My Climate Act Safety Valve Filing

My last post described a letter  sent by two members of the Climate Action Council, Donna DeCarolis and Dennis Elsenbeck, to Rory Christian, Chair & Chief Executive Officer of the New Yok State Public Service Commission (PSC) that argued that there are more than sufficient circumstances to warrant the PSC commencing a hearing process to “consider modification and extension of New York Renewable Energy Program timelines..  This post describes a filing that I made with Richard Ellenbogen, Constatine Kontogiannis, and Francis Menton to New York Public Service Commission Case 22-M-0149 – Proceeding on Motion of the Commission Assessing implementation of and Compliance with the Requirements and Targets of the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act that makes the same point.

I am convinced that implementation of the New York Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act or CLCPA) net-zero mandates will do more harm than good if the future electric system relies only on wind, solar, and energy storage because of reliability and affordability risks.  I have followed the Climate Act since it was first proposed, submitted comments on the Climate Act implementation plan, and have written over 550 articles about New York’s net-zero transition.  The opinions expressed in this article do not reflect the position of any of my previous employers or any other organization I have been associated with, these comments are mine alone. 

Background

The Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act) established a New York “Net Zero” target (85% reduction in GHG emissions and 15% offset of emissions) by 2050 and has two electric sector targets: 70% of the electricity must come from renewable energy by 2030 and all electricity must be generated by “zero-emissions” resources by 2040. The Climate Action Council (CAC) was responsible for preparing the Scoping Plan that outlined how to “achieve the State’s bold clean energy and climate agenda.”  The Scoping Plan that outlined how to “achieve the State’s bold clean energy and climate agenda” was based on an Integration Analysis prepared by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA). 

The Donna DeCarolis and Dennis Elsenbeck letter argued that Public Service Law (PSL) Section 66-P, Establishment of a renewable energy program, includes bounds on implementation.  Their letter described two circumstances that they believe warrant a hearing  Firstly, the Draft Clean Energy Standard Biennial Review prepared by Department of Public Service (DPS) Staff and NYSERDA  “details the numerous factors, including inflation, transmission constraints, shifting federal energy and trade policies and interconnection and siting challenges that have adversely impacted renewable development and the state’s trajectory towards achieving the Program’s 2030 target.”  The Biennial Review that “concludes that a delay in achieving the 70% goal may be unavoidable.”

The second circumstance noted is the recently released Draft New York State Energy Plan that “further affirms that current renewable deployment trajectories are insufficient to meet statutory targets, and that external constraints continue to impede progress.”  They include this quote: “Consistent with the findings of the CES biennial review, the [Draft Energy Plan’s] modeling shows achievement of a 70% renewable grid in 2033.” However, the letter points out that the Draft Energy Plan goes on to “acknowledge that the anticipated buildout of renewables could be limited by external factors and the 70% target by 2030 may not be met until much later in the decade.” 

There are two other relevant reports not mentioned in the letter. The New York State Comptroller Status report “Climate Act Goals – Planning, Procurements, and Progress Tracking” audited PSC and NYSERDA efforts to achieve the Climate Act mandates.  It found that “While PSC and NYSERDA have taken considerable steps to plan for the transition to renewable energy in accordance with the Climate Act and CES, their plans did not comprise all essential components, including assessing risks to meeting goals and projecting costs.”  The report recommended that the agencies begin the comprehensive review of the Climate Act, “continuously analyze” existing and emerging risks and known issues, conduct a detailed analysis of cost estimates, and “assess the extent to with ratepayers can reasonably assume the responsibility” of the implementation costs.

The second relevant report is the Annual Informational Report on Climate Act status. This report is required to explicitly describe ratepayer costs.  The last report was released in July 2023 and covers data through 2022.  There hasn’t been a report since then.  I have not doubts that the release of this information was delayed because the costs would be politically detrimental to the Hochul Administration.

Our filing described other circumstances and a provision within PSL 66-P itself that warrant the PSC holding a hearing to consider modification and extension of the Climate Act timelines.

Submittal

Roger Caiazza, Richard Ellenbogen, Constatine Kontogiannis, and Francis Menton (“Independent Intervenors”) have filed testimony in the Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation (NMPC) dba National Grid and the Consolidated Edison Company of New York rate cases.  We made the same argument as the letter. Section 66-P, Establishment of a renewable energy program, noting that this law includes bounds on implementation that have not been considered in the rate cases. The Department of Public Service (DPS) staff response to our arguments boils down to “rate cases are not the appropriate forum to consider limitations of the renewable energy program”.  The filing submitted on August 12 argues that Case 22-M-0149 – Proceeding on Motion of the Commission Assessing implementation of and Compliance with the Requirements and Targets of the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act is the appropriate forum and should address this issue.

I teamed up with three gentlemen who share the common opinion that the Climate Act net-zero transition simply cannot work as proposed and will do far more harm than good.   Ellenbogen is an electrical engineer who is President of Allied Converters where he has pioneered how “green” manufacturing can work.  Constantine Kontogiannis is an engineer who has decades of experience providing energy consulting services.  Menton is a retired lawyer and now writes articles at his Manhattan Contrarian blog that analyze New York’s energy transition. We have all been arguing that the net-zero transition cannot work for years to no avail.  We decided to combine forces and become involved with utility rate cases because we do not think that our messaging has been acknowledged, much less addressed and because all of us are directly affected by either of the cases.  Yesterday’s filing is another attempt to force the Public Service Commission to consider safety valve provisions in the PSL Section 66-P component of Climate Act implementation.

Our Argument

The Public Service Commission (PSC or Commission) has not adequately addressed their broad mandate to ensure access to safe, reliable utility service at just and reasonable rates relative to all the Climate Act mandates incorporated in recent rate cases.  PSL 66-P requires the Commission to establish a program to ensure the State meets the 2030 mandate that a minimum of 70% of the statewide electric generation in 2030 is generated by renewable energy systems and the 2040 requirement that the statewide electrical demand system will be zero emissions also includes safety valve provisions.  The Commission is empowered by this statute to temporarily suspend or modify these obligations if, after conducting an appropriate hearing, it finds that PSL 66-P impedes the provision of safe and adequate electric service.  This filing explains that the utility customers in arrears provision has been exceeded so it would be appropriate to conduct a hearing.

Our filing is extensive.  It includes the primary filing, two exhibits documenting the customers in arrears safety valve trigger, and five supporting exhibits.  The primary filing argues that Public Service Law Section 66-p(4) contains the aforementioned safety valve provisions.   Exhibit 1 – Trend in Company Customers in Arrears documents increasing trends in utility customer payment delinquencies, providing baseline data for the customers in arrears safety valve trigger.  I intend to do a separate post on that next.  Exhibit 2 – Customers in Arrears is a spreadsheet that contains the detailed analytical data on utility arrears across New York’s major distribution companies. 

The remainder of the exhibits support the need for the filing, additional circumstances that demonstrate that the broad mandate to ensure access to safe, reliable utility service at just and reasonable rates has not been addressed in the current implementation process, a demonstration that the current approach is actually increasing Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions, and a recommendation for an alternative approach.  Exhibit 3 – Affordability-Focused Recommendations outlines specific policy recommendations to address energy affordability concerns, likely including proposals for cost transparency, alternative funding mechanisms, and enhanced low-income programs.  Exhibit 4 – Resource Gap Characterization analyzes gaps between CLCPA mandates and available resources, potentially addressing both financial and infrastructure capacity constraints.  Exhibit 5 – Dispatchable Emissions-Free Resources explains that the need for a resource that is not currently commercially available risks investments in false solutions.  Exhibit 6 – Electrification Increases Emissions presents analysis demonstrating that certain electrification strategies may paradoxically increase emissions. Finally, Exhibit 7 – Alternative Approach proposes alternative implementation pathways that could achieve climate goals while maintaining affordability and reliability.

Discussion

Our filing advances five key arguments that the Commission should conduct a hearing to temporarily suspend or modify the PSL 66-P obligations because the present approach impedes the provision of safe and adequate electric service.  Current data on customer arrears and service disconnections demonstrates that New York may already meet thresholds for invoking PSL Section 66-p(4) safety valves.  With utility arrears reaching $1.8 billion and affecting 1.2 million households, CLCPA implementation is creating significant affordability burdens. The Commission has failed to provide comprehensive cost reporting required under its own orders, making it impossible to assess true ratepayer impacts.  The proposed transition to weather-dependent renewable resources poses unacceptable reliability risks that warrant safety valve consideration.

We believe that the Climate Act’s selective choice of metrics for affordability, reliability, and sustainability/environmental impacts fail to provide a complete picture of the impacts associated with the net-zero transition.  Our intervention to date has focused on the technical aspects of implementation.  We accept that challenging the CLCPA itself in a rate case is inappropriate.  However, it is now clear that technical problems make implementation of the Climate Act mandates inappropriate because of the observed challenges.  There are significant costs and reliability impacts associated with implementing the CLCPA in the rate cases but there are no criteria for acceptable affordability, reliability, or environmental impacts.  This must change and this Proceeding appears to be the appropriate venue.

Conclusion

The Climate Act is and always will be political theater.  New York has never done a feasibility analysis because the politicians and the activists who wrote the law naively believed that the net-zero transition was only a matter of political will.  It has always been inevitable that New York’s net-zero transition would collapse because of physics and costs issues that would have been flagged in a proper feasibility analysis.  Now that the consequences of ignoring the fundamentals are becoming so evident that they cannot be ignored, the search is on for an excuse to pause implementation.  This filing argues that there are already provisions in place to reconsider the schedule.  When a hearing is held, the ambition of the transition will be exposed to reality as well.

I will follow up this post with posts that describe the individual elements of the filing as time permits.

Climate Action Council Member Letter to the PSC

Two members of the Climate Action Council, Donna DeCarolis and Dennis Elsenbeck, recently submitted a letter to Rory Christian, Chair & Chief Executive Officer of the New Yok State Public Service Commission (PSC) that deserves mention.  The letter notes that “there are more than sufficient circumstances to warrant the PSC commencing” a hearing process to “consider modification and extension of New York Renewable Energy Program timelines.”.  I have been referencing the legislation mandating a hearing process if certain circumstances are exceeded since early 2022 so I want to publicize this letter.

I am convinced that implementation of the New York Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act or CLCPA) net-zero mandates will do more harm than good if the future electric system relies only on wind, solar, and energy storage because of reliability and affordability risks.  I have followed the Climate Act since it was first proposed, submitted comments on the Climate Act implementation plan, and have written over 550 articles about New York’s net-zero transition.  The opinions expressed in this article do not reflect the position of any of my previous employers or any other organization I have been associated with, these comments are mine alone. 

Net-Zero Aspirations

The Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act) established a New York “Net Zero” target (85% reduction in GHG emissions and 15% offset of emissions) by 2050 and has two electric sector targets: 70% of the electricity must come from renewable energy by 2030 and all electricity must be generated by “zero-emissions” resources by 2040. The Climate Action Council (CAC) was responsible for preparing the Scoping Plan that outlined how to “achieve the State’s bold clean energy and climate agenda.”  The Scoping Plan that outlined how to “achieve the State’s bold clean energy and climate agenda” was based on an Integration Analysis prepared by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA). 

Letter

The subject line of the letter is “Modification of Statewide Electric Generation Renewable Energy System Requirements Pursuant to New York Public Service Law § 66-p “  The introductory paragraph lays out their position. 

We are writing in our capacity as members of the state’s Climate Action Council to respectfully request that the Public Service Commission (“Commission”) invoke its authority, granted pursuant to the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (“Climate Act”), to hold a hearing to evaluate whether to modify certain renewable energy obligations of the Climate Act. Specifically, as you know, the Climate Act added a new section 66-p to the New York Public Service Law (“PSL”) that requires the Commission to establish a program to ensure that: (a) a minimum of 70% of the statewide electric generation in 2030 is generated by renewable energy systems; and (b) by the year 2040 the statewide electrical demand system will be zero emissions (“Renewable Energy Program” or “Program”).  The Commission is empowered by statute to temporarily suspend or modify these obligations if, after conducting an appropriate hearing, it finds that the Program impedes the provision of safe and adequate electric service. As noted below, there are more than sufficient circumstances to warrant the Commission commencing the referenced hearing process to consider modification and extension of Renewable Energy Program timelines.

The letter goes on to document the circumstances that they believe warrant a hearing.  At the top of the list is the Draft Clean Energy Standard Biennial Review prepared by Department of Public Service Staff and the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (“NYSERDA”).  They note that the Commission recognizes “the substantial efforts that have been made to deploy renewable energy systems and zero emission sources to meet the Renewable Energy Program targets”.  Despite the progress through 2022, they explain “the Biennial Review Order details the numerous factors, including inflation, transmission constraints, shifting federal energy and trade policies and interconnection and siting challenges that have adversely impacted renewable development and the state’s trajectory towards achieving the Program’s 2030 target.”  They quote the Biennial Review that “concludes that a delay in achieving the 70% goal may be unavoidable.”

The second circumstance noted is the recently released Draft New York State Energy Plan that “further affirms that current renewable deployment trajectories are insufficient to meet statutory targets, and that external constraints continue to impede progress.”  They include this quote: “Consistent with the findings of the CES biennial review, the [Draft Energy Plan’s] modeling shows achievement of a 70% renewable grid in 2033.” However, the letter points out that the Draft Energy Plan goes on to “acknowledge that the anticipated buildout of renewables could be limited by external factors and the 70% target by 2030 may not be met until much later in the decade.”  They also note that { The Commission’s recent decision to withdraw its Public Policy Transmission Need determination for a major offshore wind transmission project that would have delivered up to 8 GW of renewable electricity to New York City by 2033 is just one of many examples underscoring the fragility of current renewable deployment timelines and further supports the need for the Commission to exercise its authority under PSL 66-p (4).”

The letter makes the following important point:

While these obstacles to renewable energy deployment and greater emissions reductions in the state are deeply concerning, their implications with respect to the provision of safe and adequate electric service should be viewed as nothing short of alarming. The challenges with bringing sufficient renewable energy on-line in a timely manner, while simultaneously decommissioning existing and effective energy sources in order to hit Program targets, could have devastating repercussions for the state and its residents.

The CAC members go on to reference the 2025 Power Trends Annual Grid and Markets Report (“Power Trends Report” or “Report”) recently issued by the New York Independent System Operator (“NYISO”). They believe that it is reasonable to “conclude that the Renewable Energy Program’s current obligations could impede the provision of safe and adequate electric service.”  The problem noted in the Power Trends Report is the warning that “reliability margins across New York continue to decline as fossil-based generation retires and new supply resources fail to keep pace with anticipated dramatic demand growth.”   They explain that the NYISO’s warning is critical, because “[s]trong reliability margins enable the grid to meet peak demand and respond to sudden disturbances and avoid outages. As these margins narrow, consumers face greater risks of outages if the resources needed for reliability are forced out of service or are not maintained because of policy mandates or failures associated with aging equipment.”

The letter explains that “acknowledging the challenges to renewable deployment thoroughly described by the Commission in it Biennial Review Order and underlying Biennial Review”, the NYISO states in its own Report that:

A change as monumental as decarbonizing our electric system can be challenging and unpredictable. For instance, to achieve the mandates of the state’s Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act, new, emission-free generating technologies must replace retiring fossil fuel-based generation. However, these new technologies are not yet available on a commercial scale.

The letter quotes the Draft Energy Plan to support their recommendation for considering multiple energy options. Electric sector results in particular state that “[m]eeting growing loads and peaks while working towards achieving 2040 emissions constraints and maintaining reliability requires a significant buildout of a diverse set of resources” and the preservation of existing resources including the natural gas system which “[i]n all scenarios … remains an important energy delivery system.”   They go on:

The NYISO’s determination that pursuit of “every plausible option” is necessary to ensure energy reliability includes the continued use of reliable, dispatchable energy systems like the natural gas system, as well as the ongoing pursuit of traditional renewable resources (hydro, solar, wind) and more concentrated efforts relative to nuclear power (e.g., the state’s recently announced New York Power Authority Advanced Nuclear Project) and hydrogen (e.g., NYSERDA’s Hydrogen Assessment). Providing support for bridge technologies (e.g., fuel cells, linear generators, etc.) is essential to help address market demand in the near term while the state pursues longer-term options. The NYISO notes that “repowering of existing, older fossil fuel plants … is especially important to consider as we rely more on an aging generation fleet.” This repowering likely will not occur absent prompt action by the Commission to extend Program timeframes to obviate the risk for developers that the plants will be forced to retire before they can recover their investments.

The letter acknowledges that activists will argue “that this diverse mix of existing and new energy sources could delay achievement of the state’s energy goals, it is clear from recent analyses by the NYISO and others that it is necessary to ensure the provision of safe and adequate electric service while the state takes the time it needs to responsibly advance progress toward its Renewable Energy Program goals.”  They state that these circumstances were addressed by the Legislature “when it included the safeguard in the Climate Act that would allow the Commission to suspend or modify Renewable Energy Program targets. They argue that “Now is the time for the Commission to exercise its authority under PSL § 66-p (4) to conduct a hearing to consider modification and extension of these targets.”  They conclude:

 To act otherwise would be contrary to the legislature’s intent and inconsistent with the Commission’s “paramount objective of ensuring reliable and affordable electric service and protection of ratepayers.”

Finally, in addition to the urgent need for a hearing to evaluate extending the Renewable Energy Program timeframes, the letter urges “the legislature to act with haste to extend the statutorily-required 2030 GHG limits consistent with the state’s Draft Energy Plan findings”.  This is necessary because the greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions reduction requirements of 40% by 2030 included in the Climate Act are similarly late.

Conclusion

Given that many of the arguments in the letter are similar to those that I have been trying to make for several years, I am very much encouraged that powerful voices have come out advocating a similar approach.  I am cautiously optimistic that their letter will at least be acknowledged.  I am not sure what the resolution will be but the authors are on the side of reality and pragmatic energy policy.  It is inevitable that the schedule and ambition of the Climate Act will be modified simply because implementation in PSL 66-p is impossible without endangering reliable and affordable electric service.

More Reasons to Pause Climate Act Implementation

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

I am convinced that implementation of the Climate Act net-zero mandates will do more harm than good because the energy density of wind and solar energy is too low and the resource intermittency too variable to ever support a reliable electric system relying on those resources. I have followed the Climate Act since it was first proposed, submitted comments on the Climate Act implementation plan, and have written over 550 articles about New York’s net-zero transition.  The opinions expressed in this article do not reflect the position of any of my previous employers or any other organization I have been associated with, these comments are mine alone.

Steven Koonin on the Unsettled Science of Climate

I have been meaning to do a post on the recent Department of Energy (DOE0 report A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate.  That topic deserves more than a mention so it will have to wait  In the meantime here is a link to an interview of one of the authors – Steven Koonin.  John Robson from the Climate Discussion Nexus conducted the interview. 

The theme of the interview was that contrary to the constant barrage from alarmists, the mainstream media, and New York’s energy policy analysts, there are major uncertainties associated with climate change science.  Koonin and the other authors of the DOE report are not arguing that there is no climate change.  He remarked that he was disappointed that some opponents call climate change a hoax or conspiracy but he also noted that supporters should not call climate change an existential threat or a potential catastrophe.

In no particular order, my notes include the following points made by Koonin and Robson:

  • Need to understand subtleties
  • Need humility when discussing climate variation because the observations are uncertain
  • Regional models are unfit for purpose
  • Societal impact descriptions are influenced by value judgements
  • When evaluating climate change these are things to watch out for
    • Historical context
    • Scale
    • Data, especially long-term
    • Need to consider divergent opinions

A key point relative to climate change solutions is consideration of what we know, what we don’t know and why it matters.  Contrary to popular opinion we don’t know nearly as much as proponents claim.  Furthermore, personal values color the priorities of responses.  Finally, both Koonin and Robson noted that many of the purported solutions do not consider feasibility.

Renewable Implementation Uncertainty

Electric grid operators must constantly balance generation and load on a near instantaneous basis.  The variability of wind and solar complicates that challenge.  To account for weather conditions that affect wind and solar resource availability, weather forecasters prepare projections.  Forecasts ranging from very short term (minutes) to a week are needed.  The Independent System Operator for New England (ISO-NE) recently released assessments of wind and solar forecast errors.  The results offer another indication that implementation is not going to be easy.

The issues associated with solar and wind forecasts are different.  Figure 1 shows the solar power forecast bias.  Bias is the average tendency of a forecast parameter to overpredict or underpredict.  Ideally, it would be equal to zero. Positive bias means less solar power was available compared to forecast. Negative bias means more solar power was available compared to forecast.  The calculations are based on the solar forecast at 9:00 AM for periods out to a week for individual and the combined plants or fleet.  The results show that the fleet peak loads forecasts consistently over-predict how much solar power will be available by approximately 20%.  That is not a very good outcome.  It implies that more storage will be needed to cover for solar variability.

Figure 1: ISO-NE Solar Medium and Long-Term Forecast Bias

Figure 2 shows the wind power forecast bias.  The calculations are based on the wind forecast at 9:00 AM for periods out to a week for individual plants and the fleet.  In my opinion, there are some unexpected things going on in these data that would need more time than I have to address.  It appears that the fleet forecast bias is very good out to 48 hours but after that there is an apparent diurnal effect and the difference between observed and forecast markedly increase. I think that the diurnal effect should show up in the first 48 hours albeit in a reduced form.  Frankly the lack of that indicator makes me think there is a problem in the analysis. 

Figure 2: ISO-NE Wind Medium and Long-Term Forecast Bias

There are differences between the solar and wind results.  The data indicate that the fleet wind estimates are better than the solar forecasts because the bias is lower.  The individual forecasts vary more than the fleet forecasts for solar than for wind.  These results are evidence that the factors affecting wind are driven more by larger scale factors than those for solar. 

The challenge to balance generation and load on a near instantaneous basis in a system that depends on wind and solar is not going to be solved by weather forecasts.  There are systemic weather forecast bias errors on the order of 20% for solar forecasts.  Also note that these are average statistics.  I have no doubt that there are days that the forecasts are bad enough to negatively impact the ability of the grid operators to balance generation and load.

My Comment on the Micron Draft Environmental Impact Statement

In 2022, Micron announced its plans to build the largest semiconductor fabrication facility in the history of the United States. Micron intends to invest up to $100 billion over the next 20-plus years to construct a new chip fab plant in Clay, New York.   This post describes my comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) filed for the facility.  I recommended that the DEIS should include an option for a Combined Cycle Gas Turbine (CCGT) co-generating facility.

I am following developments at Micron because the facility is going to be built within five miles of my home.  I also follow the Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act) because of its impacts on New York. I acknowledge the use of Perplexity AI to generate summaries and references included in this document.  The opinions expressed in this post do not reflect the position of any of my previous employers or any other organization I have been associated with, these comments are mine alone.

Micron Chip Fab Facility

The description in the Environmental Assessment Form states:

Micron intends to invest approximately $100 billion over the next 20 years to build a leading-edge semiconductor manufacturing campus in the Town of Clay on the approximately 1,400-acre White Pine Commerce Park. Micron intends to acquire the White Pine Commerce Park from the Onondaga County Industrial Development Agency (OCIDA) and construct a campus for four (4) memory fabrication plants (also known as Fabs) on the site. Each Fab, and their related facilities, would take approximately three to five years to construct. Interior fit-out of each Fab would continue after the building is complete, resulting in continuous site activity over approximately 20 years. It is anticipated that the first two (2) Fabs would be complete within approximately 10 years, and the second two (2) Fabs would be complete approximately 10 years thereafter. Skilled trade labor will be employed throughout the 20-year period. Each Fab would occupy approximately 1.2 million square feet (sf) of land and contain approx. 600,000 sf of cleanroom space, 290,000 sf of clean room support space, and 250,000 sf of administrative space. Each set of two fabs would be supported by approx. 360,000 sf of central utility buildings, 200,000 sf of warehouse space, and 200,000 sf of product testing space housed in separate buildings.

I queried Perplexity AI for a description of energy use at the facility.  The following describes the massive amount of energy required:

The Micron facility represents an unprecedented energy demand for Central New York. When fully operational with all four fabrication plants (fabs) completed by around 2043, the Clay complex will consume 16 billion kilowatt-hours (16,000 GWh) of electricity annually.

The Micron facility will require 1.85 gigawatts of continuous power from the grid, operating 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. This around-the-clock operation is critical because semiconductor manufacturing cannot tolerate even brief power interruptions – any outage would cost Micron tens or hundreds of millions of dollars in lost production and could take days or weeks to recover from.

Cogeneration Option

Earlier in the permitting process, both Richard Ellenbogen and I submitted comments on the draft scoping plan suggesting that the environmental impact assessment include a CCGT co-generation option. 

The OCIDA final response to comments document basically blew off our recommendation.  The following represents the entire response.  The responses were listed by number: Ellenbogen (24) and Caiazza (25) comments.Comment

3: Commenters suggest that the Draft Environmental Impact Statement should include an alternative to add a Combined Cycle generating plant on the Micron Property. (24, 25).

Response: See Response to NYSDEC Comment 5.NYSDEC Comment 5: The DEIS should include a discussion of potential alternatives and mitigation that could reduce energy and fuel demands during construction and the long-term operation of the facility, including renewable energy sources.

Response: The Scope has been revised to indicate that the DEIS will include a summary of other alternatives previously considered but determined not to be feasible, including an alternative that relies exclusively on alternative sources of energy (beyond use of renewable energy for purchased electricity). The DEIS will also assess the proposed use and conservation of energy (including provisions for renewable energy sources). The DEIS will include an evaluation of energy impacts from construction and long-term operation of the facility, along with potential mitigation of those impacts.

Unfortunately, there is no mention of a combined cycle generating plant in the DEIS.  My comments explained why that is a mistake.

Comments

The supporting documentation for the DEIS included the July 2025 Micron Climate Leadership and Community Protection Analysis (CLCPA Analysis).  This document explains how the project will comply with the Climate Act.  Micron and New York State have committed to meeting 100% of the facility’s electricity needs through renewable energy sources.

Unfortunately, the commitment to source 100% of the facility’s electricity needs through renewable energy source is more consistent with Micron’s sustainability commitments than energy reality.  The chip fab plant will not only require enormous amounts of electric energy but also firm capacity, stable voltage, and frequency in a narrow range.  Providing electricity with those characteristics using renewable energy sources is an enormous challenge and failure risks viability of the facility.

I explained that while it is laudable that they intend to rely on renewable energy sources mandated by the Climate Act, reality is catching up to that fantasy.  In May DPS finalized a biennial review of implementation document.  They found that the implementation of the 2030 renewable energy goal is behind schedule and suggested the target could be reached by 2033 when factoring in load growth and contributions from offshore wind and distributed generation.  They proposed to maintain the trajectory toward eventual achievement by increasing renewable energy solicitations.

The Biennial Report issued in July 2024 was based on an assessment of potential renewable energy deployments at a time when there was significant federal financial and regulatory support available from the Biden Administration.  It is not currently clear at this time what, if any, support will be available from the Trump Administration, but there is no question that there will be significant change to renewable deployments.  These uncertainties were not incorporated into the Order that accepted the Biennial Review.  This makes the proposal to double down on renewable procurements unlikely to succeed.

There is another recent issue that results in additional unacknowledged uncertainty in Micron’s plans.  A Perplexity AI response notes that Governor Hochul recently acknowledged that the Biennial Review findings mean that the current schedule is untenable and that there are significant cost impacts.  Proponents for clean energy are arguing that the CLCPA targets are legal mandates but there are heretofore unacknowledged legal safety valves.  Public Service Law Section 66-P Establishment of a Renewable Energy Program is the law that implements the Climate Act renewable energy mandates.  It includes provisions for bounds on implementation that can modify the obligations of the Climate Act.  In my opinion, it is inevitable that political pressure is going to force reconsideration of the schedule and ambition of the Climate Act, and this law provides an excuse.

Recommendation

The current energy sourcing plan is to rely on the local utility (Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation (NMPC) doing business as National Grid) as the source of energy for the facility.  My recommendation is based on the Independent Intervenor Statement in Opposition to the Joint Proposal (Opposition Statement) in the NMPC rate case.  In that statement we described an alternate approach to provide electric power to Micron.  The Opposition Statement projected the necessary renewable resources needed for Micron’s energy requirements in comparison to the alternative CCGT approach. 

I recommended that the Final EIS include an option for a current generation Combined Cycle Gas Turbine (CCGT) powerplant.  A facility with a nameplate rating of 1.25 GW will provide equivalent output to the PSL 66-P renewable energy approach with the same or better reliability, but without the need for energy storage or ancillary support.  The chip fab manufacturing process requires process heat.  It is not as energy efficient to use electricity from the grid to generate process heat as using on-site combustion that could be provided from the CCGT.  On-site generation also eliminates transmission line loss.  These efficiency benefits warrant consideration of this option.  The Opposition Statement also argued that if the CCGT facility is co-located with an agricultural park that uses the CO2 from the power plant to boost productivity, GHG emissions are reduced significantly.  The fact that this option will be cheaper, more reliable, and provide better quality electricity makes this a viable option that should be considered in the DEIS

Conclusion

There is growing evidence that the schedule and ambition of Public Service Law 66-P renewable energy program deployment cannot be achieved.  Micron’s commitment to meet 100% of the facility’s electricity needs through renewable energy sources is laudable but indications are that it is not going to be available.  The existence of safety valve provisions, the acknowledged program delays, and the current changes in Federal clean energy policies suggest that Micron must consider an alternative plan for sourcing its energy requirements.  If Micron is to truly lead, then they must advocate for options that will work.  Blind adherence to a flawed net-zero transition plan will affect the viability of the plant.  It is time to step up and offer a pragmatic solution that will work.  The recommended CCGT approach with co-generation and agricultural park option fulfills that objective.

Draft NYS Energy Plan Pathways Scenario Costs

This is part of my continuing coverage of the New York State Energy Plan.  On July 23, 2025, the Draft Energy Plan was released for comment.  This post describes the scanty cost information in the draft.

I am convinced that implementation of the New York Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act or CLCPA) net-zero mandates will do more harm than good if the future electric system relies only on wind, solar, and energy storage because of reliability and affordability risks.  I have followed the Climate Act since it was first proposed, submitted comments on the Climate Act implementation plan, and have written over 550 articles about New York’s net-zero transition. 

I acknowledge the use of Perplexity AI to generate summaries and references included in this document.  The opinions expressed in this article do not reflect the position of any of my previous employers or any other organization I have been associated with, these comments are mine alone. 

Net-Zero Aspirations

The Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act) established a New York “Net Zero” target (85% reduction in GHG emissions and 15% offset of emissions) by 2050 and has two electric sector targets: 70% of the electricity must come from renewable energy by 2030 and all electricity must be generated by “zero-emissions” resources by 2040. The Scoping Plan that outlined how to “achieve the State’s bold clean energy and climate agenda” was based on an Integration Analysis prepared by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA). 

Energy Plan Overview

According to the New York State Energy Plan website (Accessed 3/16/25):

The State Energy Plan is a comprehensive roadmap to build a clean, resilient, and affordable energy system for all New Yorkers. The Plan provides broad program and policy development direction to guide energy-related decision-making in the public and private sectors within New York State.

The driving factor for change is the Energy Plan’s net-zero ambitions of New York’s ruling political party.  This is the first update of the Energy Plan since the Climate Act was passed in 2019.  I have provided more background information and a list of previous articles on my Energy Plan page. 

In this iteration of New York climate policy, the Pathways Analysis is equivalent to the Integration Analysis. Responsibility for implementing the Energy Plan as well as all the Climate Act programs lies with NYSERDA.  Over my multi-decade career, I have seen an ever-increasing level of political influence on NYSERDA’s research priorities and, more recently, the research results. This post describes the cost information in Pathways Analysis scenarios and explains why it is inadequate.

Costs

My last post described how the misleading definition of the “No Action” scenario was being used to hide the true costs of the Draft Energy Plan.  NYSERDA President and CEO Doreen Harris provided one of the few direct references to costs at the last Energy Planning Board meeting when she said.

You may recall during our last meeting in which we discussed the pathways modeling for this plan. And to remind you, the analysis showed that New York’s citizens and businesses will need to invest over one hundred billion dollars each year in the energy system, no matter which future path we take.

Even this reference was misleading because the expected cost is $120 billion.  I consider a 20% difference significant, making this an example of hiding the costs.

Cost References

I reviewed the meeting slides and transcripts for the two Energy Planning Board meetings where the Pathways Analysis was discussed to find explicit references to expected costs.  I searched for “$”, “dollar”, and “billion”.  Searching the June 25, 2025 Board Meeting Slides I found two $ references to Hochul’s $1 billion decarbonization commitment, there were no relevant dollar references, and references to billion were for the decarbonization commitment.  The meeting recording includes a transcript.  When I searched “$” I found a reference to Hochul’s $1 billion decarbonization commitment.  This came up when I searched “billion” along with a second reference to the decarbonization commitment.  Searching for “dollar” provided no additional relevant references.  Also note that there was no reference in the minutes to billions of dollars. My searches in the May 27 meeting materials also did not find references to the costs.  The only relevant reference to billions in the last two meeting materials was the quote by Harris.

 I find it telling that Harris said “you may recall” when she referenced the $100 billion investment figure but there are no actual references for that number in recent meeting materials.  Cynic that I am I believe this is another indication of the cover up.

Legacy Programs

In my previous post I explained that the “No Action” pathway scenario reflects “outcomes in the absence of the Climate Act and energy policies enacted from 2019 onwards”.  The Perplexity description goes on: “It includes federal energy incentives and legacy New York State policies (i.e., those in place as of early 2025), but it explicitly excludes any state and local climate, decarbonization, or efficiency policies put in place since 2019.”  As a result, NYSERDA can claim that costs will be high no matter which future energy path we take.  In no small part the costs in the “no action: case are the result of all the legacy programs that are only included to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Nine legacy programs are mentioned in the Draft Energy Plan:

  1. Core Infrastructure Investments
  2. Baseline System-Wide Spending
  3. Continued Investment in All Fuel Systems
  4. Natural Gas System Infrastructure
  5. Electricity System Expansion
  6. Transmission and Distribution Infrastructure
  7. Grid Reliability and Resilience Investments
  8. Load Growth Accommodation
  9. Energy Efficiency and Weatherization

It is impossible to determine how much of the costs in these legacy programs is due to pre-Climate Act GHG emission reduction programs and how much is necessary infrastructure maintenance and capital spending of the energy system in the absence of those initiatives.  The “continued investment in all fuel systems” legacy program clearly does not include programs to reduce GHG emissions.  The electricity system expansion refers to wind, solar, and storage programs that are necessary to achieve the Climate Act goals that clearly only exists to reduce GHG emissions.  The other legacy programs include initiatives that fit both categories so differentiating costs for New York’s climate ambitions is impossible.

Cost Analysis of Pathways Analysis Scenarios

I say that it is impossible to categorize costs to achieve the Climate Act mandates in the Draft Energy Plan not only because there is insufficient explanatory information but also because cost details are not provided to enable the public to determine the costs.  I submitted a Perplexity AI query asking for the costs in the Pathways Analysis “no action” scenario and other scenarios in the Draft New York State Energy Plan’s Pathways Analysis.

The response provided the following information:

The No Action scenario serves as the baselinefor cost comparisons and represents approximately $120 billion in annual system-wide spending (in 2024 dollars) through 2040. The Energy Plan states that the baseline spending covers:

  • Maintaining and modernizing existing energy infrastructure
  • Replacing aging equipment at the end of its useful life
  • Purchasing fuels to meet energy needs
  • Supporting replacement natural gas generators
  • Continuing with end-use equipment replacement following normal cycles
  • Scenario Cost Comparisons

The Pathways Analysis evaluates five different scenarios with specific cost implications relative to the No Action baseline:

The NYSERDA Pathways Analysis projects that energy system investments will total $120 billion per year out to 2040.  There are approximately 7.8 million households in New York State.  The following table shows that dividing the $120 billion total by the number of households projects results in a $1,282 monthly energy cost per household.   Keep in mind that these are total energy costs including not only utilities but also personal transportation.  There are three Pathways scenarios with projected cost increases.  The “Additional Action” scenario projects a 2% increase in 2030 equivalent to $26 a month extra.  In 2040, the “Additional Action” scenario projects a 9% increase equivalent to $115 a month extra.  To achieve the net-zero transition aspirations the modeling projects a 35% cost premium equivalent to $449 a month extra.

Discussion

As I noted in my previous post, I believe the reason to obscure the costs is because the energy costs necessary to achieve the Climate Act net-zero transition are so large that they are politically untenable.  The cost slogan for the Energy Plan will claim that costs will be high no matter which future energy path we take and the incremental increase for net-zero nirvana is a small addition.  I am sure that most New Yorkers will agree with me that the claimed $1,282 per month energy costs is higher than my personal costs.  Frankly, that claim alone should be addressed because it could be the reason so many people are having trouble paying their utility bills.

With respect to Climate Act implementation, there are buried GHG emission reduction program costs in the $1,282 per month estimate.  It is impossible to estimate how much it is because NYSERDA has not provided transparent and comprehensive cost documentation.  In my opinion, there is very little public appetite for the additional $449 per month increase in costs necessary to achieve the Climate Act net zero targets.  Governor Hochul’s recent admission that the Climate Act might not be affordable and the heretofore unacknowledged fact that there is an affordability safety valve give me some hope that changes are forthcoming.

Conclusion

The Climate Act has always been political theater.  Passage of the law placated the loud and emotional constituency that believes that climate change caused by GHG emissions is an existential threat and enabled the politicians supporting the law to brag that they were leading the nation.  Now that we have experience with the impacts of the rollout of wind and solar sprawl across the countryside and the cost impacts are becoming too large to ignore, the only way to stop the nonsense is for politicians to demand that the Public Service Commission address the safety valve provision in Public Service Law 66-P. That will not happen unless we hold politicians accountable.

Draft NYS Energy Plan Pathways Scenario Scam

This is part of my continuing coverage of the New York State Energy Plan.  On July 23, 2025, the Draft Energy Plan was released for comment.  This post explains how the analyses for the Draft Energy Plan are hiding the true costs to meet the Climate Act targets.

I am convinced that implementation of the New York Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act or CLCPA) net-zero mandates will do more harm than good if the future electric system relies only on wind, solar, and energy storage because of reliability and affordability risks.  I have followed the Climate Act since it was first proposed, submitted comments on the Climate Act implementation plan, and have written over 550 articles about New York’s net-zero transition. 

I acknowledge the use of Perplexity AI to generate summaries and references included in this document.  The opinions expressed in this article do not reflect the position of any of my previous employers or any other organization I have been associated with, these comments are mine alone. 

Net-Zero Aspirations

The Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act) established a New York “Net Zero” target (85% reduction in GHG emissions and 15% offset of emissions) by 2050 and has two electric sector targets: 70% of the electricity must come from renewable energy by 2030 and all electricity must be generated by “zero-emissions” resources by 2040. The Scoping Plan that outlined how to “achieve the State’s bold clean energy and climate agenda” was based on an Integration Analysis prepared by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA).  The Climate Act is not the only legislation or regulation that was promulgated to achieve reductions in greenhouse gas emissions to address climate change.  That fact has a major bearing on the NYSERDA Draft Energy Plan Pathways scenario.

Energy Plan Overview

According to the New York State Energy Plan website (Accessed 3/16/25):

The State Energy Plan is a comprehensive roadmap to build a clean, resilient, and affordable energy system for all New Yorkers. The Plan provides broad program and policy development direction to guide energy-related decision-making in the public and private sectors within New York State.

The driving factor for the Energy Plan is the net-zero ambitions of New York’s ruling political party.  This is the first update of the Energy Plan since the Climate Act was passed in 2019.  I have provided more background information and a list of previous articles on my Energy Plan page. 

In this iteration of New York climate policy the Pathways Analysis is equivalent to the Integration Analysis. Responsibility for implementing the Energy Plan as well as all the Climate Act programs lies with NYSERDA.  Over my multi-decade career, I have seen an ever-increasing level of political influence on NYSERDA’s research priorities and, more recently, the research results. This post explains how the Pathways Analysis scenarios are being used by NYSERDA to hide costs of the Energy Plan net-zero transition.

Costs

I recently gave my first impressions of the Draft Energy Plan released for comment at the most recent Energy Planning Board meeting.  NYSERDA President and CEO Doreen Harris is the Chairperson the Energy Planning Board.  This post focuses on this one aspect of the meeting.  After a presentation regarding the Transmission and Distribution Reliability Study she said.

You may recall during our last meeting in which we discussed the pathways modeling for this plan. And to remind you, the analysis showed that New York’s citizens and businesses will need to invest over one hundred billion dollars each year in the energy system, no matter which future path we take.

I have one immediate response.  There is a future path that would not cost over $100 billion.  NYSERDA, ever beholden to the Hochul Administration’s political plans, has prepared a comprehensive roadmap using a misleading limited assessment  As was the case with the Integration Analysis and Scoping Plan, NYSERDA is interpreting the “No action” scenario as one that includes all legacy programs in place prior to the passage of the Climate Act.  The appropriate baseline scenario is one that excludes all programs that were promulgated to reduce GHG emissions.

Legacy Programs

The Energy Plan Pathways Analysis defines the “No Action” pathway scenario as “reflecting outcomes in the absence of the Climate Act and energy policies enacted from 2019 onwards”.  The Perplexity description goes on: “It includes federal energy incentives and legacy New York State policies (i.e., those in place as of early 2025), but it explicitly excludes any state and local climate, decarbonization, or efficiency policies put in place since 2019.”

I have found that Perplexity is a very useful research tool enabling me to easily find references needed to document my articles.  However, its summaries are colored by the references it finds.  The query response concluded that “This scenario thus serves as a baseline representing a world without recent state-driven climate action”.  No, it does not.  It reflects New York State driven climate action since 2019 not a baseline without climate action. 

The Pathways analysis refers to previous actions as “legacy programs”.    When I requested a Perplexity description of the legacy program investments required no matter which future path New York takes I received the following summary (with my annotations):

Core Infrastructure Investments

According to the pathways modeling presented at the June 25, 2025 New York Energy Planning Board meeting, certain investments will be necessary across all energy scenarios through 2040. These “pathway-independent” investments represent critical infrastructure needs that New York must address regardless of the specific energy future the state ultimately pursues.

NYSERDA has not differentiated between investments necessary for greenhouse gas emission reduction aspirations and those unrelated to climate action.  The failure to differentiate means that the climate action costs are underestimated.

Baseline System-Wide Spending

The pathways analysis revealed that baseline system-wide spending of approximately $120 billion annually (in 2024 dollars) through 2040 will be required to maintain and modernize existing energy infrastructure, replace aging equipment, and purchase fuels to meet energy needs. This represents the foundational investment needed to keep New York’s energy system operational.

Note that when Harris said that investments over $100 billion were required the actual number is $120 billion.  The complication is that there are indeed energy costs that will occur whatever pathway occurs, but they are buried amongst the programs that are included to meet the targets for an 85% emission reduction by 2050, 70% of the electricity must come from renewable energy by 2030, and all electricity must be generated by “zero-emissions” resources by 2040..

Continued Investment in All Fuel Systems

A key finding from the pathways modeling is that all major fuels used in New York today will continue to meaningfully contribute to the state’s energy mix through 2040, including electricity, natural gas, and petroleum fuels. As stated in the Draft Pathways Analysis: “Continued investment in all fuel systems is necessary to assure safe and reliable energy services, in particular to meet peak day needs and to increase resilience”.

Natural Gas System Infrastructure

Despite projected declines in gas consumption across all scenarios, the natural gas system will require continued investment to ensure safe and reliable provision of service. The pathways modeling showed that while gas consumption is projected to decline, it remains a significant resource throughout the relevant period, necessitating ongoing system maintenance and upgrades.

In my opinion, investments in these legacy programs are appropriate for the “no GHG emission reduction mandates” programs.

Electricity System Expansion

The modeling demonstrated that electricity use is expected to grow substantially to power economic growth and expanded use of electric vehicles and heat pumps. This growth requires buildout of a diverse set of resources, including:

  • Wind and solar installations
  • Energy storage systems
  • Advanced nuclear facilities
  • Repowering of aging combustion power plants

Clearly every penny spent on these example buildouts is only included to meet the Climate Act mandates.  Saying anything otherwise is misinformation at best and a lie in my opinion.

Transmission and Distribution Infrastructure

Extensive transmission investments will be necessary to deliver renewable energy across the state and address new constraints appearing across the electric system. The New York Independent System Operator has identified that transmission expansion is “critical to facilitating efficient CLCPA energy target achievement” and noted that “the current New York transmission system, at both local and bulk levels, is inadequate to achieve currently required policy objectives”.

Specific transmission needs include:

  • Major public policy transmission projects already approved by NYISO
  • Local transmission upgrades (Phase 1 and Phase 2 projects approved by the PSC)
  • Infrastructure to accommodate up to 6,000 MW of offshore wind capacity into New York City

This is a mixed bag of programs specifically related to the Climate Act and other necessary infrastructure maintenance.  I have been told that there is a big push to replace aging transmission lines.  If the replacement infrastructure maintains current capacity, it is maintenance but if it is upgraded with additional circuits to collect wind and solar power, then that component is not necessary no matter which energy path we take.

Grid Reliability and Resilience Investments

The pathways analysis emphasized that investments in transmission and distribution systems must be designed to withstand climate change. This includes:

  • Upgrading aging infrastructure
  • Enhancing system reliability metrics
  • Incorporating scenario-based planning processes to address climate change impacts
  • Advanced transmission technologies deployment

These are also a mixed bag of necessary infrastructure programs and programs that would not exist were it not for GHG emission reduction aspirations.

Load Growth Accommodation

All scenarios showed significant new large loads interconnecting to the system, driving growing electricity demand across both annual loads and peaks. Early planning for abundant supply is essential to accommodate this load growth and ensure continued opportunities for economic development.

This is a complicated situation.  If the load growth is due to new manufacturing or cost-effective electrification, then this is true no action energy path cost.  If the upgrades are due to mandated home electrification and electric vehicles, then including the costs in a “no action” Pathway scenario is malfeasance.

Energy Efficiency and Weatherization

Across all pathways, households can lower their overall energy costs by making energy-saving choices such as home weatherization, efficient appliances, and fuel-efficient vehicles. Policy action to reduce up-front costs and other barriers will be necessary to make such choices more accessible.

This is even more complicated.  Energy efficiency and weatherization programs have been in place for decades.  Are they driven by net-zero fantasies or pragmatic cost effectiveness concerns?

Discussion

I believe that the NYSERDA rationale for not including a Pathways scenario that does not include any programs that are only included to address climate change is that there are laws mandating those programs.  Public Service Law Section 66-P Establishment of a Renewable Energy Program is the law that implements the Climate Act renewable energy mandates.  NYSERDA ignores the provisions for bounds on implementation in PSL 66-P. PSL 66-p(2),b states “The commission may, in designing the program, modify the obligations of jurisdictional load serving entities and/or the targets upon consideration of the factors described in this subdivision.”  Section 66-p (4) states: “The commission may temporarily suspend or modify the obligations under such program provided that the commission, after conducting a hearing as provided in section twenty of this chapter, makes a finding that the program impedes the provision of safe and adequate electric service; the program is likely to impair existing obligations and agreements; and/or that there is a significant increase in arrears or service disconnections that the commission determines is related to the program”.

The existence of those safety valve provisions and the current changes in Federal clean energy policies necessitate the inclusion of a Pathways Analysis scenario that does not include any New York or Federal emission reduction programs.  I believe that the majority of New Yorkers agree with me that we want to know the total cost, irrespective of which regulation requirement, that the Energy Plan projects will be necessary to meet the net-zero and electric system mandates of the Climate Act.  In my opinion, there is no question that those costs would be enormous and no question that that fact is being covered up by NYSERDA at the behest of the Hochul Administration.

The NYSERDA Pathways Analysis projects that energy system investments will total $120 billion per year out to 2040.  There are approximately 7.8 million households in New York State.  This equates to over $1200 per month per household.  How much of this is due to net-zero aspirations?

Conclusion

“Fooled me once, shame on you.  Fooled me twice, shame on me.”  NYSERDA is repeating the playbook of the Scoping Plan to hide the costs of Climate Act implementation.  I raised the issue in my Scoping Plan comments but there was no acknowledgement by NYSERDA.  I do not believe that the members of the Climate Action Council who voted to approve the Scoping Plan were told about the comment.  I did not reach enough people to get a scenario included that would represent no emission reduction program costs.  The result was a massive underestimate of the costs of the Climate Act.  The same approach is being used in the Energy Plan.  I believe that the only way to get this to change in the Energy Plan proceeding is for legislators to demand change.   Please contact your legislators and demand a full accounting of all the costs to achieve the Climate Act mandates.

Draft NYS Energy Plan – Need for Real Stakeholder Involvement

This is part of my continuing coverage of the New York State Energy Plan.  On July 23, 2025, the Draft Energy Plan was released for comment.  There is every indication that the Hochul Administration is just going through the motions of a stakeholder process like they did with the Scoping Plan.  This is too important to not do correctly.

I am convinced that implementation of the New York Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act or CLCPA) net-zero mandates will do more harm than good if the future electric system relies only on wind, solar, and energy storage because of reliability and affordability risks.  I have followed the Climate Act since it was first proposed, submitted comments on the Climate Act implementation plan, and have written over 550 articles about New York’s net-zero transition.  The opinions expressed in this article do not reflect the position of any of my previous employers or any other organization I have been associated with, these comments are mine alone.

Energy Plan Overview

According to the New York State Energy Plan website (Accessed 3/16/25):

The State Energy Plan is a comprehensive roadmap to build a clean, resilient, and affordable energy system for all New Yorkers. The Plan provides broad program and policy development direction to guide energy-related decision-making in the public and private sectors within New York State.

I have provided more background information and a list of previous articles on my Energy Plan page. 

Responsibility for implementing the Energy Plan as well as all the Climate Act programs lies with the New York State Energy Research & Development Authority (NYSERDA).  Over my career I have seen an ever-increasing level of political influence on NYSERDA’s research priorities and, more recently, the research results. This post describes my concerns relative to the energy plan stakeholder process.

Stakeholder Promise and Reality

The July 23, 2025 meeting presentations mentioned public participation multiple times.  The following slide (Figure 1) described the process for Draft Energy Plan involvement.  The Draft Energy Plan website has links for submitting written comments and participation in public hearings.  However, indications are that this is just going through the motions.  The public hearings are only two hours long and speakers are limited to two minutes.  That is not nearly enough time to provide anything meaningful.

Figure 1: Public Review Process Description in July 23, 2025 Meeting Presentation.

I signed up to make a statement soon after the hearing notice was announced.  This article documents the comments I plant to provide about the public comment process.

Concern

My first post describing the Draft Energy Plan mentioned two critical requirements for a satisfactory Energy Plan.  Defining metrics for affordability, reliability, and acceptable environmental impacts should be a primary component of the Energy Plan.  A transparent and comprehensive stakeholder process is also needed for credibility.

My worries that NYSERDA treatment of public input in the Energy Plan stakeholder process will mimic the Scoping Plan process have been a consistent theme in all my articles on the Energy Plan process.  I think that NYSERDA is following the same script where the numbers were tortured to provide the desired analysis then tied up into a pretty package.  Now they will go through the motions of accepting public input but will not respond to comments submitted.  The problem is that many of the same inconsistencies and identified problems that did not get addressed in the draft Scoping Plan are present in the draft Energy Plan.  This is unacceptable.

Example 1

The “Retirement Input” tab in the Pathways Analysis Technical Supplement: Key Drivers and Outputs spreadsheet is shown in Figure 2.  It states that the expected lifetimes for wind, solar, and storage are indefinite.  Most of the existing wind and solar and all of the existing storage will have to be replaced by 2040.  This is an absurd assumption.

Figure 2: Retirement Inputs Table

On June 16, 2022 I submitted a Comment on Retirement Input Assumptions used in the Draft Scoping Plan.

In what appears to be an egregious attempt to reduce the published costs of wind, solar, and battery storage the Integration Analysis assumes that the expected lifetimes of those technologies is indefinite.  As a result, units are assumed to remain online throughout the study period and no costs for replacements between now and 2050 are included.  However. that is a poor assumption because it is totally unreasonable to expect that, for example, the existing land-based resources will still be in operation in 2050.

I estimated the potential impact of this assumption.  Using an indefinite retirement date for these resources underestimates the total builds needed for 2050.  For land-based wind between 3,814 MW and 4,600 MW are not included and for offshore wind between 6,200 and 6,600 MW are not included.  The amount of solar not included ranges between 22,639 MW and 19,983 MW.  Finally, for battery storage between 10,713 MW and 12,207 MW of additional resources will be need to be developed to meet the 2050 projected value. 

The Draft Energy Plan only covers the next 15 years to 2040 so these projections are not completely compatible.  Nonetheless, this is still a uncontestably incorrect assumption.  This error will cause an underestimate of the costs to comply with the Climate Act 2040 mandates.  It is a matter of credibility if it is not acknowledged.

I could go on to provide other examples of issues that I raised in the Draft Scoping Plan that are present in the Draft Energy Plan.  There is no point in bothering to document these issues if there is no commitment to respond to all comments submitted.

Example 2

I have always been concerned about differences between the NYSERDA analyses and the work of the New York Independent System Operator (NYISO).  The NYISO mission is “Ensure power system reliability and competitive markets for NY in a clean energy future”.  As part of that responsibility NYISO performed in-depth analyses of power system data and made projections showing estimated changes as a result of the Climate Act.  There are significant differences (Table 1) between the NYISO projections of future generating resource capacity and the NYSERA sponsored analyses that have never been reconciled in an open and transparent public forum.

Table 1: Comparison of 2040 Fuel Mix Capacity (MW) Projections by NYISO and NYSERDA

I am particularly concerned about the capacity differences for the Zero-Carbon Firm or Dispatchable Emissions-Free Resource.  NYISO projects a significantly higher necessary capacity.  There are fundamental viability issues associated with DEFR and it appears that the two modeling approaches are treating the resource differently.  It is critically important that the differences get resolved.  Failure to do so goes beyond a credibility issue associated with the process.  .If this is not resolved there could be reliability consequences and the potential for catastrophic blackouts. 

There is another aspect of the differences between NYSERDA and NYISO  The NYISO analyses have never revealed their cost estimates for the transition.  That information would either provide reassurance that NYSERDA electric system transition estimates are supportable or suggest they need to be improved.

Recommendation

I believe that the stakeholder process for the Climate Act is broken because NYSERDA and other state agencies treat it as an obligation and not an opportunity.  NYSERDA claims that there was “robust public input” during the draft Scoping Plan process that “included 11 public hearings across the State and more than 35,000 written comments” that supposedly were read, summarized, and presented to the Climate Action Council.  The problem is that Agency staff screened the comments for the Climate Action Council and there is no publicly available documentation of their work.  They only presented generalities at meetings and did not summarize specific comments.  I am convinced that any comments that questioned the narrative espoused by Climate Act proponents were ignored and there is no evidence that I am wrong.

I recently found an example of how a stakeholder process should work.  The Santa Clara County Rapid Transit Development Project includes a master plan for transportation for Silicon Valley.  An interview with the founding manager notes: “Part of the plan is a four-year public stakeholder review process.  In the reviews, if the public came up with good ideas, the ideas went into the plan.  If an idea wasn’t good, we had the responsibility of explaining why” from California’s High-Speed Rail Visionary Bill Buchanan, Trains, Volume 85, No. 1, January 2025, pages 30-37.  The process also included public outreach meetings that included the opportunity to ask questions.

A robust public input process includes public outreach.  The Draft Energy Plan was announced after a series of Planning Board meetings earlier this year.  There hasn’t been any opportunity for stakeholders to ask questions about the assumptions and methodologies used.  If the State was serious about considering public input for an energy plan that affects every New Yorker, then they would hold a series of meetings to cover specific technical topics.  A stakeholder process that does not allow for interaction between stakeholders and NYSERDA staff is nearly useless.

In my opinion, NYSERDA should provide a public response to all the substantive comments made regarding the Draft Energy Plan.  A publicly available summary describing specific comments, responses to the issues raised by comments and the recommendation for resolution in the final Energy Plan should be provided to the Energy Planning Board, the Public Service Commission and the public.  If the State is to have any credibility regarding their Energy plan stakeholder process, then they must provide documentation showing that all the comments were considered and addressed.

Conclusion

My biggest Energy Plan concern is whether the Hochul Administration will use the Energy Plan process as an opportunity to consider the implications of the observed transition so far and if the advice of stakeholders in its stakeholder process will be treated as an opportunity to improve the transition.  Earl indications suggest that they are only going through the motions with no attempt to meaningfully engage with any comments inconsistent with the narrative

New York Cap and Invest Litigation

Last March environmental activists sued the State of New York because the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) was not promulgating the regulations for the  New York Cap and Invest (NYCI) Program on schedule.  Last Friday, an Ulster County judge heard arguments from the activists and the DEC.  A report suggests that the judge “will likely rule that New York is breaking its climate law.”

I have followed the Climate Act since it was first proposed, submitted comments on the Climate Act implementation plan, and have written over 550 articles about New York’s net-zero transition.  My background is particularly suited for NYCI evaluation.  I have worked on every market-based program that affected electric generating facilities in New York including the Acid Rain Program, Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), and several Nitrogen Oxide programs. I follow and write about the RGGI and New York carbon pricing initiatives. The opinions expressed in this article do not reflect the position of any of my previous employers or any other organization I have been associated with, these comments are mine alone.

Overview

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

Cap-and-Invest

The CAC’s Scoping Plan recommended a market-based economywide cap-and-invest program.  NYCI is supposed to work by setting an annual cap on the amount of greenhouse gas pollution that is permitted to be emitted in New York: “The declining cap ensures annual emissions are reduced, setting the state on a trajectory to meet our greenhouse gas emission reduction requirements of 40% by 2030, and at least 85% from 1990 levels by 2050, as mandated by the Climate Act.”  Affected sources purchase permits to emit a ton (also known as allowances) and then surrender them at the end of the year to comply with the rule.  Colin Kinniburgh’s description at New York Focus describes the activist’s theory of a cap-and-invest program as a program that will kill two birds with one stone.  “It simultaneously puts a limit on the tons of pollution companies can emit — ‘cap’ — while making them pay for each ton, funding projects to help move the state away from polluting energy sources — ‘invest.'” 

As is the case with all aspects of the Climate Act, this approach is not simple and is riddled with complications that make it unlikely that it will work as advocates expect.  I have summarized my concerns on my Carbon Pricing Initiatives page.  Furthermore, the implementation timetable promulgated by politicians mandated a schedule at odds to the scope and challenge of an economy-wide market-based program.  Even if a direct charge on fossil emissions was not a politically charged issue, it is no surprise that DEC implementation is late.

NYCI Lawsuit

Colin Kinniburgh, writing at NY Focus, published a series of articles describing the background of this issue.  After Governor Hochul’s State of the State address in January he explained that Hochul promised to release NYCI regulations but back-tracked on that promise.

In March he summarized the lawsuit:

Four environmental and climate justice groups filed a lawsuit Monday in a state court, claiming that New York is “stonewalling necessary climate action in outright violation” of its legal obligations. By not releasing economy-wide emissions rules, the suit alleges, the state Department of Environmental Conservation, or DEC, is “defying the Legislature’s clear directive” and “prolonging New Yorkers’ exposure to air pollution … especially in disadvantaged communities.”

It’s the first lawsuit to charge the state with failing to enforce the core mandate of its 2019 Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act, or CLCPA: eliminating nearly all of New York’s greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. The law tasks DEC with crafting rules to get there and to reach an interim target of 40 percent emissions cuts by 2030.

The state’s deadline to release those rules was Jan. 1, 2024 — a date the agency blew past. More than a year later, New York has yet to issue even draft rules, and it’s becoming less and less clear that it intends to do so, even though, throughout last year, Governor Kathy Hochul’s administration promised that it was working on them as quickly as possible.

Kinniburgh described the hearing as follows:

Ulster County Supreme Court Justice Julian Schreibman on Friday skewered a lawyer for the state Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) who argued that the state could not issue required regulations to cut greenhouse gases any time soon.

“It seems to me that the core of your argument is that we’re living in a time of change and uncertainty, and DEC needs to be given some leeway to accommodate that,” Schreibman said.

“That’s correct, your honor,” replied Meredith Lee-Clark, of the New York State Attorney General’s office, who was representing DEC.

“I don’t know that I’ve ever lived in a time that wasn’t one of change and uncertainty, so I don’t know how that is a governable standard,” the judge continued.

Schreibman went on to say that the most relevant cases in the record “almost compel” him to side with the plaintiffs: four climate justice groups who sued the state for violating its climate law by failing to issue regulations needed to meet it.

However, he suggested that he is unlikely to force the state to take action on the kind of timeline the plaintiffs’ lawyer suggested in the hearing — as little as 30 days to issue draft regulations and 100 days to finalize them.

I am no lawyer, but it does not seem that the DEC has much of an argument.  They are not meeting the timetable.  Whether that is a “governable standard” is another issue because there have never been a demonstration that the schedule and ambition of the Climate Act has never been shown to be feasible.  It is not clear if that issue can be addressed in this case.

NYCI Implications

In my most recent post discussing NYCI I addressed the first of the three implanting regulations for NYCI.  The regulation establishes reporting requirements necessary to determine how much affected sources will have to pay for the right to emit carbon dioxide emissions.  I made a general point for the uninitiated, that implementing a rule like others already in place elsewhere seemingly should be simple and straightforward.  The reasoning goes something like this: California has a similar program in place, so all New York needs to do is to convert their rules for use in New York.  It is not that easy.  For starters, California took upwards of ten years with a large staff to develop their rules.  NYCI implementation started in early January 2023 and DEC has many fewer staff.  Furthermore, the Climate Act has unique emissions definitions which makes simple substitution impossible. Finally, there are significant differences between the energy system nomenclature in the states.  In my opinion, DEC did a remarkable job getting something out.  Unfortunately, the proposed rule shows signs of haste and lack of understanding of the nuances of emission reporting.

The “30 days to issue draft regulations and 100 days to finalize them” timeline suggested by the plaintiffs’ lawyer is absurd.  It is inconsistent with the New York Administrative Procedure Act timing requirements for starters.  They could argue that it should be subject to an emergency rulemaking, but the implementation regulations are all complex and there is very weak rationale for this as an emergency.   

Unfortunately, there will likely be pressure now on DEC to accelerate a process that already shows signs of poor rulemaking.  Poorly designed regulations will have unintended consequences that will further weaken what I believe is a doomed policy.

Discussion

I have made this point before, but it bears repeating.  I am convinced that no GHG emission reduction cap-and-invest program like NYCI can successfully put a constraining limit on the tons of pollution companies can emit while making them pay to fund projects to help move the state away from polluting energy sources.  Danny Cullenward and David Victor’s book Making Climate Policy Work explains why.    They note that the level of expenditures needed to implement the net-zero transition vastly exceeds the “funds that can be readily appropriated from market mechanisms”. 

The indications are that NYCI regulations will be based on political considerations.  The prices for allowances will be based on what the Hochul Administration expects will be politically feasible not what is needed to fund needed reductions.  In any event, the plan for allocating the proceeds does not set a priority on funding emission reduction programs and includes several set asides to politically connected constituencies.  The politically designed reduction targets are inconsistent with the observed deployment of the control strategies.  NYCI will set a cap that will inevitably be too difficult to achieve, triggering an artificial energy shortage.  This will also exacerbate the designed increase in energy costs.  The end result will be increased costs and increased reliability risks.

Conclusion

I don’t think this lawsuit will have much of an impact on NYCI.  You cannot speed up implementation by issuing an order.  Throw in the political reluctance to speed up the process and I see minimal schedule changes.  In the meantime, the impending energy affordability crisis hopefully will trigger reconsideration of the whole transition.

This lawsuit is the first of many.  When the politicians set emission reduction targets without considering feasibility it was inevitable that they could not be achieved.  Political will is a great slogan but a poor driver for energy policy.

More Reasons to Pause Climate Act Implementation

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

I am convinced that implementation of the Climate Act net-zero mandates will do more harm than good because the energy density of wind and solar energy is too low and the resource intermittency too variable to ever support a reliable electric system relying on those resources. I have followed the Climate Act since it was first proposed, submitted comments on the Climate Act implementation plan, and have written over 550 articles about New York’s net-zero transition.  The opinions expressed in this article do not reflect the position of any of my previous employers or any other organization I have been associated with, these comments are mine alone.

Dennis Higgins on the Grid of the Future

Were it not for my overloaded schedule I would prepare a post devoted to this submittal by Dennis Higgins in the Grid of Future Case 24-E-0165 proceeding. Higgins describes five overarching issues that must be resolved for the Climate Act transition to be successful.  The following are selected quotes from his filing.

  1. The North American Energy Reliability Corporation (NERC) lists five risks to the bulk power system. Risk #1 is a bad energy plan and risk #2 are changes made to the grid to implement a bad plan.  A ‘renewable’ based grid will need a whole new transmission structure – bigger than the current grid — which someone will have to pay for. It will need full-capacity dispatchable backup and expensive battery energy storage systems. Any wind, solar, and energy storage resources installed today will need replacement by 2050. New York may not be able to shutter significant fossil-fuel power plants but may, rather, be obliged to build more. California – two decades ahead of New York in pursuit of solar and wind — has extended the operations of three gas power plants until 2026 to maintain energy reliability and affordable rates.
  2. Academic studies as well as empirical evidence do not support claims that wind and solar will prove economical or reliable. Recent studies suggest wind may raise surface temperatures offsetting any carbon-cutting advantage in the technology.
  3. NERC warns that inverter based resources can undermine grid reliability. “Since 2016, NERC has analyzed numerous major events totaling more than 15,000 MW of unexpected generation reduction. These major events were not predicted through current planning processes. Furthermore, NERC studies were not able to replicate the system and resource behavior that occurred during the events, indicating systemic deficiencies in industry’s ability to accurately represent the performance of IBRs and study the effects of IBR on the bulk power system (BPS).”
  4. Sweden, and others, do not see intermittent resources reducing costs or adding reliability.  Sweden provides a cautionary tale of what reliance on, and accommodations for, wind power can mean. In fact, over a megawatt of dispatchable generation is necessary for every megawatt of renewable added to the grid: “a 1% percent increase in the share of fast-reacting fossil generation capacity is associated with a 0.88% percent increase in renewable”
  5. NYISO has repeatedly warned of reliability issues. “As traditional fossil-fueled generation deactivates in response to decarbonization goals and tighter emissions regulations, reliability margins on the grid are eroding. Further, the remaining fossil-fueled generation fleet, which provides many of the essential reliability services to the grid, is increasingly made up of aging resources, raising further concerns about grid reliability. Strong reliability margins enable the grid to meet peak demand, respond to sudden disturbances, and avoid outages. They also support the grid’s ability to respond to risks associated with extreme weather conditions. As these margins narrow, consumers face greater risk of outages if the resources needed for reliability are unavailable due to policy mandates or failures associated with aging equipment.

Higgins did a great job compiling these cautionary tales.  Anyone of these should be sufficient reason to pause Climate Act implementation.

Lessons from California

JohnS has compiled a comprehensive evaluation of the status of the net zero transition in California.  As he points out, if an electric system transition to one dependent upon solar and wind can work somewhere, then this is the ideal state: “The state’s abundant sunshine, clear skies, and deserts near major population centers create perfect conditions for solar power.”

Spoiler alert – it is not working.  At the current rate of emissions decline California will reach zero emissions in 145 years.  He concludes: “Without an immediate and abrupt policy shift, California is not on a path to achieving its 2045 emissions goal. It’s impossible to predict how close they will get; it all depends on how much economic pain they can endure and how many ecosystems they are willing to sacrifice.” 

He also describes a lesson for New York:

A key lesson for other regions is that solar power is a difficult path, even for a wealthy American state with sunny weather and deserts close to big cities. It will be even more difficult in other regions. For instance, New York State has a solar capacity factor of 19.5%, which means the cost of solar power there will be about 1.5 times higher than in California. And without deserts, finding locations for solar farms will be more difficult. Colder climates also have more severe heating needs. Tripling annual heating costs by switching to heat pumps will be more than a tough sell.

There is an enormous amount of relevant information in this article.  California’s transition is ahead of New York.  None of the lessons learned in California suggest the New York will be able to improve upon their efforts.  This just cannot end well.

Iberian Peninsula Blackout

Two recent posts at the Watt-Logic blog describe the blackout this spring on the Iberian peninsula  that affected Spain, Portugal, and France.  The first article looked at the physics of power grids and the general behavior of both synchronous generation (gas, hydro and nuclear) and inverter-based generation (wind, solar and batteries).   It includes a good description of some of the details of the electric system that no one who was involved with the development of the Climate Act law understood.  If they had any inkling of the complexity of the system they would not have been so quick to go for a zero-emissions electric system reliant on wind, solar, and storage.  More importantly it explains why the proposed changes are so risky.  The second post addressed what we know about the Iberian blackout. He explains that voltage control and reactive power limitations of the Spanish grid caused by over-reliance on wind and solar weakened the grid to the point where “single faulty solar inverter” caused the blackout.

This raises an important issue.  We are told that the zero-emissions future New York electric system will be more resilient.  Am I the only one who is worried that the Chinese ‘kill switches’ found in equipment at US solar firms could trigger a single solar inverter to cause a blackout?  The fact that a single inverter could cause a blackout is not a sign of a resilient system.

Lessons from Down Under

The New Zealand Energy website described how the effects of a drop off in wind production caused a “wild ride” in their electric network.  It concluded that more accurate weather forecasting is needed to prevent problems like this causing a reliability issue.  The author goes on to describe the technology needed to respond to a weather forecast warning that a drop off in production is coming:

More backup and more complex control systems are required. This is exactly what Joesph Tainter described as the diminishing returns on complexity in his book “The Collapse of Complex Societies”.

It is very easy for proponents to claim that there are solutions to the many identified problems.  They do not acknowledge the complexity challenge however.

A second article from the other side of the equator is out of Australia.  Rafe Champion explains that the issues described above have led to the situation where the jurisdictions still hell bent on a transition away from fossil fuels have not caught on to the reality that “We have already gone as far as we can go in that direction with existing storage technology. The combination of wind droughts and the lack of feasible grid-scale battery storage makes the green energy transition impossible.” He reiterates the themes of the articles described here and I must say i agree that the transition is impossible.

Conclusion
There will be an inevitable clash between reality and political aspirations. The reasons described here underline the importance of a pause to consider New York’s Climate Act implementation.

Initial Thoughts on the Draft NYS Energy Plan

This is part of my continuing coverage of the New York State Energy Plan.  After a series of Energy Planning Board meetings this year, on July 23, 2025, the Draft Energy Plan was released for comment.  While there are some indications that reality is dawning on the Hochul Administration, the meetings, the description of the document, and my brief review of the document, there are still troubling aspects of this process.

I am convinced that implementation of the New York Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act or CLCPA) net-zero mandates will do more harm than good if the future electric system relies only on wind, solar, and energy storage because of reliability and affordability risks.  I have followed the Climate Act since it was first proposed, submitted comments on the Climate Act implementation plan, and have written over 550 articles about New York’s net-zero transition.  The opinions expressed in this article do not reflect the position of any of my previous employers or any other organization I have been associated with, these comments are mine alone.

Energy Plan Overview

According to the New York State Energy Plan website (Accessed 3/16/25):

The State Energy Plan is a comprehensive roadmap to build a clean, resilient, and affordable energy system for all New Yorkers. The Plan provides broad program and policy development direction to guide energy-related decision-making in the public and private sectors within New York State.

Responsibility for implementing the Energy Plan as well as all the Climate Act programs lies with the New York State Energy Research & Development Authority (NYSERDA).  Over my career I have seen an ever-increasing level of political influence on the research priorities and, more recently, the research results.  If something that could embarrass the administration manages to get funded, the results get buried if they don’t fit the narrative.  This bias was blatantly obvious during the development of the Scoping Plan and it evident here too.

I have provided more background information and a list of previous articles on my Energy Plan page.  My biggest concerns are whether the Hochul Administration will use the Energy Plan process as an opportunity to consider the implications of the observed transition so far and if the advice of stakeholders in its stakeholder process will be treated as an opportunity to improve the transition or an obligation with no attempt to meaningfully engage with any comments inconsistent with the narrative

July 23, 2025 Board Meeting

The materials for the meeting include the following:

Meeting Materials

Presentations

Draft State Energy Plan

Draft Plan under review by the State Energy Planning Board:

Volume I: Summary for Policymakers [PDF]

Volume II: Topical Chapters [PDF]

Volume II: Analysis Chapters [PDF]

Transmission and Distribution Systems Reliability Study [PDF]

Data Annexes:

The Draft Energy Plan documents will be updated to remove the “under consideration” caveats.  I will post articles on details of the meeting later.

Initial Impression

Yesterday’s meeting was a vivid reminder that everything associated with the Climate Act is politically motivated.  It was a political theater from start to end.  They pretended that the Board could provide meaningful comment that might prevent the release of the draft plan but the schedule for hearings and end date for submitting comments was spelled out in all the documents.  With very few exceptions, everything was scripted including the transition between speakers.  After presentations, there were very few questions.  Questions would require going off the script.  During the discussion about whether to release the Draft Energy Plan the responses by board members were scripted too. 

The NYISO representative commented that his organization had been working with NYSERDA.  I got the impression from the commentary and some of the findings mentioned that outside experts have been involved.  While that is encouraging, it remains to be seen how the process will acknowledge and reconcile differences of opinion. 

Affordability

There were numerous references to affordability in the meeting presentation.  I asked my new best friend, Perplexity AI, how many?  I acknowledge the use of Perplexity (https://www.perplexity.ai/) to generate the following summary.

The NYS Energy Plan presentation contains numerous references to affordability, emphasizing its importance throughout. Based on a detailed review of the full presentation text, here is the count and context for the most relevant references:

  • The word “affordable” and its variants (such as “affordability”) appear at least 28 times in the presentation.
  • References span across core planning goals, specific program actions, sector recommendations, and equity discussions.

Key references by section include:

  • Planning Goals and Principles: Affordability is listed as a guiding principle, alongside reliability, equity, and environmental health (slides 75-76, 79-80).
  • Program Actions: The Energy Affordability Policy and bill discount programs for lower-income and below-median-income customers are called out specifically (slide 7, 43).
  • Sector Strategies: Explaining the goal of affordable zero-emission vehicles and affordable, reliable transit (slides 25, 27-28).
  • DAC and Equity: Additional references address minimizing costs for electric ratepayers, reducing disproportionate energy burdens (slides 29, 34, 80, 43).

Summary: The presentation repeatedly highlights affordability as a defining priority for New York’s energy transition—both as a policy goal and via specific programs, especially for low- and moderate-income and disadvantaged communities.

I am sure that the Draft Energy Plan will also emphasize affordability and reliability.  For example, the Summary for Policymakers “pending Board consideration” released  at the meeting says the Energy Plan will be “Advancing abundant, reliable, affordable, and clean energy for New York”.

This is a controversial topic for me.  Until such time that those criteria are defined, talking about affordability is nothing more than a political slogan.  I am going to comment that it is necessary to establish specific affordability, reliability, and environmental impact criteria, set up a tracking mechanism for each, and formulate a mandatory course of action when the criteria are exceeded for the Hochul Administration to have any credibility regarding these key conditions.

Going Forward

A common refrain during the discussion of the release of the Energy Plan was the importance of stakeholder involvement.  This is also a controversial topic for me.  In a matter as complex as the New York energy system, there will be differing opinions about substantive aspects of the different components of the energy system.  The only way for the development process to be credible is for stakeholder comments to be documented and the rationale for how controversies were resolved explained so that when the Energy Planning Board votes to approve it, they will have all the information.

The Climate Act implementation process was not a model to follow.  The differences of opinion between stakeholders and NYSERDA during the Scoping Plan process were not documented.  During the Energy Plan presentations, there were references when speakers implied surprise that the results to date did not comport with the expectations of the analysis performed for the Scoping Plan.  In more than one instance, they referred to something that I know was brought up and ignored during the Scoping Plan stakeholder process.  I cannot recommend strongly enough that this process should respond to all comments and reconcile any differences between NYSERDA and NYISO electric grid projections in a clear and transparent manner.

Politics

Unfortunately, my recommendations flounder on the political reality of New York.  The Democratic Party controls the New York Assembly and Senate, and the Governor is a Democrat.  The Energy Planning Board membership consists of ten agency heads, appointees of the Governor, Speaker of the Assembly, President of the Senate, and Presiding Officer of the New York State Independent System Operator (NYISO).  Of the fourteen members only two have technical energy backgrounds.   All decisions will be decided based on political considerations.  Given the fact that the politicians got us into this mess, I have little hope that they will willingly get us onto a pragmatic path based on reality.

Conclusion

I am encouraged that the Hochul Administration has finally realized that the Climate Act schedule and ambition are impossible to meet.  The presentations at this meeting are consistent with that epiphany.  It is not clear how they intend to reconcile the problems that introduces.

In my opinion, there are two critical requirements for a satisfactory Energy Plan.  Defining metrics for affordability, reliability, and acceptable environmental impacts should be a primary component of the Energy Plan.  A transparent and comprehensive stakeholder process is needed for credibility. I do not expect that my concerns will be addressed.