Was New York's Climate Action Council Sold A Bill of Goods by Activist Professors?

There's something very off-putting about an academic or a scientist who engages in political activism having to do with his or her subject of study. Roger Caiazza addresses the downsides.

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

The New York Department of Public Service (DPS) Proceeding 15-E-0302 addresses among other things  a new category of generating resources called Dispatchable Emissions-Free Resources (DEFR).  All credible analyses of the future New York electric system agree that new technologies are necessary to keep the lights on during periods of extended low wind and solar resource availability.  This article describes the presumption of the authors of the Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act) that no new technologies would be required.

Overview

The Climate Act established a New York “Net Zero” target (85% reduction in GHG emissions and 15% offset of emissions) by 2050.  It includes an interim 2030 reduction target of a 40% reduction by 2030 and a requirement that all electricity generated be “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 Integration Analysis prepared by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) and its consultants quantifies the impact of the electrification strategies.  That material was used to develop the Draft Scoping Plan outline of strategies.  After a year-long review, the Scoping Plan was finalized at the end of 2022.  Since then, the State has been trying to implement the Scoping Plan recommendations through regulations and legislation.

I have written about the out-sized and misleading impact that Robert W. Howarth, Ph.D., the David R. Atkinson Professor of Ecology & Environmental Biology at Cornell University had on many of the members of the Climate Action Council.  His statement supporting the approval of the Draft Scoping plan claimed that he played a key role in the drafting of the Climate Act and explained why he believes that no new technologies are needed to meet the Climate Act goals:

I further wish to acknowledge the incredible role that Prof. Mark Jacobson of Stanford has played in moving the entire world towards a carbon-free future, including New York State. A decade ago, Jacobson, I and others laid out a specific plan for New York (Jacobson et al. 2013). In that peer-reviewed analysis, we demonstrated that our State could rapidly move away from fossil fuels and instead be fueled completely by the power of the wind, the sun, and hydro.

We further demonstrated that it could be done completely with technologies available at that time (a decade ago), that it could be cost effective, that it would be hugely beneficial for public health and energy security, and that it would stimulate a large increase in well-paying jobs. I have seen nothing in the past decade that would dissuade me from pushing for the same path forward. The economic arguments have only grown stronger, the climate crisis more severe. The fundamental arguments remain the same.

The presumption that “it could be done completely with technologies available at that time (a decade ago)” was a primary driver of the Climate Act schedule and confidence of success by the legislature and the Climate Action Council.  The feeling was that all it takes is a matter of political will because the professor said it will work. 

Howarth appealed to the authority of peer-reviewed science to provide credibility for the Jacobson analysis that is the basis of his claims. However, science is a continuous process where hypotheses are constantly challenged and confirmed.  In this instance Howarth neglected to mention the analyses that discredit the Jacobson work. 

Activist professor Bob Howarth wearing a ‘Drilling Is Not Safe’ button and rallying against natural gas development in 2010 even as his infamous study, suggesting natural gas was worse for the climate than coal, was being prepared. Click image to play.

Jacobson Wind, Water, and Solar

The Jacobson analysis cited was a continuation of previous work broadly labeled as Wind, Water, and Solar.  For example, in a widely publicized November 2009 Scientific American article, Mark Jacobson and Mark Delucchi suggested all electrical generation and ground transportation internationally could be supplied by wind, water and solar resources as early as 2030.

However, other contemporary projections were less optimistic, for example two examples: the 2015 MIT Energy and Climate Outlook has low carbon sources worldwide as only 25% of primary energy by 2050, and renewables only 16% and the International Energy Agency’s two-degree scenario has renewables, including biomass, as less than 50%.

Howarth’s statement cites a specific plan for New York (Jacobson et al. 2013) that he and Jacobson laid out a decade ago.  He says that “In that peer- reviewed analysis, we demonstrated that our State could rapidly move away from fossil fuels and instead be fueled completely by the power of the wind, the sun, and hydro.”  

Table 2 from that report follows:

This analysis includes power from exotic resources such as waves, geothermal, tidal turbines, and concentrated solar power but no energy storage.  It is significantly different than the projections in the Integration Analysis and the New York Independent System Operator (NYISO) 2021-2040 System & Resource Outlook that exclude all the exotic renewable generating capacity, contain significant amounts of energy storage, and include a new dispatchable, emissions-free resource for a set of resources that they think can provide sufficient electrical power for the future.

Furthermore, Jacobson and Howarth claim that end-use power demand can be decreased by 37%.   In my opinion, there are many flaws in his claims.  For example, any analysis that suggests concentrated solar power is a viable source of energy in New York is simply not credible because that resource would never work in New York.  It is too cloudy to operate enough to cover costs and the environmental impacts would be too great.

There was a formal rebuttal paper to this analysis by Nathaniel Gilbraith, Paulina Jaramillo, Fan Tong, and Felipe Faria. The rebuttal paper argued that: 

The feasibility analysis performed by Jacobson et al. (2013) is incomplete and scientifically questionable from both the technical and economic perspectives, and it implicitly assumes, without sufficient justification, that social criterion would not produce even larger feasibility barriers.

Jacobson et al. responded to that rebuttal claiming  that “The main limitations are social and political, not technical or economic.”  Given the significant differences between that analysis and the most recent projections by the organization responsible for keeping the lights on, I agree with the Gilbraith et al. conclusion cited above.  I do not believe that the 2013 WWS analysis includes a defensible feasibility analysis.

Using Jacobson as the basis for the idea that the Climate Act transition needs no new technology gets worse.  Unmentioned by Dr. Howarth is that in a 2015 article for a different iteration of the wind, water, and solar roadmap Clack et al, 2017 discredited the Jacobson approach:

In this paper, we evaluate that study and find significant shortcomings in the analysis. In particular, we point out that this work used invalid modeling tools, contained modeling errors, and made implausible and inadequately supported assumptions. Policy makers should treat with caution any visions of a rapid, reliable, and low-cost transition to entire energy systems that relies almost exclusively on wind, solar, and hydroelectric power.

In the scientific process, when issues with your work are noted, the proper response is to provide more evidence supporting your modeling tools, explain why the claimed errors are not errors, and defend your assumptions.  Instead, Jacobson filed a lawsuit, demanding $10 million in damages, against the peer-reviewed scientific journal

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences and the authors for their study showing that Jacobson made improper assumptions in order to make his claims that he had demonstrated U.S. energy could be provided exclusively by renewable energy, primarily wind, water, and solar. In my opinion this is an appalling attack on free speech and scientific inquiry but want to emphasize that the bad actions by Jacobson in no way should be attributed to Howarth.

In February 2018, following a hearing at which PNAS argued for the case to be dismissed, Jacobson dropped the suit.  The defendants then filed, based on the anti-SLAPP — for “Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation” — statute in Washington, DC, for Jacobson to pay their legal fees. In September 2022, he was ordered to pay the defendants’ legal fees based on a statute “designed to provide for early dismissal of meritless lawsuits filed against people for the exercise of First Amendment rights.”  Jacobson appealed that award but lost that appeal in February 2024 thus closing this sad tale of academic controversy.

In Meredith Angwin’s 2020 book Shorting the Grid: The Hidden Fragility of Our Electric Grid (Carnot Communications, Wilder, VT, 422 pp.) she also addressed the Jacobson analysis.  Her description in a section entitled Hard-Core Renewables at page 195 is consistent with my portrayal above:

Wind and solar are the technologies that most people think about when they think of “renewables.” Indeed, many hard-core renewables advocates accept only solar, wind, and (sometimes) hydro as renewables. Biomass rarely makes the cut as a true renewable. Professor Mark Z. Jacobson of Stanford plans WWS (Wind Water Solar) as the energy sources for the world. In 2015, Jacobson and others published an article in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences on using WWS for all purposes.

In 2017, a group of professors headed by Christopher Clack responded with an evaluation article also in the Proceedings. The first paragraph of the Clack article stated that “We find that their (Jacobson analysis) involves errors, inappropriate methods, and implausible assumptions.” For example, their rebuttal paper pointed out that the Jacobson paper describes hydro power as providing 700 to 1300 GW. However, existing installed hydro capacity is 87 or 145 GW, depending on whether pumped hydro is included, and the most useful sites have already been exploited.

When the Clack paper appeared, Jacobson published a letter in the same issue of the Proceedings, claiming “The premise and all error claims (of the Clack paper)… are demonstrably false.” Jacobson said that his assertion on the availability of hydro power was an “assumption,” not an error. As Jacobson wrote in the published letter: “The value of 1,300 GW is correct, because turbines were assumed added to existing reservoirs to increase their peak instantaneous discharge rate without increasing their average annual energy consumption.” Shortly after the Clack paper and the Jacobson rebuttal were published in the Proceedings, Jacobson sued Clack and the Proceedings for defamation.

Jacobson later dropped his lawsuit. On the Greentech Media website, Julian Spector wrote an article about the controversy and the lawsuit. In his article, Spector notes that “this ‘assumption’ (about hydro) was unwritten” in the original Jacobson article. In other words, in his original paper, Jacobson did not describe his assumption that multiple turbines would be added to existing dams. Frankly, adding about ten times as many turbines to existing powerhouses seems very unlikely to me. Dam construction is a massive undertaking. Putting many more turbines in an existing powerhouse … well, I can’t see how that could even work.

Jacobson did drop his lawsuit, which should be a happy ending, I suppose. However, many people, including myself, feel that the fact that Jacobson even brought a lawsuit has had a chilling effect on the whole renewable-energy debate. If scientists can’t debate each other in peer-reviewed journals without fear of lawsuits, science will not be able to move forward very well.

There are two books directly refuting the Jacobson plan. Roadmap to Nowhere: The Myth of Powering the Nation With Renewable Energy by Mike Conley and Tim Maloney is available as a free PDF download on the web. Mathijs Beckers, of the Netherlands, wrote The Non-Solutions Project, available as an ebook or paperback. The work of these authors is clear and easy to follow.

Conclusion

Much of this material was published 18 months ago.  I wrote this article for two reasons.  I wanted to update some information and add the reference by Angwin.  The other reason is that I am compiling articles about DEFR to be used in a reference page.

Howarth’s argument that no new technology is needed has been refuted in the peer reviewed literature but also in other work.  When I publish the reference page it will include multiple examples of other analyses that conclude that the new DEFR technology is required for New York’s electric grid zero-emissions transition.  Successful implementation is not just a matter of political will.

It is unsettling that Howarth continues to claim that no new technology is needed in that light and relative to the lawsuits associated with Jacobson’s work.  Angwin and I agree that Jacobson’s attempted lawsuit was because his work could not stand on its own.  It is time for the Climate Action Council to disavow itself from any suggestions that DEFR will not be needed.

#ClimateAct #NewYork #Climate #NYC #Howarth #Jacobson #DEFR #ClimateActionCouncil

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 400 articles about New York’s net-zero transition.