis team worked very hard to ensure that there was “at least some commonality between the scenarios”. He did admit that not all aspects were similar but suggested that they might be able to find some time to evaluate differences between scenarios and the projections.

Elsenbeck pointed out that stakeholders outside of the Hochul Administration see the NYISO reports and “the first thing that comes to mind is my resiliency is going to go to hell”. He said the Council could just not look the other way. Mas responded that there is agreement that by 2040 there is a need for firm dispatchable resources but ignored the implications of the state’s reliability depending on an unproven resource. Then he went on to claim that it is critical to work with the NYISO. Elsenbeck then pointed out that the Council is going to be voting on a Final Scoping Plan that has not been fully vetted with the NYISO.

In my opinion, these conversations are very troubling. At no time during his presentation or his questions did the Integration Analysis lead modeler mention any issues raised in the stakeholder comments. Were it not for the fact that my comments and the comments submitted by the NYISO and New York State Reliability Council did raise substantive issues I would have to believe that all the stakeholder comments agree that the unelected bureaucrats who have no reliability responsibilities have produced a perfect transition plan that can guide the future New York energy system.

Sarah Osgood’s response to the Elsenbeck question is especially troubling. The Executive Director of the Climate Action Council didn’t know if the generation resource modeling analyses critical to the success of the transition plan were comparable to the analyses by the NYISO. She said that “at this late stage” it might be difficult to compare the analyses and wasn’t sure whether it would be worthwhile. This demonstrates an astounding lack of awareness by the Climate Action Council leadership that has frittered away months without addressing this issue. Now they claim they cannot reconcile the results because it is too late. You can bet the ranch that when this implodes that the NYISO will be blamed for not speaking up.

Integration Analysis

Carl Mas gave an update on the Integration Analysis at 24:25 of the meeting recording. Ostensibly the updates address the impact of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) as well as analyses that look at a high fuel price sensitivity and a high technology cost sensitivity. In order to prove the benefits are greater than the costs the focus is on the net benefits metric especially as it relates to their societal cost benefit test.

The following slide summarizes the IRA integration analysis update. The modeling addresses two key aspects: what IRA funds may be available that could come to New York to offset costs and to translate that into how it “layers into our net benefit or overall analysis”. I interpret that to mean that because of the emphasis on net benefits that means that the analysis assumes that IRA funds directly offset New York costs so the net benefits increase.

The modeling updates purportedly will also consider the ramifications of IRA funding on adoption technologies. For example, the IRA might fund more electric vehicle subsidies so that the adoption rate will increase. One of my criticisms of the Draft Scoping Plan is that there are enormous presumptions that the public will acquiesce to, for example, purchase more expensive and less suitable electric vehicles simply because the Climate Act says they have to. Any increase in adoption levels because there is more money available increase this type of speculation level further.

While I have not listened to every minute of every meeting, I am pretty sure that Carl Mas has not suggested that there were any relevant stakeholder comments on the Integration Analysis that need to be addressed. I provided extensive comments on the Integration Analysis cost–benefit analysis and recommended that the Integration Analysis provide the costs, benefits, and expected emission reductions for every control measure proposed. There are three possibilities why those comments have not been raised: the comment reviewers never provided any relevant comments to the modelers, the comments were received and have been ignored, or that they won’t be mentioned until the end so the response will be there is insufficient time to address them. All three excuses are unacceptable given the responsibilities of the Climate Action Council that are mandated in the Climate Act.

Implementation

Based on comments from the leadership of the Climate Action Council their perception of the Scoping Plan is that it is just an outline of how the future energy system will transition to meet the net-zero targets. I have heard repeated suggestions that particular implementation issues didn’t need to be addressed as part of this process because there will be an opportunity for stakeholder input when regulations are proposed that implement the changes needed. The announcement that New York is going to implement a 100% zero-emission vehicle mandate by 2035 raises the question whether that is an appropriate approach.

At 12:29 of the meeting recording Jared Snyder announced that on the morning of this meeting that Governor Hochul announced that the Department of Environmental Conservation “will adopt the Advanced Clean Car rule by the end of the year. That rule will require all sales of light-duty cars and trucks to be zero emissions by 2035 which means that all vehicles have to be either battery electric of fuel cell powered. He said “that rule implements legislation that Governor Hochul signed a year ago in September 2021 that required 100% sales of electric vehicles by 2035”. He also said that “it implements a recommendation of the Draft Scoping Plan to adopt the advanced clear cars rulemaking”.

This portends what I predict will be the future for the regulatory process. In this instance there is a law in place that mandates going forward whatever the cost, whatever the impacts, and whatever the feasibility. What I think will happen is that when other regulations are proposed the rationale will be “it was a recommendation in the Scoping Plan so it has to be done” whatever the cost, impacts, or feasibility. The fact that the Scoping Plan did not address the cost, impacts, or feasibility is immaterial to this line of reasoning and will be conveniently forgotten in the response to comments.

Response to Questions

The focus of the Hochul Administration response to comments has been on the concerns of the Climate Justice Working Group (CJWG) and particular members of the Climate Action Council. For example, at 22:28 of the meeting recording Peter Iwanowicz asked about the New York State Thruway Service Area Redesign and Redevelopment Project that is presently underway. He asked if anyone in the administration could give the Council an idea what’s going on with respect to fast charging at the Thruway rest stops stating: “I was personally blown away at driving into one of the newly reopened ones to see no electric vehicle charging there”. He went on to say that “it’s pretty shocking to me, one as a member of the Council but two as an EV driver not to see chargers in the newly reopened station charging”.

On the list of issues confronting the state’s energy transition this is pretty low on the priority list. We have already seen the leadership of the Council claim that there is too little time to reconcile the electric grid projections made by the NYISO with the Integration Analysis. Nevertheless, a Council member thinks that it is appropriate to cut into the precious little time available for the Council to consider the entirety of the energy transition with his personally biased question. More importantly this is just an example of a recurring theme throughout the Scoping Plan process. Any question from the CJWG and certain members of the Council gets a response no matter how removed from the issue at hand.

In this case the response was “Let us get back to you”. Left unsaid is we don’t have that information at our finger tips because we are trying to consider the entirety of the energy system. The ultimate response may suggest that this is indicative of a bigger problem but I bet that the Administration answer will not raise that type of issue. I will address this in more detail in a future post but a quick read of the summary of the New York State Thruway Service Area Redesign and Redevelopment Project shows that the Frequently Asked Questions explains that they are working on it:

Additionally, under direct guidance and consultation with the New York Power Authority (NYPA), Empire plans to implement a passenger vehicle electric charging program at all Service Areas to further New York’s goals of reducing emissions and expanding electric vehicle infrastructure across the State.

Conclusion

From what I have seen at the recent Climate Action Council meetings the promise to consider public stakeholder comments on the Draft Scoping Plan is being ignored. There is no indication that the Hochul Administration intends to reconcile the differences in the generating resource projections in the Integration Analysis and any of the NYISO reports or the risks involved in depending upon a resource that is not currently available. It is scary that the leadership of the Climate Action Council does not even appear to comprehend that addressing those issues would be appropriate and even if they can be convinced now, they will plead that there is insufficient time. Furthermore, it is not clear to me that the Administration even intends to tell Council members that there any comments that question any of the fundamental assertions in the Draft Scoping Plan.

It is clear that the Hochul Administration’s primary goal in the Integration Analysis is political posturing – in particular to “prove’ that the benefits are greater than the costs. It is also clear that the leadership of the Council is catering to particular members of the Climate Action Council that represent the interests of political supporters. Given that Council legal mandate is to prepare a plan “achieve the State’s bold clean energy and climate agenda” the focus should be on that instead.

The legal mandate for the Scoping Plan is that it “shall inform the state energy planning board’s adoption of a state energy plan”. The Climate Action Council membership is generally lacking the background, experience, and education to inform technical matters such as the fuel mix of the future generating system. Thomas Sowell said “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”. To ignore the analyses of the subject matter experts who are responsible for reliability is insane.

As noted in this article I have written multiple articles about the differences in generating resource projections and dependency upon the magical dispatchable emissions-free resource. When I submitted my draft scoping plan comments that explained why I believe the differences between the Draft Scoping Plan and the NYISO analyses have to be addressed in a public forum I thought it inconceivable that the response to comments would ignore the state’s experts. At no time did I believe that the response to comments would meaningfully address my personal comments but ignoring the state’s experts is why I believe the response to comments is going to be worse than I thought possible.

Comparison of NYISO Resource Outlook and Draft Scoping Plan Generating Resource Projections

The final version of the important New York Independent System Operator (NYISO) 2021-2040 System & Resource Outlook that addresses New York’s Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (Climate Act) was released on September 22, 2022. This post compares the projections for resources needed to meet the Climate Act targets in this report and the Draft Scoping Plan.

Everyone wants to do right by the environment to the extent that they can afford to and not be unduly burdened by the effects of environmental policies. I submitted comments on the Climate Act implementation plan and have written extensively on New York’s net-zero transition because I believe the ambitions for a zero-emissions economy embodied in the Climate Act outstrip available renewable technology such that this supposed cure will do more harm than good. The opinions expressed in this post do not reflect the position of any of my previous employers or any other company I have been associated with, these comments are mine alone.

Background

The implementation for the New York’s Climate Act “Net Zero” target (85% reduction and 15% offset of emissions) by 2050 is underway. The Climate Action Council has been working to develop plans to implement the Climate Act. Over the summer of 2021 the New York State Energy Research & Development Authority (NYSERDA) and its consultant Energy + Environmental Economics (E3) prepared an Integration Analysis to “estimate the economy-wide benefits, costs, and GHG emissions reductions associated with pathways that achieve the Climate Act GHG emission limits and carbon neutrality goal”. Integration Analysis implementation strategies were incorporated into the Draft Scoping Plan when it was released at the end of 2021. Since the end of the public comment period in early July 2022 the Climate Action Council has been addressing the comments received as part of the development of the Final Scoping Plan that is supposed to provide a guide for the net-zero transition.

I have previously written that the Climate Action Council has not confronted reliability issues raised by New York agencies responsible for keeping the lights on. The first post (New York Climate Act: Is Anyone Listening to the Experts?) described the NYISO 2021-2030 Comprehensive Reliability Plan (CRP) report (appendices) released late last year and the difficulties raised in the report are large. The second post (New York Climate Act: What the Experts are Saying Now) highlighted results shown in a draft presentation for the 2021-2040 System & Resource Outlook that all but admitted meeting the net-zero goals of the Climate Act are impossible on the mandated schedule. Recently I wrote about the “For discussion purposes only” draft of the 2021-2040 System & Resource Outlook report described in the previous article and the concerns raised. It is amazing to me that these issues continue to be ignored.

Description of Resource Outlook and Draft Scoping Plan Mitigation Scenarios

This section compares two alternate approaches to meeting the Climate Act net-zero transition requirements.

The NYISO Resource Outlook report includes two scenarios that “reflect full achievement of the Climate Act targets”.

Outlook Scenario 1 – Utilizes industry data and NYISO load forecasts, representing a future with high demand (57,144 MW winter peak and 208,679 GWh energy demand in 2040) and assumes less restrictions in renewable generation buildout options.

Outlook Scenario 2 – Utilizes various assumptions consistent with the Climate Action Council Integration Analysis and represents a future with a moderate peak but a higher overall energy demand (42,301 MW winter peak and 235,731 GWh energy demand in 2040).

The Resource Outlook describes the scenarios:

In both Policy Case scenarios, a significant amount of land-based wind capacity was built by 2040. The model selected land-based wind due to its assumed capital cost, energy output, and capacity ratings. In both scenarios, land-based wind capacity builds to the assumed capacity build limits imposed (~16 GW).

In both scenarios, a significant amount of capacity from renewable generation and dispatchable emission free resources (DEFRs) is projected by 2040, with the most installation forecasted in the last five years, to help offset the projected fossil-fueled generation retirements. Dispatchable emission free resources are a proxy generator type assumed for generation expansion in the Policy Case to represent a yet unavailable future technology that would be dispatchable and produces emissions-free energy (e.g., hydrogen, RNG, nuclear, other long-term season storage, etc.). As noted above, all existing fossil-fueled generation (~26 GW) was modeled as retired by 2040 due to the CLCPA requirement of a zero emissions grid by 2040. In addition, in Scenario 2 the age-based retirement assumption captured the retirement of 12 GW, nearly half the fossil fleet. The models expanded to approximately 111 GW of total capacity for Scenario 1 and 124 GW of total capacity for Scenario 2, inclusive of NYCA generators, BTM-PV, and qualifying imports from Hydro Québec. This level of total installed capacity would be needed in 2040 to satisfy the state policy, energy, and resource adequacy constraints for Scenario 1 and Scenario 2, respectively. Of this total, approximately 85 GW to 100 GW represent generation expansion for Scenario 1 and Scenario 2, respectively, beyond the 9.5 GW planned through state contracts.25 For comparison, the Contract Case has approximately 51 GW of total installed capacity by 2040.

In general, resources take years from development to deployment. By year 2030, roughly seven years from the publication of this report, an estimated 20 GW of additional renewable generation needs to be in-service to support the energy policy target of 100% zero-emission generation by 2040. For reference, 12.9 GW of new generation has been developed since wholesale electricity markets began more than 20 years ago in 1999. Over the past five years, 2.6 GW of renewable and fossil-fueled generators came on-line while 4.8 GW of generation deactivated26. This Outlook demonstrates the need for an unprecedented pace of project deployment, which will require significant labor and materials available for New York over a long period of time.

Offshore wind capacity buildout remains near the 9 GW policy objective through 2040 for both scenarios. This outcome results primarily from the assumed high capital cost of offshore wind technology in the model, which was the highest cost renewable technology available. Additionally, considering the declining marginal capacity reliability value curves assumed, offshore wind at the levels modeled is an inefficient resource to meet peak capacity needs and Locational Capacity Requirements because the capacity contribution of intermittent renewable resources declines as more are added to the system.

Overall, results for Scenario 2 showed a higher level of renewable buildout than Scenario 1, most notably in utility-scale solar capacity, and had a different projection of the capacity expansion throughout the study period as compared to Scenario 1 for all generator types. The main factors for these differences are the assumptions for load forecasts and differences in generator types eligible for capacity expansion as well as the maximum allowable capacity builds by technology type modeled between the two scenarios. One major difference in Scenario 2 is that a reduced land-based wind capacity limit was used, which changed the projection of capacity builds for all types. Notably, the projections for offshore wind were higher earlier in the model horizon (e.g., 2030) in Scenario 2 as compared to Scenario 1 to help achieve the 70 x 30 target.

Two primary drivers are attributable to increased renewable resources in capacity expansion: (1) high operating cost of dispatchable generators, and (2) low capital costs for renewable generators. High fuel (e.g., natural gas prices, clean DEFR fuel prices) and/or high CO2 emissions prices result in significant decrease in fossil generation and subsequent increase in renewable generation earlier than otherwise projected. Low capital costs for renewable generators result in capacity builds much earlier than otherwise projected, and often an increase in the total amount of capacity built.

In terms of the zonal location for capacity buildouts determined by the capacity expansion model, limitations were imposed on the zonal level as to which generator type(s) could build in each zone. For instance, land-based wind was eligible for expansion in upstate regions (Zones A-G), utility-scale solar was eligible for expansion in upstate regions and Long Island (Zones A-G and Zone K), and offshore wind was eligible for expansion in New York City and Long Island (Zones J and K). Dispatchable emission free resource (DEFR) technologies and battery storage were included as generation resource options in all NYCA zones.

The Draft Scoping Plan includes a reference case and four mitigation scenarios. The first mitigation scenario only includes the initial recommendations of the Climate Act Advisory Panels but it did not meet the targets. The three remaining mitigation scenarios meet or exceed GHG emission limits and achieve carbon neutrality by 2050. They all include:

Zero emission power sector by 2040
Enhancement and expansion of transit & vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reduction
More rapid and widespread end-use electrification & efficiency
Higher methane mitigation in agriculture and waste
End-use electric load flexibility reflective of high customer engagement and advanced technologies

The three mitigation scenarios that meet the Climate Act targets address concerns raised by the Climate Action Council membership:

Draft Scoping Plan Scenario 2: Strategic Use of Low-Carbon Fuels: Includes the use of bioenergy derived from biogenic waste, agriculture & forest residues, and limited purpose grown biomass, as well as green hydrogen, for difficult to electrify applications

Draft Scoping Plan Scenario 3: Accelerated Transition Away from Combustion: Includes Low-to-no bioenergy and hydrogen combustion and accelerated electrification of buildings and transportation

Draft Scoping Plan Scenario 4: Beyond 85% Reduction: Accelerated electrification + limited low-carbon fuels: This scenario adds additional VMT reductions; additional innovation in methane abatement; and avoids direct air capture of CO2

I prepared Draft Scoping Plan comments on these mitigation scenarios that includes descriptions and a comparison of the differences between them based on Appendix G of the Draft Scoping Plan. Unfortunately, the documentation is so poor that it does not explain the rationale for the generation sector differences described in the next section.

Comparison of Scenarios

The following table provides an overview of the capacity (MW) and energy generated (GWhr) generating resources in the five scenarios described above. Because it is difficult to read the table I have also provided a spreadsheet with the table and the input data extracted from the NYISO and Integration Analysis spreadsheets. I will compare each of the resource categories in the following from 2019 up to 2040 when the state’s electric grid is supposed to be zero-emissions.

The first resource category is nuclear. There is no significant difference in the capacity and power generated between the scenarios. They all reflect the irrational shutdown of over 2,000 MW at the Indian Point Nuclear Station and continued operation of the remaining nuclear facilities to 2040. Despite the fact that nuclear is the only dispatchable emissions-free generating resource that can be scaled up neither analysis believes that additional nuclear power generation could be part of New York’s future.

There are interesting differences between the scenarios in the fossil generation resource category. Resource Outlook Scenario 1 reduces fossil capacity 19% from 2019 to 2030, keeps it the same in 2035, and then goes to zero in 2040. Resource Outlook Scenario 2 reduces fossil capacity 33% from 2019 to 2030, reduces it another 9% by 2035, and then goes to zero in 2040. Note that the energy produced is the same for both scenarios in 2030 but in 2025 Scenario 1 is reduced 8% more. So even though there is more fossil capacity in 2035 in Scenario 1 it is used less. This is problematic for me because it means that the production resource model is treating the fossil resources differently between the scenarios. It is not clear what would cause this difference.

The Integration Analysis scenario fossil projections raise similar concerns. Scenario 2, Accelerated Transition from Combustion, capacity and generation is higher in 2030 compared to the other two scenarios but then does show a marked decrease in 2035. If it is accelerated, why is it higher in 2030? Integration Analysis Scenarios 2 and 4 are comparable to Resource Outlook Scenario 1 and Integration Analysis Scenario 3 is comparable to Resource Outlook Scenario 2. I assume that this reflects similar assumptions by the analysts at NYISO and NYSERDA.

All the Hydro category scenarios show an increase in capacity between 2019 and 2030. I assume that a large part of that is due to the Clean Path New York (CPNY) and Champlain Hudson Power Express projects.

The remaining categories are the key parts of the transition.

The land-based wind (LBW) resource category is the first where there are significant differences between the Resource Outlook and the Integration Analysis scenarios. Resource Outlook Scenario 1 increases LBW capacity 3.1 times whereas Scenario 2 only doubles the amount in 2030. Integration Analysis Scenario 2 also doubles capacity by 2030, Scenario 3 goes up 2.7 times, and Scenario 4 goes up 2.4 times. The differences between scenarios disappear by 2035 but the Resource Outlook projects land-based wind capacity will be 53% higher than the mitigation scenarios in the Integration analysis with 42% more generation.

The NYISO production resource model apparently does not think that offshore wind is a cost-effective option because both scenarios do not increase the projected capacity significantly beyond the Climate Act mandate of 9,000 MW. On the other hand, the Integration Analysis scenarios nearly double the amount of offshore wind resources projected. Overall, the Resource Outlook offshore wind capacity is 40% lower than the average of the Integration Analysis scenarios and generation is 43% lower.

For the solar resource there is a significant difference between Resource Outlook Scenario 1 and all the other scenarios. The capacity is 63% lower and the generation is 71% lower than the averages of the other scenarios. In 2040 the capacity factor for the projected resource capacity and expected generation is a reasonable 15% for Resource Outlook Scenario 1 whereas Resource Outlook Scenario 2 is 17% but 21% for the Integration Analysis scenarios. In my opinion I question why there is a difference for the Resource outlook scenarios. I don’t think that the Integration Analysis expectation that the solar capacity factor can bas high as 21% in 2040 is reasonable for New York’s latitude and snowfalls.

The energy storage resource category capacity values are pretty much the same all the scenarios. However, the generation projections are presented differently so that it is not possible to compare them.

As noted in the Resource Outlook, the Dispatchable Emissions-Free Resource (DEFR) category is a proxy generator type that represents a yet unavailable future technology that would be dispatchable and produces emissions-free energy (e.g., hydrogen, RNG, nuclear, other long-term season storage, etc.). The DEFR capacity and generation is substantially higher in Resource Outlook Scenario 1 and all the other scenarios. Even Resource Outlook Scenario 2 is higher than the Integration Analysis scenarios. In addition, Resource Outlook Scenario 1 capacity factor is 9% whereas the others are all around 2%.

Getting to 100%: Six strategies for the challenging last 10%

My most recent post described a recent paper, Getting to 100%: Six strategies for the challenging last 10%, that provides a concise evaluation of six zero-emissions technologies. It is instructive to consider these strategies in the context of these projections. The authors from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory provided the following summary of the challenge:

Meeting the last increment of demand always poses challenges, irrespective of whether the resources used to meet it are carbon free. The challenges primarily stem from the infrequent utilization of assets deployed to meet high demand periods, which require very high revenue during those periods to recover capital costs. Achieving 100% carbon-free electricity obviates the use of traditional fossil-fuel-based generation technologies, by themselves, to serve the last increment of demand—which we refer to as the ‘‘last 10%.’’

The Getting to 100% paper describes six strategies that are summarized in the following table. Note that the strategies are compared to an ideal solution. Ideally, the solution for peak loads would have low capital expenses and low operating expense, low resource constraints, be technologically mature, have low environmental impacts, and work well with other resources. Needless to say, no technology comes close to meeting those ideal conditions. The authors note that: “Although existing studies generally highlight the same fundamental causes associated with the last 10% problem, there is a lack of consensus on the preferred strategies for meeting this challenge. This is not surprising, given the diversity of possible solutions and the speculative nature of their costs, given their early stage of development.”

The Getting to 100% paper described strategies for the last 10% challenge which for this resource refers to increasing the use of wind, solar, and storage to cover what I call the ultimate problem. Both the Resource Outlook and the Integration Analysis models predict that the primary resource for this challenge will be seasonal storage using DEFR. Although there are mentions of the other strategies the emphasis is on the dispatchable emissions-free resource. The proxy technology in the Integration Analysis is hydrogen although the production and use options are not specified.

There are other options for seasonal storage. The report notes:

This group of technologies is not well defined, but it could include batteries with very low-cost electrolytes capable of longer-than-diurnal durations. Because of the requirement for very low-cost energy storage, most seasonal storage pathways focus on hydrogen, ammonia, and other hydrogen-derived fuels stored in geologic formations.

Ultimately the Getting to 100% paper evaluates hydrogen used either in a combustion turbine or a fuel cell for electricity production. In the New York implementation plan the dispatchable emissions-free resource (DEFR) place holder is hydrogen produced using wind and solar. There are members of the Climate Action Council that insist that the hydrogen has to be used in a fuel cell rather than a combustion turbine because combustion causes emissions.

The Draft Scoping Plan calls for the use of so-called “green hydrogen” whereby hydrogen is produced by a carbon-free process of electrolysis from water. The Draft does not include a feasibility analysis of the production and use of hydrogen in some form as the placeholder technology for DEFR. The Resource Outlook does not specify a specific technology but emphasizes the risks of depending upon an unproven technology: “Both scenarios include significant DEFR capacity by 2035, but it is important to note that the lead time necessary for commercialization, development, permitting, and construction of DEFR power plants will require action much sooner if this timeline is to be achieved.”

I submitted a Draft Scoping Plan comment specifically addressing this presumption. I do not believe that the Integration Analysis correctly accounted for the energy needed to produce the hydrogen needed for the DEFR requirement. I think that there will be siting issues for all the fuel cells, electrolyzers, pipelines, and hydrogen storage facilities. . In the exisitng system the generating sources assigned for peaking power for this reliability requirement used the cheapest technology available (simple-cycle gas turbines). Meeting this requirement in the future using the hydrogen DEFR resource will be using the most expensive generating technology available. The capacity factors for this resource in the Draft Scoping Plan are 2% for all mitigation scenarios so it will be difficult to cover these costs for the short periods needed. I guarantee the usual suspects will complain about profiteering when the costs spike during these periods.

In addition, the Getting to 100%: Six strategies for the challenging last 10% report notes that “current high-cost electrolyzers need to operate almost continuously to recover their capital expense”. The Draft Scoping Plan plans to use intermittent wind and solar that preclude any continuous processes. That issue has been completely ignored in the Draft Scoping Plan.

Recall that there are members of the Climate Action Council that insist that hydrogen used for electric generation has to be used in fuel cells. The Getting to 100% paper addresses fuel cells:

Fuel cells have diverse applications, but their use for bulk power generation is currently limited. Given the range and scale of applications especially for transportation, substantial capital cost reductions for fuel cells are possible. With low capital costs for combustion turbines and future potential cost reductions for fuel cells, the economic case for hydrogen mainly hinges on lowering the cost of electrolytic hydrogen.

According to Table 1 in the Getting to 100% paper, it really is a stretch to say that there are any positive aspects for using hydrogen. For hydrogen used in combustion turbines the report claims low capital expenses (apparently referring only to the combustion turbine but not including the generation of the hydrogen itself), medium operating expenses and resource constraints, and concerns about hydrogen storage and transport as well as competition for using hydrogen in other sectors. For hydrogen used in fuel cells there is a potential for low capital expenses, high operating expenses, low resource constraints (apparently referring only to the fuel cell and not assuming that the hydrogen is generated with wind and solar resources), low technological maturity, and the same other considerations as hydrogen used in combustion turbines.

Discussion

This analysis found significant differences between the projections for land-based wind, offshore wind, energy storage and dispatchable emissions-free resources in the Resource Outlook and the Integration Analysis. I think that those differences should be discussed in an open forum. Most importantly to New York citizens the costs associated with the different options have to be made available from the NYISO and Climate Action Council. I am pretty sure costs account for the differences in the NYISO scenarios but without that information we cannot be sure. Most importantly, the feasibility of a dispatchable emissions-free resource has to be addressed and the projected DEFR utilization difference between Resource Outlook Scenario 1 and all the other scenarios reconciled. I also believe that both organizations have to address the economic viability challenge of DEFR stemming from the infrequent utilization of those assets deployed to meet high demand periods, which require very high revenue during those periods to recover capital costs.

Moreover, the forum should also address implementation concerns raised by the New York State Reliability Council in their Draft Scoping Plan comments. They made the point that the new resources required are enormous and also raised other concerns:

Practical considerations affecting the availability, schedule and operability for new interconnections include: interconnection standards; site availability; permitting; resource equipment availability; regulatory approval; large volume of projects in NYISO queue and study process; scalability of long-term battery storage and other technologies; operational control; impact of extreme weather; consideration of a must- run reliability need for legacy resources. In addition, the pace of transportation and building electrification, the timing of any natural gas phase-out and their impact on the electric T&D system must also be carefully studied from technical, economic and environmental perspectives. Together, these practical considerations require the development of reliable zero emission resources to be conscientiously sequenced and timed in the near term (through 2030) to ensure broader GHG reductions in all sectors beyond 2030.

One final point about the modeling analyses. The programs are proprietary and the documentation is sparse so it is not possible to fully understand the results. For example, the Integration Analysis Accelerated Transition Away from Combustion scenario has higher fossil generation projections in intermediate years than the other scenarios. Untangling the reason for that would be a challenge. I believe that the models can create projection differences as much by input tweaks as by the projection algorithms. Because the models are so complicated and include so many input parameters the modelers have to be careful to limit changes between scenarios that could affect the outcomes.

Conclusion

I have repeatedly made the point that the differences between the NYISO projected resources and the Integration Analysis projections need to be reconciled. This post attempted to explicitly list those differences. Unfortunately, this concern does not seem to be shared by the Climate Action Council and the Hochul Administration. It is only a matter of time until the ramifications of this abrogation of responsibility affects reliability and affordability of the state’s electric grid.

The other unresolved issue is the feasibility of any dispatchable emissions-free resource. It is staggering that the State is pushing ahead without an independent analysis of the options available for this critical resource. As it stands it will not end well.

Getting to 100%: Six strategiesfor the challenging last 10%

A recent paper, Getting to 100%: Six strategies for the challenging last 10%, provides a concise summary of six technologies that could be used for the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (Climate Act) legal mandate for New York State greenhouse gas emissions to meet the ambitious net-zero goal by 2050. I continue to be amazed that the parties responsible for Climate Act implementation continue to ignore the risks associated with these aspirational technologies so this article summarizes this useful paper.

Everyone wants to do right by the environment to the extent that they can afford to and not be unduly burdened by the effects of environmental policies. I submitted comments on the Climate Act implementation plan and have written extensively on New York’s net-zero transition because I believe the ambitions for a zero-emissions economy embodied in the Climate Act outstrip available renewable technology such that this supposed cure will be worse than the disease. The opinions expressed in this post do not reflect the position of any of my previous employers or any other company I have been associated with, these comments are mine alone.

Background

The implementation plan for New York’s Climate Act “Net Zero” target (85% reduction and 15% offset of emissions) by 2050 is underway. The Climate Action Council has been working to develop plans to implement the Act. Over the summer of 2021 the New York State Energy Research & Development Authority (NYSERDA) and its consultant Energy + Environmental Economics (E3) prepared an Integration Analysis to “estimate the economy-wide benefits, costs, and GHG emissions reductions associated with pathways that achieve the Climate Act GHG emission limits and carbon neutrality goal”. Integration Analysis implementation strategies were incorporated into the Draft Scoping Plan when it was released at the end of 2021. Since the end of the public comment period in early July 2022 the Climate Action Council has been addressing the comments received as part of the development of the Final Scoping Plan that is supposed to provide a guide for the net-zero transition.

I have previously written that the Climate Action Council has not confronted reliability issues raised by New York agencies responsible for keeping the lights on. The first post (New York Climate Act: Is Anyone Listening to the Experts?) described the NYISO 2021-2030 Comprehensive Reliability Plan (CRP) report (appendices) released late last year. The difficulties raised in the report are so large that I raised the question whether any leader in New York was listening to this expert opinion. The second post (New York Climate Act: What the Experts are Saying Now) highlighted results shown in a draft presentation for the 2021-2040 System & Resource Outlook that all but admitted meeting the net-zero goals of the Climate Act are impossible on the mandated schedule. Recently I wrote about the “For discussion purposes only” draft of the 2021-2040 System & Resource Outlook report described in the previous article.

Challenges of a Zero-Emissions Electric Grid

It is generally recognized that as increasing amounts of intermittent wind and solar energy are added to the electric grid, unique issues arise as grid operators balance generation and load. I maintain that the ultimate problem with a net-zero energy system is that increased electrification will markedly raise loads during weather conditions that cause peak loads but also can have low wind and solar resource availability. A recent paper, Getting to 100%: Six strategies for the challenging last 10% (“Getting to 100% report”), describes approaches for providing power during peak conditions. It describes the general peaking problem, how wind and solar will exacerbate the problem, and what the authors think is necessary to solve the future problem.

The authors from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory provided the following summary:

Meeting the last increment of demand always poses challenges, irrespective of whether the resources used to meet it are carbon free. The challenges primarily stem from the infrequent utilization of assets deployed to meet high demand periods, which require very high revenue during those periods to recover capital costs. Achieving 100% carbon-free electricity obviates the use of traditional fossil-fuel-based generation technologies, by themselves, to serve the last increment of demand—which we refer to as the ‘‘last 10%.’’ Here, we survey strategies for overcoming this last 10% challenge, including extending traditional carbon-free energy sources (e.g., wind and solar, other renewable energy, and nuclear), replacing fossil fuels with carbon-free fuels for combustion (e.g., hydrogen- and biomass-based fuels), developing carbon capture and carbon dioxide removal technologies, and deploying multiday demand-side resources. We qualitatively compare economic factors associated with the low-utilization condition and discuss unique challenges of each option to inform the complex assessments needed to identify a portfolio that could achieve carbon free electricity. Although many electricity systems are a long way from requiring these last 10% technologies, research and careful consideration are needed soon for the options to be available when electricity systems approach 90% carbon-free electricity.

Although I think the Getting to 100% paper is useful, I want to point out a few issues with it. It is hardly unexpected that authors from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory appear to over-estimate the maturity and economics of wind and solar technologies. Also note that in New York, the implementation plan calls for offshore wind capacity to be at least one third to over one half of the projected wind capacity but the report claimed that wind economic factors were low, capital costs low, operational expenses low and that wind has high technological maturity. All true perhaps for land-based wind but certainly not true for off-shore wind.

My biggest concern is that the analysis does not consider the ‘‘inverter challenge’’ as a major constraint. Another report, “The challenges of achieving a 100% renewable electricity system in the United States”, explains that in the existing electrical system synchronous generators provide six services shown in the following table that provide system stability. Wind and solar resources are asynchronous generators that do not provide those services. Somebody has to provide them so this analysis that concentrates only on the levelized cost of energy that ignores those services under-estimates the cost and technological challenges to provide electricity to consumers.

The Getting to 100% paper explains that the biggest problem is making sure there is sufficient available capacity during all periods, even if that capacity is seldom used. This problem is not new and exists in the existing system. The paper notes:

The increase in costs associated with approaching 100% carbon-free electricity is a special case of the more general problem of meeting peak demand, which has always been part of the planning process for electric power systems. Variations in demand profiles and the existence of demand peaks are caused by variation in weather, end-use technology stock, and, ultimately, consumer preferences and behavior.

The Getting to 100% paper explains that there are differences between daily load and daily renewable energy (RE) generation over the year. The following figure shows the seasonal patterns in the daily imbalance (daily load minus daily RE generation) for hypothetical high RE systems where about 90% of annual load is met by wind, solar, and other RE generation technologies for New York State. As noted previously the fundamental problem is that when the loads are the highest in the summer and winter, RE generation can be low. In the spring and fall the RE resources are generally high but loads are low. As the share of RE increases,” these aspects are increasingly accentuated”. The paper makes the point that:

Eventually, with high enough VRE shares, the addition of new VRE capacity would offer very little benefit in reducing peaks in net load, while causing additional oversupply conditions where unusable VRE needs to be curtailed. The low capital utilization problem of meeting demand is exacerbated in high VRE systems. These issues shape the characteristics of a last 10% solution.

In the following I will address each strategy.

Variable renewable energy, transmission, and diurnal storage

This approach is “technologically conservative, as it relies only on technologies currently being deployed at gigawatt (GW) scale”. The seasonal mismatch problem is addressed by overbuilding wind and solar resources as well as adding more transmission capacity. Diurnal storage is deployed to fill hourly supply gaps and excess wind and solar is curtailed during high-resource periods. The authors claim: “Increasing oversupply during high-resource times decreases the amount of storage necessary to supply low-resource times.” The authors admit that wind and solar “curtailment in such systems can reach 35%–50%”. There is an associated problem. As more wind and solar resources are added to minimize storage requirements, those additional resources markedly increase curtailment rates for all those resources.

In order to address those issues, the authors claim that new developments could “make this approach more competitive” In particular: “Higher-capacity-factor system designs (low-windspeed and/or high-hub-height wind turbines; tracking PV arrays with high inverter-loading ratios preferentially increase output during low-resource periods, increasing VRE dispatchability”. My impression however, is that those are tweaks and do not eliminate all issues. The authors mention hybrid systems, “including concentrating solar power with thermal energy storage”, but neglect to mention that the Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project that used this technology failed. They also claim that “Increased long-distance transmission deployment (over distances larger than the extent of weather systems decreases curtailment, cost, and storage needs by exploiting the declining spatial correlation of VRE availability with increasing distance”. Advocates of this approach never discuss just what distances are needed for it to work and just how it would work in practice.

According to Table 1 in the Getting to 100% paper, on the positive side the economic factors are relatively low cost and technological material is high. The resource constraints are listed as medium but I think that is optimistic given the volume of these resources required. Frequent claims of the low costs of wind and solar generation ignore the fact that the real cost that matters is the delivered cost. When the costs to keep the lights on when the wind is not blowing at night are considered the low cost claims are wrong.

Other renewable energy

The study claims that “geothermal, hydropower, and biomass are renewable energy resources that do not rely on variable solar and wind resources and have higher capacity credit”. While the report claims that these resources can play an important role in a net-zero-emissions power system the fact is geothermal and hydro resources depend on certain physical site constraints so there is not a lot of potential availability in New York. The main problem with biomass is that there are limits on how much could be produced and it is not enough to be a major contributor to the overall energy needs. In New York there are members of the Climate Action Council that believe that zero-emissions means no combustion so there is an ideological constraint as well.

According to Table 1 in the Getting to 100% paper, on the positive side the technological material is high and some of the economic factors are favorable. However, all the options have high resource constraints that limit the applicability of these options.

Nuclear and fossil with carbon capture

The study notes that “Nuclear and fossil with carbon capture and storage (CCS) are widely cited as potentially important resources in a decarbonized electricity system”. There is no question that nuclear is the only emissions-free dispatchable resource that could be deployed in sufficient quantities to provide all needed baseload power. The report notes that: ”The existing nuclear fleet comprises reactor designs with large nameplate capacities and designed to operate near their maximum output potential”, and that “Advanced nuclear reactor designs are typically smaller in scale and more flexible” . Consequently, nuclear might be viable for the last 10% problem. Alas New York, for example, on one hand worries about an existential threat of climate change but shuts down 2,000 MW of zero-emissions nuclear generation which suggests that this option is off the table.

The report notes that “Fossil CCS plants have yet to be deployed at scale, but some studies find significant deployment potential, including from retrofits of existing fossil fuel-fired Plants”. The report sums up the pragmatic dilemma associated with this option:

Fossil CCS has a capture rate of less than 100%; therefore, some emission offsets are needed for fully net carbon-free electricity unless technology advancements, such as through oxy-combustion, can enable zero or near-zero emissions. he role of fossil CCS could be impacted by how strictly the ‘‘100%’’ requirement is interpreted with respect to any remaining emissions that are not captured and emissions from upstream fuel extraction, including methane leakage.

There is another issue associated with CCS. A fossil plant capturing CO2 has a derate of about one third because of the energy needed to run the equipment required to capture and compress the CO2 so that it can be transported and sequestered underground. Finally, in order to safely store the CO2 particular geologic formations are required which limits where these facilities can be located.

According to Table 1 in the Getting to 100% paper, advanced nuclear has high capital expenses and moderate operating expenses; medium resource constraints, medium technological maturity, and security, supply chain, regulatory and cost uncertainties. Fossil CCS has high capital expenses, medium operating expenses, medium resource constraints, low technological constraints, and issues with upstream emissions, CO2 transport and sequestration.

Seasonal storage

Seasonal storage refers to the use of electricity to produce a storable fuel that can be used for generation over extended periods of time later:

This group of technologies is not well defined, but it could include batteries with very low-cost electrolytes capable of longer-than-diurnal durations. Because of the requirement for very low-cost energy storage, most seasonal storage pathways focus on hydrogen, ammonia, and other hydrogen-derived fuels stored in geologic formations.

Hydrogen produced using electricity to split water (i.e., electrolytic hydrogen) is a form of storage because the energy it carries can be converted back to electricity. Electrolytic hydrogen technology has been used at an industrial scale since the early 20th century. Although currently higher cost than hydrogen from natural gas reforming, electrolytic hydrogen production costs can be reduced if low- cost electricity, such as zero-cost otherwise-curtailed renewable energy, is used.

In the New York implementation plan the dispatchable emissions-free resource (DEFR) place holder is hydrogen produced using wind and solar. In addition to the irrational ideological prohibition against combustion sources there are technological issues for New York. The report notes that “current high-cost electrolyzers need to operate almost continuously to recover their capital expense” and that “Storage and transport costs would add to the delivered cost of hydrogen”.

The New York ideologues plan is to use hydrogen in fuel cells, but the report notes:

Fuel cells have diverse applications, but their use for bulk power generation is currently limited. Given the range and scale of applications especially for transportation, substantial capital cost reductions for fuel cells are possible. With low capital costs for combustion turbines and future potential cost reductions for fuel cells, the economic case for hydrogen mainly hinges on lowering the cost of electrolytic hydrogen.

According to Table 1 in the Getting to 100% paper, it really is a stretch to say that there are any positive aspects for using hydrogen with combustion turbines or in fuel cells. For hydrogen used in combustion turbines the report claims low capital expenses (apparently referring only to the combustion turbine but not including the generation of the hydrogen itself), medium operating expenses and resource constraints, and concerns about hydrogen storage and transport as well as competition for using hydrogen in other sectors. For hydrogen used in fuel cells there is a potential for low capital expenses, high operating expenses, low resource constraints (apparently referring only to the fuel cell and not assuming that the hydrogen is generated with wind and solar resources), low technological maturity, and the same other considerations as hydrogen used in combustion turbines.

Carbon dioxide removal

The report describes carbon dioxide removal (CDR) strategies which are “dedicated efforts to reduce atmospheric CO2 levels. In theory this can offset emissions from carbon-emitting power generation so that fossil-fired units can operate to fulfill the last 10% requirement. This is too far fetched to be credible in my opinion.

According to Table 1 in the Getting to 100% paper, there are no positive aspects of this technology except that there are low resource constraints for direct air capture and storage.

Demand-side resources

Net-zero advocates are enamored with “smart planning” approaches that reduce load which reduces generating resource requirements. The report notes that “Demand-side resources, also referred to as demand response or demand flexibility, have unique properties compared with the supply-side solutions”. The report explains:

To a limited extent, they are already relied upon for grid planning and operations today. By reducing electricity consumption during times of system stress, these resources help avoid capital expenditures associated with new peaking capacity. Through flexible scheduling or interruption of electricity consumption, they can also reduce operating costs or be used for important grid reliability services.

While there are indisputable advantages, I think that advocates lose track of the limitations. There are demand-side programs in place today but the applications are limited. Today’s programs limit reduction requests to rare instances of limited duration primarily to shave peak loads primarily by large industrial or commercial users. The problem is that applying demand-side options as a last 10% strategy for decarbonization “requires them to be reliably available over extended multi-day periods”. This means that they cannot be used for residential heating and cooling loads and electric vehicle charging. Moreover, the report notes that “Large-scale commercial or industrial customers can provide multi-day response, but extended interruptions would negatively impact these capital-intensive (non-power) applications”. As a result, I don’t think this approach will provide adequate reductions when needed the most.

According to Table 1 in the Getting to 100% paper there are low capital expenses but there are uncertain opportunity costs. The paper claims that resource constraints are uncertain and that the technological maturity is medium. There are concerns about communications, control equipment and reliability.

Discussion

An Inside Clean Energy article on the paper offers a summary from the climate advocacy side. Of note is a plug for the 100% renewable option:

A growing segment of energy researchers say that the electricity system can run on 100 percent renewable energy, which would mean renewables and energy storage would provide the last 10 percent. This approach sees no good reason to build new nuclear plants or to use carbon capture systems on fossil fuel plants, citing high costs and a variety of other concerns.

The author admits that the myth of low-cost solar and wind resources does not take into account the resources needed for reliability during periods of peak demand:

At the same time, a sizable group of energy researchers maintain that nuclear and carbon capture are essential parts of getting to carbon-free electricity. This side has doubts about the ability of renewable sources to meet all needs, citing concerns about the availability of land and the intermittent nature of wind and solar. They note that wind and solar are not a low-cost option when taking into account the amounts of storage and power line capacity needed to make those resources reliable for meeting peak demand.

I find the author’s conclusion naïve:

Within all of this is something encouraging: Researchers and energy companies have figured out how to start the transition to 100 percent carbon-free electricity and they have a pretty good idea of what the in-between steps will look like. Now, they are beginning to dig deep on how this journey to a carbon-free grid may end.

Academic researchers are not accountable for reliability and have found a cash cow for funding. No one is funding them to make a responsible estimate of future resources that does not fit the alarmist narrative. In a de-regulated world energy companies are also not responsible for reliability and are toeing the line of the net-zero narrative. New York’s organizations responsible for reliability are not as optimistic (here and here). New York’s Draft Scoping Plan presumes that the State can transition to net-zero without addressing reliability and affordability feasibility but the reality is that even this report suggests that substantive issues have to be addressed.

Conclusion

I think this is a biased report that is too optimistic for future projections. Nonetheless, it does offer a concise summary of potential approaches to address the last 10% problem that is my ultimate concern. With respect to New York’s implementation plans, if the concerns of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory staff are ignored in the Final Scoping Plan, then New York will surely have a catastrophic blackout with consequences far beyond any impacts that can be attributed to climate change.

New York Zero Emission Vehicle Mandate

The Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (Climate Act) has a legal mandate for New York State greenhouse gas emissions to meet the ambitious net-zero goal by 2050. On September 29, 2022 Governor Hochul directed the New York Department of Environmental Conservation to take major regulatory action that will require all new passenger cars, pickup trucks, and SUVs sold in New York State to be zero emissions by 2035. As has been the case with all of the Administration’s global warming regulatory initiatives the pronouncement is not supported by any documentation.

Everyone wants to do right by the environment to the extent that they can afford to and not be unduly burdened by the effects of environmental policies. I submitted comments on the Climate Act implementation plan and have written extensively on New York’s net-zero transition because I believe the ambitions for a zero-emissions economy embodied in the Climate Act outstrip available renewable technology such that this supposed cure will be worse than the disease. The opinions expressed in this post do not reflect the position of any of my previous employers or any other company I have been associated with, these comments are mine alone.

Climate Act Background

The Climate Act establishes a “Net Zero” target (85% reduction and 15% offset of emissions) by 2050. The Climate Action Council is responsible for preparing the Scoping Plan that will “achieve the State’s bold clean energy and climate agenda”. They were assisted by Advisory Panels who developed and presented strategies to the meet the goals to the Council. Those strategies were used to develop the integration analysis prepared by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) and its consultants that tried to quantify the impact of the strategies. That material was used to write a Draft Scoping Plan that was released for public comment at the end of 2021. The Climate Action Council states that it will revise the Draft Scoping Plan based on comments and other expert input in 2022 with the goal to finalize the Scoping Plan by the end of the year.

In 2019 greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the transportation sector accounted for 28.2% of total GHG emissions so it is necessary to reduce transportation sector emissions to meet the Climate Act targets. However, I explained in my comments that the Draft Scoping Plan did a poor job evaluating how a zero-emissions mandate would be implemented and an even worse job projecting the potential costs. I will highlight some of the points made in my comments and also put this new mandate in context.

Hochul’s Announcement

The following is a substantial portion of the press release announcing the mandate:

Governor Kathy Hochul today commemorated National Drive Electric Week by directing the State Department of Environmental Conservation to take major regulatory action that will require all new passenger cars, pickup trucks, and SUVs sold in New York State to be zero emissions by 2035. This is a crucial regulatory step to achieving significant greenhouse gas emission reductions from the transportation sector and is complemented by new and ongoing investments also announced today, including electric vehicle infrastructure progress, zero-emission vehicle incentives, and ensuring New York’s communities benefit from historic federal climate change investments.

“New York is a national climate leader and an economic powerhouse, and we’re using our strength to help spur innovation and implementation of zero-emission vehicles on a grand scale,” Governor Hochul said. “With sustained state and federal investments, our actions are incentivizing New Yorkers, local governments, and businesses to make the transition to electric vehicles. We’re driving New York’s transition to clean transportation forward, and today’s announcement will benefit our climate and the health of our communities for generations to come.”

Proposing draft State regulations is a crucial step to further electrify the transportation sector and help New York achieve its climate requirement of reducing greenhouse gases 85 percent by 2050, while also reducing air pollution, particularly in disadvantaged communities. The State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) is expediting this regulatory process to implement legislation Governor Hochul signed last year and turn those goals into progress in fully transitioning to new zero-emission cars and trucks. California’s action finalizing the Advanced Clean Cars II regulation last month unlocked New York’s ability to adopt the same regulation.

The regulation will build upon existing regulations enacted in New York in 2012 by requiring all new sales of passenger cars, pickup trucks, and SUVs to be zero-emission by 2035. It would require an increasing percentage of new light-duty vehicle sales to be zero-emission vehicles (ZEV) starting with 35 percent of sales in model year 2026, 68 percent of sales by 2030, and 100 percent of sales by 2035. New pollutant standards for model year 2026 through model year 2034 passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty vehicles with internal combustion engines would also be required. The regulation provides manufacturers with flexibility in meeting the emission requirements and achieving a successful transition to cleaner vehicles.

Adoption of Advanced Clean Cars II is included among the recommendations in the Climate Action Council’s Draft Scoping Plan and will be instrumental in achieving the greenhouse gas emissions reductions required in the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act. In addition, reducing emissions will provide significant air quality benefits to many of New York’s disadvantaged communities, predominantly home to low-income Black, Indigenous, and People of Color, and often adjacent to transit routes with heavy vehicle traffic. The regulation will help address disproportionate risks and health and pollution burdens affecting these communities.

Department of Environmental Conservation Commissioner and Climate Action Council Co-Chair Basil Seggos said, “Governor Hochul is demonstrating her sustained commitment to the successful implementation of the Climate Act and ensuring all New Yorkers benefit from the State’s actions to address climate change. DEC will continue to work under her direction to rapidly issue this regulation and reach another milestone in the transition from fossil fuels so that more people, businesses, and governments will have the ZEV options to meet their needs and help improve the health of their communities.”

The directed regulatory action announced today builds on New York’s ongoing efforts to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, including the adoption of the Advanced Clean Trucks regulation in December 2021. That regulation will drive an increase in the number of medium- and heavy-duty ZEV models available as purchase options for vehicle purchasers and fleets. In addition, several transit agencies including the Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority, the Rochester-Genesee Regional Transportation Authority, and the Metropolitan Transit Authority are leading by example with second wave deployments of electric buses. DEC, New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA), New York Power Authority (NYPA), and DOT (Department of Transportation) are assisting these authorities with these efforts.

Draft Scoping Plan Transportation Comments

I submitted a couple of comments on electric vehicles. The emphasis in the first comment was my finding that the Integration Analysis is simply making assumptions about future zero-emissions transportation implementation strategies without providing adequate referenced documentation. I provided numerous recommendations for additional documentation in these comments so that New Yorkers can understand what will be expected and how much it will cost.

As far as I can tell, the electric vehicle costs are based entirely on new vehicle sales. There is no acknowledgement that the used car market will likely change because of the cost of battery replacement. Sellers will likely get less relative to new cars in the battery electric vehicle market. Buyers may get a relative deal but will lose in the end when the batteries have to be replaced. This is a particular concern for low and middle-income citizens who cannot afford new vehicles.

There is no bigger disconnect between the zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) proposed strategy and reality than the ZEV charging infrastructure requirements. The biggest problem is that millions of cars will have to rely on chargers that cannot be dedicated for the owner’s personal use because the owners park on the street or in a parking lot. In order to provide a credible ZEV strategy, the final Scoping Plan has to describe a plan how this could possibly work. It is not enough to simply say it will work.

I also submitted a comment addressing electric vehicle costs. the Integration Analysis vehicle cost projections rely on a single vehicle type for light-duty vehicles. As a result, the projections are not particularly useful for many vehicle owners. In order to accurately project the costs for this mandate the types of vehicles used has to be updated.

Discussion

There is a paragraph in the press release that needs to be addressed:

The regulation will build upon existing regulations enacted in New York in 2012 by requiring all new sales of passenger cars, pickup trucks, and SUVs to be zero-emission by 2035. It would require an increasing percentage of new light-duty vehicle sales to be zero-emission vehicles (ZEV) starting with 35 percent of sales in model year 2026, 68 percent of sales by 2030, and 100 percent of sales by 2035. New pollutant standards for model year 2026 through model year 2034 passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty vehicles with internal combustion engines would also be required. The regulation provides manufacturers with flexibility in meeting the emission requirements and achieving a successful transition to cleaner vehicles.

In 2026 the State will require 35% of all new vehicle sales to be zero-emission vehicles. As of May 1, 2022 there were a little over 62,000 electric cars registered in New York out of the over 11 million vehicles registered. The Integration Analysis projections for battery electric vehicles in 2026 range from 7.8% in the reference case to 24.3% in the most optimistic mitigation scenarios. One of my criticisms of the Draft Scoping Plan is that the increase in projected sales is not supported by any recommendations for implementation.

I have documented many electric vehicles issues but it is by no means an exhaustive list of the reasons I will never purchase an electric vehicle. The State apparently believes that all that is necessary is a proclamation and all the reservations of all the people who are perfectly happy with internal combustion engines will be overcome.

Hochul’s proclamation fails to address the low and middle-income consumer concerns expressed by Robert Bryce in testimony before the House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis:

EVs … impose … societal costs that are likely to exacerbate inequality and lead to more energy poverty,” Bryce continued. “Those costs include taxpayer-funded subsidies given to EV buyers, publicly funded charging stations, and the grid upgrades that will be needed to support the electrification of light and heavy-duty vehicles. Those costs will impose a significant cost burden on low and middle-income consumers, even though those consumers are unlikely to purchase EVs.

Bryce also raised other issues in his testimony that are ignored in the grandstanding announcement:

Electrifying parts of our transportation system may result in incremental reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, but a look at history, as well as an analysis of the supply-chain issues involved in manufacturing EVs, the resource intensity of batteries, and the increasingly fragile state of our electric grid – which is being destabilized by bad policy at the state and national levels – shows that a headlong drive to convert our transportation systems to run on ‘green’ electricity could cost taxpayers untold billions of dollars, increase greenhouse gas emissions, be bad for societal resilience, make the U.S. more dependent on commodity markets dominated by China, make us less able to respond to extreme weather events or attacks on our infrastructure, and impose regressive taxes on low and middle-income Americans in the form of higher electricity prices.

Finally, the ultimate rationale for this inane policy is to do something about climate change. The reality is that New York emissions are inconsequential so this is nothing more than politically expedient climate virtue signaling. New York’s GHG emissions are less than one half a percent of total global emissions and, on average, global GHG emissions have been increasing by more than one half a percent per year. Anything we do will be wiped out be emissions elsewhere in a year. Furthermore, the State has never published an estimate of the effect of New York emission reductions on global warming itself. I estimate that the change to global warming from eliminating New York GHG emissions is only 0.01°C by the year 2100 which is too small to be measured much less have an effect on any of the purported damages of greenhouse gas emissions.

Conclusion

In the press release Hochul claimed that “New York is a national climate leader and an economic powerhouse, and we’re using our strength to help spur innovation and implementation of zero-emission vehicles on a grand scale”. The State’s obsession with being a climate leader is pointless. Worse there is no recognition that the pursuit of zero emissions has unintended consequences and will likely cause more harm than good. The lack of a public discussion of pragmatic considerations for the net-zero transition will ultimately seriously affect New York.