Category: Reasons to Pause Climate Act

More Reasons to Pause Climate Act Implementation July 12, 2025

I am very frustrated with the New York Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act) net zero transition because the reality is that there are so many issues coming up with the schedule and ambition of the Climate Act that it is obvious that we need to pause implementation and figure out how best to proceed.  This article describes reasons to pause implementation.

I am convinced that implementation of the Climate Act net-zero mandates will do more harm than good because the energy density of wind and solar energy is too low and the resource intermittency too variable to ever support a reliable electric system relying on those resources. I have followed the Climate Act since it was first proposed, submitted comments on the Climate Act implementation plan, and have written over 500 articles about New York’s net-zero transition.  The opinions expressed in this article do not reflect the position of any of my previous employers or any other organization I have been associated with, these comments are mine alone.

Call for a Pause

Tom Shepstone wrote an article about a letter from 18 New York Republican Senators calling on Governor Hochul to declare a State of Emergency and “halt Climate Act mandates.”  I was meaning to write about this but can now just quote his article.  Tom wrote “I applaud the following letter these folks just sent to Kathy Hochul (emphasis added):

The Honorable Kathy Hochul Governor of New York State New York State Capitol Building Albany, NY 12224

Subject: Energy State of Emergency

Dear Governor Hochul,

We write today with a deep sense of urgency to respectfully urge you to issue a State Declaration of Disaster Emergency pursuant to Executive Law §28, in response to escalating reliability concerns surrounding our electric grid and the rapidly rising energy costs burdening New York ratepayers. In accordance with Executive Law §29-A, we further request the suspension of laws enacted under the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA), Chapter 106 of the Laws of 2019.

The current trajectory toward an all-electric future presents serious and immediate threats to both the reliability of our power grid and the affordability of energy for New Yorkers. Just last month, the New York Independent System Operator (NYISO) issued multiple Energy Warnings due to a significant decline in operating reserves – underscoring the fragility of the system under current policies.

Legislation stemming from the CLCPA, including mandates for electric vehicles, electric school buses, electric buildings, the repeal of the “100-foot rule,” and a Cap-and-Invest program risks overloading the grid at a time when demand is growing and reliable energy supply is increasingly constrained.

In addition to these reliability concerns, the economic toll of the CLCPA implementation is becoming untenable. A conservative estimate places the total cost of the law’s implementation at

$340 billion. Electricity rates in New York are now 48% higher than the national average and 35% higher than in neighboring Pennsylvania. Alarmingly, nearly 20% of a typical utility bill now consists of government-imposed charges, a figure likely to rise further without intervention.

These realities point to a transition plan that is not only unsustainable but one that risks creating an economic and energy disaster. We believe a pause is essential – one that allows for reassessment, thoughtful adjustment, and a renewed commitment to an energy policy that balances environmental responsibility with reliability and affordability.

We urge your administration to convene a comprehensive review process involving a wide range of stakeholders – industry experts, energy producers, ratepayer advocates, labor and local communities. We further advocate for an “all-of-the-above” energy policy that does not rely solely on wind and solar but also embraces dependable energy sources.

We encourage your administration to continue to push forward with nuclear energy development but let the private sector take the lead. At the same time, we respectfully ask you to reconsider your administration’s stance toward natural gas, a critical and dependable energy source for millions of New Yorkers. Natural gas must remain part of our diverse and resilient energy mix.

This is a pivotal moment for our state’s energy future. We urge you to act now to protect the stability of our energy grid and the economic well-being of all New Yorkers.

Sincerely,

Senator Robert G. Ortt

Senator Tom O’Mara

Senator Mario Mattera

Senator Steve Chan

Senator Jake Ashby

Senator Peter Oberacker

Senator Pam Helming

Senator Mark Walczyk

Senator Dan Stec

Senator Steve Rhoads

Senator Alexis Weik

Senator George Borrello

Senator William Weber

Senator Patrick Gallivan

Senator Dean Murray

Senator Jack M. Martins

Senator Joseph Griffo

Senator Andrew Lanza

Tom went on to note that “Kathy Hochul called it grandstanding, of course. What else is she going to do? Here’s some of what her people had to say, which tells quite a different story:”

The Governor has made it clear she’s taking an all-of-the-above approach to energy that prioritizes affordability, reliability, and sustainability…

Hochul did acknowledge last week that the economic environment has changed since the CLCPA was passed under former Gov. Andrew Cuomo.

“It all goes back a number of years and I’ve had to take a close look and realize that we cannot accomplish what those objectives were back before I became governor in a timeframe that’s gonna not hurt rate payers. So we’re slowing things down. I wanna make sure people know that,” the governor said last Tuesday.

Doreen Harris, president and CEO of the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA), acknowledged the change in policy, telling Capital Tonight on Wednesday that while the achievement of the climate law is still one potential scenario, the state’s emerging draft energy plan also looks at the challenges the law is facing, including roadblocks at the federal level.

Shepstone concluded:

“All the above” is the first step toward admitting the unreliables are not only not helpful, but also dangerous to the grid. And, then there is “one potential outcome.” I’d say that’s a complete win for our friend Roger Caiazza, who has successfully predicted every bit of this!

For the record, when I wrote to Shepstone and thanked him for the shoutout I noted that my predictions have always bet on physics batting last.  Politicians can deny reality for only so long.

Prove It.

Ed Reid makes the point that I have often made that proponents of a renewable plus storage energy grid need a successful demonstration project before we are convinced that it will work. Maybe this will be the face-saving outcome for the Hochul Administration when they bow to the inevitable need to pause implementation.  Francis Menton, Rich Ellenbogen, and I have nominated Ithaca separately,  Menton explains our perfectly aligned reasoning.

Climate Alarmism and the Media

For physics realists and green energy skeptics like myself it is very frustrating that all media accounts connect any extreme weather event to climate change.  This article by Matt Vespa describes Michael Shellenberger’s shared frustration:

This piece is a bit more unconventional than his usual work, but Michael Shellenberger was interested in exploring how climate alarmism has become a lucrative industry in the media. It goes beyond ‘fear sells’ and ‘if it bleeds it leads’ models. It’s panic pornography in its worst form, so bad that one in five children in the United Kingdom suffered nightmares about our impending doom from climate change, manufactured by the media.

He used the recent Texas floods as an example, a tragic event where storms ripped through central Texas, flooding the Guadalupe River in Kerr County, killing at least 100 people. That body count is destined to rise. The river rose 20-plus feet in 90 minutes. The media ran with this cockamamie narrative that it was Donald Trump’s fault due to cuts to NOAA and the National Weather Service, all of which don’t go into effect until next year. Then, there was the ‘NWS was short-staffed,’ which was also debunked—NWS had extra staffers for this system. They also sent alerts; the problem is that no one got them. This area doesn’t have a flood warning system. When it was initially pitched, the public was not keen on the cost.

Shellenberger explained that floods are not new, they’re not caused by climate change, and other nations have adapted to flooding.

30 Items of Evidence that the Rationale is Collapsing

Tom Nelson lists 30 updates on the “climate scam implosion”.  Here are my favorites:

More Reasons to Pause Climate Act Implementation June 25, 2025

I am very frustrated with the New York Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act) net zero transition because the reality is that there are so many issues coming up with the schedule and ambition of the Climate Act that it is obvious that we need to pause implementation and figure out how best to proceed.  This article describes more reasons to pause implementation.

I am convinced that implementation of the Climate Act net-zero mandates will do more harm than good because the energy density of wind and solar energy is too low and the resource intermittency too variable to ever support a reliable electric system relying on those resources. I have followed the Climate Act since it was first proposed, submitted comments on the Climate Act implementation plan, and have written over 540 articles about New York’s net-zero transition.  The opinions expressed in this article do not reflect the position of any of my previous employers or any other organization I have been associated with, these comments are mine alone.

Overview

The Climate Act established a New York “Net Zero” target (85% reduction in GHG emissions and 15% offset of emissions) by 2050.  It includes an interim reduction target of a 40% GHG reduction by 2030. The Climate Action Council (CAC) was responsible for preparing the Scoping Plan that outlined how to “achieve the State’s bold clean energy and climate agenda.”  After a year-long review, the Scoping Plan was finalized at the end of 2022.  Since then, the State has been trying to implement the Scoping Plan recommendations through regulations, proceedings, and legislation. 

Australia New Zero Model

Robert Bryce sums up the Australian net zero scheme “won’t work because it can’t work”. He points out that:

Affordability matters. Given that, let’s start with prices. Aussie households have seen their energy costs rise by more than 40% over the past three years alone.

He shows why in the following graph.

This sums up New York’s path forward if nothing changes.  Bryce concludes:

The punchline here is obvious: Australia cannot — will not — achieve net zero by 2050. It’s an impossible task. Nevertheless, it appears the country will waste a lot of money pretending that it can.

CO2 is not the Climate Control Knob

Richard Lindzen and William Happer have published a white paper that goes after the reducing GHG emissions will affect the climate rationale for the net-zero transition.  The document is titled :Physics Demonstrates that Increasing Greenhouse Gases Cannot Cause Dangerous Warming, Extreme Weather or Any Harm.  Lindzen and Happer are career physicists with a special expertise in radiation physics, which describes how CO2 and GHGs affect heat flow in Earth’s atmosphere. The only conclusion from their work is that even if New York could magically reduce its emissions and inspire all other jurisdictions to do the same, that it could not possibly have any impact on the weather.

The report has four major sections:

  • Government opinion, consensus, 97% of scientists’ opinions, peer review, models that do not work, or cherry-picked, fabricated, falsified or omitted contradictory data.
  • Ignored science #1: CO2, other GHGs and fossil fuels will not cause catastrophic global warming and more extreme weather.
  • Ignored science #2: there will be disastrous consequences or the poor, people worldwide, future generations, Americans, America, and the West if CO2, other GHGs and fossil fuels are reduced to net zero and will endanger public health and welfare.
  • Unscientific evidence is the basis of the EPA endangerment finding, all known net zero rules and subsidies.

One quote from the paper caught my attention:  “Peter Drucker warned, as every Net Zero Theory rule and subsidy demonstrates, that science in government is often based on “value judgments” that are “incompatible with any criteria one could possibly call scientific.”  These value judgements have permeated every aspect of the Climate Act implementation.  New York’s Climate Act is even worse because the “science” was provided by activists and promoted into law by naïve politicians.

The concluding statement in the Summary states:

In summary, the blunt scientific reality requires urgent action because we are confronted with policies that destroy western economies, impoverish the working middle class, condemn billions of the world’s poorest to continued poverty and increased starvation, leave our children despairing over the alleged absence of a future, and will enrich the enemies of the West who are enjoying the spectacle of our suicide march. Instead, let people and the market decide, not governments.

An Alternative Driver of Climate Change

The driver for reducing GHG emissions is that they are the primary driver of climate change.  In my opinion, the primary driver for climate change is the sun.  After all, the currently accepted theory for continental glaciation is that it is caused by changes in solar intensity due to orbital variations.  Unfortunately, the arguments for solar variation based on sunspots and other factors causing recent changes in the climate are weak.  However, there is another way that the sun’s impacts can affect the Earth.

The recent paper by Tselioudis et al., titled “Contraction of the World’s Storm-Cloud Zones the Primary Contributor to the 21st Century Increase in the Earth’s Sunlight Absorption” evaluated Earth energy budget observations.  They showed that a decrease in cloud reflection increased sunlight absorption which caused an increase in global temperatures. 

Charles Rotter explains:

To understand the full implications of this study, we need to parse its findings in plain terms. The paper concludes that the Earth has absorbed significantly more solar radiation over the past 24 years—0.45 W/m² per decade. The primary culprit? A reduction in cloud cover, specifically a contraction of the midlatitude and tropical storm-cloud zones. This change has resulted in less solar radiation being reflected back into space and more being absorbed by the Earth’s surface. Crucially, 0.37 W/m² of this uptick is attributed solely to this contraction in cloud coverage, a result of large-scale atmospheric circulation changes: “This cloud contraction, along with cloud cover decreases at low latitudes, allows more solar radiation to reach the Earth’s surface. When the contribution of all cloud changes is calculated, the storm cloud contraction is found to be the main contributor to the observed increase of the Earth’s solar absorption during the 21st century.”

These conclusions are based on observations.  Clouds are one of many emergent phenomena that the climate models cannot represent.  Rotter concludes:

This paper should serve as ammunition for any skeptic pointing out the absurdity of building trillion-dollar policies on the backs of incomplete and overconfident simulations. The cloud regimes are shifting. The models aren’t keeping up. And neither is the narrative.

Final Word on the Science

Despite the constant refrain that 97% of climate scientists agree there is problem facts differ.  “Your funding, salary increase, and tenure case are tied to agreeing with the ‘consensus.’ It’s really about careerism and resources. They all have to dance to that same drum beat to get professional recognition and professional advancement,” says Dr. Judith Curry, professor emeritus at the Georgia Institute of Technology, describing the state of climate science and research in recent years.  She “𝐝𝐞𝐛𝐮𝐧𝐤𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐲𝐭𝐡 𝐨𝐟 𝐚 𝐜𝐥𝐢𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐮𝐬, 𝐫𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐟𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝 𝐬𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐜 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐚𝐠𝐫𝐞𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐨𝐧 𝐜𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐢𝐬𝐬𝐮𝐞𝐬 𝐥𝐢𝐤𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐚𝐮𝐬𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐰𝐚𝐫𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐠” in a video interview. 

There is a transcript of the interview available.  This response about the pursuit of net-zero is particularly apropos for New York:

No, yeah, it’s not achievable. Not only that, okay, here’s the part that they don’t tell you: even if we did achieve net zero by 2050, we wouldn’t notice any change in the climate until well into the 22nd century. 

Climate Act proponents plea that we need to do this for our children and grand-children.  Keep in mind that if New York managed to reduce all its GHG emissions that represent one half of one percent of global emissions, the climate won’t change for over 100 years even if our actions inspire everyone else in the world to follow suit. That is several generations after our grandchildren.

Conclusion

New York cannot “solve” climate change on its own because our greenhouse gas contributions to the atmosphere are dwarfed by emissions elsewhere.  Recent work shows that GHG emissions are not a significant driver of climate change.  The best we can help for is a successful model for other jurisdictions, but the continuing ride of unresolved questions and unacknowledged issues suggests that our current approach is not on the right path.  Pausing the Climate Act insanity before it does more damage is the only rational path.

More Reasons to Pause Climate Act Implementation

I am very frustrated with the New York Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act) net zero transition because the reality is that there are so many issues coming up with the schedule and ambition of the Climate Act that it is obvious that we need to pause implementation and figure out how best to proceed.  This article describes reasons to pause implementation.

I am convinced that implementation of the Climate Act net-zero mandates will do more harm than good because the energy density of wind and solar energy is too low and the resource intermittency too variable to ever support a reliable electric system relying on those resources. I have followed the Climate Act since it was first proposed, submitted comments on the Climate Act implementation plan, and have written over 500 articles about New York’s net-zero transition.  The opinions expressed in this article do not reflect the position of any of my previous employers or any other organization I have been associated with, these comments are mine alone.

Overview

The Climate Act established a New York “Net Zero” target (85% reduction in GHG emissions and 15% offset of emissions) by 2050.  It includes an interim reduction target of a 40% GHG reduction by 2030. The Climate Action Council (CAC) was responsible for preparing the Scoping Plan that outlined how to “achieve the State’s bold clean energy and climate agenda.”  After a year-long review, the Scoping Plan was finalized at the end of 2022.  Since then, the State has been trying to implement the Scoping Plan recommendations through regulations, proceedings, and legislation. 

Energy Austerity Dangers

David Turver writing at Eigen Values explains that as more energy dense sources of power were used in England that less time and effort to survive was needed.  That freed up time and resources were made available for innovation and development of art and culture.  Furthermore, he states “Arguably, the availability of cheap, abundant energy enabled the Slavery Abolition Act to be passed in 1833 and the British Empire had sufficient surplus of energy, men and money to afford a Royal Navy to enforce the ban in the North Atlantic.”  The use of cheap, abundant energy has transformed society in many positive ways.

There are problems brewing:

Unfortunately, the expansion of energy and wealth can lead to complacency and we collectively forget what it was that allowed us to create the most prosperous society the world has ever known. Bad ideas like Malthusianism can flourish and luxury beliefs that undermine the very principles on which society was built can begin to take over.

………………..

In the name of saving the planet, we are being forced to give up on concentrated, reliable energy and energy supply is dwindling as shown by the orange line in Figure 3 below.

Energy prices have risen as supply has fallen through a combination of taxes on hydrocarbons, subsidising expensive renewables and incurring the extra costs of intermittency and remote connections. As a result, energy consumption is falling and the economy is stagnating as shown by the blue line in Figure 3 (data sourced from OWID).

Turver goes on to argue that the wealth gap will increase as the energy use per person decreases. People will have to spend more of their time just getting by so that societal disorders will increase.  He concludes that “If we continue down this Net Zero path, we will soon find that political change from energy austerity gets very ugly, very quickly.”  England is further down this unsustainable path, but New York will surely follow unless we acknowledge the folly of chasing intermittent and diffuse energy.

Zero-Emissions Transportation

Chapter 11 in the Scoping Plan outlines the zero-emissions strategy for the transportation sector:

Transitioning the transportation sector to zero-emission technologies is central to achieving GHG emission reduction requirements. In most cases, this means replacing existing vehicles that run on gasoline or diesel fuel with either battery electric, hydrogen fuel cell, or future zero-emission propulsion technologies.

Recent experience in Korea is not encouraging for the hydrogen fuel cell option.

In my comments on the Draft Scoping Plan I noted the admission in the document that the “transition to ZEVs for this subsector will entail a mix of battery electric and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles” depends on technologies that are “just beginning to emerge into the market”.   The text goes on to say: “Achieving the aggressive transition in this market will require a mix of regulations, incentives (which will require identifying new sources of funding), and removal of market barriers and depends on industry greatly accelerating the expansion of production capacity for these vehicles”.  I commented that the Final Scoping Plan must include a feasibility analysis to prove that these strategies are viable.  This suggestion was ignored. 

So how is deployment of hydrogen fuel cells working out in Korea?  Hyundai Motor Company has sold over 1,000 hydrogen fuel cell buses in Korea. On May 15, 2025, MPR Korea Certification described  Hyundai’s Elec City FCEV bus:

  • Equipped with a 180 kW fuel cell system, an 875-liter hydrogen tank, and a 78.4 kWh high-output battery.
  • Offers a driving range of up to 550 kilometers per charge.
  • Each bus can reduce CO₂ emissions by approximately 72 tons annually

According to the MPR website: “Hydrogen drive related components and equipment usually require KGS certification in order to be approved for import and sale in Korea.”  “KC Certification (also known as KC Safety Certification or KC Mark Korea Certification) is a product certification that proves the compliance of products with Korean safety regulations.”

Someone has a sense of humor because on May 21, 2025, Hydrogen Insight reported that:

Hyundai is recalling all units of its hydrogen-powered Elec City buses in South Korea after a faulty part was found to create a risk of hydrogen leakage, according to the country’s Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport (Molit).

Nick Carter notes that:

In September, the South Korean government decreed that 25 per cent of its metropolitan bus fleet would be powered by hydrogen by the decade’s end.

Three months later, a hydrogen-fueled bus exploded, sending debris into the face of a refueling station attendant in the city of Chungju and injuring two innocent passers-by.

Carter reports on the net-zero transition in Australia.  He pointed out that like New York, the net-zero transition is supposed to rely on green hydrogen to decarbonize hard to electrify sectors.  He explains:

Green hydrogen is vital to the government’s plan for net-zero emissions by 2050. In October, Chris Bowen set a target of producing a million tonnes of green hydrogen by the end of the decade, earmarking $8 billion in subsidies to achieve that goal.

That won’t happen, no matter how much borrowed money the government might throw at it. In Europe, EU member countries are scaling back their expectations and preparing to renege on their obligation under the European Union’s Renewable Energy Directive, which set a target of 42% green hydrogen usage in industry by 2030.

In a Facebook post, Norwegian cabinet minister Ola Borten Moe admitted that the technology was “light years away from being justifiable or sensible”.

New York is further behind in adoption. There are pilot programs in Rochester and New York City for hydrogen fuel cell buses.  They are also used in forklifts in the warehouse sector but there is no evidence that any private vehicles are using fuel cells.

Another Example of a Net-Zero Plan Disaster in the Making

The Energy Bad Boys recently described a partnership with the Arizona Free Enterprise Club to analyze the Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) of Arizona Public Service (APS).  Their findings were published in a March report detailing how APS’s self-imposed Environmental and Social Governance (ESG) goals of reaching 100 percent Net Zero by 2050 are going to cost its ratepayers billions of dollars in unnecessary costs and undermine grid reliability.

The IRP Preferred Plan proposes to replace coal and meet load growth with wind, solar, batteries, and demand management.  The Preferred Plan does see some savings in fuel expenses, but these savings are far dwarfed by the additional cost of building and maintaining new wind, solar, and battery storage facilities.

The authors conclude that “even in states without mandates for unreliable energy sources, monopoly utilities are rushing in to close down their reliable power plants to replace them with billions of dollars in new capital expenditures in the form of solar panels, battery facilities, and wind turbines.”  The inescapable conclusion is that even those resources aren’t very productive utilities are sacrificing reliability because it actually helps the utility’s bottom line.

One Big Beautiful Bill NY Implications

The environ MENTAL blog had an article that described changes in the recent “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” (1BBB) passed by the U.S. House of Representatives last week.  If the Senate passes a version of the bill without substantive changes to Title IV “Energy and Commerce” where 1BBB hammers or eliminates the key federal tax incentives that have underpinned wind and solar energy for too long, primarily by targeting “clean energy” tax credits, accelerating their expiration and imposing strict new eligibility requirements it will remove critical incentives to the renewable energy industry. 

The hyperbolic response to the loss of the endless subsidy stream by renewable energy developers chronicled in the article belie the argument that a transition to wind and solar will be cheaper.  The Energy Bad Boys article mentioned the passage of this legislation and included a figure that showed the subsidy extensions. 

The chart below summarizes the change to the subsidies.

If this passes it will have an immediate and substantial impact to New York’s renewable energy development plans.  I believe that many of the proposed wind and solar projects proposed for New York will not be viable without the subsidies.  If New York cannot develop those resources, then it is clear that a pause in Climate Act implementation is necessary.

Conclusion

New York cannot “solve” climate change on its own because our greenhouse gas contributions to the atmosphere are dwarfed by emissions elsewhere.  The best we can help for is a successful model for other jurisdictions, but the continuing ride of unresolved questions and unacknowledged issues suggests that the current approach is not on the right path.  Pausing the insanity before it does more damage is the only rational path.

Roger Pielke Jr on Climate Variability

Roger Pielke, Jr. described the underappreciated importance of climate variability in a recent post.  It is increasingly obvious that there are so many issues coming up with the New York Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act) net zero transition that we need to pause implementation and figure out how best to proceed.  Pielke’s article raises another example.

I am convinced that implementation of the Climate Act net-zero mandates will do more harm than good because the proposed green energy programs are crimes against physics.  The energy density of wind and solar energy is too low and the resource intermittency too variable to ever support a reliable electric system relying on those resources. I have followed the Climate Act since it was first proposed, submitted comments on the Climate Act implementation plan, and have written over 500 articles about New York’s net-zero transition.  The opinions expressed in this article do not reflect the position of any of my previous employers or any other organization I have been associated with, these comments are mine alone.

Overview

The Climate Act established a New York “Net Zero” target (85% reduction in GHG emissions and 15% offset of emissions) by 2050.  It includes an interim reduction target of a 40% GHG reduction by 2030. The Climate Action Council (CAC) was responsible for preparing the Scoping Plan that outlined how to “achieve the State’s bold clean energy and climate agenda.”  After a year-long review, the Scoping Plan was finalized at the end of 2022.  Since then, the State has been trying to implement the Scoping Plan recommendations through regulations, proceedings, and legislation.  However, in the rush to meet Climate Act mandates fundamental concepts and concerns are being ignored.

Climate Variability

One of the frustrating characteristics of climate advocates is the constant attribution of any unusual weather to climate change.  I have noted that a climatological average is normally based on a 30-year averaging period and explained that climate change could be defined as the difference.  As is the case with all aspects of climate change issues, there is more nuance and detail than obvious at first glance.

Roger Pielke, Jr. provides nuance and detail to the question “what is climate change.”

One of the most pervasive misunderstandings of climate — even among some who publish on climate — is the belief that any long-term trend in a measured climate variable indicates a change in climate, as defined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC}. In practice, “long-term” is often defined to be only a few decades worth of observations.  Some trends in observational data are not an indication of a change in climate, and others are — telling the difference is not easy when it comes to extreme weather events.

He explains that the first issue is that climate data like any observation set of natural phenomena fluctuates naturally.  A post at Climate Etc. explains:

According to the IPCC, “climate variability refers to variations in the mean state and other statistics (such as standard deviations, the occurrence of extremes, etc.) of the climate on all spatial and temporal scales beyond that of individual weather events. Variability may be due to natural internal processes within the climate system (internal variability), or to variations in natural or anthropogenic external forcing (external variability).”

Pielke explains why this should be considered when estimating climate change effects:

The IPCC AR6 explains that the detection of a change in climate requires some certainty that the trend is not simply due to climate variability: “An identified change is detected in observations if its likelihood of occurrence by chance due to internal variability alone is determined to be small, for example, <10%.”

Quantifying internal variability with respect to any climate metric is challenging, typically with multiple valid interpretations possible. Superimposed upon the challenge is the fact that internal variability itself has been influenced by human factors, notably the emission of greenhouse gases.

Pielke notes that a common simplifying assumption is that the observed weather would not change were it not for “human influence”.  The problem is that it is too frequently applied to short observational records to claim climate change impacts.  Pielke notes that this is flawed because:  

The current climate varies on timescales both greater and less than 30 years. The IPCC AR6 defines climate variability:

“Deviations of climate variables from a given mean state (including the occurrence of extremes, etc.) at all spatial and temporal scales beyond that of individual weather events. Variability may be intrinsic, due to fluctuations of processes internal to the climate system (internal variability), or extrinsic, due to variations in natural or anthropogenic external forcing (forced variability).”

Pielke’s post goes on to address the question “How near or far into the past does one need to go to adequately characterize a ‘current climate’?” to use as the baseline for a climate change comparison. He uses flood data for various periods to show how easy it is to find a “convincing” trend showing larger floods over time since 1897 consistent with the hypothesis that increased greenhouse gases are causing the increase based on the data used.  However, when data prior to 1897 Hirsch (2011) explain that:

. . . we get a very different and more complex picture. . . Now we would say that although there has been some increase in flood magnitudes over time, the pattern is no longer very consistent with a hypothesis that this is driven by greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere. The high values in the 19th Century are inconsistent with this hypothesis. In fact, one could put forward the argument that there are two populations of annual floods at this location. One is the population that spanned the years of about 1900 to 1941, and the other population existed before 1900 and after 1942. Without the benefit of the longer record, we could easily conclude that the data were highly supportive of a greenhouse-gas driven trend in flood magnitudes, but with it we find ourselves having to entertain other highly plausible hypotheses about an abruptly shifting population, with shifts that take place at time scales of many decades. The data do not negate the possibility that greenhouse forcing is a significant factor here, but they make it much more difficult to argue that these data provide a clear demonstration of the effect of enhanced greenhouse gas forcing on flood magnitudes.

Pielke goes on to describe how this issue affects the US government’s approach to flood policy.  He notes that a common application of flood risk fails to account for this problem.  This challenge has been long recognized by flood experts. Leslie Bond described this 20 years ago:

In the statistical estimation of a flood peak of a specific recurrence interval requires that all of the recorded peak flows be accurate and that the record be stable over the period of the record and the period for which the estimate is to be applied. That is, if there is a 50-year record of stream flow from 1931 through 1980, and you want a current estimate of the 1% flood to be valid for 30 years, the hydrology, the meteorology and the hydraulics must be stable from 1930 through 2034. In fact, we do not have sufficient historic rainfall data to be sure that the meteorology is stable, and few watersheds in the world are not changing as a result of urbanization, deforestation, agriculture, grazing or other causes.

Climate Act Implications

I have long-standing concerns about wind and solar resource availability.  The issues described by Pielke related to long-term weather observations are relevant to that problem.  It is obvious that we need to know the worst-case scenario for low wind and solar resource availability to determine how much long-term storage and/or some magical dispatchable emissions-free resource is needed to provide sufficient energy during resource droughts.  His references to floods are apropos because I believe we need to develop a probabilistic resource drought parameter equivalent to the 100-year flood. 

I have always believed that we should use as long a period of data as possible to determine that parameter.  These results complicate wind and solar-depending electrical system planning because it means even using the longest period of data may specify requirements incorrectly.  Also note that we apparently must worry about not just storage but also whatever weather conditions that cause extreme inertial frequency fluctuations that can lead to blackouts like in Spain.

My ultimate concern is that electrical planners currently base their reliability projections based on decades of experience with power plant outages that are uncorrelated.  They have a good handle on the failure probabilities and how much installed reserve capacity is needed as backup.  In the future the reliability requirements for wind and solar resource availability will be driven by weather that is fickler than plant shutdown variability.  In addition, this variability correlates over large areas so many of the wind and solar resources will behave the same. 

In my opinion, the likelihood of exceeding the planning parameters is much greater for a weather dependent electric system than today’s grid.  When everybody and everything possible is electrified, and the resource drought planning criteria are exceeded, the results will be catastrophic.

Conclusion

Pielke concludes:

A main reason why the IPCC has not achieved detection of trends in most measures of extreme weather events, and does not expect to this century, is the magnitude of expected trends — based on model projections — in the context of documented variability.

This does not mean that humans are not influencing the climate system or extreme events, or that such influences are not important. It certainly does not mean that we should forget about mitigation and adaptation policies.

What it does mean is that the climate is more variable than many appreciate. A quest to identify trends and ascribe causality to them should not obscure the fact that whatever role humans play in altering the climate, society needs to be robust to a much wider range of possibilities than we’ve observed.

Weather-dependent resources add reliability risks. There has been insufficient consideration of this risk and Pielke’s work indicates that there will be a wider range of possibilities than what we can estimate using available data.  This is another reason that we need to pause the Climate Act  implementation process.  It appears that if you want to decarbonize safely then nuclear power is the way to go because it removes these risks.

Spain and Portugal Blackout – Another Reason to Pause the Climate Act

I am very frustrated with the New York Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act) net zero transition because the reality is that there are so many issues coming up with the schedule and ambition of the Climate Act that it is obvious that we need to pause implementation and figure out how best to proceed.  This article explains that the ramifications of the recent blackout in Spain and Portugal need to be considered to ensure that the cause of the blackout is not a feature of all renewable-energy dependent electric systems.

I am convinced that implementation of the Climate Act net-zero mandates will do more harm than good because the proposed green energy programs are crimes against physics.  The energy density of wind and solar energy is too low and the resource intermittency too variable to ever support a reliable electric system relying on those resources. I have followed the Climate Act since it was first proposed, submitted comments on the Climate Act implementation plan, and have written over 500 articles about New York’s net-zero transition.  The opinions expressed in this article do not reflect the position of any of my previous employers or any other organization I have been associated with, these comments are mine alone.

Overview

The Climate Act established a New York “Net Zero” target (85% reduction in GHG emissions and 15% offset of emissions) by 2050.  It includes an interim target of a 100% zero-emissions electric system by 2040. The Climate Action Council (CAC) was responsible for preparing the Scoping Plan that outlined how to “achieve the State’s bold clean energy and climate agenda.”  After a year-long review, the Scoping Plan was finalized at the end of 2022.  Since then, the State has been trying to implement the Scoping Plan recommendations through regulations, proceedings, and legislation. 

In 2023 the New York Independent System Operator (NYISO) reports that solar capacity was 254 MW for utility scale facilities and 5,172 MW for behind-the-meter solar capacity.  NYISO data shows that the utility-scale capacity factor was only 16.6%.  The Scoping Plan Strategic Use of Low-Carbon Fuels scenario projects that 40,860 MW of total solar capacity will be needed to meet the 2040 zero-emissions target.  The report projects that solar will be 30% of the total capacity of New York.

Spain and Portugal Blackout – April 29,2025

Earlier this week there was a massive blackout that started in Spain.  According to Reuters:

At around 12:30 p.m. (1030 GMT), electricity generation in Spain dropped rapidly from around 27 gigawatts to just over 12 GW. The 15 GW loss was equivalent to 10% of Spain’s total installed capacity.

The sudden drop in grid load destabilized electricity flows, which require an extremely stable frequency of 50 Hertz to maintain supply. This, in turn caused a break in the Spanish and French electricity interconnection that goes through the Pyrenees mountains, resulting in the total collapse of the Spanish power system.

Spain exports electricity to Portugal, so the collapse of power in Spain quickly spread throughout the Iberian Peninsula. Some areas in France also suffered brief outages on Monday.

The blackout in Spain is projected to cost 2-4 billion euros.  It is imperative to figure out what caused it.  Currently there hasn’t been any definitive explanation.  Nonetheless, there are reasons tp believe that it could have been caused by Spain’s reliance on wind and solar.

Potential Causes Related to Wind and Solar

Net Zero Watch described a potential problem:.   

Grid analysts have suggested a high likelihood that the extent of yesterday’s blackout in Iberia was a result of the Spanish grid operating almost entirely on renewables at the time. The stability of power grids depends on so-called ‘inertia’, a resistance to rapid change that is an inherent feature of large spinning turbines, such as gas-fired power stations, but not of wind and solar farms. Too much renewables capacity on a grid can therefore mean inadequate inertia. As a result, in grids dominated by wind and solar, faults can propagate almost instantaneously across grids, leading to blackouts.

In a recent Net Zero Watch paper, entitled Blackout Risk in the Great Britan Grid, energy system analyst Kathyn Porter pointed out that the Great Britain electricity system is becoming increasingly unstable. “Large fluctuations in grid frequency – the first sign of problems – are becoming much more common”.  This has not been observed in New York, yet.

Richard Ellenbogen sent an email with more information.  He explained:

While the exact cause of the blackout is uncertain, both Spain and Portugal have become heavily reliant on renewables.  The power loss was caused by the sudden disappearance of 15 GW of generation for five seconds. To understand the scale of the problem, the five nuclear power plants in Spain have a combined installed capacity of 7.4 GW. 

There is a reliability criterion in New York that boils down to keeping enough generation capacity online and available to that if the largest source of power trips offline that the spare capacity can replace it easily.  If we have to worry about all the solar going offline this quickly there is a huge challenge to resolve.  Ellenbogen explained that a few minutes before the blackout, 60% of Spain’s energy was coming from solar.  He also quoted an article by Robert Bryce:

The best explanation of grid inertia and its importance was published in 2016 by University of Queensland professor Simon Bartlett. In a paper written for the Energy Policy Institute of Australia, “The ‘Pressure Cooker’ Effect of Intermittent Renewable Generation on Power Systems,” Bartlett declared that the “practical upper limit for renewables is around 40% of total electricity generated.” He continued, “The scale-up of intermittent renewables not only diminishes the robustness of a particular power system but can also magnify the short and long-term risk of investing in non-renewable generation assets and the power grid itself.”

Ellenbogen also provided a link that provides an explanation about utility frequency issues for anyone that wants to read further.

Discussion

Ellenbogen closed his email with the thought that “with all of the investment that has been made in their renewable infrastructure, will we see a realistic report from the Spanish utility?  An article in Reuters by Ron Bousso titled “Don’t blame renewables for Spain’s power outage” supports Ellenbogen’s concern that advocates for renewables are too invested in them to admit their proposed use may be irretrievably flawed. The article opens:

While it may be tempting to blame the unprecedented power outage that hit the Iberian peninsula this week on the rapid growth of wind and solar power in Spain, reliance on renewables is not to blame. Rather, the issue appears to be the management of renewables in the modern grid.

I love this.  We don’t know what happened, but he claims it could not have been the renewables.  This was followed by the description of what occurred that I quoted earlier.  The next section noted that the “cause of the initial drop that led to the catastrophic cascade of events is unclear, though a collapse in Spain’s solar power system was certainly involved.”  At least he admits that the solar power system was “certainly involved”.  Bousso notes:

One possible contributor is the lack of so-called ‘grid inertia’ as a result of the relatively small share of nuclear and fossil fuel generation in Spain’s power mix.

Inverter-based wind and solar power, which generated just under 70% of Spain’s total electricity at the critical moment on Monday, does not involve physical rotation and therefore inertia could not compensate for the sudden loss of power.

What grid management of renewables in the modern grid is possible?  His short-term solution?  “An obvious short-term solution to avoid a repeat of the blackout would be to maintain a higher baseload of rotating power generation.”  The current generation payment system that gives solar and wind power preferential treatment means that wholesale changes to the payment system would have to be implemented. Furthermore, if we must keep enough rotating power generation on-line to cover the sudden loss of all wind and solar due, then it begs the question why we just don’t use those resources and skip the charade of green energy.

His long-term solution is batteries:

Over the long term, however, power systems will need to invest heavily in battery capacity to store electricity as well as technologies for synchronising the grid that are critical to maintaining the 50 Hz frequency. In theory, this should be doable, as battery costs have declined sharply in recent years and are being deployed at scale around the world.

There is a critical caveat that is glossed over when he says “this should be doable”.  One of the poorly understood aspects of inverter-based resources like wind and solar is the energy management systems in the inverters.  It is beyond my experience to explain but the experts that I have talked to about this note that distinguishing between a problem with the equipment that requires a shutdown to protect the equipment and a grid problem that requires the system to stay on and support the system is no easy task.  It gets worse when you consider that there are behind-the-meter resources like residential solar that cannot be expected to have sophisticated energy management systems.  The other aspect is the cost:

But all this would still require heavy investment. While spending on new solar capacity reached around $500 billion last year, investment in grids was only at around $400 billion, becoming bottlenecks for the energy transition, according to the International Energy Agency.

Professor Simon Bartlett declared that the “practical upper limit for renewables is around 40% of total electricity generated. The New York Scoping Plan projects that in 2040 solar capacity will be 40,860 MW, onshore wind 13,096 MW, and offshore wind 13,484 MW so the renewable total is 67,440 MW.  The question is whether the Scoping Plan analysis capped the amount of wind and solar output at any one time at 40%.  I doubt it but this is a nuance that cannot be answered by looking at the impenetrable Scoping Plan documentation.  Clearly this is another reason to pause implementation because now we know that this can be a billion-dollar risk and we don’t know how the Scoping Plan or for that matter the NYISO analyses addressed it.

Conclusion

In the coming months the green energy apologists will be saying that it is unfair to blame renewables for Spain’s power outage.  My first observation is that it would be incredibly insulting to the public to say that renewables were not the original cause of the problem.  The question is whether an electric system can be designed and operated to address this problem.  I have the utmost respect for electric system planners and their ability to design the system to address known problems.  However, given the complexity of the electric generating and transmission system I do not think that they can anticipate every potential problem that could cause a blackout.  Another important consideration is whether the proposed New York electric system has incorporated features that would preclude the observed problem from happening here when we become as dependent upon inverter-based resources.

This is another reason to pause the Climate Act implementation.  We simply don’t know if the proposed zero-emissions system that relies so much on wind and solar will work.  If New York decides that the future electric system must be zero-emissions and it turns out that no more than 40% of the power at any time can come from wind and solar, then the only viable approach is nuclear power. Nuclear replace can replace renewables, eliminate the need for a massive backup resource to address this problem, and provide an electric system that we know can maintain current standards of reliability.  Therefore, it would be prudent to pause renewable development until this issue is resolved because nuclear generation may be the only viable path to zero emissions.

Wind Energy Reasons to Pause

I am very frustrated with the New York Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act) net zero transition because the reality is that there are so many issues coming up with the schedule and ambition of the Climate Act that it is obvious that we need to pause implementation and figure out how best to proceed.  This article describes reasons to pause implementation associated with wind energy deployment.

I am convinced that implementation of the Climate Act net-zero mandates will do more harm than good because the proposed green energy programs are crimes against physics.  The energy density of wind and solar energy is too low and the resource intermittency too variable to ever support a reliable electric system relying on those resources. I have followed the Climate Act since it was first proposed, submitted comments on the Climate Act implementation plan, and have written over 500 articles about New York’s net-zero transition.  The opinions expressed in this article do not reflect the position of any of my previous employers or any other organization I have been associated with, these comments are mine alone.

Overview

The Climate Act established a New York “Net Zero” target (85% reduction in GHG emissions and 15% offset of emissions) by 2050.  It includes an interim reduction target of a 40% GHG reduction by 2030. The Climate Action Council (CAC) was responsible for preparing the Scoping Plan that outlined how to “achieve the State’s bold clean energy and climate agenda.”  After a year-long review, the Scoping Plan was finalized at the end of 2022.  Since then, the State has been trying to implement the Scoping Plan recommendations through regulations, proceedings, and legislation. 

The Scoping Plan Strategic Use of Low-Carbon Fuels scenario projects that 13,096 MW of onshore wind and 13,484 MW of offshore wind will be needed for the electric system to be “zero emissions” in 2040.  If the onshore wind turbines are like the Alle-Catt 340 MW project that has 117 turbines, then each turbine will be 2.9 MW and 4,516 turbines will be needed.  If the offshore wind turbines are similar to the Empire Wind project that proposes 15 MW turbines then  899 offshore turbines will be needed.

This post describes problems with wind energy in recent articles.

Wind Curtailment

Parker Gallant keeps track of wind energy production in Ontario and the problem of what to do with excess wind energy when the production from Ontario exceeds the load.  The current strategy is to dump the excess power into Quebec, New York, and Michigan at a low price which has short-term consumer benefits to those jurisdictions.  However, Gallant has documented that through 4/20/25 dumping the excess wind and solar energy has cost Ontario taxpayers and ratepayers $64 million.  On April 21 the total bill was another $12,3 million.  On April 26, the total for the month had reached $101 million which is about $20 per Ontario household.

He explains what happened on April 21:

Even though our Peak Hour was a little bit higher reaching 16,250 MW at Hour 20 we still didn’t need what the IWT and solar were generating so IESO were selling it for deep discounts to our neighbours as the average HOEP (hourly Ontario energy price) was a piddly $17.80/MWh (1.8 cents/kwh). IESO had forecast those IWT would generate 88,811 MW (75.5% of capacity) but only accepted 81,846 MW meaning they curtailed 7,000 MW which we paid for. Solar generation was small (not much sun) and generated only 1,326 MW! IESO’s intertie data indicates they sold 89,574 MW to our neighbours which means we Ontario ratepayers and taxpayers ate $12.3 million of their respective costs along with a few dollars for the other exported power which probably was baseload nuclear and hydro!

This is another reason to pause the implementation because in 2040 when there are over 5400 wind turbines running, we will have the same problem.  I must believe that the problem will get worse for Ontario because they at least got paid something but, in the future, when our turbines are producing too much we will not be a market so they will just have to eat the curtailment costs.  When our neighbors install their turbines, then we will have to eat our costs too.  How is this supposed to work for New York ratepayers?

European Experience

Tallbloke’s Talkshop poses the renewables question whether “endless subsidies for a so-called ‘energy transition’ are affordable for those forced to cover the costs, especially when the things being subsidised are creating daily problems for electricity supply and grid stability due to the erratic nature of the technology?  He describes an article in the Europe section of an OilPrice.com opinion piece that addresses the question.

Certainly, there are plenty of industries that rely on state subsidies, but how many of these, it’s worth asking, rely on these subsidies for their very survival?

The answer is inconvenient for the transition lobby. These are the only industries that literally cannot survive without massive and consistent state financial support. And that essentially makes them unviable in a natural market environment.

For recent proof, look no further than Europe. There is no anti-transition government in Europe. There is no Trump or anything like him at the helm of any European country. And yet it was in Europe that the chief executive of Danish Ørsted insisted that the government step up their financial support for the offshore wind industry to ensure its survival.

As reported by the Financial Times, which spoke to Rasmus Erbroe, “European capitals to commit to consistent annual support for the industry in order to meet offshore wind targets and help reverse rising costs.”

“If you want to deliver on energy security, energy independence, affordability for Europe for the coming decades and meet the targets, then we need to make this change,” the executive said, quite likely believing every word that came out of his mouth was the holy truth. In fact, there is nothing affordable about an energy that cannot absorb its own costs and turn in a profit without government guarantees of that profit.

Surely the question whether wind energy can ever turn a profit without government guarantees of that profit is a valid question that needs to be addressed before New York squanders more money on this technology.

Wake Physics

I described the Scoping Plan projections for wind energy earlier in this article.  Those are underestimates because the projections for the expected annual output are too optimistic.  In other words, if reasonable estimates were used then even more wind turbines would be needed.  Pierre Gosselin describes another nuance that could affect the number of turbines needed.  Klimanachrichten explains that wakes from upwind turbines reduces the output of downwind turbines.  He notes:

The expansion of offshore wind energy in the North Sea is a central component of the European energy transition. However, two of the biggest players in the industry are now warning of negative effects: Ørsted and Equinor have jointly calculated that the planned 1.5 gigawatt wind farm ‘Outer Dowsing’ could cause significant so-called wake losses. These are yield losses that occur when the wind is weakened by upstream wind farms, causing downstream turbines to produce less electricity.

This might be included in the Scoping Plan, but the documentation is so poor that it is impossible to know.  If I had to bet then I would bet the ranch that this nuance is not included.

Ultimate Problem

Regular readers of this blog are undoubtedly tired of me constantly whining about the insurmountable challenges associated with extended periods of extended periods of light winds.  Chris Morrison describes notes that in the first quarter of 2025 “low levels of renewable generation and high demand drove gas-fired power production to its highest level since 2021”.  He continues:

But this gas rescue act came at a large cost since Britain’s increasingly unstable electricity supply, which provides some of the highest prices in the world, showed wild cost swings in windless days in January. On at least two freezing winter days, wind production was more-or-less zero. Not untypical winter weather conditions also saw the sun fail to shine for a number of consecutive days. Some periods saw the wholesale peak-time electricity price top £160 per megawatt hour ((MWh). On January 8th, when winter high pressure stopped the wind blowing across the UK, the wholesale price soared to £300 MWh, while the sophisticated clearing price needed to balance the non-storable supply with instant demand soared to £2,900 MWh.

Rafe Champion agrees with my concern.  He recently wrote:

The wind and solar system is vulnerable to wind droughts. It is not entirely fanciful to plan a book titled How Wind Droughts Almost Destroyed Civilisation based on these articles: The late discovery of wind droughts, We have to talk about wind droughts, and The “wind drought trap.”

The Scoping Plan analyses were not sophisticated enough to incorporate these costs into their projections.  So this massive problem was downplayed by the Climate Action Council.

Killing Eagles

I recently received an email about a seminar addressing bird kills associated with wind turbines.  Proponents argue that wind turbines kill only “a fraction as many as are killed by house cats, buildings, or even the fossil fuel operations that wind farms replace.”  Of course, when asked about raptor kills there is no response.  David Wojick continues his great coverage of the impacts of wind turbines on eagles with a post about eagle kill offset rules.    He explains the problem:

Every operating wind power facility has a US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) permit to kill eagles on an ongoing basis and many do kill eagles. Each permit depends on eagle-kill offset rules which appear to be false. If so then the killing is illegal, a violation of the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act.

The eagle kill offset rules are not protecting eagles.  This is another unacknowledged issue in the Scoping Plan.

Accountability for Wind Farms in France

There was an encouraging article.  A court in France took action when an eagle was killed:

The recent shutdown of the Bernagues wind farm in Hérault, France, marks a long-overdue reckoning with the lethal impacts of wind energy on wildlife—particularly raptors like the golden eagle. On April 9, 2025, a French court ordered the entire site to cease operations for one year following the confirmed death of a golden eagle, a protected species, that collided with one of the farm’s turbine blades in January 2023. The decision also slapped Energie Renouvelable du Languedoc (ERL), the farm’s operator, with a €200,000 fine, half of which was suspended, and imposed an additional €40,000 fine on the company’s director.

I don’t think that it is very likely that a New York judge would take such an action.  Nor do I expect that the Department of Environmental Conservation to step up until it has become obvious that 5,000 wind turbines could destroy the comeback of the Bald Eagle in New York State and by then it would probably be too late.

Breaking the Law in the US

Unfortunately in the United States the Federal government has been charging ahead with offshore wind development and it is not clear that they are following the law. 

The Save the Right Whales Coalition has joined legal challenges to the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management’s (BOEM) approval of the Vineyard Wind 1 project and ten other offshore wind facilities. In a newly filed amicus brief, SRWC argues that BOEM broke federal law by rewriting statutory language, bypassing public rulemaking, and using compensation to justify harm — all to advance offshore wind at any cost.

Despite the offshore wind advocates arguments that the massive development of offshore wind will not affect the endangered Right Whale, I believe that it will.  There are just too many potential impacts that will accumulate and overwhelm the few whales left.

Conclusion

Evidence continues to mount that issues associated with every component of the Climate Act transition plan are so great that a pause to re-assess the plan is necessary.  New York Public Service Law  § 66-p (4). “Establishment of a renewable energy program” includes safety valve conditions for affordability and reliability that are directly related to wind energy deployment.  The failure of the Hochul Administration to establish criteria for those safety vales and provide public tracking of the status must be corrected before implementation proceeds.

Personal Comments on National Grid Long-Term Gas System Plan Report

The New York Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act) net zero transition has unleashed an avalanche of Public Service Commission (PSC) proceedings.  I submitted comments on Case 24-G-0248 Review of the Long-Term Gas System Plan for National Grid because they provide the natural gas I use for heating, cooking hot water, and my backup generator.  There are so many issues coming up with the schedule and ambition of the Climate Act that it is obvious that we need to pause implementation and figure out how best to proceed.  The National Grid Long-Term Plan (“LT Plan”) is a perfect example of a component that should be paused.

I am convinced that implementation of the Climate Act net-zero mandates will do more harm than good because the proposed green energy programs are crimes against physics.  The energy density of wind and solar energy is too low and the resource intermittency too variable to ever support a reliable electric system relying on those resources. If this reality is not acknowledged soon and these policies paused, then the enormous costs of this futile gesture to control the climate will bankrupt the state. 

I have followed the Climate Act since it was first proposed, submitted comments on the Climate Act implementation plan, and have written over 500 articles about New York’s net-zero transition.  The opinions expressed in this article do not reflect the position of any of my previous employers or any other organization I have been associated with, these comments are mine alone.

Overview

The Climate Act established a New York “Net Zero” target (85% reduction in GHG emissions and 15% offset of emissions) by 2050.  It includes an interim reduction target of a 40% GHG reduction by 2030. The Climate Action Council (CAC) was responsible for preparing the Scoping Plan that outlined how to “achieve the State’s bold clean energy and climate agenda.”  After a year-long review, the Scoping Plan was finalized at the end of 2022.  Since then, the State has been trying to implement the Scoping Plan recommendations through regulations, proceedings, and legislation. 

I submitted comments on the LT Plan as a National Grid customer who relies on natural gas to provide affordable, reliable and resilient energy to my home.  My comments showed that there is insufficient consideration of the enormous challenge of the Climate Act transition to a zero-emissions energy system in the LT Plan.  I also included a technical comment on the incorrect calculation of the societal cost calculation of avoided GHG emissions.

Safety Valve Criteria

I believe it is premature to implement the transition plan outlined in the LT Plan until metrics for affordability and reliability are established.  The LT Plan does not acknowledge the safety valve requirements in New York Public Service Law  § 66-p (4). “Establishment of a renewable energy program”.   Section 66-p (4) states: “The commission may temporarily suspend or modify the obligations under such program provided that the commission, after conducting a hearing as provided in section twenty of this chapter, makes a finding that the program impedes the provision of safe and adequate electric service; the program is likely to impair existing obligations and agreements; and/or that there is a significant increase in arrears or service disconnections that the commission determines is related to the program”. 

I believe that as part of the Scoping Plan process the Climate Action Council should have developed criteria for the Public Service Law affordability and reliability mandates in Public Service Law Section 66-p (4).  That did not happen, so it is incumbent upon the Commission to define “safe and adequate electric service” and “significant increase in arrears or service disconnections” before the LT Plan is implemented.  It is irresponsible to begin replacing the existing resilient, reliable and affordable natural gas system without assurances that New York has a viable zero emissions electric system transition plan.

Reliability

I am particularly concerned about reliability.  I moved to Liverpool, NY in June 1981 and lived through two extended electricity outages: the Labor Day storm of 1998 and an ice storm in April 2003.  I have never had a natural gas outage since 1981.  As I write this there are still electric over 3,000 customers in Michigan in the dark after an ice storm 17 days ago.  Keeping the heat on in cold weather is a life and death requirement and natural gas is a resilient resource.  During our ice storm I relied on the natural gas-fired furnace, stove, and hot water using a portable generator to provide power.  Because of this concern, I have installed a whole-house generator so that I can survive when another ice storm inevitably occurs.

The LT Plan does not mention that the replacement of natural gas with electric systems will be viable only if the electric system is reliable.  As noted above, there are electricity deliverability issues associated with extreme weather events that are not present with natural gas delivery.  The biggest unacknowledged reliability risk associated with glacial pace of agency progress is addressed in Case 15-E-0302 – Proceeding on Motion of the Commission to Implement a Large-Scale Renewable Program and Clean Energy Standard.  New York agencies all agree that new Dispatchable Emissions-Free Resource (DEFR) technologies are needed to make a solar and wind-reliant electric energy system viable during extended periods of low wind and solar resource availability.  Case 15-E-0302 is supposed to address this technology because no such technology is currently available.  I believe the only likely viable DEFR backup technology is nuclear generation despite its shortcomings because it is the only candidate resource that is technologically ready, can be expanded as needed, and does not suffer from limitations of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

My comments  described inherent weather variability planning risks associated with non-nuclear DEFR technology that is problematic as long as New York continues to champion an electric system dependent upon wind and solar resources.  It is necessary to determine how much DEFR capacity is needed for wind and solar resource lulls using as long record of weather data as possible.  That has not been done and there is nothing in place for it yet, but analyses done to date suggest that resource capacity equivalent to existing fossil resources will be needed.  I used information from my recent post on the assessment of extreme renewable resource lulls to comment on other issues that need to be resolved before the LT Plan is implemented.

Affordability

One advantage of developing comments is that I can use my articles as source material.  In this instance my comments raised affordability issues that were included in a recently submitted a letter in relation to Public Service Commission (PSC) Proceeding 22-M-0149 “Assessing Implementation of and Compliance with the Requirements and Targets of the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act” regarding an affordability standard.  I described those comments in this post. 

I did some original work for my comments about costs.  It was a holy crap moment when I found the projected costs in the LT Plan for three scenarios.  The scenarios include a reference case, CEV or “clean energy vision”, and AE or “accelerated electrification”.  The 2030 average monthly increase for National Grid customers in the former Niagara Mohawk service territory ranges from a 50% increase to a 96% increase.  The 2030 average monthly increase for National Grid customers in the former Brooklyn Union Gas service territory ranges from a 65% increase to a 148% increase.  The 2030 average monthly increase for National Grid customers in the former Key Span service territory on Long Island ranges from a 41% increase to a 90% increase.

Table 12-11: Niagara Mohawk Bill Impacts by Scenario

Table 12-12: Brooklyn Union Gas Company Bill Impacts by Scenario

Table 12-13: KeySpan Gas (LILCO) Bill Impacts by Scenario

It is inconceivable that those costs when combined with similar increases in electric costs will not result in a significant increase in arrears or service disconnections that exceeds the Public Service Law Section 66-p (4) safety valve.  It is long overdue for National Grid and the PSC to acknowledge these costs to ratepayers and for the PSC recognize that its mission to ensure “affordable, safe, secure, and reliable access” to electric and gas services is incompatible with the Climate Act mandates.

The DEFR requirement and weather variability risk described in the previous section also have affordability implications.   Until a DEFR strategy is proposed we have no idea how much this will all cost so any claims that the Climate Act will be “affordable” are incomplete.  Because any DEFR backup resource will be used so little and will be so expensive there will be inevitable tradeoff considerations for the rarely used backup resource.  The result will be pressure to minimize the costs associated with DEFR backup capacity which will increase the probability of a catastrophic blackout.  If natural gas has been shut off the blackout effects will be exacerbated.

Societal Cost Test (“SCT”)

I also included a technical comment on the incorrect calculation of the societal cost calculation of avoided GHG emissions.

I believe the SCT methodology over-estimates the benefits of the societal impacts of greenhouse gas emissions.  As far as I can tell, the National Grid Long-Term Gas System Plan report calculates the societal benefits based on avoided emissions. I believe the reference to “avoided” emissions means that the emission reductions for the different scenarios are accumulated out to a specific date.  I also evaluated the latest NYS GJG emissions inventory and found that the New York State total GHG emissions from the buildings and industry sectors were 84.5 million metric tons in 2021.  In that year the NYSERDA Patterns and Trends report showed that National Grid sold roughly half the natural gas in New York.  Based on that I assume that National Grid emitted 42.2 million metric tons in 2021.  Table 8-8: GHG Emissions Reductions by Scenario and Operating Company in the LT Report lists emissions ranging from 223.8 to 1,239 million metric tons which far exceeds the observed 2021 emissions.

Calculations of avoided emissions benefits consider reductions over some time frame.  It is inappropriate to claim the benefits of an annual reduction of a ton of greenhouse gas over any lifetime or to compare it with lifetime avoided emissions.  The value of a GHG emission reduction is based on all the damage predicted to occur from the year that the ton of carbon is reduced out to 2300.  The correct societal benefit can be no more than the current GHG emissions times the social cost of carbon.  Clearly, using cumulative values for this parameter is incorrect because it counts those values over and over. That is equivalent to me saying I lost 25 pounds because I lost 5 pounds five years ago and kept it off.  I contacted social cost of carbon expert Dr. Richard Tol about my interpretation of the use of lifetime savings and he confirmed that “The SCC should not be compared to life-time savings or life-time costs (unless the project life is one year)”. 

Conclusion

National Grid has developed a long-term plan to replace natural gas with electricity. The projected costs are enormous and the benefits overstated.    The plan does not acknowledge that this is a safe and viable approach only if the future electric system is reliable.  In my opinion, the feasibility of a reliable electric system that relies on wind and solar has not been proven.  The Scoping Plan zero emissions electric system needs a new resource, we don’t know how much of that resource is needed, what it will be, or how much it will cost.

I concluded that it is imprudent for the Commission and National Grid to continue this long-term plan to eliminate natural gas until the affordability and reliability mandates in Public Service Law Section 66-p (4) are defined and evaluated.  I have no doubts that the mandated evaluation will find that the Climate Act impedes the provision of safe and adequate electric service and will cause a significant increase in arrears or service disconnections that result in suspension or modification of the Climate Act mandates including the long-term shutdown of the natural gas system.  It is therefore irresponsible to begin the replacement of the existing resilient, reliable and affordable natural gas system until New York has a viable zero-emissions electric system available.  The LT Plan should acknowledge this prerequisite to implementation.

Conclusion

National Grid has developed a long-term plan to replace natural gas with electricity.  Their plan does not acknowledge that this is a safe and viable approach only if the future electric system is reliable.  In my opinion, the feasibility of a wind and solar dependent electric system has not been proven.  The Scoping Plan zero emissions electric system needs a new resource, we don’t know how much of that resource is needed, what it will be, or how much it will cost, and that whatever we do eventually it won’t be enough so people will die in a catastrophic blackout. 

It is imprudent for the Commission and National Grid to continue this long-term plan to eliminate natural gas until the affordability and reliability mandates in Public Service Law Section 66-p (4) are defined and evaluated.  I have no doubts that the mandated evaluation will find that the Climate Act impedes the provision of safe and adequate electric service and will cause a significant increase in arrears or service disconnections that result in suspension or modification of the Climate Act mandates including the long-term shutdown of the natural gas system.  It is therefore irresponsible to begin the replacement of the existing resilient, reliable and affordable natural gas system until New York has a viable zero-emissions electric system available.  The LT Plan should acknowledge this prerequisite to implementation.

More Reasons to Pause Climate Act Implementation April 16 2025 Edition

I am very frustrated with the New York Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act) net zero transition because the reality is that there are so many issues coming up with the schedule and ambition of the Climate Act that it is obvious that we need to pause implementation and figure out how best to proceed.  This article describes additional reasons to pause implementation.

I am convinced that implementation of the Climate Act net-zero mandates will do more harm than good because the proposed green energy programs are crimes against physics.  The energy density of wind and solar energy is too low and the resource intermittency too variable to ever support a reliable electric system relying on those resources. If this reality is not acknowledged soon and these policies paused, then the enormous costs of this futile gesture to control the climate will bankrupt the state. 

I have followed the Climate Act since it was first proposed, submitted comments on the Climate Act implementation plan, and have written over 500 articles about New York’s net-zero transition.  The opinions expressed in this article do not reflect the position of any of my previous employers or any other organization I have been associated with, these comments are mine alone.

Overview

The Climate Act established a New York “Net Zero” target (85% reduction in GHG emissions and 15% offset of emissions) by 2050.  It includes an interim reduction target of a 40% GHG reduction by 2030. The Climate Action Council (CAC) was responsible for preparing the Scoping Plan that outlined how to “achieve the State’s bold clean energy and climate agenda.”  After a year-long review, the Scoping Plan was finalized at the end of 2022.  Since then, the State has been trying to implement the Scoping Plan recommendations through regulations, proceedings, and legislation. 

Protecting American Energy from State Overreach

On April 8 President Trump issued an Executive Order protecting American energy from state overreach.   The purpose of the order: “My Administration is committed to unleashing American energy, especially through the removal of all illegitimate impediments to the identification, development, siting, production, investment in, or use of domestic energy resources — particularly oil, natural gas, coal, hydropower, geothermal, biofuel, critical mineral, and nuclear energy resources.”

New York earned a specific callout:

Many States have enacted, or are in the process of enacting, burdensome and ideologically motivated “climate change” or energy policies that threaten American energy dominance and our economic and national security.  New York, for example, enacted a “climate change” extortion law that seeks to retroactively impose billions in fines (erroneously labelled “compensatory payments”) on traditional energy producers for their purported past contributions to greenhouse gas emissions not only in New York but also anywhere in the United States and the world.  

But wait there’s more.  Trump implicitly addresses New York’s carbon taxation cap and invest plan:

Other States have taken different approaches in an effort to dictate national energy policy.  California, for example, punishes carbon use by adopting impossible caps on the amount of carbon businesses may use, all but forcing businesses to pay large sums to “trade” carbon credits to meet California’s radical requirements.  Some States delay review of permit applications to produce energy, creating de facto barriers to entry in the energy market.

The first section ends with this: “These State laws and policies are fundamentally irreconcilable with my Administration’s objective to unleash American energy.  They should not stand.”

Section 2 starts with this:

State Laws and Causes of Action.  

  • The Attorney General, in consultation with the heads of appropriate executive departments and agencies, shall identify all State and local laws, regulations, causes of action, policies, and practices (collectively, State laws) burdening the identification, development, siting, production, or use of domestic energy resources that are or may be unconstitutional, preempted by Federal law, or otherwise unenforceable.  The Attorney General shall prioritize the identification of any such State laws purporting to address “climate change” or involving “environmental, social, and governance” initiatives, “environmental justice,” carbon or “greenhouse gas” emissions, and funds to collect carbon penalties or carbon taxes.
  • The Attorney General shall expeditiously take all appropriate action to stop the enforcement of State laws and continuation of civil actions identified in subsection (a) of this section that the Attorney General determines to be illegal. 

That section also notes that the report from the Attorney General is due in 60 days.  I imagine that the report will prominently feature New York’ Climate Act as impeding American energy.  I think even the fanatics in the Hochul Administration are realizing that Climate Act implementation is going to be ruinously expensive even if it works and there are signs that it won’t.  However, admitting this will open the Administration to attacks that they are not trying hard enough.  What better excuse to pause than to blame this Trump Executive Order?

Electric Vehicle Mandates are Failing

Paul Homewood at Not a Lot of People Know That published three recent articles describing the progress of electric vehicle mandates in Great Britain.  There are no encouraging signs that it is working.

In the first article he documents that the electric vehicle (EV) sales figures are lower than the mandates. 

The second article notes that the EV costs are not coming down as projected which no doubt contributes to the poor sales.  He concludes with a note describing the government’s long awaited announcement of the new plans to rollout EVs.  He notes: “But strip away the waffle, greenwash and gaslighting, and we are left with rearranging to deckchairs on the Titanic to a higher deck, so that they don’t sink below the waves quite as soon!”

There is no way that the EV projections and rollout will be any different in New York.

Green Energy Jobs

Proponents of the Climate Act claim that the investments in green energy are creating new economic activity in New York.  The 2024 Clean Energy Industry Report claims in a factsheet that “New York’s clean energy industry gained 7,700 jobs between 2022 and 2023”.  I recently ran across a well-documented post by JoNova that suggests that this claim is a biased assessment:

It’s not rocket science. If energy costs more, that means we have to make do with less of it, or make do with less of something else. Thus if the government forces everyone to pay more for electricity, companies have less spare cash to employ people. Their margins are tighter, they can’t make and sell as many products. So when we are told the clean energy revolution is creating jobs, is it virtually self-evident that’s a mythical fairy claim.

Her article quotes analyses that show that each green job in Britain costs £100,000 (and 3.7 other jobs); in Spain for every green job created 2.2 jobs were lost; in Italy, each green job cost 5 jobs from the rest of the economy; in Germany, the subsidies far exceed the wages of the jobs created; and in Denmark wind power reduces the GDP.  If there is a full accounting of the costs of the Climate Act provided we will be able to calculate the cost per job created.  I doubt that New York will perform any better than the European countries when a final job accounting is completed.  

Pausing to assess whether the job benefits are real is not the only jobs-related issue.  The bigger problem is that the work needed relies on skilled tradespeople and there simply are not enough available to do what needs to be done.

Necessity for Nuclear Challenge

I have frequently written about the dispatchable emissions free resource (DEFR) necessary to keep the lights on during extended periods of low wind and solar resource availability in the Scoping Plan proposed electric system.   One major problem is that there are no commercially available DEFR resources.  I think the most promising DEFR backup technology is nuclear generation because it is the only candidate resource that is technologically ready, can be expanded as needed and does not suffer from limitations of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. However, it is not really ready to fulfill New York’s needs.

Ted Nordhaus describes the issues that the nuclear industry has to overcome before we can deploy it in New York effectively: “Rebooting the US nuclear sector for the 21st century is a hard problem in the face of an ossified industry, an overbearing and underprepared regulator, liberalized electricity markets that are ill-suited to investing in large public works projects, and competition from both cheap gas and a mature, subsidized renewables industry.”

Clearly it would be prudent to pause renewable development until DEFR feasibility is proven because nuclear generation may be the only viable path to zero emissions and that will not be ready to deploy as needed to meet the aspirational Climate Act schedule..

There is No Existential Threat from Climate Change

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

I am convinced that implementation of the New York Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act) net-zero mandates will do more harm than good if the future electric system relies only on wind, solar, and energy storage because of reliability and affordability risks.  I have followed the Climate Act since it was first proposed, submitted comments on the Climate Act implementation plan, and have written over 500 articles about New York’s net-zero transition.  I also am an air pollution meteorologist with bachelor and master of science degrees in meteorology and was a Certified Consulting Meteorologist before I retired with nearly 50 years of experience. The opinions expressed in this article do not reflect the position of any of my previous employers or any other organization I have been associated with, these comments are mine alone.

Overview

The Climate Act established a New York “Net Zero” target (85% reduction in GHG emissions and 15% offset of emissions) by 2050.  The Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act Section 1. Legislative findings and declaration, subsection 3 defines the alleged threat and goal: “Action undertaken by New York to reduce greenhouse emissions will have an impact on global greenhouse gas emissions and the rate of climate change.”  I have tried to argue against this point many times, but I think Watts has provided a concise well-documented case that the basic premise that New York can have an effect on the rate of climate change is misplaced.

Is Climate Change Real?

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

1. The Basics: Climate Does Change

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Natural Variability: The Elephant in the Room

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

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

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

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

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

4. The CO₂ Connection: Overstated?

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

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

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

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

5. Are We in a Crisis?

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

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

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

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

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

Bottom Line

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

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

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

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

JP Morgan Energy Study and the Climate Act

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

I am convinced that implementation of the New York Climate Act net-zero mandates will do more harm than good if the future electric system relies only on wind, solar, and energy storage because of reliability and affordability risks.  I have followed the Climate Act since it was first proposed, submitted comments on the Climate Act implementation plan, and have written over 500 articles about New York’s net-zero transition.  The opinions expressed in this article do not reflect the position of any of my previous employers or any other organization I have been associated with, these comments are mine alone.

Background

The Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act) established a New York “Net Zero” target (85% reduction in GHG emissions and 15% offset of emissions) by 2050. The Climate Action Council (CAC) was responsible for preparing the Scoping Plan that outlined how to “achieve the State’s bold clean energy and climate agenda.” The Integration Analysis prepared by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) and its consultants quantified the impact of the electrification strategies.  After a year-long review, the Scoping Plan was finalized at the end of 2022.

Orr and Rolling introduce their post:

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

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

Takeaways

Wind and solar prices continue to rise. 

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

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

Battery costs are coming down

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

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

US Transmission Line Growth is far below DOE Targets

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

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

Wind and solar do not replace reliable capacity

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

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

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

MISO and PJM Are Concerned About Reliability

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

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

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

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

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

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

High Electricity Prices Impede Electrification

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

The JPMC report states:

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

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

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

Green Deindustrialization Continues Apace in Europe

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

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

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

Grim Realities for the Green Hydrogen Hype Train

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

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

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

According to the report:

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

Orr and Rolling conclude:

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

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