New York's Climate Act — A Vivid Example of A Well-Intentioned Course of Action That Will Do More Harm Than Good.
Guest Post by Roger Caiazza of Pragmatic Environmentalist of New York.
On September 4-5, 2024, the Hochul Administration hosted a Future Energy Summit. I described my initial thoughts on the Summit, followed up with a second pre-meeting post, and did a first impressions post-meeting article. I also described the pushback by anti-nuclear activists against the Summit focus on the potential for nuclear power. This post wraps up my thoughts on this meeting.
State Summit Summary
On September 11, 2024, NYSERDA Events sent an email to attendees of the Summit. I think it gives a good summary of the Hochul Administration’s expectations. I quote the letter below with my annotated comments.
The first two paragraphs provide overview information:
Thank you for attending the Future Energy Economy Summit. We hope you found the convening to be informative in exploring how advanced emissions-free technologies can play a key role in supporting renewable energy and economic development while accelerating progress toward a zero-emission electricity system.
A recording of the Summit has been posted to the Summit website. While the Summit discussions were robust and the opportunities are exciting, there is considerable work ahead.
In my opinion, the suggestion that there was a discussion is misleading. No speakers who have openly questioned the narrative were invited to participate, no utility or the NYISO participated, and the only way to submit questions was via a networked chat feature that ensured that no controversial questions were raised.
The important part of the email listed the following key next steps:
Complete the ongoing Public Service Commission review of the Clean Energy Standard (CES) by early 2025 and advance key actions to accelerate and expand New York’s large-scale renewable energy industry, focusing on deployment goals, interconnection reforms and the timely implementation of the RAPID Act for expedited environmental reviews and permitting of major renewable energy and electric transmission facilities.
This description of the PSC review of the Clean Energy Standard could be problematic. The CES is just one component of the programs needed to achieve the Climate Act mandates. The Hochul Administration Scoping Plan excluded costs of the CES in its cost-benefit analysis. As a result, they have never admitted what the total costs of Climate Act implementation could be.
This statement could be a similar gambit to hide costs and other problems. I think I speak for just about everyone outside the Administration when I say we want to know the total costs to meet the Climate Act mandates and not a subset of costs from different regulations and laws. If the PSC review only addresses the CES costs, then the citizens of New York will be shortchanged again.
Advancing key actions to “accelerate and expand New York’s large-scale renewable energy industry” ignores the fact that there hasn’t been a feasibility study to show it is possible. The Climate Act is a political construct based on the premise that implementation is only a matter of political will. Avowed Climate Act author Robert Howarth continues to misinform the public by saying that “We can meet all of the energy needs of New York with solar, with hydro and wind and appropriate (energy) storage.’’
The Scoping Plan flatly contradicts that statement, the New York Independent System Operator is calling for a not yet commercially available dispatchable emissions-free resource (DEFR) in its future resource projections, and the Public Service Commission ‘Zero Emissions by 2040’ proceeding acknowledges this need.
Maximize leverage of federal programs by applying for relevant funding opportunities for economic development and next generation emissions-free energy technology planning and deployment.
Given the availability of federal funding for advanced nuclear projects the Summit discussed the possibility those funds could be used In New York.
Advance Public Service Commission action on the pending ‘Zero Emissions by 2040’ proceeding that is investigating technologies that support the 2040 zero-emissions electricity system target established through New York’s Climate Act.
As noted previously, this proceeding directly contradicts the suggestion that solar, hydro, and wind with energy storage are sufficient for the future electrical energy system. The Summit is another acknowledgement that DEFR is needed. Advanced nuclear designs are a leading contender for future DEFR which explains why it was featured at the Summit and why there is activist pushback on the need for DEFR itself.
Solicit industry feedback on the draft Advanced Nuclear Technologies Blueprint, and finalize the draft Blueprint by the end of this year. To review the draft Blueprint click here, and to submit comments, please click here;
I have a couple of thoughts about this Blueprint. They are asking for “industry” feedback which suggests that they want technical commentary on their ideas. I have always thought that the Summit was mostly a referendum on the deployment of nuclear. I predict that there will be massive letter writing campaigns organized in response to the blueprint comment period to try to influence this decision despite the request for industry feedback. Already the anti-nuclear letters to the editor have started showing up. My other observation is that the comments are due in November so any decisions made will be after the current election cycle.
Ensure that the forthcoming State Energy Plan appropriately considers the role advanced emissions-free technologies can play in the State’s move to a deeply renewable electric grid and capitalization of programs that will expand the State’s economy.
The State Energy Plan is very important for the future economy of New York. If done properly it will include a feasibility study. If a feasibility study correctly addresses costs, technological considerations, and the risks of relying on weather-dependent resources, then it will show that a major reassessment of the Climate Act mandates, and schedule are necessary.
We look forward to continuing this discussion and appreciate your participation at the Future Energy Economy Summit.
My Impressions
Before the summit I thought that the overarching rationale was to address concerns that have been raised about the lagging schedule and lack of cost information. Two of the five panels addressed nuclear power, so it appeared that the Hochul Administration was attempting to gauge public opinion on that option.
The organizers went to great lengths to control who attended and did not announce who was on the panels until just before the meeting. I also thought that a primary reason to hold the meeting in Syracuse was because of the presence of three nearby nuclear generating plants that would provide a visible demonstration in favor of nuclear power.
I did a quick summary after the summit. Governor Hochul showed up to kick off the summit and the point was frequently made that it was her idea. There was no substantive response to the schedule and cost issues. Nuclear was an emphasis point and I remain convinced that the Hochul Administration is attempting to gauge public opinion on that option. A draft Advanced Nuclear Technologies Blueprint was announced that they plan to finalize by the end of this year.
I have never seen so much security around an energy meeting but there were no incidents even though there was a demonstration in favor of nuclear power and another against nuclear power outside the hotel. Surprisingly there was not any kind of demonstration from the local nuclear unions. I believe the reason for having the meeting in Syracuse was to emphasize the importance of reliable electric power for the Micron chip fabrication plant and other industries.
Conclusion
Only time will tell whether the Summit was an honest attempt to address the unmistakable implementation issues being observed or it was timed and motivated for political gain.
At some point, reality must be addressed. Energy policy dictated by politicians and ideologues is not in the best interests of society. The Climate Act is a vivid example of a well-intentioned course of action that will do more harm than good. It is time for an honest and open assessment of the plans and schedule proposed.
#ClimateAct #NewYork #Climate #NetZero #Risks #Hochul #ClimateReality
Roger Caiazza blogs on New York energy and environmental issues at Pragmatic Environmentalist of New York. This post represents his opinion alone and not the opinion of his previous employers or any other company with which he has been associated. Roger has followed the Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act) since it was first proposed, submitted comments on the Climate Act implementation plan, and has written over 450 articles about New York’s net-zero transition.
The total cost is not disclosed nor are the partial costs fully exposed. This is all on purpose. Just follow the money and see how much goes to various entities but the physical asset construction, equipment acquisition, installation are only consuming a portion of the funds. The test is pocket money siphoned by the paper and idea pushers (leeches). It’s a huge transfer of wealth up front in the project and when turned to operation it’s an albatross around the neck of the taxpayers and rate payers. The Golden Fleece self congratulating themselves and partners for screwing the public and setting up long term pain.
Just another "Mutual Admiration Society" Meeting where the attendees would break their own arm off just to pat themselves on the back!!!