Message to Kathy Hochul: Stop! Turn Around and Go the Other Way Before You Destroy New York's Energy Security!

New York State must stop what it's doing and re-evaluate, says Roger Caiazza. If reducing carbon emissions is the goal, this is no way to do it!

Guest Post by Roger Caiazza of Pragmatic Environmentalist of New York.

I believe Governor Hochul’s Administration has forced New York utilities to incorporate programs to try to meet the goals of the Climate Act, despite never proving it is feasible, never defining what is affordable, and mounting evidence that implementation is not working out as planned.

My frustration that no one is acting on those concerns led me to join Constantine Kontogiannis in a submittal in the Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation d/b/a National Grid (NMPC) rate case proceeding in May. In June we submitted testimony in the Consolidated Edison Company of New York (Con Ed) rate case with Richard Ellenbogen and Francis Menton. This article outlines our concerns and describes our testimony.

Background

I have never paid much attention to utility rate cases until this spring. My frustration that no one has reacted to my concerns about the pitfalls of the Climate Act forced me into participating. Kontogiannis and I got to the NMPC rate case late in the process.

Briefly, the utility Con Ed outlines its rate case plan; intervenors react; a Joint Proposal (JP) is hammered out between the utility, the Department of Public Service (DPS), and intervenors; the JP is submitted to the Public Service Commission (PSC); and they decide on the fate of the rate case. Kontogiannis and I intervened in the NMPC rate case by submitting a statement in opposition to the JP settlement plan.

Kontogiannis, Ellenbogen, Menton, and I (“Independent Intervenors”) intervened in the Con Ed rate case by submitting testimony regarding the draft JP, essentially one step before in the process than our intervention in the NMPC rate case.

My role in both interventions was to pull together our concerns in the NMPC statement in opposition and the Con Ed testimony documents. Both rate cases are now in a phase that is beyond my comprehension so I cannot begin to explain what is going on and how we will interact with the parties. Moreover, in the Con Ed case all discussions are confidential. I have no idea how this will turn out.

Con Ed Testimony

Our submittal included a testimony (formatted as questions and answers) along with seven exhibits.

In the testimony we first described our backgrounds. I stated that I was a retired utility meteorologist, described my career, and mentioned that I write this blog. 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 explained we are participating in the rate case because we share the common concern that there are unacknowledged thresholds associated with Climate Act affordability, reliability and environmental impacts. We believe wind and solar cannot adequately supply the grid, cannot maintain reliability without redundant backup, and will drive up costs dramatically for consumers. The building and transportation electrification initiatives proposed by Con Ed in the rate proceedings will dramatically compound these detrimental impacts. Our testimony describes our concerns and makes recommendations to address them.

Our testimony argued that it has become apparent that the goals of the Climate Act are not feasible and are putting the health and safety of New Yorkers at risk, while simultaneously adding huge costs to the electrical system.

We made four arguments:

1. It is time for the PSC to invoke PSL Section 66-P(4) and, under that authority, suspend CLCPA obligations contained in this rate case.

2. Our testimony addresses problems related to CLCPA obligations confronting Con Ed specifically as they apply to these rate proceedings.

3. The rate case includes programs and initiatives needed to comply with the requirements of the CLCPA, but they are incompatible with the mandates for safe, reliable and affordable service.

4. The Independent Intervenors propose pausing implementation of CLCPA aspects of the rate case that are not cost-effective on their own and redirect funding to interim solutions to reduce carbon emissions and costs while improving reliability that are cost-effective.

Our testimony also included an estimate of the impact of the rate case on global warming.

We found that the New York emissions reductions possible are negligible relative to global emissions and the resulting global temperature change is infinitesimally small. This does not mean that we should not do something, but it does mean that concerns about the schedule and pace of emission reductions are misplaced.

Safety Valve

This issue is an obsession of mine, so I was the primary author of the description and the related exhibit. Clearly, there are limits to how much Climate Act implementation can cost. It frustrates me to no end that Public Service Law (PSL) 66-p(4) is a safeguard mechanism that could define that limit, but it has been ignored.

PSL Section 66-p charges the Commission with implementing renewable energy programs, but includes feasibility safety valve conditions for affordability and reliability. In this proceeding and the NMPC rate case, I pointed out that the safety valve criterion for a significant increase in the number of customers in arrears has been exceeded.

There hasn’t been a response yet in this case but I described the DPS response to the same argument in the NMPC case. I expect DPS to similarly argue that they must follow the Climate Act law conveniently overlooking the fact that PSL 66 is a law too. They argued that addressing this is beyond the scope of a rate case proceeding. The DPS response to the need for affordability and reliability safety valves clearly is a failure to support their broad mandate to ensure consumer access to safe, reliable utility service at just and reasonable rates.

Affordability and Environmental Impacts

We acknowledge Con Ed is in a difficult position. They must meet CLCPA obligations even though there is mounting evidence that implementation will have negative consequences.

Our testimony noted that energy costs are affecting affordability and that has housing security implications. There is another aspect of affordability affecting New York City residents.

One of our exhibits addressed Local Law 97, the New York’s legislation mandating building electrification Ellenbogen found that until the New York City electric generators are zero emissions, the forced conversion will actually increase emissions.

Ellenbogen’s personal experience electrifying his manufacturing facility and home has convinced him that New York City has underestimated the logistical challenge of citywide conversions with new technologies. Ellenbogen evaluated costs and argues that LL97 is unaffordable. Finally, because his electric system monitors electric use and characteristics, he has data proving that electrified buildings will require Con Ed to upgrade its electric service.

Feasibility

The rate case includes programs and initiatives needed to comply with the requirements of the CLCPA. We believe they are incompatible with the mandates for safe, reliable and affordable service because the schedule and ambition of the mandates were not based on feasibility. We referenced the New York Independent System Operator (NYISO) 2025 Power Trends report and enumerated specific issues raised that should be considered in this rate case.

Another obsession of mine is the need to back up weather-dependent resources during periods of extended low wind and solar availability. In our testimony we pointed out that a new resource that is dispatchable and emissions-free (DEFR) is needed to address this challenge.

Acknowledging the problem is only the first step in resolving it. Electric planners are still trying to figure out how to incorporate the need for DEFR into reliability planning criteria. Determining how much DEFR will be needed requires extensive analysis of historical observations. The biggest challenge is that there are no commercially viable DEFR technologies available.

At present, the only mature technology that can act as a DEFR in New York is nuclear. Conventional nuclear has been met with a great deal of resistance in NY State and even with the recent change of mindset, development of additional nuclear plants will take at least 15 – 20 years based upon the last two nuclear plants built, Vogtle 3 & 4 in Georgia. It is estimated that Small Modular Reactors will not be available for deployment until well after 2035. We asked what technologies will be available to support the wind and solar buildout presumed in the Company rate case?

Misplaced Priorities

We explained that the Climate Act includes priorities that detract from a pragmatic decarbonization plan. The demonization of natural gas by the Climate Action Council (CAC), which was responsible for the Scoping Plan outline of implementation strategies, precludes what we believe is part of the best decarbonization approach. An exhibit is included that concludes reducing the use of natural gas is irrational at this time.

Ellenbogen’s experience with cost-effectively reducing his own Con Ed utility bills while simultaneously reducing its carbon footprint is a clear example of what can be done with proper planning and adherence to science-based solutions.

Ellenbogen’s manufacturing plant currently generates or offsets 72% of its electrical energy use onsite, with a building carbon footprint 30% – 40% lower than the electricity supplied by Con Ed. Not only does the facility reduce Con Ed load by generating on-site power, but the facility also reduces reactive loads that increases grid capacity and reduces transmission and distribution system energy losses.

Unfortunately, there is a problem with the approach. The low energy cost was accomplished using a natural gas-powered high-efficiency Combined Heat and Power System (CHP) and a large solar array. The aspirational goal of zero emissions and the irrational vilification of methane preclude replicating these proven results.

Primary Concern

We are very concerned the rate case JP ignores the grid integrity concerns identified in NYISO Power Trends 2025 and has not reconciled the significant shortfall in renewable generation identified in the Clean Energy Standard Biennial Review.

The PSC order announcing the release of the Biennial Review acknowledges that the renewable generation goal of seventy percent in the year 2030 is not just impossible, but that we’re actually headed in the wrong direction – statewide renewable energy production was slightly over forty six percent of the total in the year 2022, but is actually projected to drop to less than forty four and one-half percent in the year 2030.

This is in large part due to building and transportation electrification load growth outpacing new generation coming online. At the same time, the NYISO is warning of significant reliability issues due to both load growth and CLCPA-induced natural gas constraints. As currently designed, this rate proceeding will dramatically increase ratepayer cost and decrease electric grid reliability, while failing to produce any tangible lifecycle sustainability benefit.

Recommendations

The Independent Intervenors offered specific recommendations. There were three primary recommendations.

We recommend that the Con Ed rate case contribution to CLCPA transportation sector investments should be limited to improving traction power regeneration across the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) with a specific focus on the New York City Transit subway system.

We estimated that focusing all transportation electrification efforts within this rate proceeding on improving subway traction power regeneration will save more than 400 gigawatt hours annually, and the electric cost savings alone will contribute roughly 80 million dollars per year towards the cost of this project.

More importantly, this project will reduce coincident peak load between 0.6 and 0.9 gigawatts across the subway system and also provide voltage and frequency regulation and support in many load pockets throughout New York City. Directing all rate case transportation electrification funding will also provide the greatest return on investment and net sustainability benefits for ratepayers, many of whom are also regular users of the subway system.

Our second recommendation was to focus all building electrification efforts within this rate case solely on transitioning approximately one thousand five hundred existing customers of Con Ed’s steam system to electric cooling and hybrid heating solutions.

This focus will provide the biggest bang for the buck in efficiency improvements, will reduce water use, and reduce impacts on the municipal sewer system, while also decreasing the overall load on waste treatment facilities. Directing all building electrification funding in this rate proceeding to this subset of the New York City building stock will provide the greatest reliability, affordability, and sustainability benefits to ratepayers.

Based on our finding that Local Law 97 used blatantly false and fictitious emission improvement projections we recommended a fuel-neutral approach to the local law is advisable. A particular emphasis should be placed on ensuring Cob Ed’s local electric distribution system headroom is maintained and not diminished solely for the purpose of building and/or transportation electrification. Moreover, in order to ensure ratepayer affordability, no energy efficiency project should be promoted that has a benefit to cost ratio of less than two.

Conclusion

Our experience with energy efficiency programs, electric energy systems, and fossil fuel operations led us to propose an interim decarbonization solution that avoids the risk of a costly false solution. We proposed pausing implementation of CLCPA aspects of the rate case and concentrate on interim solutions to reduce carbon emissions and costs while improving reliability.

Editor’s Note: I don't worry about carbon emissions at all, as CO2 is historically low long-term, but New York has a right to its own priorities, and if reducing CO2 is one of them, the state has chosen a disastrous approach to the task. Roger has demonstrated that time and again. What's needed is a complete stop, reassessment, and redirection.

#ClimateAct #NewYork #Climate #NYC #Con-Ed #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 550 articles about New York’s net-zero transition.