Pragmatic Environmentalist of New York

New York Focus – New York to Explore Non-Renewable Energy

In my last post I explained that the New York Public Service Commission has initiated a process to “identify technologies that can close the gap between the capabilities of existing renewable energy technologies and future system reliability needs, and more broadly identify the actions needed to pursue attainment of the Zero Emission by 2040 Target”. In order to implement the Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act) net-zero transition the Integration Analysis, the New York Independent System Operator and the New York State Reliability Council all agree that a new resource that has all the characteristics of a natural gas fired turbine but no emissions is needed. This post reviews an article about this topic: New York Begins Exploring Non-Renewable Energy to Meet Climate Target.

I am a retired air pollution meteorologist who specialized in the electric generating sector. I have been following the Climate Act since it was first proposed. I submitted comments on the Climate Act implementation plan and have written over 300 articles about New York’s net-zero transition because I believe the ambitions for a zero-emissions economy embodied in the Climate Act outstrip available renewable technology such that the net-zero transition will do more harm than good. The opinions expressed in this post do not reflect the position of any of my previous employers or any other company I have been associated with, these comments are mine alone.

Climate Act Background

The Climate Act established a New York “Net Zero” target (85% reduction and 15% offset of emissions) by 2050 and an interim 2030 target of a 40% reduction by 2030. The Climate Action Council is responsible for preparing the Scoping Plan that outlines how to “achieve the State’s bold clean energy and climate agenda.” In brief, that plan is to electrify everything possible and power the electric grid with zero-emissions generating resources by 2040. The Integration Analysis prepared by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) and its consultants quantifies the impact of the electrification strategies. That material was used to write a Draft Scoping Plan. After a year-long review the Scoping Plan recommendations were finalized at the end of 2022. In 2023 the Scoping Plan recommendations are supposed to be implemented through regulation and legislation.

My previous article described the reason why a new proceeding on this topic is required. The professional staff at the agencies responsible for keeping the lights on in New York and the analysts who developed the Integration Analysis used for the Scoping Plan all believe that a new resource that can be dispatched as necessary but has zero emissions will be needed. In the discussion section of the order the PSC agrees that efforts to meet the Climate Act targets “must include exploration of technologies that can support reliability once conventional fossil fuel generation has been removed from the system”. The order states:

We see this exploration as integral to our responsibility under the PSL to ensure reliable electric service as we approach the Zero Emissions by 2040 Target. With this Order, we are initiating process to determine appropriate next steps to address this gap including consideration of whether it is appropriate for the Commission to allocate ratepayer funds to incentivize the deployment of zero-emission technologies.

I concluded that on one hand it is encouraging that there is finally an effort underway to define “zero emissions” resources and there is recognition that new technologies must be evaluated. On the other hand, this is a recognized problem that should have been the priority of Climate Action Council and the Scoping Plan from the start. I have always decried the lack of a feasibility analysis of the affordability, reliability, and permitting acceptability of zero emission resource options and the net-zero transition as a whole. I believe that the Climate Action Council reliance on non-experts is a leading cause for this delay. I wrote this article because it interviewed some of the non-experts that caused the delay and had some mis-understandings that deserve clarification.

New York Focus

The article was published at the New York Focus website. According to the about link:

New York Focus is an independent nonprofit newsroom investigating power in the Empire State. Launched in October 2020, New York Focus publishes in-depth journalism that explains how the state really works.

As the state’s only nonprofit statewide newsroom, our goal is to help rebuild a local news ecosystem that has faced years of relentless cuts: Almost half of New York’s newspapers have died in the last two decades. We focus on decisions made in Albany and how they impact communities around the state; Albany is the state’s center of power but receives a fraction of the scrutiny it warrants.

We’re guided by the belief that politics is not a sport. Decisions made in New York’s executive mansions, legislative chambers, state administrative offices, courts, nonprofits, union halls, and campaign headquarters don’t stay there. They determine how many New Yorkers sleep on the street each night; how large public college classes are; how many hospital beds are available during a pandemic.

The New York Begins Exploring Non-Renewable Energy to Meet Climate Target article was written by Colin Kinniburgh.

He is a reporter at New York Focus, covering the state’s climate and environmental politics. Over a decade in media, he has worked in print, television, audio, and online news, and participated in fellowship programs at CUNY’s Graduate School of Journalism and the Metcalf Institute. His reporting has appeared in outlets including France 24, Grist, Dissent, and The Nation.

New York Begins Exploring Non-Renewable Energy to Meet Climate Target

I have annotated the article in this section.

Biofuels, hydrogen, carbon capture, and nuclear: These are some of the technologies that will be on the table as New York weighs how to clean up its grid over the next 17 years.

When New York passed its climate law four years ago, it declared wind, solar, and battery storage to be the energy sources of the future. The law not only required the state to get 70 percent of its electricity from renewables by 2030, but set precise benchmarks for technologies like offshore wind.

As I have written before, the Climate Act is a political statement. The implication here is that the Legislature developed a plan that was based on an understanding of the power system and developed schedules based on evaluation of technology. That was not the case.

That riled power companies, who have long argued that picking technologies in advance will stifle innovation needed for the energy transition. There was still an opening for them to make their case. New York’s climate law requires the state to produce 100 percent of its energy from “zero emissions” sources by 2040, but what exactly that means is still up for debate.

Power plant operators’ lead trade group, the Independent Power Producers of New York (IPPNY), have spent years pushing the state to focus on that more distant goal. The group’s president, Gavin Donohue, pressed the legislature, the Public Service Commission, and the Climate Action Council to back a new subsidy for technologies that will close the gap in New York’s energy supply when the sun isn’t shining and the wind isn’t blowing. Those could include hydrogen; nuclear; alternative fuels like waste products from agriculture; or carbon capture and storage, which could allow plants to keep burning fossil fuels as long as they keep emissions out of the air.

Donohue wasn’t alone in this effort. Along the way he won support from the AFL-CIO, the leading voice of organized labor in the state.

The reference to new technologies that will close the gap in energy supply refers to the Dispatchable Emissions-Free Resource (DEFR). The article does not recognize that the professional staff at the New York Independent System Operator and the New York State Reliability Council who are responsible for keeping the lights on in New York and the analysts who developed the Integration Analysis used for the Scoping Plan all believe that DEFR will be needed to keep the lights on.

But environmentalists pushed back, arguing that the effort was a ploy to keep polluting plants open with the help of expensive technologies that have yet to be proven commercially. For much of the last two years, they’ve maintained the upper hand: the IPPNY-backed bill died in committee last session, and the state’s climate plan de-emphasized the kinds of alternative fuels the power industry says will be needed.

The environmentalist push back is rooted in a mis-understanding of the way the electric system works and an overly optimistic expectation for wind and solar resource availability. I have given a presentation explaining my skepticism of the Climate Act benefits relative to its risks. My article describing that presentation focused on electric grid reliability risks that environmentalists do not consider.

Now, state regulators are signaling that the issue deserves a fresh look. On Thursday, the Public Service Commission ordered the state to begin studying which new technologies — beyond renewables — it will need to meet its climate targets.

Announcing the decision at a Public Service Commission meeting on Thursday, chair Rory Christian called it an important step. “If we’re successful, this will give us the tools to address many of the emerging issues that we’re seeing, and help us hit our various reliability needs and long-term goals,” Christian said.

State officials have stressed that the effort is intended to complement, not supplant, the central role of renewables. New York is already planning a massive buildout of wind, solar, and transmission lines: To meet the climate law’s requirements, it will need to build 100 times as much large-scale solar in the next five years as it did in the last ten, for example.

Yet even that explosion of renewables won’t be enough to ensure reliable energy while phasing out fossil fuels, studies by the state energy authority NYSERDA and the New York Independent System Operator have found. New York will also need to build new clean energy systems that don’t rely on the weather, and can be turned on at a moment’s notice.

As is the case with many of the green technology solutions advocated by proponents of the Climate Act, the idea that just existing wind and solar technology is all that is needed for the electric grid is flawed. The general green technology problem is that the technologies do not work all the time. For the electric system the issue is that there can be extended wind lulls in the winter when solar resources are inherently low is exacerbated because those periods coincide with the coldest weather and thus the highest loads. The professionals responsible for reliability all conclude that DEFR is necessary for those periods.

The state’s climate plan asks the PSC, along with NYSERDA , to draw up the final criteria for those “firm” or “dispatchable” resources, and that’s what it started doing on Thursday. Like many regulatory decisions, the order published on Thursday is only the start of a lengthy process. It kicks off a two-month public comment period, which will be followed by a technical conference — likely in the fall — to decide what kinds of technologies qualify as “zero emissions” under state law.

Donohue, the head of the power plant lobby, said the move was a long time coming. “The fact that the commission has finally said, ‘We need these technologies,’ and the fact that they did not limit technologies in this order, is a positive thing,” Donohue said. Still, he called it “incremental progress,” coming nearly two years after IPPNY petitioned the state to take the issue on.

The PSC’s order, which responds explicitly to IPPNY’s petition, meets the group halfway. It stops short of creating a state-backed market for the technologies that ultimately meet the criteria, as IPPNY has sought. The state currently has such markets for wind, solar, and other renewables: Through a mechanism known as the Clean Energy Standard, the state signs contracts for qualifying renewable energy projects, guaranteeing a buyer for the power they generate. The cost of underwriting those contracts trickles down to New Yorkers through their utility bills.

No such guarantees exist for technologies like hydrogen, making them a riskier bet to develop. That isn’t changing for now. But IPPNY hopes the PSC decision will pave the way toward such a subsidy before long.

Setting up a subsidy for these technologies is putting the cart before the horse. They must find something that might possibly work before they can consider how much it might cost. Getting something that will work may well be impossible because of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. I do not consider myself an electric system expert but I have talked to experts and they all say this is a challenge because of physics.

The effort’s most vocal backer among state regulators is Commissioner Diane Burman, who was appointed by then–Governor Andrew Cuomo in 2013 and is PSC’s longest-serving member.

“We need all the tools in the toolkit to help us achieve our clean energy goals,” she said on Thursday, echoing longstanding talking points from the power industry. “To do that, we need to not be so focused on picking winners and losers, in that we are actually going to chill the opportunities that may be there.”

A week earlier, Burman spoke at IPPNY’s annual conference, where Donohue called her a “good friend.” The conference dedicated a 90-minute session to the issue of dispatchable resources, featuring a program manager at NYSERDA, a chemical engineer, an executive at a fuel cell company, and a pipefitters’ union leader.

“We don’t have to displace middle-class union jobs to achieve our goals,” said John Murphy, the pipe trades union representative. “Intermittent renewables can’t do it alone.”

Speaking to New York Focus on Thursday, Donohue said the PSC’s expected decision on IPPNY’s petition shaped the conference lineup.

“I didn’t do this in the dark,” he said, adding that the PSC’s decision was a sign of regulators warming up to IPPNY’s agenda.

Given the expert concern about this technology it is encouraging that it is finally being addressed. I worry that it will become politicized with environmental groups disparaging the very idea that it is needed. The next section in the article, Environmental Groups Wary, confirmed my suspicions.

Environmentalists, who came out in uniform opposition last year to IPPNY’s push, remain wary. Environmental justice advocates in particular have condemned biofuels and hydrogen as “false solutions” that would roll back hard-fought commitments in the state’s climate law.

The “false solution” slogan is the mantra of environmental activists. To date they have been very successful pushing their emotion-laden agenda that the only acceptable pollution burden is zero based on a selective science. Anything that is inconsistent with that is labeled as a “false solution”. See, for example, my work on the peaker power plant issue that discusses tradeoffs.

“If the intention is to have an honest discussion about what actually is zero emissions, and what’s industry hype and… gaslighting, then that’s one thing,” said Eddie Bautista, executive director of the NYC Environmental Justice Alliance. “However, a lot of us are skeptical and worried because of actions that we’ve seen of late by the Hochul administration themselves, looking to potentially undermine the climate law.”

Bautista pointed to the sudden proposal from Hochul’s office in late March, just days before the state’s budget deadline, to overhaul how New York counts carbon emissions. The shift could have allowed polluters to continue burning gas and other fuels for longer, and could have opened the door to more fuels derived from biological sources like wood, or methane gas captured from farms or landfills. Hochul dropped the proposal from budget talks following an uproar from climate groups, but officials have said they intend to revisit it.

Bautista is referring to a proposed change in the emissions accounting proposed earlier this year. I don’t think very many people understand the actual ramifications to the Climate Act targets. I don’t agree that it would have “allowed polluters to continue burning gas and other fuels for longer”. They only proposed to change the accounting label. The actions necessary to meet the percentage reductions don’t care whether the starting number is 200 and the 2030 40% emissions limit is 120 or the starting number is 100 and the 2030 40% reduction emission limit is 60. The control strategies still have to get a 40% reduction. The environmental community is wound up about bio-fuels but ignore the fact that most other jurisdictions with similar programs enable their use.

The plan adopted by the state’s Climate Action Council in December rejected most uses of alternative fuels, to the relief of environmental justice advocates — and the dismay of the three industry-aligned members, including Donohue, who voted against. Now, Bautista is nervous that Hochul might be wavering on the council’s recommendations. “It’s hard not to see signs of the Hochul administration not fully embracing the plan,” he said.

Raya Salter, an environmental justice advocate and lawyer who sat on the Climate Action Council, was not surprised to see the state moving forward with IPPNY’s petition. She said it was up to climate groups to “hold the line” against any move that would “increase costs to New Yorkers and put disadvantaged communities at risk.” “We set the bar high in New York, in terms of what any technology that will be used in our state will do in terms of affordability, health, cost, etc.,” she said. “Through the fog, we’re talking about emerging technologies that are unproven and really have a long way to go before clearing any bar.”

The rhetoric of these two ideologues is frightening. Neither has ever acknowledged the concerns of the agencies responsible for electric system reliability. I suspect that they would prefer to risk the current standards for reliability and affordability than concede that some of their aspirational goals are threats to them.

The PSC’s order acknowledges some uncertainties around new nuclear, biofuels, and hydrogen, but it doesn’t rule any technologies out. Aside from possible pollution, critics worry that many of these technologies remain prohibitively expensive — though new federal funding, mostly from the Inflation Reduction Act, could change the economics.

Critics of the technologies are worried about the costs of these technologies. They should be but apparently do not understand that the potential risks of not having this technology dwarf those costs. In February 2021, the Texas electric grid failed to provide sufficient energy when it was needed. As a result, over 4.5 million homes and residences were without power, at least 246 people died, and total damages were at least $195 billion. Those are real costs and deaths not some contrived benefits and projected health impacts associated with GHG emissions.

It is hypocritical to worry about the DEFR costs but ignore the costs of the rest of the net-zero transition. Both Bautista and Salter support the narrative that the costs of inaction for the net zero Climate Act transition outweigh the costs of action. That too is nothing more than a slogan. It is misleading, because the costs in the Scoping Plan do not include the costs of “already implemented” programs. In other words, it does not cover the costs to get to net-zero only the costs of the Climate Act itself. My analyses of costs found that there are significant “already implemented” program costs that likely would make the statement false. It gets worse because as far as I can tell the Integration Analysis does include the benefits of already implemented programs while it excludes the costs. My analysis of the benefits shows that they over-estimated the benefits in any event.

Officials say some state investment is necessary to bring emerging, zero-emissions resources to market, just like the technologies that came before them. “All of our energy infrastructure, at some point, was built with public injection of funds,” said NYSERDA operations manager Richard Bourgeois at the IPPNY conference.

There is one difference overlooked by proponents however. In the past there was an end to the public injection of funds. The public injection of subsidies for wind and solar have been on-going for decades. Given the technological risk of DEFR it is likely that similar on-going subsidies will be required. There is likely no end for the new “zero-emissions” technologies.

The state will need at least 17 gigawatts’ worth of these clean, “firm,” systems by 2040, NYSERDA estimates — about two-thirds the capacity of all the fossil fuel plants that serve New York today. Those dispatchable systems will run very rarely, generating only about 1 percent of the power New Yorkers actually end up using, according to a recent presentation by Vlad Gutman-Britten, assistant director of policy and markets at NYSERDA.

The current business model for peaking generation resources is to use the cheapest technology available (simple cycle natural gas turbines) because cost recovery for a facility that only runs 5% or less of the time for the rare conditions is challenging. It seems unrealistic to expect that any of the new DEFR technologies will be cheaper than a gas turbine which means that cost recovery will be much more difficult. Somebody, somewhere is going to have to pick up that tab.

Bautista says that limited role means there’s no need for the state to rush into supporting these technologies, particularly given advances in battery storage. “Their solution is always shooting an elephant gun to kill a fly,” he said. “They can’t say in 10 years where battery technology is going to be.”

Gutman-Britten sees things differently. “That resource is really going to carry New York through some of the most difficult weeks of every year, when renewables are not generating at the times when demand is highest,” he said.

Gutman-Britten has it right. Without this resource there will be serious reliability problems. In my opinion failure to provide DEFR will inevitably result in a Texas February 2021 blackout disaster. Bautista’s naïve position is dangerously wrong.

Conclusion

The Hochul Administration’s deference to a few naïve individuals is increasing the threat to reliable and affordable electricity in New York. The responsible experts all say that this new resource that can be dispatched as needed without any emissions is necessary for the net-zero transition. Instead of confronting the discrepancy between the activists who believe that existing technology is sufficient and the Integration Analysis that said that this new technology was needed, the Climate Action Council frittered away a couple of years arguing semantics and nomenclature on less critical issues.

Even if the technologies necessary for the transition turn out to be affordable and work as necessary, the arbitrary schedule of the Climate Act is a problem. The proposed cap and invest program promises compliance certainty with respect to the mandated schedule. What is missing is implementation certainty. There are a whole host of reasons (e.g., funding, supply chain issues, and lack of trained workers) why the generating resources necessary to meet the mandates might not get built as fast necessary. If that happens the final compliance option is to shut down when the cap is reached. I do not think that an artificial energy shortage to meet the targets is in the best interest of anyone. Are the climate activists so naïve as to believe that rationing gasoline, heating fuels and electricity will be selling points for their vision of the future?

New York Public Service Commission Finally Addresses Dispatchable Emissions-Free Resources

In order to implement the Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act) net-zero transition the Integration Analysis, the New York Independent System Operator and the New York State Reliability Council all agree that a new resource that has all the characteristics of a natural gas fired turbine but no emissions is needed. The New York Public Service Commission has initiated a process to “identify technologies that can close the gap between the capabilities of existing renewable energy technologies and future system reliability needs, and more broadly identify the actions needed to pursue attainment of the Zero Emission by 2040 Target” for New York electric generating sources intended to address that need. This is an overview of the proceeding.

I have been following the Climate Act since it was first proposed. I submitted comments on the Climate Act implementation plan and have written over 300 articles about New York’s net-zero transition because I believe the ambitions for a zero-emissions economy embodied in the Climate Act outstrip available renewable technology such that the net-zero transition will do more harm than good. The opinions expressed in this post do not reflect the position of any of my previous employers or any other company I have been associated with, these comments are mine alone.

Climate Act Background

Dispatchable Emissions-Free Resources

The Integration Analysis, the New York Independent System Operator, and the New York State Reliability Council all agree that a new resource that provides all the services of existing natural gas fired generating units without emissions is needed because of the reliability problem illustrated in the following figure. This graph illustrates the long-duration wind lull problem from an early presentation to the Climate Action Council. It explicitly points out that emissions-free firm capacity or dispatchable emissions free resources (DEFR) is needed to meet multi-day periods of low wind and solar resource availability. The thing to remember is that in order to prevent catastrophic blackouts caused because intermittent wind and solar resources are not able to support expected loads, all three groups are banking on DEFR capacity. Using wind, solar and storage exclusively makes meeting the worst-case renewable resource gap much more difficult, if not impossible, to address.

I compared the state’s scoping plan resource estimates and the New York Independent System Operator analysis that both projected how much more energy (MWh would be needed when everything is electrified and what resources would be needed to provide them. The issues are summarized in the New York State Reliability Council Draft Scoping Plan comments. They made the point that the new resources required are enormous and also raised other concerns:

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

It all boils down to the fact that a reliable zero emission resource that can backup intermittent renewable energy does not exist. The NYISO and NYSRC both waffle around saying that such a magical resource must be developed and tested but they have not admitted publicly the possibility that such a resource may well be impossible because of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The Scoping Plan chose green hydrogen as its candidate resource and in order to prove that it can work a comprehensive feasibility analysis is required.

Scoping Plan and DEFR

In my opinion the Hochul Administration lost track of the plot regarding the Climate Action Council’s handling of the Scoping Plan. In particular, the Council managed to get bogged down into technical details that were outside the expertise of the membership but forged ahead anyway. I believe they went off in the wrong direction.

At the meeting where the Climate Action Council approved the Scoping Plan Council members gave statements. The statement of Robert W. Howarth, Ph.D., the David R. Atkinson Professor of Ecology & Environmental Biology at Cornell University illustrates my concern. He claimed that he played a key role in the drafting of the Climate Act and summarized his position regarding the transition of the electric grid:

I further wish to acknowledge the incredible role that Prof. Mark Jacobson of Stanford has played in moving the entire world towards a carbon-free future, including New York State. A decade ago, Jacobson, I and others laid out a specific plan for New York (Jacobson et al. 2013). In that peer-reviewed analysis, we demonstrated that our State could rapidly move away from fossil fuels and instead be fueled completely by the power of the wind, the sun, and hydro. We further demonstrated that it could be done completely with technologies available at that time (a decade ago), that it could be cost effective, that it would be hugely beneficial for public health and energy security, and that it would stimulate a large increase in well-paying jobs. I have seen nothing in the past decade that would dissuade me from pushing for the same path forward. The economic arguments have only grown stronger, the climate crisis more severe. The fundamental arguments remain the same.

The professional staff at the agencies responsible for keeping the lights on in New York and the analysts who developed the Integration Analysis used for the Scoping Plan all believe that DEFR will be needed to keep the lights on. Their position is at odds with Howarth’s assertion that the existing technologies for wind, sun, and hydro generating resources are all that is necessary for a reliable electric system. The failure of the Hochul Administration to make it clear that Dr. Howarth’s opinion cannot be the basis of New York policy has resulted in unacceptable delays in the development of a feasibility analysis for this resource.

Public Service Commission DEFR

On May 18, 2023 the Public Service Commission (PSC) announced that a process has been started to “examine the need for resources to ensure the reliability of the 2040 zero-emissions electric grid mandated by the Climate Act”. The press release went on:

The Climate Act, passed by the State Legislature in 2019, directs the Commission to establish, among other things, a program to ensure that by 2030, at least 70 percent of electric load is served by renewable energy, and that by 2040, there are zero emissions associated with electrical demand in the State. The initiative will help deliver on the Climate Act zero-emissions electric grid mandate and will enable the necessary types of clean energy to reach all New Yorkers. The Commission’s decision follows a substantial climate package announced by Governor Kathy Hochul in the FY24 enacted State Budget that will advance sustainable buildings, clean energy, and an affordable Cap-and-Invest program.

Today’s action recognizes that as renewable resources and storage facilities are added to the State’s energy supply, additional clean-energy resources capable of responding to fluctuating conditions might be needed to maintain the reliability of the electric grid. The Commission’s work to meet the Climate Act targets must include exploration of technologies that can support reliability once fossil generation has been removed from the system.

The order initiates a process to identify technologies that can close the anticipated gap between the capabilities of existing renewable energy technologies and future system reliability needs. Within the order, the Commission asks stakeholders a series of important questions, including how to define ‘zero-emissions’ for purposes of the zero emissions by 2040 target, and whether that definition should include cutting edge technologies such as advanced nuclear, long duration energy storage, green hydrogen, and demand response. The order further elicits feedback from stakeholders on how to best design a zero-emissions by 2040 program, consistent with the Climate Act’s requirement of delivering substantial benefits to disadvantaged communities and New York State’s electric grid reliability rules, while also leveraging other state and federal efforts to research, develop, and deploy zero-emission resources.

After a 60-day public comment period, Commission staff will convene at least one technical conference to examine a series of issues and questions raised in this important proceeding. The Commission may take additional actions on zero-emission resources based on the information obtained through those processes.

The order provided more background and rationale. When the Climate Act was passed the PSC modified the Clean Energy Standard (DES) to align with its requirements. The order explains:

The pathway established by the CES Modification Order focuses on options for procuring sufficient renewable energy resources to meet CLCPA requirements. However, several studies indicate that renewable energy resources may not be capable of meeting the full range of electric system reliability needs that will arise as fossil generation is replaced. These studies suggest that there is a gap between the capabilities of existing renewable energy technology and expected future system reliability requirements.

On August 18, 2021 the Independent Power Producers of New York, Inc., New York State Building and Construction Trades Council, and New York State AFL-CIO (Petitioners) filed a Zero Emissions Petition that also raised this issue. The proceeding notes:

This Order responds to the Petition and initiates a process to identify technologies that can close the gap between the capabilities of existing renewable energy technologies and future system reliability needs, and more broadly identify the actions needed to pursue attainment of the Zero Emission by 2040 Target. As a first step, rather than adopting a new CES tier as requested in the Zero Emissions Petition, this Order seeks input from stakeholders on options for addressing that gap. In particular, the Commission welcomes responses to the questions posed in the body of this Order and directs the Department of Public Service staff (Staff), in consultation with the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA), to convene a technical conference that addresses the same list of questions.

In the discussion section of the order the PSC admits that efforts to meet the Climate Act targets “must include exploration of technologies that can support reliability once conventional fossil fuel generation has been removed from the system”. The order states:

We see this exploration as integral to our responsibility under the PSL to ensure reliable electric service as we approach the Zero Emissions by 2040 Target.²⁵ With this Order, we are initiating process to determine appropriate next steps to address this gap including consideration of whether it is appropriate for the Commission to allocate ratepayer funds to incentivize the deployment of zero-emission technologies.

The order goes on to seek comment on related topics and asks specific questions.

I find it particularly enlightening as an example of poor planning that the one of the topics relates to the term “zero emissions”. It turns out nobody has bothered to define what technologies qualify as “zero emissions”:

Many of the questions posed below relate to how the term “zero emissions” should be defined. This is a particularly important issue given that neither PSL §66-p(2)(b) nor any other provision of the CLCPA defines the technologies that should be considered “zero emissions.” Section 66-p(2) (b) simply states that “by the year [2040] the statewide electrical demand system will be zero emissions.” The CES Modification Order established that the technologies defined as “renewable energy systems” under PSL §66-p(l)(a) are de facto “zero emissions” for purposes of meeting the 2040 target.26 Additionally, the Commission recognized existing nuclear generation as a zero-emission technology in its 2016 CES Framework Order, which created the ZEC program.27 However, PSL §66-p(2) (b) does not say more about what is meant by “zero emissions,” leaving it to the Commission to define the term.

Notice Soliciting Public Comments

The order asks for comments on the following questions.

How should the term “zero emissions,” as used under PSL §66-p(2)(b), be defined?
Should the term “zero emissions” be construed to include some or all of the following types of resources, such as advanced nuclear (Gen III+ or Gen IV), long-duration storage, green hydrogen, renewable natural gas, carbon capture and sequestration, virtual power plants, distributed energy resources, or demand response resources? What other resource types should
be included?
How should a program to achieve the Zero-Emission by 2040 Target address existing and newly constructed nuclear energy resources. Should the program be limited to specific types of nuclear energy technologies and exclude others?
Should new measures adopted to pursue compliance with the Zero-Emission by 2040 Target focus exclusively on generation and resource adequacy, or should they also encompass a broader set of technologies that could be integrated into the transmission or distribution
system segments, or installed and operated behind-the-meter?
Should any program to achieve the Zero-Emission by 2040 Target specify subcategories of energy resources based on particular characteristics, such as ramp rates, the duration of their operational availability, or their emissions profile with respect to local pollutants?
What role does technology innovation need to play to meet the CLCPA’s Zero-Emission by 2040 Target?
Should life cycle emissions impacts be considered when characterizing energy resources? If so, how?
Given that the feedstocks and other resources required to produce renewable natural gas are limited and will be in demand in other sectors of New York’s economy, how should this fuel be considered in the context of this proceeding?
In what ways might a program to meet the Zero-Emission by 2040 Target require reexamination and possibly revision of different tiers of the Clean Energy Standard? Should one or more of the policy approaches that have been used to implement the CES be considered to meet the Zero-Emission by 2040 Target?
What is necessary to align a program to meet the Zero-Emission by 2040 Target with the priority of just transition embedded within the CLCPA?
How might the benefits of a program to meet the Zero-Emission by 2040 Target be measured for the purpose of ensuring that, consistent with PSL §66-p(7), it delivers “substantial benefits” to Disadvantaged Communities?
NYISO has adopted an effective load carrying capacity (ELCC) rubric and treatment of Zones J and K as load pockets with special resource adequacy requirements. How should these constructs and other NYISO market rules inform design of a program meant to support the development and deployment of resources capable of achieving a zero emissions grid?
What additional studies, if any, should the Commission undertake with respect to the development and deployment of resources capable of achieving a zero emissions grid?
Given that New York is not the only jurisdiction investigating options and opportunities for the research, development, and deployment of new technologies capable of achieving a zero emissions grid, how should the State seek to coordinate with and otherwise draw upon efforts that are underway elsewhere?

Conclusion

On one hand it is encouraging that there is finally an effort underway to define “zero emissions” resources and there is recognition that new technologies must be evaluated. On the other hand, this is a recognized problem that should have been the priority of Climate Action Council and the Scoping Plan. It has been 21 months since the Zero Emissions Petition was filed and they are just starting to address the problem. I have always decried the lack of a feasibility analysis of the affordability, reliability, and permitting acceptability of zero emission resource options. I believe that the Climate Action Council reliance on non-experts is a leading cause for this delay.

My other concern is that this could become politicized. I expect massive pushback from Climate Act proponents if the proceeding finds that the only proven option available for affordable “zero emissions” resources that must be included in the future energy system mix to maintain reliability is nuclear. If New York truly wants to reduce GHG emissions to the extent proposed nuclear must be in the mix but the entrenched anti-nuclear sentiment likely precludes that rational approach. Furthermore, all the other options may well be impossible because of the Second Law of Thermodynamics If the analysis determines that the other options are technologically infeasible or too expensive in the mandated Climate Act schedule, the only rational approach would be to adjust the schedule. That would cause a meltdown for all the Climate Activists. The Hochul Administration has painted itself into a corner because I think the most likely result of this proceeding is inconsistent with the Scoping Plan. They will have to either admit that the Scoping Plan schedule is untenable or modify the results to fit the political narrative.

Update

As I was getting ready to publish this I heard the Susan Arbetter on Spectrum News Capital Tonight had interviewed Dr. Howarth. She had two members of the Climate Action Council on her show to discuss Climate Act Implementation: Howarth and Gavin Donohue of the Independent Power Producers of New York. I generally agree with Donohue’s description of the current status. At 7:20 of the interview video she talked to Howarth. Her last question (13:12 of the video) was: “What is the greatest obstacle to meeting the goals of the Climate Act”. Howarth’s response was completely consistent with his earlier statements:

Well, they are not technical. We know how to move the state to a 100% fossil free future. The technology has been around for more than a decade to do that. And it is actually cost-effective. The Scoping Plan and the Climate Action Council lays that out in great detail. The cost of inaction is more than the cost of moving forward with this plan, which is why 19 out of 22 of us voted for it. Gavin is only one of three people who voted against it

Arbetter had to ask him at this point to answer the question. He responded:

The challenges are political and educational. Letting people know why it is good for the state. Letting them know why they can afford it. Counter-acting some of the misinformation and fear mongering that is out there.

If I was not clear enough in this post let me reiterate my concern. The Integration Analysis that was used to develop the Scoping Plan; the organizations responsible for providing reliable electric energy -New York Independent System Operator and New York State Reliability Council, and by way of this proceeding, the Public Service Commission all agree that we do not know how to move the state to a 100% fossil free future because meeting that target requires dispatchable emissions free resources that do not presently exist. Dr. Howarth claims that education is necessary to counter-act misinformation and fear-mongering but given that his technology position directly contradicts the state experts on electric system reliability I conclude he is the one guilty of misinformation.

ACE NY Agrivoltaics Support

In order to implement the Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act) New York must support “unprecedented levels of investment in new generation”. This post addresses the duplicity of the members of the Alliance for Clean Energy New York (ACE NY) who have organized a campaign to send letters supporting agrivoltaics to the legislators at the same time they are covering swaths of prime farmland with solar panels.

Climate Act Background

One of the more serious problems with the Hochul Administration net-zero transition is that there is no implementation plan. The “unprecedented levels of investment in new generation” includes between 14,731 MW (New York State Independent System Operator 2021-2040 System & Resource Outlook) and 18,852 MW (Integration Analysis) of solar development by 2030. One example of the lack of a plan is that the Integration Analysis projection presumes that the utility-scale solar development will use tracking solar panels with a capacity factor of 20%. However, most permitted New York solar developments are using fixed solar panels with lower capacity factors because there is no mandate that they use the more expensive technology. That means that the projection of 18,852 MW is low. I believe a proper implementation plan would include limitations to protect prime farmland from solar development.

ACE NY

The Alliance for Clean Energy New York (ACE

NY) mission is to “promote the use of clean, renewable electricity technologies and energy efficiency in New York State, in order to increase energy diversity and security, boost economic development, improve public health, and reduce air pollution”. ACE NY members are “a mix of private companies and non-profit organizations”. It is a well-connected lobbying organization for the crony capitalist grifters who are building the renewables required by the Climate Act. Of the 16 organizations on the Board of Directors, six are non-governmental organizations (two based in New York) and of the remaining ten companies only one (Sealed, an insulation and HVAC company that partners with New York utilities) is a New York based company. The rest are out of state developers who will bear no repercussions when the affordability and reliability of the New York electric system tanks.

The ACE NY 2023 priorities for large-scale, grid-connected renewables defines their agenda. It includes the following:

Continued NYSERDA competitive procurement program, on schedule, under the Clean Energy Standard, to contract for renewable energy at a pace that will achieve 70% renewable electricity by 2030, with a fair and transparent evaluation process for bids, reasonable contract requirements, and contract amendments when necessary.
Solid progress on transmission, including Public Service Commission (PSC) approval of local and bulk transmission system upgrades, designation of a public policy transmission need (PPTN) upstate, New York Power Authority contributions to transmission upgrades, selection of a transmission solution for the Long Island Offshore Wind Export PPTN, and decision-making around other transmission needs to enable offshore wind development.
For offshore wind project development, the announcement of one or more new contracts, paired with state port and supply chain investments, and the issuance of a 2023 offshore wind solicitation.
An efficient and timely interconnection process at the NYISO, including a Class Year that takes one year and significant reforms and improvements to the process.
NYISO rules that are fair and favorable for renewables, such as capacity market rules that don’t disadvantage renewable energy or storage.
Efficient permitting, as evidenced by steady progress by the Office of Renewable Energy Siting. Our goal is to allow responsible developers to move steadily and predictably through the process in a timely manner, so that there is a healthy pipeline of diverse projects. Also, improvements to the species impact mitigation process.
The continued ability of solar developers to lease land from farmers to host the solar projects NY needs to achieve its clean energy and climate goals, plus advancement of co-located solar and agriculture to demonstrate emerging approaches to both.
A significant cohort of wind and solar projects successfully reaching the construction phase during 2023 and becoming operational.
For offshore wind planning, the establishment of a goal of 15 GW of offshore wind by 2040 and 20 GW by 2050, plus the issuance of an Offshore Wind Power Master Plan 2.0 that includes a roadmap for offshore wind power development in the deep ocean.
Standardized and fair taxation of wind and solar projects at the local level, and elimination of unfair renewable energy bans and moratoria at the local level.
A successful competitive Tier 2 program to support renewable resources built before 2015, or another means of support for these projects, plus rules that enable and encourage renewables repowering.
Reasonable requirements for decommissioning projects and avoidance of end-of-life disposal requirements that vary from town-to-town. Support for the development of solar panel recycling facilities in New York.
New York state pursuit of an economy-wide carbon cap-and-invest policy.

This list of priorities boils down to build as much as possible as fast possible with as few restrictions as we can get away with. “Efficient” permitting is a euphemism for let us do whatever we want with as few restrictions as possible. There is a mention of improvements to “species impact mitigation process”. In other words, some member’s project got slowed down because the rules that have applied to electric generation development to protect the environment and wildlife prior to the Climate Act have not been changed fast enough. There is another priority to eliminate “unfair renewable energy bans and moratoria on the local level”. That translates to the State has not over turned home rule enough to suit us.

ACE NY Agrivoltaics Letter to Legislators

The ACE NY website has a section “Support Agrivoltaics in New York State” that provides a way to send a form letter to legislators supporting agrivoltaics:

As New Yorkers, we believe that solar energy and farming can exist alongside one another, and each industry can help to bolster the other in meaningful ways while also supporting individual farmers and their communities.

The benefits of agrivoltaics are abundant. They include:

A new, stable income source for farmers, to keep NY farmers in farming;

Protection and conservation of soil with a reversable use of land;

New tax revenue for communities that host solar projects; and

Opportunities to host solar projects and produce more clean electricity;

SEND A LETTER TO YOUR LEGISLATORS SUPPORTING AGRIVOLTAICS

Please let your legislators know you support agrivoltaics in New York state. New York farmers should be able to host solar installations, if they choose to, and get income to help their farms.

For starters note that the description “as New Yorkers” does not apply to any of the development companies on the Board of Directors so take their beliefs with a grain of salt. None of them will be affected when New York farming is adversely affected. The stable income applies to the farmers who no longer want to farm. It will raise prices for those who choose to continue to farm. One of the stories perpetuated by the developers is that the solar developments are only temporary. The reality is that we will continue to need the solar power so it beggars the mind why one can argue that these facilities won’t be re-developed with new panels when the developments reach the end of their useful life. The next section discusses the status of New York solar development and belies the claims that ACE NY members care about New York agriculture.

New York Solar Development

I have written multiple articles about solar development and impacts to the agricultural sector in New York. In my opinion the State should provide a plan for responsible siting for all solar facilities. There is a policy option roadmap for the proposed 10 GW of distributed solar development. However, there is not an equivalent set of policies for utility-scale solar development. Given the magnitude of the potential impacts to prime farmland I submitted a comment to the Climate Action Council recommending that they impose a moratorium on the development of utility-scale solar projects until permitting requirements have been established for responsible solar siting and protection of prime farmlands. Not surprisingly there has never been any response.

I described a workshop “What’s the Deal with Renewable Energy & Agriculture?” co-hosted by New Yorkers for Clean Power (NYCP) and Alliance for Clean Energy NY (ACENY) that discussed the compatibility of solar energy development and agriculture in New York State late last year. In my opinion, all the speakers were advocating responsible solar development that minimizes the use of the best agricultural farmland soils. Whatever your position is with respect to the industrial solar development that to me is a key requirement. If a project meets all the New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets (Ag and Markets) guidelines and the Office of Renewable Energy Siting requirements then, given the current state law mandating massive buildouts of solar energy, the application should be approved. The problem is that many of the recently permitted solar facilities do not meet that criterion.

In particulate, I think it is very unfortunate that Department of Agriculture and Markets guidelines to protect prime farmland are ignored. The guidelines have been described in prepared testimony by Michael Saviola from the Department of Agriculture and Markets that I believe represent best practices and should be mandatory. In particular, “The Department’s goal is for projects to limit the conversion of agricultural areas within the Project Areas, to no more than 10% of soils classified by the Department’s NYS Agricultural Land Classification mineral soil groups 1-4, generally Prime Farmland soils, which represent the State’s most productive farmland.” I think this is a reasonable goal and one that should be a mandatory requirement for all projects.

I have started tracking the loss of prime farmland and the ramifications of not enforcing those guidelines. The following table lists approved solar projects and my estimates of the loss of prime farmland. Of the 15 recently approved projects listed only five meet the farmland conversion guidelines of the Department of Agriculture and Markets as of May 21, 2023.

Discussion

As noted previously there is no implementation plan. On December 12, 2022 Governor Hochul announced that “a special working group of state agencies and agricultural community stakeholders will collaborate to support New York farmers and help boost the agricultural industry” that could be a start. The press release stated that “This working group will be critical to tackling several challenges within New York’s agricultural industry, and my administration will continue to work with farmers to address their needs and reimagine farming in our state.” Searching for any follow up to the announcement five months later yielded no results. While the Hochul Administration fiddles time away the loss of prime farmland continues.

Conclusion

The New York Office of Renewable Energy Siting (ORES) approved Hecate Energy’s permit for the 500-megawatt (MW) Cider Solar Farm on July 25, 2022. My article on the project explained that the Cider Solar Farm will be a 500-megawatt photovoltaic solar facility capable of supplying 920,000 MWh (21% capacity factor) located in the towns of Elba and East Oakfield, Genesee County, NY. Right in line with the ACE NY 2023 priorities, ORES over-ruled the Towns of Elba and Oakfield zoning ordinances that were “unreasonably burdensome” for the developer. The 4,650 acre Project Site is 41% Prime Farmland (1,912 acres) and another 27% (1,252 acres) would be Prime Farmland if drained. Until such time that the state develops responsible solar siting mandates that protect prime farmland consistent with the Department of Agriculture and Markets solar siting guidelines projects like this that removes 3,163 acres of prime farmland (68% of the project site!) from production will continue to be built.

The ACE NY letter writing campaign in support of agrivoltaics suggests that ACE NY members care about the New York agricultural sector. In reality, it is a public relations gesture. If ACE NY members truly cared about New York farmers then they should be developing projects that meet the Department of Agriculture and Markets solar siting guidelines and incorporating agrivoltaics in their projects. As noted, the guidelines can be met but most projects don’t bother to meet them. Agrivoltaics have been mentioned in some of the permit applications that I have read but it is usually an afterthought or promise to consider it in the future. I have never seen it included as a permit condition commitment.

Climate Act Cost Tracking and EV Supply Equipment Example

The expected costs associated with the Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act) are poorly documented. There are very few instances where the Hochul Administration provides specific estimates of ratepayer costs. As I run across reports that include costs, I will update my scorecard of residential ratepayer costs. This article reviews the Department of Public Service Staff Electric Vehicle Make-Ready Program Midpoint Review and Recommendations Whitepaper (Make Ready report)which provide recommendations for modification to the Make-Ready Program that subsidizes electric vehicle supply equipment and infrastructure.

Everyone wants to do right by the environment to the extent that they can afford to and not be unduly burdened by the effects of environmental policies. I submitted comments on the Climate Act implementation plan and have written over 300 articles about New York’s net-zero transition because I believe the ambitions for a zero-emissions economy embodied in the Climate Act outstrip available renewable technology such that the net-zero transition will do more harm than good. Every indication is that the costs will be astronomical as well. The opinions expressed in this post do not reflect the position of any of my previous employers or any other company I have been associated with, these comments are mine alone.

Background

The implementation plan for New York’s Climate Act “Net Zero” target (85% reduction and 15% offset of emissions) by 2050 is underway. At the end of 2022 the Climate Action Council completed a Scoping Plan that makes recommends strategies to meet the targets. The Hochul Administration is developing regulations and proposing legislation to respond to those recommendations in 2023.

Unfortunately, the Scoping Plan is just a conglomeration of control strategies that are projected to provide the emission reductions required. The inadequate documentation does not demonstrate the feasibility of the recommended strategies. Furthermore the costs of the program and potential costs to individual New Yorkers are hidden in a shell game con for hiding the true costs. In the Scoping Plan costs are compared to a Reference Case that includes already “incremented programs”. As a result, the costs that are presented do not include all the costs of the net-zero transition. There has been no attempt to provide the expected ratepayer cost increases.

Climate Act Cost Scorecards

Given the lack of cost information I am starting to keep track of the observed costs of the Climate Act. My initial thought was that I would try to account for all the documented costs to a typical residential customer in a single scorecard. However, the effort involved trying to consolidate disparate cost estimates into this parameter is beyond my capabilities so I am going to track costs in several ways.

I naively thought that all the Department of Public Service rate cases associated with Climate Act related decisions would include typical residential customer information. However, I have found that is the exception rather than the rule. I have set up one scorecard for those rate case decisions that provide these data.

In order to simplify interpretation of the cost numbers provided I am going to use four other scorecards. One way to hide Climate Act costs is with subsidies. I am going to track direct subsidies and indirect subsidies in separate scorecards. I have a scorecard that tracks increased costs for various components of the Climate Act transition plan. Finally, I have a scorecard that tracks the differences between cost estimates in the Integration Analysis with what has been observed.

The format of each scorecard is similar. The specific program or component is listed along with the costs for the specific reference. I try to make an estimate of the total costs. For example, the residential rate cost increases necessary to support 3.5 GW of renewable energy transmission are listed but I also extrapolated the costs for an additional 6.9 GW target in the Scoping Plan. Each entry also includes a reference that provides more details for the costs.

The following section documents one example.

Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment and Infrastructure – Direct Subsidies

This is an example of a direct subsidy. I tried and eventually gave up trying to convert these costs to residential cost impacts. Marie French wrote an article published in Politico’s Weekly NY and NJ Energy newsletter that described the 18-E-0138 proceeding and the mid-point review:

MORE EV CHARGER SUBSIDIES FLOATED: The New York Department of Public Service staff wants to boost a ratepayer-funded program to support electric vehicle charging infrastructure from $701 million to $1.1 billion. A mid-point review of the “make ready” program, which the Public Service Commission approved in July 2020, found uneven progress in different utility territories to achieve the public charger goals of the program. Overall, only 630 fast charger plugs of a targeted 1,500 and only 12,475 of a targeted more than 53,000 Level 2 chargers by 2025 have been completed or committed.

While Con Edison is about halfway to its fast charger and Level 2 charger targets, National Grid is only 16 percent of the way to its Level 2 goal and 44 percent of the way to its fast charger target. Central Hudson is 1 fast charger shy of its program goal but has only hit 16 percent for its Level 2 target. NYSEG/RG&E are far behind.

DPS staff concludes that the incentives in the make ready program are insufficient and proposes boosting the available subsidies. New targets for the number of plugs are also proposed, including a new sub-category for chargers at apartment buildings. The new targets increase the number of public fast chargers to about 6,300 and reduce the number of level 2 chargers to about 43,000. A new $25 million micro-mobility program for disadvantaged communities is also proposed and the staff supports increasing a medium- and heavy-duty vehicle electrification pilot by $30 million to $54 million.

Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment and Infrastructure – Cost Documentation

The Make Ready report lists costs that I put in two of my scorecards. The numbers provided conflict with the Integration Analysis cost estimates:

The Make-Ready Order determined per-plug average costs for L2 chargers to be $11,298 within Con Edison’s service territory, and $6,000 for all other utilities’ territories. The per-plug average costs for DCFCs was determined to be $100,109 in Con Edison’s service territory, and $55,000 for all other utilities’ territories.

The integration analysis that provides the quantitative support to the Scoping Plan lists charger costs in Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment: Per-Vehicle Costs ($2020) table Light Duty Vehicle Battery Electric EVSE category for 2022 $2,716 per charger. It appears that the Make Ready Report estimate of the cheaper residential charging system is four times higher than the Integration Analysis.

The Make Ready program is a direct ratepayer-funded program subsidy but no specific ratepayer costs are described. The announced subsidies are $1.1 billion through 2025. I estimate that the subsidy will increase to $1.3 billion by 2030

Discussion

There is an important aspect of the Make Ready example. The Hochul Administration cost narrative is that the costs of inaction of outweigh the costs of action but that statement has an important caveat. It is misleading because it only includes the costs of the Scoping Plan components and does not include the costs of “already implemented” programs. The already implemented programs include the following:

Growth in housing units, population, commercial square footage, and GDP
Federal appliance standards
Economic fuel switching
New York State bioheat mandate
Estimate of New Efficiency, New York Energy Efficiency achieved by funded programs: HCR+NYPA, DPS (IOUs), LIPA, NYSERDA CEF (assumes market transformation maintains level of efficiency and electrification post-2025)
Funded building electrification (4% HP stock share by 2030)
Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards
Zero-emission vehicle mandate (8% LDV ZEV stock share by 2030)
Clean Energy Standard (70×30), including technology carveouts: (6 GW of behind-the-meter solar by 2025, 3 GW of battery storage by 2030, 9 GW of offshore wind by 2035, 1.25 GW of Tier 4 renewables by 2030)

I assume that the Make Ready costs are part of the zero-emissions vehicle mandate. As a result, the $1.3 billion just to support public electric vehicle charging infrastructure is not included in the cost claim narrative. I suspect that detailed analysis of all the costs necessary to for just zero-emissions vehicles would exceed the alleged net benefits of between $115 and $130 billion.

Conclusion

Although trying to keep track of the hidden costs of the Climate Act is likely a Sisyphean task, I am going to give it a shot. At least until I can document that the admitted costs of the Scoping Plan are biased low and incomplete anyway. Any reader contributions are welcome!

Guest Post: More Hidden Costs – Gas Stove Replacements

Richard Ellenbogen frequently copies me on emails that address various issues associated with New York’s Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (Climate Act). I asked his permission to present his analysis describing the incorrect and hidden costs associated with installing induction ranges for residential cooking.

I have published other articles by Ellenbogen because he truly cares about the environment and the environmental performance record of his business shows that he is walking the walk. Ellenbogen is the President of Allied Converters that manufactures food packaging. His facility is about 55,000 square feet and does a lot of manufacturing with heat to seal the bags, all electrically driven. The facility has solar panels and uses co-generation. He explains:

In 2008, the average energy cost per square foot for a commercial facility in Westchester was $1.80. We were at 33% of that 12 years later and even with the increases, we are at 62% of that 14 years later. That has been done while having a carbon footprint 30% – 40% lower than the utility system. The $1.80 per foot also included commercial office space and our operation is far more energy intensive than an office. We use energy extremely efficiently and as a result, our bills are much lower than everyone else.

Induction Cooktops

The impetus for his analysis was an article was in the NY Times entitled How to Buy the Best Induction Cooktop. Richard’s evaluation addresses the costs in detail. The following is his text.

Nowhere does it mention the hidden costs of conversion and with one exception, the cooktops all over $1000 before tax. Also, those are just cooktops with no oven. Complete cooktops and ovens can cost $2500 or more. You have to click on one of the links in the article to find information about the conversion costs and the link does not go into great detail about those costs. It just says that you will have to call an electrician.

The apartment building where my daughter lives in New York City was built in 2003, so it is a new building by City standards. As a reference, I just replaced the gas stove in her apartment last week. It cost $1150 including tax, delivery, and installation. It also included an oven. A gas detector is available from Amazon for about $25 for anyone concerned about methane emissions.

Below are two photos of her breaker panel. An induction range needs a 2 pole 50 amp circuit breaker. As you can see from the photos, the capacity of the panel is 125 amps but it is already fully populated with 2 air conditioners and other appliances on the panel. While breakers could be rearranged to fit a breaker for the induction range, the panel would be operating at or above its capacity. There is no extra capacity on the panel to support the induction range. Installation would require new, higher capacity lines from the basement of the building plus a new breaker panel with a capacity of about 200 amps.

That also doesn’t explain where the manpower will come from to install all of these cook tops/induction ranges when there is a shortage of electricians.

You can add about $2000 for the new breaker panel and the new circuit for the stove, plus painting and patching to fix the holes that the electrician will leave behind. You can also add $300 – $400 for new pots that will work with your range. Running a new service from the basement to support the larger panel would add an additional $2000 – $4000 per apartment that would have to be covered by the building management and would end up reflected in higher common charges. This is all to replace a device that is used about 2 hours per day. In older buildings, the costs would likely be higher. It doesn’t take long to reach $8000 in costs, or about eight times what just replacing the gas range would cost using far less labor.

At least 60% of the state lives in even older housing stock that would have similar issues. Con Ed is having difficulty just supporting air conditioning in many older buildings because their electrical services date to the 1940’s – 1950’s or earlier and the electrical services weren’t sized for that, let alone adding hundreds of induction ranges to these buildings.

There are so many other issues of a far larger magnitude that need to be dealt with prior to incurring the expenses of building electrification that will yield relatively little, if any, improvement in GHG emissions.

However, the media doesn’t want to delve deeply into the downsides for fear of angering their readers. It’s far easier to paint a rosy picture of induction ranges saving the world and keeping Greenland from melting.

And for those that say that gas stoves cause childhood asthma, there is a slide from my upcoming PowerPoint copied below.

Old gas stoves should be replaced, but we don’t need to spend an extra $72 billion doing it.

Closing Remarks

This is another very good evaluation by Ellenbogen. His analysis addresses a topic that I did not evaluate but it reinforces my disappointment that the Scoping Plan did not offer adequate documentation to verify their prediction. Every check on the Integration Analysis numbers that form the basis of the Scoping Plan shows that problems. I found no suggestion that the wiring issues raised by Ellenbogen have been included in the Scoping Plan. Comparison of their unit costs of cooking equipment with what is on the market today shows huge differences. The exclusion of ovens from the cooking costs is biases the estimates low.

I did have one concern about the analysis and after discussion with him there is another overlooked issue. I checked the Integration Analysis input assumptions spreadsheet to check Ellenbogen’s estimate of total costs using the data in the following table.

I multiplied the number of cooking appliances by the documented unit costs and found that the cost to convert all fossil-fired cooking appliances to induction stoves using the 2023 unit cost is $1.9 billion and increases to $3.2 billion if electric resistance stoves have to be converted too. The Integration Analysis unit costs are bogus because they don’t include ovens and are laughably low compared to today’s prices. Assuming more realistic $2500 for a induction cooktop and oven, $735 for electric resistance, and $1,175 for natural gas range and oven, the cost difference to replace the gas and LPG equipment with the induction alternative is $6.1 billion and increases to $12 billion if the electric resistance stoves have to be converted too. That does not address the hidden cost of the electric service upgrades. Ellenbogen estimates that cost is around $8,000. I think that is high overall so I assumed that all the natural gas and LPG homes would have to get upgraded electric service for the cooking equipment at $4,000. That kicks the total conversion costs to $23.8 billion. If the electric resistance stoves have to get upgraded to more efficient induction equipment and no electric service upgrades are required that brings the total to $29.7 billion. That is less than his estimate but still a huge number compared to any estimate using the Integration Analysis.

Residential Cooking Stocks and Costs in Integration Analysis

IA-Tech-Supplement-Annex-1-Input-Assumptions Tabs Bldg_Res Stock and Bldg_Res Device Cost

I sent my version of this analysis to Ellenbogen for review and comment. I was particularly interested in his thoughts about my numbers. He responded that he had talked to his electrical contractor about the prices. The contractor confirmed that these cost prices are valid for Westchester County and Long Island but are low for New York City. Ellenbogen made the point to me that addressing the cost differential is necessary because New York City is 42% of the population of the state and Westchester and Long Island add another 23%. Our work shows that in order to credibly calculate the electric service upgrades necessary for induction cooktops the Integration Analysis should have determined what was necessary for the three categories of residential housing (single family, small multi-family, and large multi-family) and included regional variations in labor costs across the state.

Incredibly there is no sign that electric upgrade costs were included at all. I believe that the Scoping Plan residential cooking costs that incorporate the necessary electric service upgrades are short between $30 and $72 billion. That is a significant fraction of the alleged benefits of between $115 and $130 billion.

Climate Act and NY Heat Proposed Legislation

In order to implement the Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act) the plan in 2023 is to promulgate regulations and implement legislation to facilitate the control strategies needed to meet the net-zero transition plan. The NY HEAT proposed legislation is intended to protect the climate and keep energy costs down. This post describes an article by one of the co-sponsors.

Climate Act Background

Assemblymember Patricia Fahy and Senator Liz Krueger have sponsored a bill (S2016) NY HEAT that is intended “to ensure that state regulation and oversight of gas utilities provides for the equitable achievement of the climate justice and emission reduction mandates set forth in the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act. The intent is to provide the “Public Service Commission with the authority and direction to align gas utility regulation and gas system planning with the CLCPA’s mandates.” It will remove “the legal basis and subsidies driving the expansion of gas systems and requires the commission to adopt rules to provide for the timely and strategic decarbonization and right-sizing of the gas distribution system in a just and affordable manner prioritizing low-to-moderate income customers and disadvantaged communities, and encouraging neighborhood-scale transitions.”

Rather than going through the legislation itself this post addresses an article by Fahy about it in the Gotham Gazette –We Can Protect the Climate and Keep Energy Costs Down with NY HEAT. In the following section I have annotated the article with my comments.

We Can Protect the Climate and Keep Energy Costs Down with NY HEAT

Per usual the political approach is to appeal to authority to provide the rationale for the action. Advocates like Fahy and Krueger don’t acknowledge that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has a political agenda that threatens the credibility of claims that we have to act now.

In March, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) warned that the planet will cross a critical threshold for global warming within the next decade if we don’t take immediate action to curb emissions and meet ambitious climate mandates laid out in New York’s climate law.

The sponsors of the bill claim that concerns about affordability risks are unwarranted. I am not sure I understand their reasoning however. There is an implication that the gas utilities should be the ones that shoulder the costs and not the customers. The idea that the costs would be passed on seems to be missing.

As expected, gas utilities are casting doubt on the affordability of these needed reductions. Let’s be clear — New Yorkers and their families should not shoulder the burden of our clean energy transition.

Affordability is a major concern but we don’t need to weaken our nation-leading climate law to save the planet and save New Yorkers money. As the name suggests, legislation I sponsor with Senator Liz Krueger, the New York Home Energy Affordable Transition (NY HEAT) Act would help keep costs down for New Yorkers while accelerating our energy transition away from polluting fossil fuels and addressing affordability, keeping us on track to meet the goals of our climate law.

The focus on the bill is to outlaw a provision that gas utilities must provide hook ups to the system for new customers within 100 feet of existing pipelines. The authors claim that this subsidy forces ratepayers to pay $200 million in subsidies and they apparently think that stopping it will make the transition affordable.

For decades, New Yorkers have been subsidizing the very infrastructure the gas industry’s profits rely on. The industry’s business models are premised on the perpetual taxpayer-subsidized expansion of gas infrastructure and services. Currently, due to the 100-foot rule mandate – which requires gas utilities to hook up all new customers to gas lines at no charge – ratepayers are footing the $200 million annual bill for this continued expansion of polluting gas infrastructure.

This reasoning is egregious innumeracy because this cost is peanuts compared to all the subsidies needed to transition away from natural gas and go all electric. Consider that the ratepayers are going to have to pony up $339 million to upgrade the electric transmission system to reduce curtailment of 3 GW of offshore wind capacity which is just one component of the net-zero transition. The total cost for all the subsidies is not readily available but is very likely at least an order of magnitude greater than the savings claimed by this legislation. It may reduce the cost a little but reducing this cost will not make the Climate Act affordable.

The article goes on to claim that because National Grid is looking to sell parts of its pipeline network it is “adapting and adjusting”. I am at a loss how this will benefit consumers. Moreover, I don’t see how the ownership of the pipeline network will affect any of the transition issues.

The NY HEAT Act (A4592/S2016) will relieve us of the hook-up cost, and stop the continued expansion of the gas system that is moving New York further away from the goals of the climate law. Thankfully, utilities like National Grid are already adapting and adjusting: as New York considers legislation like NY HEAT, the company is looking to sell parts of its pipeline network to meet future clean energy demand. Last year, it sold a majority share of its gas distribution business in the United Kingdom.

If those reasons are not enough to ensure savings, the authors proposed legislation will simply mandate that a price cap. In typical political fashion the target constituency (low- and middle- income families) gets the benefits of the price cap but the question of who pays the transition costs is ignored. I agree that there should be an energy poverty component to the Climate Act implementation because this policy should not hurt those least able to afford the increased energy costs. However, I have tried and failed multiple times to find out where New York stands relative to the 6% of income threshold referenced in the following paragraph. Does it cover just the cost of electricity and natural gas utilities? Does it include other energy costs such as personal transportation for rural residents? How many families exceed this threshold today and how will the future policies affect the totals? All that information must be known to find out how much the rest of the ratepayers will have to pay to subsidize the price cap.

The savings don’t end there. For low- and middle-income families, NY HEAT would put a price cap on electricity bills, to limit paying no more than 6% of income to stay warm and cook dinner.

In the last legislative session the Utility Thermal Energy Network and Jobs Act was passed to spur development of thermal energy networks which are just community-based ground water heat pump systems. The authors of this legislation claim that NY HEAT will support that initiative by preventing billions of dollars to replace natural gas infrastructure. Left unsaid is just how much this more expensive technology will cost relative to the existing fossil-fired system.

NY HEAT clears a path for utilities to build renewable thermal energy networks instead of replacing and expanding the gas network. Doing so will create thousands of new clean, green energy jobs for union pipefitters and electrical workers for decades to come. It could also prevent the billions of dollars of spending on replacement pipes that gas utilities are planning by 2040 and gas customers would get stuck paying for in the decades to come.

I have often said that there is a disconnect between reality and the understanding of proponents of the Climate Act. Fahy’s claims in the next paragraph provides a vivid example.

New York’s electrical grid maintains a surplus of energy that will support new, all-electric construction. While gas furnaces on the market today require electricity to power their electronics and fans, there are new technologies that keep electric equipment like heat pumps running when the power goes out.

Fahy claims that there is “a surplus of energy that will support new, all-electric construction”. However, she references the installed reserve margin which is the “minimum level of capacity, beyond the forecasted peak demand, which utilities and other energy providers must procure to serve consumers.” For starters the installed reserve margin is a capacity measure and not energy. More importantly, that parameter is used to ensure that the existing system can reliably meet peak loads. It is the minimum level of reserve capacity to keep the lights on. It provides no surplus available for additional load associated with new electric construction. Reality is that the New York Independent System Operator’s Resource Outlook includes four key findings: an unprecedented buildout of new generation is needed, load will increase when we electrify everything, transmission is necessary and must be expended to get diffuse renewables to New York City and a new resource has been identified: Dispatchable Emissions-Free Resource (DEFR). (see following figure) Those findings suggest significant concerns totally overlooked by the Progressive politicians pushing Climate Act implementation legislation.

The other claim is that there are new technologies to keep electric equipment running when the power goes out refers to using power from charged personal electric vehicles to “ power key devices, like cell phones, and appliances, and even your entire home for multiple days.” Maybe on the best day but during a really cold period the idea that family electric car can power the home as needed is wishful thinking and overlooks the point that if it is powering the home it cannot be used for transportation.

Fahy and other advocates refuse to acknowledge the possibility that fossil fuel interests could align with the interests of the majority of New Yorkers who appreciate and value the resiliency and affordability of our existing fossil-fueled infrastructure. Their response is to denigrate any of their arguments as shown in the following paragraph. The article referenced refers to proposed legislation that would have changed the emissions accounting system. I think that it was much ado about nothing. What has not been recognized in any commentary on the cap and invest proposal is that New York’s unique approach makes it impossible for New York to join other jurisdictions in such a program. As a result, New York will have to develop all the infrastructure for its own system at a significant cost and implementation time delay.

The gas industry wants to prevent alternative options for a reliable, affordable, and green transition. Unsurprisingly, they were a force behind the recent unsuccessful push to undermine New York’s climate law – which would have enabled the combustion of more gas, for longer.

Proponents earnestly believe that the Climate Act Scoping Plan is a credible design for the future energy system. I disagree. There is no feasibility analysis that proves that the list of strategies in the Integration Analysis will work as proposed and can be implemented on the schedule necessary to meet the Climate Act targets. There is inadequate documentation for the costs of each strategy and we are left only with a hollow slogan that the costs of inaction are more than the costs of action. The Hochul Administration has refused to provide estimates of consumer impacts to date. When the cap and invest cost estimates were recently calculated, the Administration floated the idea to change the accounting methodology. Despite promises they have yet to provide detailed cost documentation. The Administration has not provided a cumulative environmental impact assessment for the Scoping Plan mitigation scenarios which include substantially more wind and solar resource development and an entirely new dispatchable emissions-free resource than included in any assessments to date. There is no implementation plan. As a result, there are no limits on utility-scale solar development impacts on prime farmland, inadequate on-going monitoring and no backup plan if offshore wind development construction is found to adversely affect whales, and no plan to develop the dispatchable emissions-free resource that is necessary but does not currently exist. I am convinced that the Scoping Plan will do more harm than good.

Our climate plan was years in the making. It was created in consultation with multiple expert advisory panels, subject to public hearings, and incorporated tens of thousands of New Yorkers’ comments. New Yorkers know that we can get off gas and have affordable, reliable energy and a stable climate — but that will take ratepayer funds currently used for expanding fossil fuel infrastructure to be reallocated.

Fahy’s claim that the $200 million savings due to the proposed legislation will save New Yorkers money ignores the costs of the alternatives. That subsidy is peanuts compared to all the costs of alternate technologies.

If we want to save New Yorkers money and lead on climate, we must stop asking New York families to foot the $200 million per year bill to continue constructing and maintaining fossil fuel infrastructure that will inevitably become obsolete. As the Legislature continues its post-budget session, we must pass NY HEAT to move towards our clean energy future.

Conclusion

Proponents refuse to acknowledge the possibility that the majority of New Yorkers appreciate and value the resiliency and affordability of our existing fossil-fueled infrastructure. New York GHG emissions are less than one half of one percent of global emissions and global emissions have been increasing on average by more than one half of one percent per year since 1990. Therefore the effect of eliminating our emissions will be wiped out by emission increases elsewhere. While that does not mean that New York State should not do something, it does mean that there is time to address the ramifications of the proposed wholesale shift to unwanted technology without proper accounting of costs, impacts to reliability, environmental impacts and implementation consequences.

The Hochul Administration has not admitted to the total costs, has provided inadequate documentation for anyone to derive the costs from their analyses, and has refused to provide consumer cost estimates. Until such time that there is a full accounting of the costs necessary to achieve the full net-zero transition and not just the Climate Act program costs, I think it is inappropriate to pass any implementing legislation like the NY HEAT bill. As shown here, the rationale used by the authors of this particular legislation is not credible to support its claims.

Cap and Invest Summary for All Otsego

Darla Youngs from the All Otsego website asked me to prepare a guest column on the Hochul Administration’s plan to implement the Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act). I prepared a commentary that I thought would be too long and too technical on the market-based pollution control program called ‘’cap and invest”. This post presents the commentary after my introductory boilerplate.

Climate Act Background

The Climate Act established a New York “Net Zero” target (85% reduction and 15% offset of emissions) by 2050 and an interim 2030 target of a 40% reduction by 2030. The Climate Action Council is responsible for preparing the Scoping Plan that outlines how to “achieve the State’s bold clean energy and climate agenda.” In brief, that plan is to electrify everything possible and power the electric gride with zero-emissions generating resources by 2040. The Integration Analysis prepared by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) and its consultants quantifies the impact of the electrification strategies. That material was used to write a Draft Scoping Plan. After a year-long review the Scoping Plan recommendations were finalized at the end of 2022. In 2023 the Scoping Plan recommendations are supposed to be implemented through regulation and legislation.

The impetus for the program is a recommendation in the Final Scoping Plan. The following is the commentary that tries to cover the basics of this complicated proposal for a general audience. In late March I summarized my previous articles on the New York cap and invest proposal in a post designed to brief politicians about the proposal if you want more technical information. I really appreciate the opportunity to educate the All Otsego readers on this topic that will affect all New Yorkers.

All Otsego Commentary

As part of the Hochul Administration’s plan to implement the Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act), a market-based pollution control program called ‘’cap and invest” was proposed earlier this year in legislation associated with the budget. It was not included in the final budget bill but it will be considered later this year. This is an overview of this complicated proposal that has affordability and energy use implications.

The Climate Act Scoping Plan identified the need for a “comprehensive policy that supports the achievement of the requirements and goals of the Climate Act, including ensuring that the Climate Act’s emission limits are met.” It claimed that the policy would “support clean technology market development and send a consistent market signal across all economic sectors that yields the necessary emission reductions as individuals and businesses make decisions that reduce their emissions” and provide an additional source of funding. The authors of the Scoping Plan based these statements on the success of similar programs but did not account for the differences between their proposal and previous programs.

The cap and invest proposal is a variation of a pollution control program called cap and trade. In theory, placing a limit on pollutant emissions that declines over time will incentivize companies to invest in clean alternatives that efficiently meet the targets. These programs establish a cap, or limit, on total emissions. For each ton in the cap an allowance is issued. The only difference between these two programs is how the allowances are allocated. The Hochul Administration proposes to auction the allowances and invest the proceeds but, in a cap-and-trade program, the allowances are allocated for free. The intent is to reduce the total allowed emissions over time consistent with the mandates of the Climate Act and raise money to invest in further reductions.

The Environmental Protection Agency administers cap and trade programs for sulfur dioxide (SO₂) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) that have reduced electric sector emissions faster, deeper, and at costs less than originally predicted. In the EPA programs, affected sources that can make efficient reductions can sell excess allocated allowances to facilities that do not have effective options available such that total emissions meet the cap. Also note that EPA emission caps were based on the feasibility of expected reductions from addition of pollution control equipment and a schedule based on realistic construction times.

However, there are significant differences between those pollutants and greenhouse gas pollutants that affect the design of the proposed cap and invest program. The most important difference is that both SO₂ and NOx can be controlled by adding pollution control equipment or fuel switching. Fuel switching to a lower emitting fuel is also an option for carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions but there are no cost-effective control equipment options. Consequentially, CO₂ emissions are primarily reduced by substitution of alternative zero-emissions resources. For example, in the electric sector replacing fossil-fired units with wind and solar resources. The ultimate compliance approach if there are insufficient allowances available is to limit operations.

New York State is already in a cap and invest program with an auction for CO₂ emissions from the electric generating sector. Although significant revenues have been raised, emission reductions due to the program have been small. Since the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative started in 2009, emissions in nine participating states in the Northeast have gone down about 50 percent, but the primary reason was fuel switching from coal and residual oil to natural gas enabled by reduced cost of natural gas due to fracking. Emissions due to the investments from the auction proceeds have only been responsible for around 15 percent of the total observed reductions.

The Hochul Administration has not addressed the differences between existing market-based programs and the proposed cap and invest program. Although RGGI has provided revenues, the poor emission reduction performance has been ignored despite the need for more stringent reductions on a tighter schedule to meet the arbitrary Climate Act limits. The Hochul Administration has not done a feasibility analysis to determine how fast the wind and solar resources must be deployed to displace existing electric generation to make the mandated emission reductions. Worse yet, the Climate Act requires emission reductions across the entire economy and the primary strategy for other sectors is electrification, so electric load is likely to increase in the future.

In late March, the Hochul Administration proposed a modification to the Climate Act to change the emissions accounting methodology to reduce the expected costs of the cap and invest program. New York climate activists claimed that the change would eviscerate the Climate Act and convinced the Hochul Administration to delay discussion of the cap and invest proposal. This cost issue will have to be resolved in the upcoming debate.

In addition, the Hochul Administration has proposed a rebate to consumers that will alleviate consumer costs. This raises a couple of issues. The market-based control program intends to raise costs to influence energy choices, so if all the costs are offset there will not be any incentive to reduce consumer emissions by changing behavior. The other issue is that the auction proceeds are supposed to be invested to reduce emissions. If insufficient investments are made to renewable resources, then deployment of zero-emission resources to offset emissions from fossil generating units will not occur.

The final issue related to the cap and invest proposal is that it provides compliance certainty. The plan is to match the allowance cap with the Climate Act emission reduction mandates. As noted previously, there are limited options available to reduce CO₂emissions. The primary strategy will be developing zero-emissions resources that can displace emissions from existing sources. That implementation is subject to delays due to supply chain issues, permitting delays, and costs as well as other reasons that the state’s transition plan has ignored. Once all the other compliance alternatives are exhausted, the only remaining option is to reduce the availability of fossil fuel and its use.

The cap and invest proposal is a well-meaning but dangerous plan. It necessarily will increase the cost of energy in the state. If the costs are set such that the investments will produce the necessary emission reductions to meet the Climate Act targets, it is likely that the costs will be politically toxic. If the investments do not effectively produce emission reductions, then the compliance certainty feature will necessarily result in artificial energy shortage. Given that this is a disguised tax, it probably is better to just establish a tax so that the compliance certainty does not arbitrarily limit fossil fuel use to produce electricity, heat our homes, or drive our cars.

Articles Related to the Climate Act – May 2023

This post describes some articles I have noted recently that relate to the Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act) net-zero transition plans. At the core of the Climate Act the key questions are is there a problem that warrants the complete conversion of our energy system and can the alternatives proposed replace the existing system affordably while maintaining current standards of reliability. The articles referenced here address those questions.

I have been following the Climate Act since it was first proposed. I submitted comments on the Climate Act implementation plan and have written over 300 articles about New York’s net-zero transition. The opinions expressed in this post do not reflect the position of any of my previous employers or any other company I have been associated with, these comments are mine alone.

Climate Act Background

The Climate Act established a New York “Net Zero” target (85% reduction and 15% offset of emissions) by 2050 and an interim 2030 target of a 40% reduction by 2030. The Climate Action Council is responsible for preparing the Scoping Plan that outlines how to “achieve the State’s bold clean energy and climate agenda.” In brief, that plan is to electrify everything possible and power the electric gride with zero-emissions generating resources by 2040. The Integration Analysis prepared by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) and its consultants quantifies the impact of the electrification strategies. That material was used to write a Draft Scoping Plan. After a year-long review the Scoping Plan recommendations were finalized at the end of 2022. In 2023 the Scoping Plan recommendations are supposed to be implemented through regulation and legislation.

Climate Change Problem

The rationale for the Climate Act is that there is a climate crisis. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the United Nations organization that assesses science related to climate change and the IPCC reports were referenced in the Scoping Plan. In March the latest Synthesis Report describing the latest IPCC AR6 assessment was released. Climate Intelligence (CLINTEL) has published a new report entitled “The Frozen Climate Views of the IPCC: Analysis of the AR6”:

“The new Report provides an independent assessment of the most important parts of AR6. We document biases and errors in almost every chapter we reviewed. In some cases, of course, one can quibble endlessly about our criticism and how relevant it is for the overall ‘climate narrative’ of the IPCC. In some cases, though, we document such blatant cherry picking by the IPCC, that even ardent supporters of the IPCC should feel embarrassed.”

Judith Curry described this report in a recent post. She describes the key issue:

The IPCC focuses on “dangerous anthropogenic climate change,” which leads to ignoring natural climate change, focusing on extreme emissions scenarios, and cherry picking the time periods and the literature to make climate change appear “dangerous.”

I recommend her post as a good overview of the flaws in the IPCC assessment. I endorse Curry’s conclusion:

In any event, UN-driven climate policy has moved well past any moorings in climate science, even the relatively alarming version reported by the IPCC. The insane policies and deadlines tied to greenhouse gas emissions are simply at odds with the reality of our understanding of climate change and the uncertainties, and with broader considerations of human well-being.

Proposed Solutions

I think one of the fundamental flaws associated with the Scoping Plan is the presumption that the raw materials necessary for the electrification proposed are readily available. Furthermore, the “clean energy” and “zero emissions” descriptions in the Plan ignore the total life cycle impacts of those raw materials. On April 26, 2026 Mark P. Mills, Senior Fellow, Manhattan Institute, gave testimony before the Subcommittee on Environment, Manufacturing, and Critical Materials, U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce Hearing on: “Exposing the Environmental, Human Rights, and National Security Risks of the Biden Administration’s Rush to Green Policies”. His testimony makes a strong case that New York’s presumptions are misplaced.

His introduction includes the following:

Permit me to begin by observing two indisputable facts about our future. First, economic growth is the fundamental driver of energy demand. And second, while periods of slow growth and recessions are inevitable in all societies, those periods always end. But any subsequent growth can be stifled if energy supplies are either unavailable or too expensive.

Energy supply itself is not as much a matter of finding resources as it is one of building machines, regardless of the natural resource used, whether sun, wind, water, oil, gas, coal, or uranium. Thus realities around machine-building determine costs and all the associated environmental, social, and geopolitical impacts.

We know a lot about those impacts—both the good and the bad—associated with energy machines that use hydrocarbons because we’ve been using those technologies at scale for a long time, and because that’s how 85 percent of U.S. and global energy is supplied. We’ve learned a lot less about impacts from wind, solar, and battery technologies because they’re relatively new and, so far, supply only a few percent of society’s overall energy.

The Biden Administration has a stated policy goal to see America powered increasingly, eventually entirely by renewable energy. I should like to stipulate that the future will doubtless see far greater use of wind and solar technologies, and electric cars, if for no other reason than the sheer scale of future energy needs, and because developed countries are wealthy enough to pay higher costs.

However, there are many misconceptions about the realities of renewable energy technologies at scale, especially if the goal is to replace rather than supplement hydrocarbons. It begins with the core reality that renewables aren’t green. In fact, nor are renewable technologies inherently cheaper, nor more geopolitically secure.

That renewable energy isn’t green is a consequence of an unavoidable feature of wind and solar resources; they have very low energy density. That means, compared to using hydrocarbons, one must build machines that occupy roughly ten-times more of the earth’s surface to deliver the same amount of energy to society—whether it’s an hour of heat, or light, or computing time, or a mile of driving.

Essentially all life occupies the thin, surface interface of our planet, whether it’s land or water. One of humanity’s greatest achievements has been the radical reduction in the amount of that interface we use to deliver increasing quantities of food and fuel.

The inherent low-energy-density of renewables also means that far more machinery must be fabricated to deliver the same energy as now supplied by hydrocarbon machines. That in turn translates into a radical increase in global mining and minerals processing to supply all the critical materials needed to build renewable machinery.

Renewable plans proposed or underway will require from 400 percent to 8,000 percent more mining for dozens of minerals, from copper and nickel, to aluminum, graphite, and lithium. The IEA says the world will need hundreds of new mines, soon. Given regulatory realities, those won’t be here. Instead, most will be in emerging economies and most will be on or near the lands of indigenous people in areas that are culturally and ecologically valuable and fragile.

And given machine realities, the huge jump in mining required will increase energy use in that sector, thus offsetting a lot, in some cases all the CO2 emissions saved later by replacing hydrocarbons in powerplants and cars. Global mining today already accounts for 40 percent of worldwide industrial energy use, which is dominated by hydrocarbons, and will be for decades.

Mills makes similar arguments in a couple of videos available at PragerU.

Electric Vehicles

I also want to highlight a couple of articles about the electric vehicle mandates in New York and elsewhere. Robert Bryce asked how can the conversion to electric vehicles possibly work out when Ford loses $66,446 per vehicle sold? He argues that Ford can currently swallow the losses incurred by its electric vehicle sales but:

If a business isn’t profitable it isn’t sustainable. The history of electric vehicles goes back more than a century and that history is one of failure tailgating failure. In 1915, the Washington Post declared “Prices on electric cars will continue to drop until they are within reach of the average family.” Today, 108 years later, Ford and other EV makers are still trying to make that prediction come true.

Timothy Nash described 25 reasons why Biden’s EV goals are economically and environmentally harmful. One of the points he made was that thermal runaway issues with the battery packs are a problem. An industry insider told me recently that there is some talk about limiting vehicle range because battery over heating is more of a problem with the bigger batteries. Given that range is a major concern that tradeoff is especially problematic. The ultimate question is what is supposed to happen when people don’t buy the electric vehicles required by the government mandates.

Conclusion

The Climate Act is an example of an insane policy with unrealistic deadlines that is tied to the IPCC analyses. In 2023 the Scoping Plan recommendations are supposed to be implemented. The legislature is in session for another month or so and it will be interesting to see how things play out. The disconnect between reality and the aspirations of the Climate Act is still evident. I hope that the issues described in these articles get addressed in the conversations.

New York Sea-Level Rise Projection Methodology Update

This article describes my response to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) request for comment on its proposed method for development of updated projections of sea level rise along New York State’s tidal coast. The proposed methodology is consistent with the one-sided science in the Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act). In this case, however, DEC will actually respond to the comments received.

When DEC adopted the Projected Sea-level Rise regulation in February 2017 I was still working and had not started this blog but I did review the initial projections for sea-level rise. So this is a follow up to my earlier work. I have been following the Climate Act since it was first proposed. I submitted comments on the Climate Act implementation plan and have written over 300 articles about New York’s net-zero transition because I believe the ambitions for a zero-emissions economy embodied in the Climate Act outstrip available renewable technology such that the net-zero transition will do more harm than good. The opinions expressed in this post do not reflect the position of any of my previous employers or any other company I have been associated with, these comments are mine alone.

Background

The “Request for Pre-Proposal Comment” document included a background description of the proceeding:

On September 22, 2014, Governor Andrew Cuomo signed into law the Community Risk and Resiliency Act, Chapter 355 of the Laws of 2014 (CRRA). CRRA is intended to ensure that decisions regarding permits regulated by the Uniform Procedures Act and certain expenditures and facility-siting regulations consider future physical risk due to climate change, including sea level rise. Among other things, CRRA amended the New York State Environmental Conservation Law (ECL) to require DEC to adopt regulations establishing science-based State sea level rise projections and to update those projections at least every five years (ECL § 3- 0319). Pursuant to this requirement, DEC adopted 6 NYCRR Part 490, Projected Sea-level Rise¹ in February 2017 and is now seeking comment related to the required update.

The announcement for the pre-proposal request for comments stated:

Pursuant to the Community Risk and Resiliency Act, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) is preparing to update the official New York State sea level rise projections as codified in 6 NYCRR Part 490, Projected Sea-level Rise. DEC requests pre-proposal comment on its method for development of updated projections of sea level rise in New York State’s tidal waters. Pre-proposal comments should focus on the method DEC has proposed for development of projections and the resulting projections, and not on application of those projections in regulatory, planning, funding or other decision-making processes. DEC will consider all comments received on its proposed methodology and projections in preparing its final proposed projections for the update to Part 490.

The Climate Act established a New York “Net Zero” target (85% reduction and 15% offset of emissions) by 2050 and an interim 2030 target of a 40% reduction by 2030. The Climate Action Council is responsible for preparing the Scoping Plan that outlines how to “achieve the State’s bold clean energy and climate agenda.” In brief, that plan is to electrify everything possible and power the electric gride with zero-emissions generating resources by 2040. The Integration Analysis prepared by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) and its consultants quantifies the impact of the electrification strategies. That material was used to write a Draft Scoping Plan. After a year-long review the Scoping Plan recommendations were finalized at the end of 2022 but there was no compilation of responses to comments received. In 2023 the Scoping Plan recommendations are supposed to be implemented through regulation and legislation. Note that there is no explicit link between the Climate Act and the projections for sea-level rise in Part 490. However, I was struck by the overt bias towards extreme values in the proposed methodology that is entirely consistent with the rationale of the Climate Act.

Proposed Methodology Comments

The “Request for Pre-Proposal Comment” document described the proposed methodology to project future sea-level rise:

In its Part 490 update, to ensure consistency in its regulatory and other programs, DEC intends to maintain the projection format used in the original Part 490 regulation. That is, the express terms will provide low, low-medium, medium, high-medium and high projections for three tidal regions of the State, as defined in the original regulation. However, the 2020s projections will be replaced by projections for the 2030s. Projections for the 2050s, 2080s and 2100 will be included, as in the original regulation. As discussed below, DEC proposes to include projections for the year 2150 in the updated regulation and to include a very high projection that reflects a potential low-probability, high-consequence rapid ice melt (RIM) scenario.

I refer readers to the “Request for Pre-Proposal Comment” document for a full description of the proposed methodology. My comments addressed two aspects of the proposal: how well did the earlier projections do compared to observed sea-level rise since 2017 and whether the choice of the sea-level rise scenarios covers the full range of the possible projections of sea-level rise.

My background includes extensive air quality model development and model verification experience. As a result, I strongly believe that model predictions should be compared to observations whenever possible. In this case, the Battery sea-level rise monitoring site, which has the longest record in New York State, can be compared to the previous projections . According to the documentation:

The mean sea level (MSL) trend at The Battery, NY, USA is +2.91 mm/year with a 95% confidence interval of ±0.08 mm/year, based on monthly mean sea level data from 1856 to 2023. That is equivalent to a change of 0.95 feet in 100 years. (R‑squared = 0.839)

Figure 1 from SeaLevel.info lists the monthly data and the calculated trend.

Figure 1: Mean Sea Level at The Battery, NY, USA (NOAA 8518750, 960-121, PSMSL 12)

I compared the observed data with the DEC Part 490 Table 2 projections from 2017 and the proposed projections for this update. I downloaded the seasonally-adjusted monthly MSL data from NOAA in CSV format and calculated five-year average MSL and trend values. Figure 2 plots those values and the Part 490 Table 2 2025 projections from the 2017 regulation and the 2035 Projections in the proposed methodology. The low projection made in 2017 for the 2020’s is comparable to the last 5-year average observed data but it appears that the trend will still be lower than the projection. None of the other projections or the 2035 projections using the proposed methodology are credible relative to the observed sea-level rise.

Figure 2: Observed 5-Year Average Battery Sea-Level Rise and Part 490 Table 2 2025 Projections from 2017 and 2035 Projections in the Proposed Methodology

My understanding of the goal is that DEC wants to ensure that the sea-level projections cover the full range of possible futures that planners should consider. In that case, then it is obvious that a projection based on extrapolation of the existing trend should be included. It is easy to do that for the Battery location and the Montauk site also has historical data that can be used. If the goal is to address flooding in the upper reaches of the Hudson River, for example in Albany/Troy, it gets more complicated. In that case, rainfall flooding (as in 1984) should be included. Albany tidal influences are regulated by the Sea Level at the Battery and rainfall flooding is not considered in sea level rise estimates.

My comments also addressed my model verification background concerns. I pointed out that there is another aspect of the comparison between the projected sea-level rises in the current Part 490 and the observed sea-level rise show in Figure 2. Weather forecasting skill evaluations use two naïve forecasts: persistence and climatology. If a forecaster does consistently make a maximum temperature forecast for tomorrow that is better than simply assuming tomorrow’s maximum temperature equals todays and the average climatological temperature, then the forecaster has no skill. The difference between the observed sea-level rise and the projections does not suggest a skillful forecast using the previous methodology. The projections for the proposed methodology suggest an even greater sea-level rise than the previous methodology so I think they are even less likely to be skillful.

My comments also addressed DEC’s choice of three of the seven sea-level rise scenarios from IPCC AR 6 projections that are readily available. According to the “Request for Pre-Proposal Comment” document:

To provide for consideration of a range of possible futures, including potential for low-probability, high-consequence sea level rise scenarios associated with rapid melt of land-based ice, DEC proposes adoption of projections based on a blending of projections associated with three illustrative scenarios:

SSP2-4.5 – consistent with Paris Agreement Nationally Determined Contributions

SSP5-8.5 – medium confidence – additional amplifying feedback mechanisms

SSP5-8.5 – low confidence – includes some rapid ice melt

It is disappointing that DEC proposes to use two illustrative scenarios that rely on the widely debunked SSP5-8.5 emission scenarios. I referenced a recent “primer” by Roger Pielke, Jr. that describes the out-of-date scenarios of the IPCC. He explains why the scenario is “obviously, undeniably implausible”:

All of RCP8.5, SSP5-8.5 and SSP3-7.0 assume that the world is going to massively increase consumption of coal in the future. The scenarios project that we will replace natural gas with coal, we will replace nuclear with coal, we will replace wind and solar, we will even chose to abandon gasoline for cars and use coal-to-liquid as fuel. If that sound ridiculous — it is!

My comments recommend that at least one of the SSP-8.5 scenarios be replaced with SSP2-3.4 which Pielke suggests represents a “central scenario based off of current trends and near-term projections”. I argued that failure to include a plausible emissions scenario means that the Part 490 projections do not represent the full range of projected sea-level scenarios.

Discussion

As noted by DEC the CRRA amended the New York State Environmental Conservation Law (ECL) to require DEC to adopt regulations establishing science-based State sea level rise. My comments noted that I am disappointed with the overt apocalypse bias in the Part 490 projection methodology proposed and used in the previous assessment. In both cases, DEC has chosen to hype the worst-case (“low probability, high consequence) projections by selectively choosing the scenarios that further the narrative of an existential climate crisis. I don’t think science-based regulatory proceedings should selectively choose scenarios to bias results. It is inappropriate on one hand to invoke the IPCC “science” as the ultimate rationale for the projections, but then invoke “expert judgement” to maximize the projections by claiming that IPCC did not provide sufficient rigor. I believe the result is a set of projections that do not provide representative sea-level rise projections for planning purposes.

Conclusion

The proposed methodology guarantees that Part 490 projections of sea-level rise for New York State’s tidal coast will over-estimate potential planning requirements. The proposed methodology provides biased estimates of sea-level rise through the selective choice of IPCC sea-level rise scenarios that are based on an unlikely emissions future. I recommended in my comments that the projections include one that extrapolates the observed trend of sea-level rise and one of the IPCC SSP-8.5 emission scenarios be replaced with the SSP2-3.4 emission scenario.

It will be interesting to see how DEC responds to the suggestion to include reasonable lower bound estimates of sea-level rise. Although DEC typically responds the responses can simply be thank you for your thoughts. That acknowledgement is more than I received for any of the extensive comments I submitted on the Climate Act Scoping Plan so at least I will know that someone read them.

One final note, this is the start of this proceeding. It will be interesting to see how they address the application of the projections in regulatory, planning, funding or other decision-making processes. At that time I expect more parties to participate in the process. Stay tuned.

NYS Climate Act Town Hall in Poughkeepsie on May 18 2023

Betsy Cashen wrote to let me know that her local group (website is neighbors2neighbors.net) has planned an educational event in Poughkeepsie, NY on Thursday, May 18th, 2023 from 7-9pm. She asked me to share the meeting notice with anyone in the area who may be interested in learning more about the Climate Act.

Organizers

The group organizing the meeting represents Columbia County residents who want to create a resilient community by informing our neighbors and asking questions. Some of the questions of concern:

Why the sudden push to ban the appliances we use to cook and heat our homes?
How feasible and reliable is it to heat our homes with expensive and vulnerable electricity made with fossil fuels?
Why blanket our best farmland with solar panels?
Why is New York State overriding home rule?
Why insist there is consensus when there isn’t?
Why does the State insist there is only one answer to a problem?

My impression is that they are trying to reach out to the Climate Smart Communities (CSC) program supports I described that program earlier this year. It is supposed to help local governments take action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to a changing climate. The questions raised point out that the ‘Climate Smart’ slogan is great marketing but doesn’t seem all that smart.

Meeting Announcement

This is a follow up to a meeting held on February 16, 2023 (video here). There will be three speakers: James Hanley, Sara Traberman, and Bobbie Ann Cox, followed by Q&A. Key points that will be covered by the speakers and why it’s important for all stakeholders– local & county officials, Climate Smart task force members, and the general public- to attend:

The NYS Climate Act and CAC Scoping Plan is a “Lose-Lose” for upstate towns and counties
The “all electric” mandates are infeasible and present a health and safety danger to all New Yorkers
Permitting process for solar and wind farm developers renders local laws, codes, and master plans irrelevant and inconsequential
Part N in the 2023 NYS Budget provides an 80% property tax break to solar/wind developers leaving towns and counties to make up the revenue shortfall
Proper environmental impact reviews are not conducted and represent significant danger to habitats, waterways, farmland
No decommissioning or recycling plan or process for solar panels or EV batteries at end of useful life
Who pays for the hazardous waste disposal of solar panels and EV batteries?
The CAC Scoping Plan feigns to have included input from an advisory committee representing local and county governance; however, the committee did not include anyone currently holding a public office.
Local elected officials and their constituents must have a say in how solar and wind projects will be implemented in their towns and counties. Join us to learn more and ask questions at the Climate Act Town Hall on Thursday, May 18th, 2023 7-9pm at Faith Assembly of God, 25 Golf Club Lane, Poughkeepsie.

Speakers: Dr. James Hanley, Empire Center for Public Policy – empirecenter.org

Sensible Solar for Rural New York – sensiblesolarny.org

Bobbie Anne Cox, Esq. Uniting NYS – unitingnys.com

The meeting will be held on Thursday, May 18th, 2023, from 7-9pm, at Faith Assembly of God,

25 Golf Club Lane, Poughkeepsie, NY

The flyer announcement notes:

When the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA–aka The Climate Act) passed in 2019, few New Yorkers even knew what happened. Albany legislators set extreme, unrealistic targets for carbon reductions without specifying how those goals would be accomplished. That would be left to an appointed Climate Action Council (CAC). In December 2022, the CAC submitted its final plan to the Governor and legislature for implementation. Plans to force people to convert to electric homes, water heaters, cars, stoves, and buildings or face substantial surcharges and carbon taxes will backfire. We can’t afford tens of thousands of dollars in new costs! Nor do we want the electric grid to become even more unreliable, or see electric rates soar. The details of the CLCPA/Climate Act raise huge concerns, and you owe it to yourself to learn more, and make your voice heard!

What we don’t know can hurt us.

Comment

If I were not 3.5 hours away from the meeting I would attend. I encourage readers to pass this on to anyone in the mid-Hudson Valley because I agree with their concerns. Most New Yorkers are still unaware of the magnitude of the changes and costs required to implement the mandated transition to net-zero by 2050. I have been following the Climate Act since it was first proposed and have written over 300 articles about it. I am convinced that the Hochul Administration does not understand the magnitude of the changes, the risks to reliability, the impacts on affordability, and the environmental impacts of the wind and solar resources that they propose to use. The Scoping Plan is a list of control strategies but there hasn’t been a feasibility analysis to prove that it will work. Worse, there is no implementation plan. There are virtually no limitations on the deployment of utility-scale solar and as a result I estimate that over 6,000 acres of prime farmland will be covered by solar panels by projects approved to date. Unless the Hochul Administration gets its act together this will continue unabated.