Category: NY Climate & Community Protection Act

On July 18, 2019 New York Governor Andrew Cuomo signed the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA), which establishes targets for decreasing greenhouse gas emissions, increasing renewable electricity production, and improving energy efficiency.  This post addresses fundamental concerns raised about the CLCPA technology requirements and the framing of those concerns to the policy makers.

I am following the CLCPA closely because its implementation affects my future as a New Yorker.  Policy makers are trying to choose between many expensive policy options to meet the CLCPA targets while at the same time attempting to understand which one (or what mix) will be the least expensive and have the fewest negative impacts on the existing system. If they make a good pick then state ratepayers spend the least amount of a lot of money, but if they get it wrong, we will be left with lots of negative outcomes and even higher costs for a long time.  The opinions expressed in this post do not reflect the position of any of my previous employers or any other company I have been associated with, these comments are mine alone.

The law established the Climate Action Council and gave them the responsibility to develop a scoping plan to meet the aspirational schedule and targets summarized at CLCPA Summary Implementation Requirements.  At the same time, the New York Independent System Operator (NYISO) is supposed to manage New York’s power grid and energy market to “coordinate and direct the flow of electricity over the state’s high-voltage transmission system”.  That management includes long-range planning responsibilities.  The NYISO is supposed to be “independent” and that would accordingly allow them to be critical of the CLCPA targets if their expertise leads them to believe that the schedule and targets threaten the reliability of the power grid and energy market.

I have previously described what I think is ultimate problem with the CLCPA, namely what non-emitting power sources will be able replace the loss of intermittent wind and solar energy when electricity is needed the most during the winter.  In the E3 presentation to the Power Generation Advisory Panel  on September 16, 2020 this issue was raised.  The slide titled Electricity Supply – Firm Capacity states: “The need for dispatchable resources is most pronounced during winter periods of high demand for electrified heating and transportation and lower wind and solar output”.  The slide goes on to say: “As the share of intermittent resources like wind and solar grows substantially, some studies suggest that complementing with firm, zero emission resources, such as bioenergy, synthesized fuels such as hydrogen, hydropower, carbon capture and sequestration, and nuclear generation could provide a number of benefits”.

On October 8, 2020 the Climate Action Council meeting included a presentation by Rich Dewey, President of NYISO, that gave an overview of their planning process used to maintain system reliability and raised the same concern.  The presentation included a description of Dispatchable Emissions-Free Resources (DER) that are needed to maintain reliability.  They were described as resources that must be able to come on line quickly when needed, and be flexible enough to meet rapid, steep ramping needs.  In other words, they are fossil-fired generating units without the emissions.  Dewey’s presentation slides concluded “The current system is heavily dependent on existing fossil-fueled resources to maintain reliability.  Eliminating these resources will require investment in new and replacement infrastructure, and/or the emergence of a zero-carbon fuel source for thermal generating resources.”

Dewey’s presentation was based on work by The Analysis Group’s NYISO Climate Change Phase II Study.  Their presentation at the NYISO Electric System Planning Group Meeting on September 10, 2020 had some important caveats regarding the CLCPA transition and Dispatchable Energy Resources.  The Analysis Group noted that “There is no historical precedent for this pace of renewable generation development and integration” referring to the CLCPA schedule.  They also noted that: The “DE Resource” category is included in the model to achieve reliable solutions” but stated that they did not “presume to know what resource or what fuel will fill this gap twenty years hence”.

For those who are new to New York energy policy politics it might seem odd that Dewey did not mention those caveats that reflect the enormity of the challenge facing New York’s CLCPA energy transition.  But for those of us who remember the last time that NYISO raised similar concerns it is not a surprise.  In 2016 NYISO filed comments with the state saying its goal to power the state with 50 percent renewable energy by 2030 was unrealistic unless a massive investment in new transmission lines were undertaken. In response, the Cuomo Administration pitched a fit.

Richard Kauffman, Cuomo’s “energy czar” at the time sent a  letter  in July 2016 to the NYISO that included the following:

“We are dismayed, however, that your recent filing to the Public Service Commission (PSC) and recent press reports on the Clean Energy Standard (CES) are misleading, incomplete, and grossly inaccurate. The filing reveals an alarming lack of developed analysis and understanding into the imperative to address climate change by transitioning to a clean electric system, and how a modern grid can be developed and operated. The NYlSO’s paradigm of analysis is outdated – a world where large power plants produce electricity based upon a fixed demand and where electrons flow in one direction. Thus, NYISO has not adequately taken into account the way new technology can balance electricity load in response to intermittency, to renewable resources or to dynamic price signals, nor has NYISO considered how market-based approaches to stimulate energy efficiency will change the amount of renewable energy needed to achieve the Governor’s 50 percent renewables goal by 2030.”

“It is apparent from the filing and subsequent information, that the NYISO is held captive by your stakeholders, the majority of whom represent the status quo interests that are threatened by the renewable future that New Yorkers want and deserve. Indeed your critique only makes sense in this context. It is, therefore, hardly surprising that in recent press reports, the Independent Power Producers, an industry advocacy group that represents the interests of fossil fuel producers, has been so quick to endorse the views of the NYISO when it appears that its interests are so well served.”

“The Public Service Commission has vast expertise in system planning and operations. They will no doubt work with all of the stakeholders to identify the challenges associated with the energy future we are designing. As necessary, we will find ways to address those challenges in a manner that is independent of the economic interest of incumbent fossil generators that you seem to be protecting. Again, I am dismayed by your filing and public comments. We want and expect better from our local grid operator.”

In that light it is no surprise that Dewey’s slides included the following statement: “We believe State policy goals can be achieved while maintaining grid reliability.”  The treatment of his predecessor no doubt affected the tone and content of his presentation.  There is no organization or agency better able to independently assess future alternatives for the electric system than the NYISO.  It is in the best interests of the State that the Climate Action Council and Cuomo Administration accept that they are independent and acknowledge their concerns even if it runs contrary to their ideological beliefs.

In conclusion, I wonder if the NYISO, or anyone else for that matter, can say anything to the Climate Action Council that suggests that the CLCPA goals and schedule are unrealistic.  The Analysis Group caveats and viability issues with the E3 list of potential resources to meet the DER adequacy problem need to be fully understood by all the Council members.  That information is not only complex and difficult to understand but also raises doubts about the practical viability of New York’s energy policy.  The fundamental tenet of the CLCPA is that there is nothing aside from political will holding back implementation of an energy transition to clean, affordable, reliable, and resilient electric power.  I believe that anyone raising questions about that will be accused of being defeatist and in the CLCPA war on climate such defeatism is tantamount to treason.

In the summer of 2019 Governor Cuomo and the New York State Legislature passed the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA) which was described as the most ambitious and comprehensive climate and clean energy legislation in the country when Cuomo signed the legislation.  This is another in a series of posts on the feasibility, implications and consequences of the CLCPA.  This post addresses the first meeting of the power generation advisory panel.

I am a retired electric utility meteorologist with nearly 40-years-experience analyzing the effects of meteorology on electric operations. I believe that gives me a relatively unique background to consider the potential quantitative effects of energy policies based on doing something about climate change.  The opinions expressed in this post do not reflect the position of any of my previous employers or any other company I have been associated with, these comments are mine alone.

I have several concerns with the CLCPA potential effect on energy affordability and reliability.  I am convinced that the general public has no idea what is going on with these energy policies and the possible ramifications.  I do not believe that the CLCPA implementation process includes sufficient provisions for the general public to find out what this law will cost them until it is too late to prevent the inevitable higher costs of energy.  Contrary to the perception of “clean energy” advocates the transition away from fossil fuels is not simply a matter of political will.  There are significant implementation issues that imperil current reliability standards.

Background

Rather than repeat all the background information I have included in previous posts I have prepared CLCPA Summary Implementation Requirements and offer that if a reader wants more information.  In brief, the CLCPA establishes the New York state climate action council (CAC) that is required to “prepare and approve a scoping plan outlining the recommendations for attaining the statewide greenhouse gas emissions limits”.  That document will “inform the state energy planning board’s adoption of a state energy plan” and “shall incorporate the recommendations of the council”.

The CLCPA also provides for advisory panels to “provide recommendations to the council on specific topics, in its preparation of the scoping plan, and interim updates to the scoping plan, and in fulfilling the council’s ongoing duties”.  The CLCPA (§ 75-0103, 7) states that the CAC “shall convene advisory panels requiring special expertise and, at a minimum, shall establish advisory panels on transportation, energy intensive and trade-exposed industries, land-use and local government, energy efficiency and housing, power generation, and agriculture and forestry”.  I interpret that to mean that the membership of the panels will have specific expertise in those sectors.

New York State has an existing energy planning process.  The State Energy Plan is a comprehensive roadmap to build a “clean, resilient, and affordable” energy system for all New Yorkers.  It focuses on “reliably meeting projected future energy demands, while balancing economic development, climate change, environmental quality, health, safety and welfare, transportation, and consumer energy cost objectives”.  Importantly that process is integrated with the responsibilities of the New York Independent System Operator (NYISO), New York State Reliability Council (NYSRC) and Department of Public Service (DPS).  In my opinion, the requirement that the scoping plan “inform” the energy plan is a major risk.  It appears that the transition plan places as much value on the opinions of the CAC and advisory panels as the electric energy system professional staff at NYISO, NYSRC, and DPS who all have many years experience with all aspects of the reliability needs of the energy system.

I am only following the power generation advisory panel closely because of my concern that the membership of the CAC and advisory panel are not focused on reliability and affordability because of their background or naïveté.  I previously described the membership of the generation advisory panel in a post on the announcement of the membership of the advisory panels approved at the Climate Action Council meeting on August 24, 2020.  Meeting materials for all the advisory panel meetings have been posted.

This post describes their first meeting with a section on each of the major agenda items listed in the Power Generation Advisory Panel 9/16/2020 meeting materials.  John Rhodes, Chair of the Public Service Commission, is the chair for this advisory panel.  He presented most of the material.

Introductions and Panel Member Priorities

The Climate Action Council approved 14 members, a chairman and a co-chair to the power generation advisory panel but left open consideration to add more people at their August meeting.  There was no indication at this meeting that anyone would be added.  In my earlier post I documented the background and affiliations of the CLCPA Power Generation Advisory Panel.  I categorized the organizations represented by the 14 non-state agency members: three members work for generating companies, two renewable and one fossil oriented; one member is from the New York Independent System Operator, the state’s grid operating company; one member is a consultant for energy and sustainability issues; and the remaining eight members were from advocacy organizations representing either renewable technologies, the environment, or trade unions, with one representing ratepayers.

At this meeting each member was given the opportunity to introduce themselves and list their priorities for this process.  The introductions confirmed one of my concerns.  All but two of the members clearly plan to advocate for their organization or company in this process.  This is understandable but could very well not be in the best interest of the state.  Everybody had an opportunity to mention that their priorities include reliability and affordability but only four did so.  Only the representative of the New York Independent System Operator could be considered neutral for any particular technology and mentioned reliability and affordability as priorities.

State of the Sector

This part of the meeting listed the targets that have been codified into law. The “Alignment with CLCPA” slide is interesting because it starts to quantify the scale of the problem.  The slide estimates that in 2030 the estimated load will be 151,678 GWh.  The 2030 goal is that 70% of this load or 106,174 GWh will be met by renewable energy sources.  According to the slide we are currently generating 39,013 GWh and there are an additional 19,937 GWh of renewable energy under contract but not constructed.  That means that 47,224 GWh of renewable energy have to be contracted and constructed by 2030.  The slide breaks down the types of renewable energy resources into three categories: land-based renewables, offshore wind and distributed energy resources but the presentation did not explain how those numbers were derived.  The slide also states that there are 93 MW of energy storage currently operating but that the 1,400 MW of hydro storage are not included because “it does not count towards the goal”.  According to the slide 841 MW of energy storage is under contract and 2,086 MW of energy storage needs to be constructed and contracted by 2030.  It was not clear how the energy storage numbers were derived.

 

The remainder of this portion of the meeting described the Accelerated Renewable Energy Growth and Community Benefit Act (AREGCBA pronounced aargh) and Clean Energy Standard expansion. AREGCBA established the Office of Renewable Energy Siting who on September 16,2020 issued draft regulations.  While those regulations require permit application approval in a year there still are significant requirements for permitting that, in my opinion, will require a least a year to prepare.  The Clean Energy Standard includes an annual procurement target for off-shore wind of about 4,500 GWh from 2020 to 2023.  Note that in order to build off shore wind turbines on-shore infrastructure also has to be developed.   The enormous quantity of renewables that need to be contracted, permitted, and constructed by the end of 2029 so that renewable energy output meets the 2030 goal is an ambitious target to say the least.

Pathways Presentation

Energy + Environmental Economics presented the results to the Climate Action Council of their emissions reductions pathway analyses earlier this year.  This material was presented to the members of the advisory group at the meeting.  There were a few key takeaways.  E3 noted that “electrification of buildings and transportation drives significant increase in annual electric load” and that “NYS shifts from summer peak to winter peak around 2040, driven primarily by electrification of heating in buildings and EV battery charging”.

I worry that the members of the advisory group may not grasp the implications of issues mentioned in the “opportunities to decarbonize the electric sector” slide: “Energy efficiency and managed electrification will be critical to mitigating load growth and “peak heat” impacts”; “To decarbonize electricity supply, New York has access to a diverse portfolio of renewable resources”; “Battery storage and demand side flexibility can play a key role in intraday balancing”; and “A number of firm, zero carbon resources can help solve inter-day balancing challenges, e.g. multi-day periods of low renewable output”.  Each of these issues is complicated and uncertain.  Those who have a vested interest in a particular aspect of any of these issues also have a bias towards glossing over the complications and uncertainty to promote their interests.

There were two slides describing electricity supply considerations.  In order to discuss the impacts of these two slides would require its own post so that will have to wait.  Instead I want to highlight the Electricity Supply – Firm Capacity slide because it addresses what I think is the ultimate CLCPA problem.  The slide states: “The need for dispatchable resources is most pronounced during winter periods of high demand for electrified heating and transportation and lower wind and solar output”.  The slide goes on to say: “As the share of intermittent resources like wind and solar grows substantially, some studies suggest that complementing with firm, zero emission resources, such as bioenergy, synthesized fuels such as hydrogen, hydropower, carbon capture and sequestration, and nuclear generation could provide a number of benefits”.

The firm capacity slide prompted discussion.  E3 has been trying to come up with a list of resources that will address the problem of high electric loads when there is low renewable energy availability.  When they suggest firm, zero emission resources could provide a number of benefits what they are really saying is those resources are needed to keep the lights on.  They list five possibilities, three of which are unlikely to provide any meaningful relief in New York.   Meaningful additional amounts of hydro-electric power are unlikely because all the good locations have already been developed.  Carbon capture and sequestration projects require good locations for sequestration.  The Cuomo administration refused to permit a propane storage project adjacent to an already existing storage project so I cannot imagine that sequestration of CO2 would be permitted either even if suitable locations are found.  Nuclear would be a great option but New York is closing down viable, operating nuclear facilities so building a new facility seems highly unlikely.  Synthesized fuels such as hydrogen may have possibilities but there are enormous technical issues for hydrogen.  That leaves bioenergy.  However, a couple of people on the panel argued that because renewable natural gas (RNG), which refers to methane generated by anerobic digestion or by other means, is not specifically listed in the CLCPA, it does not qualify as a renewable option.  It was very obvious that those arguing against RNG had a bias against methane that was more important to them than solving the problem of firm capacity.

Work Plan Development

John Rhodes discussed the development of the work plan. Each advisory group has been charged to “develop sector specific strategies to achieve a 53% to 56% reduction in GHG emissions from 2016 level by 2030 (100% by 2050).  For the power sector, the 2030 target is that 70% of the electricity must be generated by renewable energy which complicates this panel’s planning a bit.  More importantly, the 2016 GHG emission levels consistent with the CLCPA rules have not been published.  In order for the advisory groups to do their work that estimate is needed soon.  The slide states that the advisory groups will “Present a list of recommendations for emissions reducing policies, programs or actions, for consideration by the Climate Action Council for inclusion in the Scoping Plan”.  It notes that the recommendations may be informed by quantitative analysis or qualitative assessment.  I hope that the recommendations rely on quantitative analysis because qualitative assessments may not maintain reliability.

There was an overview of the recommendations for the panel. The panels are supposed to “Evaluate the costs and benefits of recommended strategies, informed by the Value of Carbon established in accordance with Section 75 0113 of the CLCPA; Identify measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and co pollutants in disadvantaged communities; Include climate adaptation and resilience considerations; Consider approaches taken by different states and nations; and Identify potential sources of funding necessary to implement the recommended policies.”  There is an enormous challenge converting the New York electric system to unprecedented levels of renewable energy and I am not sure adding these additional requirements is consistent with that challenge.

The initial thoughts on “Scope Development” slide included the following topics: clean energy siting, transmission, electrification of buildings and transportation, natural gas system, carbon pricing, downstate peakers, equity issues, reliability of the future grid – storage, flexible/dispatchable resources, instate renewables, downstate renewables, “last” clean megawatts (final x%), resource transition/ramping fossils down, encouraging the needed investment, markets for the future (including resource adequacy), affordability, and jobs/prevailing wage.  Each one of these topics is complicated and warrants a briefing for the advisory panel members.  If they don’t understand the topic then they cannot incorporate these thoughts on their recommendations.

The last two slides address the timeline for the advisory panel.  I think the following schedule is quite an imposition on the members of the panel: October 2020: Work Plan finalized; December 2020: Briefing on priority policies/strategies; and March 2021: Final Recommendations to CAC.  By the end of October, they are supposed to seek written external input on priority policies and strategies, meet with the climate justice working group and the environmental justice advisory panel to get input on priority policies and strategies, and then present the work plan to the Climate Action Council.

Conclusion

The implementation process worries me and this meeting reinforced my concerns.  I am concerned about the development of recommendations for the power generation sector and the fact that necessary information to develop those recommendations is not available.

Since my retirement ten years ago I have spent a lot of time reading about the energy system and it was humbling how much I didn’t know about the system I had been supporting since I started working directly for a utility in 1981. Unfortunately, I think that the majority of the Climate Action Council and power generation advisory panel members have very little background in the sector. The schedule for the development of recommendations for a transformation of the power generation sector is aggressive and would be a challenge even for people with extensive backgrounds in the sector.  The schedule timeline is so short I worry that bringing the members up to speed on the technical constraint issues will necessarily be short-changed.  The magnitude of problem is huge and addressing just one issue, providing dispatchable, zero emission electric energy during multi-day periods of low solar and wind resources, is daunting.  It was clear on the call that more than one member of the advisory group has a particular agenda that seems to trump the overall need for reliable and affordable power.  Finally, it is not clear how the process is supposed to work when there are conflicting priorities.

Another serious issue with the schedule is the unavailability of some key information.  In order to provide defendable recommendations for the future power generation sector three data sets are needed.  New York State agencies have to provide a future load projection for the year as a whole and for the worst case, the multi-day period of low wind and solar availability.  The 2030 goal (70% from renewable sources) is only a function of the source of energy produced but very soon the Climate Action Council has to determine the current level of GHG emissions using the CLCPA methodology.  The draft state-wide emission limits based on 1990 emissions have been proposed but not finalized.  The emissions inventory for the current levels of emissions has not been released.  Finally, the wind and solar resource availability needs to be determined for the worst case.  In order to develop a power generation plan for the transition all this information needs to be known.

I intend to follow this to see how it works out.  Stay tuned.

In the summer of 2019 Governor Cuomo and the New York State Legislature passed the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA) which was described as the most ambitious and comprehensive climate and clean energy legislation in the country when Cuomo signed the legislation.  This post documents the resource adequacy problem that I believe should be a primary consideration for the 2040 electric system which is supposed to be fossil-free.

I am a retired electric utility meteorologist with nearly 40-years-experience analyzing the effects of meteorology on electric operations. I believe that gives me a relatively unique background to consider the potential quantitative effects of energy policies based on doing something about climate change. From this context I have published a series of posts on the feasibility, implications and consequences of the CLCPA.   The opinions expressed in this post do not reflect the position of any of my previous employers or any other company I have been associated with, these comments are mine alone. 

My biggest concern with the CLCPA is that I am convinced that the general public has no idea what is going on with these energy policies and the possible ramifications.  Moreover, I do not believe that the CLCPA implementation process includes sufficient provisions for the general public to find out what this law will mean to them until it is too late to prevent the inevitable higher costs of energy.  I am also very concerned that the people who are responsible for implementing the CLCPA have insufficient background to understand the implications of the resource adequacy problem described here.

The Adequacy Problem

I believe that in order for the CLCPA to be successful it must not only provide the environmental benefits planned but must also not mean a reduction of electric system reliability particularly because when heating and transportation are electrified reliability will be a life and death requirement.  There are two aspects of the problem that must be addressed: future load and renewable energy availability during peak load periods. 

It is generally acknowledged that the future load peak will occur in the winter.  Because both heating and transportation must be electrified to meet the reduction targets in those sectors there will be a load peak shift from the summer to winter primarily because it takes more energy to heat than cool.  When the needs of the transportation sector are included it seems unlikely that energy efficiency will be able to prevent an increase from current levels. 

The CLCPA plans to replace fossil generation with wind and solar energy.  At Albany New York’s latitude day length is over six hours less at the winter solstice than the summer solstice and the sun angle is lower so the strength of the sunlight is less in winter too.  Moreover, clouds are lower and more frequent.  Include the fact that solar panels could be covered with snow and all that means that in the worst-case solar energy’s contribution to the power needed could essentially be zero.  Wind can also become calm during the winter albeit there is not the same seasonal difference as with solar.

Therefore, in order to maintain reliability, we need resources that can replace the loss of intermittent wind and solar energy while at the same time it is likely that loads will increase.  There has to be an alternative resource that can be dispatched to provide power to meet the load required to keep the lights on.  Every member of the Climate Action Council, advisory panels and working groups should understand that this problem exists and the ramifications of this issue on the energy strategies they propose.  Recent presentations raised this issue but I am not sure those members realized the gravity of their remarks.

E3

In their presentation to the Power Generation Advisory Panel on September 16, 2020 E3 included a slide titled Electricity Supply – Firm Capacity.  Consistent with the above the slide states: “The need for dispatchable resources is most pronounced during winter periods of high demand for electrified heating and transportation and lower wind and solar output.  The slide goes on to say: “As the share of intermittent resources like wind and solar grows substantially, some studies suggest that complementing with firm, zero emission resources, such as bioenergy, synthesized fuels such as hydrogen, hydropower, carbon capture and sequestration, and nuclear generation could provide a

number of benefits.  Of particular interest is the graph of electric load and renewable generation because it shows that this problem may extend over multiple days.

Analysis Group

On September 10, 2020 the Analysis Group presented a discussion of draft recent observations as part of the New York Independent System Operator (NYISO) Climate Change Phase II Study.  That discussion included a slide titled “Attributes of Generic Resource Required for Grid Reliability”.  In their analysis they included a generic resource they called the Dispatchable & Emissions-Free Resource, or “DE Resource”.  The DE Resources are “included to maintain reliability during the highest load hours of each modeling period” and they “provide the majority of energy on the peak winter hour during the CLCPA load scenario”.  They state “The DE Resources are included to maintain reliability during the highest load hours of each modeling period. DE Resources provide the majority of energy on the peak winter hour during the CLCPA load scenario.”

Their projected nameplate capacity by resource type graphic (below) is interesting.  The DE resources category makes up 19% (32,137 MW) of the total capacity for their projected CLCPA load scenario.  The Analysis Group includes the “DE Resource” their model to achieve reliable solutions” but includes the following caveats: “AG does not presume to know what resource or what fuel will fill this gap twenty years hence” and “the purpose of modeling it is to understand the attributes of the resource need”.

Commentary

As a party to the Department of Public Services (DPS) resource adequacy matters proceeding, docket Case 19-E-0530, I have submitted comments (described here and here) based on my background as a meteorologist who has lived in and studied the lake-effect weather region of Central New York.  Both E3 and the Analysis Group have done studies of the weather conditions that affect solar and wind resource availability in New York.  However, to my knowledge (neither consultant has ever responded to my question on this topic), they have not used solar irradiance data from the NYS Mesonet. In my opinion, using airport data or models for cloud cover are inadequate and the Mesonet data set is the only way to have information that adequately represents the local variations in cloud cover caused by the Great Lakes.  in order to adequately determine the solar resources available when assessing future reliability needs, I strongly recommend that the NYS Mesonet data set be used.

E3 and the Analysis Group both have a future resource category, E3 (firm capacity) and Analysis Group (DE Resources), that needs to be dispatchable and cannot have GHG emissions.  E3 gives some examples but the Analysis Group avoids being specific.  The  International Energy Agency (IEA) recently published “Special Report on Clean Energy Innovation” that classified the technology readiness level of the technologies that could possibly be both dispatchable without GHG emissions.  The bottom line is that there is nothing close to being ready for adoption that fulfills those requirements. 

Conclusion

If “then a miracle occurs” is replaced with “19% DE resources” then implementation of the CLCPA is well characterized by the following cartoon:

The problem is that we need resources that can replace the loss of intermittent wind and solar energy when it is needed the most during the winter when heating is necessary.  E3 and the Analysis Group both have a future resource category, E3 (firm capacity) and Analysis Group (DE Resources), that fulfills the need to be dispatchable without GHG emissions during those periods.  Importantly, the Analysis Group DE resources category makes up 19% (32,137 MW) of their projected total capacity so this is not a small number.

The task for those charged with implementing the goals of the CLCPA is to propose resources that will meet this need.  E3 gives some examples but the Analysis Group avoids being specific.  The  International Energy Agency (IEA) recently published “Special Report on Clean Energy Innovation” that classified the technology readiness level of technologies that could be dispatchable without GHG emissions.  In an earlier post I found that some of these technologies were not ready for wide-spread implementation.  I think it is incumbent upon the advisory groups to only make recommendations for technologies with technology readiness levels that indicate proven success.  Given the immaturity of the examples suggested by E3 it would be appropriate for the New York State Energy Research & Development Authority to be charged with research and development to increase the availability of options.   

Most troubling to me is that there are indications that some advisory group members are trying to limit options for some kinds of firm capacity/DE resources technology.  In particular, there have been complaints about excluding renewable natural gas (for example from anerobic digesters) because it is not explicitly listed as a renewable energy option.   Given the critical need for this resource and the limited number of proven options, I think that is risky.

On July 18, 2019, Governor Cuomo signed into law the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA).  It is among the most ambitious climate laws in the world and requires New York to reduce economy-wide greenhouse gas emissions 40 percent by 2030 and no less than 85 percent by 2050 from 1990 levels.  I maintain that not only is the general public unaware of the ramifications of this legislation but I doubt that very few of the legislators who voted and sponsored it understood that provisions in this law will require draconian limitations on the use of fossil fueled appliances very soon.

I am following the implementation of the CLCPA closely because its implementation affects my future as a New Yorker.  Given the cost impacts for other jurisdictions that have implemented renewable energy resources to meet targets at much less stringent levels, I am convinced that the costs in New York will be enormous and my analyses have supported that concern.  In addition, I think that the CLCPA’s mandate to electrify home heating will be deadly when an ice storm knocks out power for days.  The opinions expressed in this post do not reflect the position of any of my previous employers or any other company I have been associated with, these comments are mine alone.

Background

The CLCPA establishes an implementation schedule for compliance with its targets.  One year after the effective date of the law, the CLCPA mandates that the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) establish the 2030 and 2050 statewide emission limits (Part 496) and that the Climate Action Council (CAC) be organized and start meeting.  DEC has proposed the emission limits and the CAC has been meeting since early this year albeit they just have started meeting regularly.  The CAC has another year after the effective date of the law to develop a scoping plan that will outline a plan to meet the limits. After a year’s review the CAC submits the final scoping plan to the Governor.  Four years after the effective date of the law the DEC is required to promulgate regulations implementing the scoping plan recommendations.  I document the CLCPA specifics of the timeline requirements in the rest of this section.

Section § 75-0103 in the CLCPA establishes the New York CAC. The CAC is charged with planning responsibility:

“The council shall on or before two years of the effective date of this article, prepare and approve a scoping plan outlining the recommendations for attaining the statewide greenhouse gas emissions limits in accordance with the schedule established in section 75-0107 of this article, and for the reduction of emissions beyond eighty-five percent, net zero emissions in all sectors of the economy, which shall inform the state energy planning board’s adoption of a state energy plan in accordance with section 6-104 of the energy law. The first state energy plan issued subsequent to completion of the scoping plan required by this section shall incorporate the recommendations of the council. “

It goes on to state that:

On or before three years of the effective date of this article, the council shall submit the final scoping plan to the governor, the speaker of the assembly and the temporary president of the senate and post such plan on its website.

Section § 75-0107 states that statewide greenhouse gas emissions limits will be promulgated:

No later than one year after the effective date of this article, the department shall, pursuant to rules and regulations promulgated after at least one public hearing, establish a statewide greenhouse gas emissions limit as a percentage of 1990 emissions, as estimated pursuant to section 75-0105 of this article, as follows:

2030: 60% of 1990 emissions.

2050: 15% of 1990 emissions.

 

Section § 75-0109 in the CLCPA mandates promulgation of regulations to achieve statewide greenhouse gas emissions reductions:

No later than four years after the effective date of this article, the department, after public workshops and consultation with the council, the environmental justice advisory group, and the climate justice working group established pursuant to section 75-0111 of this article, representatives of regulated entities, community organizations, environmental groups, health professionals, labor unions, municipal corporations, trade associations and other stakeholders, shall, after no less than two public hearings, promulgate rules and regulations to ensure compliance with the statewide emissions reduction limits and work with other state agencies and authorities to promulgate regulations required by section eight of the chapter of the laws of two thousand nineteen that added this article.

Status Analysis

Because New York has dramatically reduced CO2 emissions I thought that it would be difficult but not impossible to meet the ambitious goal of a 40% reduction in emissions by 2030. The CLCPA includes specific emissions inventory requirements that differ greatly from the assumptions used in previous New York inventories.  As a result, the CLCPA Part 496 inventory is nearly double the previous inventories.  The question is what level of emissions reductions from each sector will be needed to meet the CLCPA inventory that increases the effect of methane.

The 2030 emissions limit is based on a percentage reduction from 1990 so the first information needed is the emissions in 1990.  The proposed Part 496 regulation includes an inventory of 1990 emissions as shown in the Part 496 Total Statewide GHG Emissions in 1990 table.  This table consolidates tables in the Part 496 Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) to provide as much detail as possible on the components of the emissions.  Part 496 establishes the statewide emission limit for 2030 as 240.83 million of metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MMtCO₂e) gas as a 40% reduction from the total 1990 emissions of 401.38 MMtCO₂e.

New York has yet to release a more recent update of GHG emissions using the new methodology so we don’t know the level of effort needed to meet the 2030 limit.  In order to make a projection of what will be needed to make the 2030 limit, we need a detailed current annual inventory as well as the activity data and emission factors.  That is not available at this time so I am forced to use an estimate of the emissions from another source and fuel use from other sources to make my estimate.

Projection Analysis

The Climate Action Council is required to prepare a scoping document over the next couple of years that will outline how each sector could meet the CLCPA targets.  The 2030 target is a single number representing a 40% reduction of 1990 emissions.  Reductions will be easier in some sectors and more difficult in others so we can expect that some sectors will reduce more than 40% and others less.  For the purposes of this exercise I want to estimate what will be required if the each of the three sectors  has to meet the 40% goal on its own.

In the absence of “official” CLCPA annual inventories I can use other data to make an estimate of the current state of emissions.  Howarth (2020) includes a table that lists estimates for CO₂ and CH₄ for both 1990 and 2015 for all the coal, petroleum and natural gas combusted in New York State.  Unfortunately, it does not provide sectorial information. I assume that those emissions include the upstream emissions required by the CLCPA.  The New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) Patterns and Trends document lists the total amount of coal, petroleum and natural gas combusted in the state as a whole and for each of the three sectors.  I combined these two data sources and calculated the sector emissions in 1990 and 2015 by assuming that the sector emissions equal the emissions from all sectors multiplied by the residential fuel burned divided by the fuel burned by all sectors.

TheCLCPA 2030 Emissions Target for Residential Sector,CLCPA 2030 Emissions Target for Electricity Sector, and CLCPA 2030 Emissions Target for Transportation Sector tables show the input data and calculated emissions for each sector.  I estimate that the 1990 residential emissions were 60.1 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MMtCO₂e).  The results for all three sectors are shown in the CLCPA Emissions and Targets for Electricity, Residential and Transportation Sectors table.  Overall because emissions have increased since 1990 the emissions in these three sectors all have to be reduced over 40%.

Discussion

Given the crude approach there is no sense trying to get sophisticated estimating what will be needed necessary to get the reductions needed to meet the 2030 limits.  The electricity sector needs a more involved estimate but we can get some idea of the scale of the task looking at the residential and transportation sectors.

Howarth (2020) provides notes that

“To meet the CLCPA 2030 target of a 40% emissions decrease will require a focus on greatly reducing the use of natural gas in the residential and commercial sector and petroleum products in transportation. To date, the State has focused little attention on GHG emissions from these sectors, and has instead prioritized reducing the use of fossil fuels to produce electricity.”

He goes on to claim:

“Electrification of heating (ground- and air-sourced heat pumps) and transportation (electric vehicles) provides a pathway to meeting the GHG-reduction mandates of the CLCPA (Jacobson et al. 2013). Heat pumps extract energy from the environment, allowing the delivery of far more heat energy than the electrical energy used to power the pumps.  As a result, converting from the use of natural gas to a modern heat pump will reduce GHG emissions even if the heat pump is powered by electricity generated from fossil fuels (Hong and Howarth 2016).”

In order to determine the GHG emissions reductions necessary from the complete residential sector we would have to determine how many homes have gas stoves, hot water heaters and furnaces.  In this example I will only consider heating.  The NYS Occupied Housing Units by Type of Space Heating Fuel table is an excerpt from the 2001-2015 Patterns and Trends document Appendix D-1.  Roughly speaking about half the over 6 million housing units currently burning natural gas, bottled tank or LP gas, and fuel oil or kerosene will have to convert to electricity before 2030 to meet the 46% target.  According to the internet, the average service life of a gas furnace is about 15 years.  If that is true then it won’t be enough to require installation of a heat pump furnace when a gas furnace dies.  Instead somehow, someway furnaces with useful life will have to be replaced.

In order to determine the GHG emissions reductions necessary from the transportation sector we have to determine how many vehicles are registered in New York.  According to the Department of Motor Vehicles there were about 9.4 million NYS vehicle registrations on file in 2016. In order to meet the CLCPA target 4.3 million vehicles will have to have no GHG emissions presumably by replacement with electric vehicles.  According to NYSERDA’s electric vehicle registration website as of August 2, 2020 there are 53,859 electric vehicles on the road.

 

Conclusion

My biggest problem with the CLCPA is that the authors, sponsors, and politicians who voted to approve the law presumed that their political will was sufficient to make it work.  I maintain that a feasibility study to determine technical practicability, implementation logistics and cost is a necessary first step because no jurisdiction anywhere has successfully implemented a similar energy transition.

The projection numbers for the residential and transportation sectors speak for themselves.  I cannot imagine any way that the State can meet the 2030 40% reduction in GHG emissions CLCPA target without extraordinary regulatory reach into the homes and cars of every New Yorker.  It is time for all New Yorkers to wake up to the potential ramifications of this law.

On July 18, 2019, Governor Cuomo signed into law the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA) It is among the most ambitious climate laws in the world and requires New York to reduce economy-wide greenhouse gas emissions 40 percent by 2030 and no less than 85 percent by 2050 from 1990 levels.  I maintain that not only is the general public unaware of the ramifications of this legislation but I doubt that very few of the legislators who voted and sponsored it understood the overt anti-natural gas biases included in the language of the act.  This post addresses the methane obsession reflected in changes to the emissions inventory requirements and what that means to New Yorkers.

I am following the implementation of the CLCPA closely because its implementation affects my future as a New Yorker.  Given the cost impacts for other jurisdictions that have implemented renewable energy resources to meet targets at much less stringent levels, I am convinced that the costs in New York will be enormous and my analyses have supported that concern.  In addition, I think that the CLCPA’s mandate to electrify home heating will be deadly when an ice storm knocks out power for days.  The opinions expressed in this post do not reflect the position of any of my previous employers or any other company I have been associated with, these comments are mine alone.

Background

The CLCPA sets its limits based on emissions in 1990.  This inventory of all sources of greenhouse gas emissions therefore becomes an important component of the law.  I have done a couple of more technical posts on the emissions inventory.  I addressed the emissions report timing contradictions that I think preclude meaningful public input to the final numbers developed and looked at the effect of four key considerations imposed by the CLCPA.  In my other post I documented changes with the new CLCPA inventory relative to past inventories. According to the latest edition of the NYSERDA GHG emission inventory (July 2019) Table S-1 New York State GHG Emissions 1990–2016 the New York State 1990 GHG emissions were 205.61 MMtCO₂e The proposed Part 496 regulation 1990 emissions inventory total is 401.38 MMtCO₂e for an increase of 195.77 MMtCO₂e.

There are two primary reasons for the near doubling of the emissions inventory. The CLCPA inventory adds a requirement to include not only direct emissions but also emissions associated with getting the fuels to New York.  The second change modified the potential effect of methane on global warming by changing the time horizons.

Methane Obsession

It is becoming increasingly clear that the politicians and those who helped draft the CLCPA had a bias against methane emissions from natural gas use and they were aided and abetted in their quest to outlaw its use in New York by Cornell professor Bob Howarth.  According to the Cornell Chronicle:

Cornell professor Bob Howarth played a key role – reckoning methane as a carbon dioxide equivalent – in New York state’s historic, environmentally comprehensive Climate Leadership and Communities Protection Act (CLCPA), which Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed into law July 18.  “It’s the most progressive legislation designed to avert climate change that any state has put out there,” said Howarth, the David R. Atkinson Professor of Ecology and Environmental Biology.

“New York has done what no other state has done, and that is to account properly for methane as a major atmospheric greenhouse gas contributor,” Howarth said. “It’s all in the way you figure methane into the global warming equation. That’s a significant part of this new law and this puts New York in a leadership role.”

Importantly, Howarth said, for the first time a state legislature has defined a “carbon dioxide equivalent” – for which methane now qualifies. That legal definition is the amount of another greenhouse gas by mass that produces the same global-warming impact as the given mass of carbon dioxide over a 20-year time frame. Simply put, methane can now be compared to carbon dioxide, at a time scale appropriate for addressing the urgency of climate change.

Also, the new state law accounts for greenhouse gases produced outside of New York for the energy used within New York. “The new law says that when we use natural gas in New York, and if that natural gas came from Pennsylvania, then we have to take into account the methane emissions from Pennsylvania,” he said.

Most natural gas consumed in New York is fracked shale gas from Pennsylvania, and much of the unburned methane from that gas is emitted in Pennsylvania at well sites and compressor stations, long before the natural gas reaches the New York border. But by the time the natural gas gets to New York, its greenhouse gas emissions are undercounted and may seem small, said Howarth.

“Under the old accounting in New York, methane seemed trivial,” he said. “Under this new law, the new accounting means that methane is now larger than carbon dioxide – about 1.3 times larger than carbon dioxide for consumption of natural gas. That’s pretty powerful when you add it up.”

Dr. Howarth not only had a hand in the drafting of the CLCPA but now he is a prominent member of the Climate Action Council that will   “identify and make recommendations on regulatory measures and other state actions that will ensure the attainment of the statewide greenhouse gas emissions limits” (§ 75-0103).  During the emission inventory discussion at the August 24, 2020 Climate Action Council meeting he said that the State had done a good job with some of their proposed inventory but he thought that his recent paper did a better job in other parts of the inventory.  That paper includes the following statement:

A growing body of literature has suggested that methane emissions can contribute significantly to the GHG footprint of natural gas, including shale gas (Howarth et al. 2011; Howarth 2014; Alvarez et al. 2018). Some evidence indicates that shale-gas development in North America may have contributed one-third of the total global increase in methane emissions from all sources over the past decade (Howarth 2019).

I had never heard of the journal where the Howarth 2020 paper was published.  The Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences “provides a stimulating, informative and critical forum for intellectual debate on significant environmental issues. It brings together perspectives from a wide range of disciplines and methodologies in both the social and natural sciences in an effort to develop integrative knowledge about the processes responsible for environmental change, the impact of environmental change on nature and society, and possible solutions.”  Frankly this paper is very similar to a blog post argument supporting the CLCPA.  But it does carry the imprimatur of a peer-reviewed article for the standard article publishing charge of $1200 for research and reviews articles and essays.

There are several instances where the language implies inside knowledge of the motives of the authors of the CLCPA.  When describing the change to account for associated indirect emissions it says: “The goal of this change is to make sure that the citizens of New York State have a tool by which to judge their full climate footprint, acting locally but thinking globally to reduce emissions.”  In the discussion about the changes for the global warming potential time scales (GWP) he states that:  “A GWP that uses a shorter time frame for methane, and separately reporting methane and carbon dioxide emissions, may be appropriate if the concern is with the rate of global warming over the next few decades (Howarth 2014). The political leaders in New York who passed the CLCPA were influenced by this logic in their choice of the 20-year time frame; note that the CLCPA mandates a 40% reduction in GHG emissions within 10 years and an 85% reduction within 30 years.”  Finally, he concludes: “For New York State, our political leaders chose to include methane emissions from outside of the State that are associated with energy use within the State and to weigh methane emissions over the 20-year time period, given the COP21 targets and the current rate of global warming.”

The Other Side of the Story

Recall that the Howarth 2020 paper claims “Some evidence indicates that shale-gas development in North America may have contributed one-third of the total global increase in methane emissions from all sources over the past decade (Howarth 2019).”  This paper and other similar papers claim that “methane emissions can contribute significantly to the GHG footprint of natural gas, including shale gas”.  There is a problem however, the claims are contradicted by other work.

In Howarth et al, 2011 he claims that 3.6% to 7.9% of the methane from shale-gas production escapes to the atmosphere in venting and leaks over the lifetime of a high-volume hydraulic fracturing well in a paper arguing that natural gas was not a good substitute for coal.  Natural gas is composed primarily of methane so the first red flag warning is the expectation that a well owner is going to accept that level of loss of the product he wants to sell.  Cathles et al., 2012 found serious flaws in Howarth paper noting that “they significantly overestimate the fugitive emissions associated with unconventional gas extraction, undervalue the contribution of “green technologies” to reducing those emissions to a level approaching that of conventional gas, base their comparison between gas and coal on heat rather than electricity generation (almost the sole use of coal), and assume a time interval over which to compute the relative climate impact of gas compared to coal that does not capture the contrast between the long residence time of CO2 and the short residence time of methane in the atmosphere.”

Lewan in review 2020 evaluates the claim in Howarth 2019 that “shale-gas development in North America may have contributed one-third of the total global increase in methane emissions from all sources over the past decade”.  The abstract states:

“The ideas and perspectives presented by Howarth (2019) on shale gas being a major cause of recent increases in global atmospheric methane are based on his notion that stable carbon isotopes of methane (δ¹³C₁) of shale gas are lighter than that of conventional gas based on a meager and unrepresentative data set. A plethora of publicly available data show that the δ¹³C₁ values of shale gas are typically heavier than those of conventional gas. This contradiction renders his ideas, perspectives, and calculations on methane emissions from shale gas invalid.”

Although I have been involved with emissions inventories for over 45 years, I do not have specific experience with natural gas production emissions.  However, over that time I learned early on that the gold standard check on any emissions inventory is comparison of the inventory estimate with observed ambient monitoring.  If there is a high quality, long-term monitoring network that measures the pollutant in the inventory and those measurements do not reflect the trend in the inventory then the inventory is wrong.

Lan et al., 2019 evaluated data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Global Greenhouse Gas Reference Network and determined trends for 2006–2015.  This covers the period when Pennsylvania shale-gas production increased tremendously.  According to the plain language summary for the report:

In the past decade, natural gas production in the United States has increased by ~46%. Methane emissions associated with oil and natural gas productions have raised concerns since methane is a potent greenhouse gas with the second largest influence on global warming. Recent studies show conflicting results regarding whether methane emissions from oil and gas operations have been increased in the United States. Based on long‐term and well‐calibrated measurements, we find that (i) there is no large increase of total methane emissions in the United States in the past decade; (ii) there is a modest increase in oil and gas methane emissions, but this increase is much lower than some previous studies suggest; and (iii) the assumption of a time‐constant relationship between methane and ethane emissions has resulted in major overestimation of an oil and gas emissions trend in some previous studies.

As a result of the fact that the relevant high quality, long-term monitoring network did not show a trend consistent with the work of Howarth I believe that unequivocally supports Dr Lewan’s conclusion that his ideas, perspectives, and calculations on methane emissions from shale gas are invalid.

Finally, there is an even more fundamental problem with the methane obsession as it relates to global warming due to the greenhouse effect.  As more greenhouse gases are added to the atmosphere, they reduce the amount of upward thermal radiation or heat from the surface that an escape the atmosphere.   The effect of each greenhouse gas depends on the properties of each greenhouse gas relative to thermal radiation and their concentration in the atmosphere.  A recent report explains that “For current concentrations of greenhouse gases, the radiative forcing at the tropopause, per added CH4 molecule, is about 30 times larger than the forcing per added carbon-dioxide (CO2 ) molecule”.  That is the rationale that the CLCPA used to incorporate the mandates for changes to the inventory.  However, when you consider the concentration in the atmosphere the potential effect is much less significant.  The paper notes: “The rate of increase of CO2 molecules, about 2.3 ppm/year (ppm = part per million), is about 300 times larger than the rate of increase of CH4 molecules, which has been around 0.0076 ppm/year since the year 2008. So, the contribution of methane to the annual increase in forcing is one tenth (30/300) that of carbon dioxide.”  The report concludes “Proposals to place harsh restrictions on methane emissions because of warming fears are not justified by facts.”

Conclusion

If this were only a disagreement about a scientific controversy that had no direct effect on society, then the obvious errors could be ignored by the general public.  However, the errors introduced by this irrational obsession with methane from natural gas has been incorporated into the CLCPA such that I think it will bring this issue to the attention of everyone far sooner than I expected.

Howarth’s 2020 paper includes estimates of 2015 emissions that indicate draconian limits on fossil fuel use will be necessary to meet the 2030 targets. That paper notes: “To meet the CLCPA 2030 target of a 40% emissions decrease will require a focus on greatly reducing the use of natural gas in the residential and commercial sector and petroleum products in transportation.” Perhaps you have heard of the slogan “no new fossil fuel infrastructure” in the context of blocking pipelines but it will literally hit close to home soon.  I bet that when the CLCPA control requirements are developed, “no new fossil fuel infrastructure” will mean that you cannot replace your current natural gas fired stove, hot water heater or furnace and that they will also have to come after your gasoline powered automobile.  Everything will have to be replaced by electric alternatives because electrification of heating and transportation is the only way to meet those targets.

Advocates for the CLCPA claim that renewables are cheaper and more resilient.  I don’t think that the costs of replacing all the existing fossil-fired infrastructure are included in the cost estimates and while solar and wind energy may be free, the cost to collect that energy and provide it when and where it is needed is far from free.  Increased resiliency is a joke.  Over-reliance on electricity will end badly when the inevitable ice storm knocks out power.  People will literally freeze to death in the dark when the alternative fossil fuels that can provide the energy needed to survive when the electricity is out are no longer available.

It will be interesting to see what happens when the general public is told that the concept that they can no longer use fossil fuels becomes reality.  I have to believe that questions will be asked about the value and rationale for that requirement and I hope that the politicians who mindlessly voted for this law are voted out.

In the summer of 2019 Governor Cuomo and the New York State Legislature passed the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA) which was described as the most ambitious and comprehensive climate and clean energy legislation in the country when Cuomo signed the legislation.  This is another in a series of posts on the feasibility, implications and consequences of the CLCPA.  This post addresses the power generation advisory panel that is supposed to help implement the CLCPA scoping plan.

I am a retired electric utility meteorologist with nearly 40-years-experience analyzing the effects of meteorology on electric operations. I believe that gives me a relatively unique background to consider the potential quantitative effects of energy policies based on doing something about climate change.  The opinions expressed in this post do not reflect the position of any of my previous employers or any other company I have been associated with, these comments are mine alone.

My biggest concern with the CLCPA is that I am convinced that the general public has no idea what is going on with these energy policies and the possible ramifications.  Moreover, I do not believe that the CLCPA implementation process includes sufficient provisions for the general public to find out what this law will mean to them until it is too late to prevent the inevitable higher costs of energy.

Background

Section § 75-0103 in the CLCPA establishes the New York state climate action council (CAC). The CAC is charged with planning responsibility:

“The council shall on or before two years of the effective date of this article, prepare and approve a scoping plan outlining the recommendations for attaining the statewide greenhouse gas emissions limits in accordance with the schedule established in section 75-0107 of this article, and for the reduction of emissions beyond eighty-five percent, net zero emissions in all sectors of the economy, which shall inform the state energy planning board’s adoption of a state energy plan in accordance with section 6-104 of the energy law. The first state energy plan issued subsequent to completion of the scoping plan required by this section shall incorporate the recommendations of the council. “

In order to develop this scoping plan that will transition New York’s entire energy economy, the CAC has a membership strongly weighted with Cuomo administration appointees.  The CAC consists of 22 members: twelve agency heads, two non-agency expert members appointed by the Governor, six members appointed by the majority leaders of the Senate and Assembly, and two members appointed by the minority members of the Senate and Assembly.  All twelve agency heads and two non-agency expert members were appointed by the Governor so the majority of the CAC is directly beholden to him.

In order to “provide recommendations to the council on specific topics, in its preparation of the scoping plan, and interim updates to the scoping plan, and in fulfilling the council’s ongoing duties”, the CAC (§ 75-0103, 7) “shall convene advisory panels requiring special expertise and, at a minimum, shall establish advisory panels on transportation, energy intensive and trade-exposed industries, land-use and local government, energy efficiency and housing, power generation, and agriculture and forestry”.

Section § 75-0103, 7 (b) states that “Advisory panels shall be comprised of no more than five voting members. The council shall elect advisory panel members, and such membership shall at all times represent individuals with direct involvement or expertise in matters to be addressed by the advisory panels pursuant to this section.”  Note, however, that all the advisory panels had more than five members nominated: transportation (15), energy intensive and trade-exposed industries (12), land-use and local government (10), energy efficiency and housing (13), power generation (14), and agriculture and forestry (17).  It is not clear how any issues will be resolved given the voting member requirement.  When the issue was raised at the August 24 CAC meeting there was a waffling discussion of building a consensus to resolve issues.

This post describes the power generation advisory panel approved at the Climate Action Council meeting on August 24, 2020.

Advisory Panels Description at CAC Meeting August 24, 2020

I suspect that I am not the only one who does not really understand how this is all supposed to work.  The discussion at the CAC meeting offers some insights.

According to the CAC presentation each advisory panel is expected to “Identify a range of emissions reductions, consistent with analysis and in consultation with the CAC, for the sector which contributes to meeting the statewide emission limits.”  According to the slide presentation, they are supposed to:

• • • Present a list of recommendations for emissions reducing policies, programs or actions, for consideration by the Climate Action Council for inclusion in the Scoping Plan.
      • • Recommendations should identify the estimated scale of impact, knowable costs to achieve, ease of deployment or commercial availability, potential co-benefits to emissions reduction, advancement of climate justice outcomes, and impacts to businesses.
        • Recommendations may be informed by quantitative analysis or qualitative assessment.
    • Seek public input to inform the development of recommendations to the Council for consideration.
      • • Panels may seek input from selected expertise in a subject area, as determined necessary by the members.
        • Panels shall, during the next six months, hold at least one forum to receive broad-based public input.
        • Provide transparency by making meetings open to public viewing or/and publishing minutes of deliberations.

The CLCPA recognizes that this is a significant undertaking and provides process support:

• • • Each advisory panel will be supported by:
      • • • Access to consulting firm Energy and Environmental Economics (“E3”) to provide economic and technology assumptions, understanding of market development as based on literature research, some quantitative analysis of higher impact recommendations.
          • A working group comprising staff from contributing state agencies or authorities to assist with research and less-detailed analytical work.
          • Completed state technology or market studies and other research resources as available.
          • Where initiated, current state agency technical analysis or market development assessments that may serve as a foundation for recommendations or as reference material for development of recommendations.

Power Generation Advisory Panel

The Climate Action Council approved 14 members, a chairman and a co-chair to the power generation advisory panel but left open consideration to add more people.  It is not clear to me how choosing members worked.   I think that the panel members were nominated by CAC members to some core group from the DPS, Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), and New York State Energy Research and Development Authority who provide supporting services but those folks did not make the decisions.  I believe that the decision-making role is entirely within the Cuomo Administration and given the tendency for the Governor to micro-manage I suspect that all decisions are made by high-level staff if not the Governor himself.

There are six advisory panels but because my primary concern is the electric system, I will concentrate on the power generation advisory panel.  I researched the membership of the Power Generation Advisory Panel.  The CLCPA Power Generation Advisory Panel attachment summarizes each member with a link to their organization including, where appropriate, a brief description of their organization’s mission, along with a summary of the individual named to the panel.  Note that most of the people nominated are senior-level staff presumably with extensive obligations.  As a result, I believe that most of their input will be based on work by others within their organizations.  One final note, during the webinar one of the themes of the introductions was the importance of diversity within the membership.

I categorized the organizations represented by the 14 non-state agency members: three members work for generating companies, two renewable and one fossil oriented; one member is from the New York Independent System Operator, the state’s grid operating company; one member is a consultant for energy and sustainability issues; and the remaining eight members were from advocacy organizations representing either renewable technologies, the environment, or trade unions, with one representing ratepayers.

 

Discussion

The CLCPA states that the “council shall convene advisory panels requiring special expertise”.  It is no simple matter understanding how the New York electric system works and I believe that it requires a hard science education or electric sector experience.  In my opinion, only five of the Power Generation panel members have the special expertise necessary.  How in the world can the public expect that this panel will provide meaningful recommendations to the CAC on the electric power system?  The most glaring omission is that there is no one from the electric utility sector included so transmission expertise is unavailable.

I find it telling and troubling that reliability was not mentioned in the CAC presentation on the advisory panels.  There are extensive electric system reliability requirements in place.  The New York State Independent System Operator (NYISO), New York State Reliability Council (NYSRC), and New York Department of Public Service (DPS) all have responsibilities related to maintaining the reliability of the electric system. The CLCPA mandates a complete transition of the system away from fossil fuels by 2040.  It is not clear how differences between the reliability needs and CLCPA mandates will be resolved.

New York State has an existing energy planning process.  The State Energy Plan is a comprehensive roadmap to build a “clean, resilient, and affordable” energy system for all New Yorkers.  It focuses on “reliably meeting projected future energy demands, while balancing economic development, climate change, environmental quality, health, safety and welfare, transportation, and consumer energy cost objectives”.  Importantly that process was integrated with the responsibilities of the NYISO, NYSRC and DPS.  In my opinion, the agency staff who have prepared this plan in the past should provide primary support to all the advisory panels if only to circumvent re-inventing the wheel.

The Energy Planning Board has 13 voting members and one non-voting member.  Eleven of the members are appointed by the Governor and most also are members of the CAC.  The CAC’s scoping plan “shall inform the state energy planning board’s adoption of a state energy plan in accordance with section 6-104 of the energy law”.  The CLCPA explicitly states that “The first state energy plan issued subsequent to completion of the scoping plan required by this section shall incorporate the recommendations of the council”.  It is not clear whether any exceptions to the ideological agenda of the Cuomo Administration will be considered, much less incorporated into the scoping plan.

Among the mysteries of the CLCPA implementation is how the scoping plan and energy plan are to be reconciled. It is not clear to me how the Climate Action Council’s scoping plan will be integrated with the all the planning functions and reliability rules of the NYISO, NYSRC, and DPS that are incorporated into the Energy Plan.  If there is a difference does the scoping plan trump the energy plan?  That would be dangerous in my opinion.

Conclusion

My fundamental problem with the CLCPA is that it presumes that the target reduction of emissions beyond eighty-five percent net zero emissions in all sectors of the economy is technically and financially feasible.  I think that needs to be proven first.  Within the power generation sector, a feasibility plan could determine how much renewable energy is available relative to how much energy is needed, describe different approaches to meet the targets with the renewable availability constraints, and explain the strengths and weaknesses of the options.  Once that is complete then the scoping plan would have a basis for its recommendations for attaining the statewide greenhouse gas emissions limits.  I think the CLCPA process essentially precludes doing this right.

I am not aware of any jurisdiction of any size approaching New York State that has successfully made a complete transition to non-fossil electric generation so this will truly be an unprecedented endeavor.  The makeup of the power generation advisory panel does not engender confidence that New York’s transition will be successful.  The majority of the members have insufficient background and experience to do anything other than rubber stamp whatever they are given to review.  Coupled with the fact that the majority of the members also have a bias towards the belief that the transition is simply a matter of political will, it is not clear whether inconvenient facts will be considered or simply dismissed.

In August 2020, California grid operators had to impose rolling electric blackouts to maintain grid reliability standards.  The basic problem was that power demand peaks as people turn on their air conditioning in the late afternoon just as the solar power supplies cut off as the sun goes down.  So little power was available the California grid operator had to reduce load to prevent an uncontrolled, much wider scale blackout in the event of a problem at an operating power plant.  The scale of that problem pales compared to the scale of the situation when the CLCPA requirements to electrify heating and transportation increase winter load and the elimination of fossil generation increases the dependency upon wind and solar electricity generation.  In the winter at New York’s latitude the days are short and the solar panels could be covered by snow.  When there is a prolonged cold snap accompanied by light winds both renewable resources will be unavailable and the only question is for how long[1].  This worst-case availability scenario has to be considered by the CAC scoping plan to prevent a 2040 New York blackout that could result in people freezing to death in the dark unable to flee.  Will the Power Generation Advisory Panel and the Climate Action Council address this issue or simply brush these concerns aside?

[1] The need for a feasibility study was emphasized in my comments to the Department of Public Services resource adequacy proceeding.  I described my initial comments submitted on 9/16/19 and summarized my reply comments submitted on 1/23/20.