New York’s Climate and Community Protection Act of 2019

By Roger Caiazza

I lived most of my life as a New York State resident. Most of the time I have been proud of that fact albeit always carefully mentioning that I am not from New York City and thus not one of them. However, with the imminent passage of the Climate and Community Protection Act I am now embarrassed to admit that I live in a state with such a shallow understanding of greenhouse gas emissions in the state and the energy system.

Consider just one aspect of the legislation: the greenhouse gas emission limits. The “Statewide greenhouse gas emissions limit as a percentage of 1990 emissions, as estimated pursuant to section 75-0105 of this article, as follows: a. 2030: 60% of 1990 emissions and b. 2050: 15% of 1990 emissions.” How any politician could vote in favor of this is beyond me because just looking at the numbers reveals how ambitious and likely impossible to meet these limits are.

The New York State Energy and Research Development Authority did an inventory of New York State greenhouse gas emissions from 1990 to 2015. Table S-2 from that document lists the emissions. The 1990 total is 238 MMtCO2e and in 2015 the total was down to 218 a reduction of 20 MMtCO2e in 25 years. The obvious problem to any who has any energy numeracy at all is that the 2030 goal is 143 MMtCO2, a reduction of 75 MMtCO2e from the 2015 emissions.

The authors of the bill bragged about New York’s climate leadership:

By exercising a global leadership role on greenhouse gas mitigation and climate change adaptation, New York will position its economy, technology centers, financial institutions, and businesses to benefit from national and international efforts to address climate change.

New York State has already demonstrated leadership in this area by undertaking efforts such as:

a. executive order no. 24 (2009), establishing a goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80% by the year 2050, creating a climate action council, and calling for preparation of a climate action plan;

b. chapter 433 of the laws of 2009, establishing a state energy planning board and requiring the board to adopt a state energy plan;

c. chapter 388 of the laws of 2011, directing the department of environmental conservation to promulgate rules and regulations limiting emissions of carbon dioxide by newly constructed major generating facilities;

d. the adoption of a state energy plan establishing clean energy goals for the year 2030 aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emission levels by 40% from 1990 levels, producing 70% of electricity from renewable sources, increasing energy efficiency from 2012 levels by 23% and the additional expressed goal of reducing 100% of the electricity sector’s greenhouse gas emissions by 2040;

e. collaboration with other states on the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, and the development of a regional low carbon fuel standard;

f. creation of new offices and task forces to address climate change, including the New York state office of climate change, the renewable energy task force, and the sea level rise task force; and g. the enactment of the Community Risk and Resiliency Act (CRRA), which requires agencies to consider sea level rise and other climate-related events when implementing certain state programs.

This legislation will build upon these past developments by creating a comprehensive regulatory program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that corresponds with the targets established in executive order no. 24, the state energy plan, and USGCRP and IPCC projections.

However, a cursory examination of the results is less flattering. For example, the sector with the greatest reduction is electricity generation (34 MMtCO2e). A portion of that is simply due to generating station turnover in the 25 years from 1990. I have calculated reductions due to the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative and the biggest driver of reductions was the decreased price of natural gas due to the fracking revolution that made coal uneconomic. There is a range of CO2 emissions with and without RGGI based on assumptions and methodology. The upper bound is an econometric model that estimates that emissions would have been 24 percent higher without the program. RGGI estimates that emissions would have been 17% higher than without a program. If you assume that all the savings in fossil fuel use only displaced natural gas use then emissions would have been only 5% higher. The bottom line is that the biggest reduction of CO2 emissions was in the electricity generation sector and that was caused by fracking. This technology has been banned in New York State.

If you go down the rows in the table it is not clear where further reductions are going to come from, especially given the fact that the reductions are supposed to be implemented by 2030. Consider the transportation sector. There are approximately 8 million automobiles in the state. If electric vehicles are used to reduce sector emissions 20%, half of the 2030 goal, you are talking about over a million cars. Energy problems in New York State are usually driven by New York City. In this case you will need to have hundreds of thousands of electric vehicles in a city where many car owners park on the street. Just the logistics of chargers on the street is a big deal. The fact is that quantitative examination of every aspect of this law shows it is more complicated than first glance.

The legislation requires a final scoping plan due 30 months after the effective date of the legislation. The scoping plan “shall identify and make recommendations on regulatory measures and other state actions that will ensure the attainment of the statewide greenhouse gas emissions limits”. In other words this legislation merely assumes that this can be done. Clearly, this legislation inappropriately puts the cart before the horse committing the state to an ambitious goal that may be technically and economically difficult to achieve

Incredibly the final version of the law is an improvement over the original draft. The final version at least added a provision that “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”. I cannot imagine any scenario where these conditions will require modifications to the limits and schedule but they got this far without any unbiased fact checking so you never know.

Table S-2 New York State GHG Emissions 1990–2015 (MMtCO2e) with 2030 and 2050 Climate and Community Protection Act GHG Emissions Goals
https://www.nyserda.ny.gov/-/media/Files/EDPPP/Energy-Prices/Energy-Statistics/greenhouse-gas-inventory.pdf

Screenshot 2019-06-20 00.09.45

0 0 votes
Article Rating
129 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
2hotel9
June 20, 2019 6:18 am

Looks like time for NY’s neighbors to stop selling them electricity, gas and heating oil, in order to help them reach their oh, so noble goals.

beng135
Reply to  2hotel9
June 20, 2019 9:10 am

Problem w/that is that if energy/power isn’t available, mobs, after looting/destroying their own city, will stream out into the countryside & continue destroying everything in their path.

Bryan A
Reply to  beng135
June 20, 2019 10:34 am

Perhaps Trump could Wall Them In
Escape from New York

Looking at the figures, the only way that New York State could meet such ambitious goals would be to force over 1/2 of their population to leave the state. 90% would need to vacate Manhattan

R Shearer
Reply to  Bryan A
June 20, 2019 5:14 pm

I thought that the whole West side of Manhattan was under water by now.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  Bryan A
June 22, 2019 12:39 am

Is New York a sanctuary city?

GoForIt
Reply to  beng135
June 21, 2019 7:39 am

Take out the bridges on the Hudson and a few key freeway interchanges.

Pennsylvania has already demonstrated how to do the interchanges. Crash or blowup a tanker truck carrying fuel oil and set it on fire under a bridge. The interchange is toast for 2-3years.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  2hotel9
June 20, 2019 9:55 am

That may come naturally as folks flee the state for places with more realistic leaders.

Oh, wait!…

Bryan A
Reply to  Pop Piasa
June 20, 2019 10:36 am

They will be very unhappy if they make for the Left Coast.
California LEFT reason behind a long time ago

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  2hotel9
June 20, 2019 7:03 pm

crime rates will skyrocket.

Reply to  2hotel9
June 20, 2019 7:32 pm

Remember when AOC said “we only have 12 years to live because climate change…”?

I wrote in Sect. 12 of my latest paper:
“Eliminate fossil fuels tomorrow and almost everyone in the developed world would be dead in about a month from starvation and exposure.”

“Given the alternatives, I’ll choose Door Number 1, Bob – I’ll take the 12-years-to-live over the one month.”

Regards, Allan

“CO2, Global Warming, Climate and Energy”
by Allan M.R. MacRae, B.A.Sc., M.Eng., P.Eng., June 2019

pdf format:
https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2019/06/co2-global-warming-climate-and-energy-june2019-final-.pdf

Excel spreadsheet:
https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2019/06/co2-global-warming-climate-and-energy-june2019-final.xlsx

Chris Norman
Reply to  2hotel9
June 30, 2019 1:21 pm

There is an awful lot of garbage on this site. You need to get a grip on it Antony.

2hotel9
Reply to  Chris Norman
June 30, 2019 4:51 pm

Really, sweetie? You support “politicians” undermining America? Yea, Anthony does need to “get a grip” on leftist a$$holes like you. Go to Venezuela and eat garbage, America hater.

Chris Norman
Reply to  2hotel9
June 30, 2019 5:22 pm

I am a rock solid DT supporter. What I am referring to is some of the so called science/political type items which in my view are of a very low quality and there are quite a few of them. The problem with this is that they can dilute or discredit the whole site.
Also they will inevitably attract people who write vile childish drivel. Your immature remarks being a fine example.

2hotel9
Reply to  Chris Norman
July 1, 2019 5:34 am

Sure you, are, sure.

Phil Rae
June 20, 2019 6:23 am

You have our sympathy………but the British Government is planning to be “net zero” on carbon emissions by 2050 (and 5 years earlier in Scotland). Clearly, the majority of the reality-disconnected political class are falling over themselves to win “Best Virtue Signaller of The Year” award. It’s really a mystery to me how these people can sleep at nights while they point civilisation towards a cliff edge.

joel
Reply to  Phil Rae
June 20, 2019 7:19 am

The UK produces 1.2% of the world’s CO2 emissions, according to the BP report.
Simply pathetic.

Alan the Brit
Reply to  joel
June 20, 2019 11:27 pm

Don’t get too worried about this, it’s all about “creative” accounting, & we’ve had thousands of “creative” accountants in the UK over the years, some of them have even ended up behind bars as punishment for such “creative” accounting!

Loren Wilson
Reply to  joel
June 21, 2019 3:33 am

The UK produces 1.2% of human-produced CO2. Human-produced CO2 is approximately 4-5% of the actual world-wide CO2 production from all sources. It is much less than the uncertainty in most of the “quantified” CO2 production rates of natural sources that have been identified.

Joe Crawford
Reply to  Phil Rae
June 20, 2019 7:31 am

It’s easy. They’re just pandering to their base supporters while knowing full well they won’t be in office by the time the effects are noticed. Besides, if wrong they can always claim they were misled by the scientists. Accountability for politicians disappeared years ago. As Edwin Edwards, 4 term Governor of Louisiana, said: “The only thing that would keep me from winning the election is to be caught in bed with a dead girl or a live boy”

Walter Sobchak
Reply to  Joe Crawford
June 20, 2019 8:58 am

Edwards did not live in Massachusetts where Teddy Kennedy was reelected many times after he murdered Mary Jo Kopechne, and a couple of congresscritters have done the live boy number.

Bryan A
Reply to  Joe Crawford
June 20, 2019 10:38 am

Caught in bed with a Dead Girl is likely a reference to the Kennedy Brothers and Marilyn

David Chappell
Reply to  Phil Rae
June 20, 2019 11:17 am

“It’s really a mystery…” Not really, they will all be dead by then so they don’t care.

David A
Reply to  Phil Rae
June 20, 2019 5:01 pm

Phil, that is 19 and 14 years after our U.S. own, AOC assured the world will end. All science supporting politicians know this to be true. Therefore these plans for 2050 and 2045 are simply insincere politicians who do not want us to panic as the world ends.

MarkW
June 20, 2019 6:51 am

“biggest driver of reductions was the decreased price of natural gas due to the fracking revolution ”

This in a state that has banned fracking.

mark from the midwest
Reply to  MarkW
June 20, 2019 7:21 am

Also no new distribution of gas, so they’ve doubled-down on the ability to reduce co2. My guess is their grid becomes unstable by 2028, and brown-outs and blackouts become the norm by 2032. By 2040 a good 1/3 of Manhattan is a ghost town, and by 2050 many of the goals will have been met because no one lives there.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  mark from the midwest
June 20, 2019 5:11 pm

Pretty sure the ghost town near Chernobyl is net-zero. So hey, it works!

Greg Cavanagh
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
June 20, 2019 7:26 pm

Pretty sure you’d bet wrong.
https://edition.cnn.com/travel/article/chernobyl-tourism/index.html

Today, the number of tourists seeking to head deep into Chernobyl’s Exclusion Zone, a 30-kilometer radius of contaminated land around the power plant, supports several tour firms.

Even though recent instability in eastern Ukraine has pushed the country off most travelers’ radars, Chernobyl still looms large in the global consciousness.

Fears regularly circulating about the fallout zone, last year it was contamination via forest fires, seem to stoke just as much fascination, drawing a steady stream of tourists.

There are even hotels inside the Exclusion Zone…

Steven Fraser
Reply to  MarkW
June 20, 2019 7:32 am

Natural Gas Pipelines connect from other states, and from Canada. Production from both fracked and non-fracked sources have lowered per-BTU costs when compared with coal.

The Indian Point Nuclear power plant delivers 2,000 MWatts (2 GW) baseload into the NY market. At peak, NYC consumes 13,000 MWatts (13GW). Indian Point is scheduled for retirement in 2021.

In a cold winter, or a hot summer, we will all see how the game plan plays out quite soon.

oeman50
Reply to  Steven Fraser
June 20, 2019 9:19 am

Good point. I expect it will be quite difficult to replace that amount of continuous power with intermittent renewables. They’ll end up importing evil coal power from Pennsylvania.

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  Steven Fraser
June 20, 2019 10:13 am

They will be heavily insulated from that decision as planner have or will increase the connectivity to Canada for access to hydro-power. There may be some increase in consumer costs, but the crunch won’t hit until the wires can’t carry anymore power from Canada.

Hell_Is_Like_Newark
Reply to  D. J. Hawkins
June 20, 2019 2:15 pm

The high voltage DC line to bring in Canadian hydropower haven’t been built yet. They likely won’t be built due to the NIMBYs opposing construction.

Robert W Turner
June 20, 2019 7:11 am

There’s going to be a lot of rent available in NYC.

Rocketscientist
Reply to  Robert W Turner
June 20, 2019 8:46 am

Like Detroit?

Clay Sanborn
June 20, 2019 7:14 am

Ultimately it’s all about controlling the people’s lives, increasing taxes, and moving to socialism. Lies, lies, lies.

Kevin kilty
June 20, 2019 7:14 am

As reported elsewhere, Alphonso David, Counsel to Gov. Cuomo has stated that “new technology is being discovered daily”; so do not worry about the details of reaching these goals.

Not only does New York ban fracking and fight against pipelines to bring natural gas to the State, but they will close Indian Point Nuclear Station (zero carbon emissions) and replace it with two natural gas plants. Charles Mackay’s book “Extraordinarily Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds” is due a new edition.

joel
June 20, 2019 7:17 am

Hmm…
Big non-problem.
Big non-solution.
Big increase in bureaucracy.
Big increase in corruption.
Well, they did defeat poverty in this country with the establishment of HEW, so maybe they will solve the climate problem, too.

BTW: What percentage of CO2 emissions comes from NY State?

Roger Caiazza
Reply to  joel
June 20, 2019 8:08 am

In 2010 NYS was 0.55% of the global total.

Needless to say you won’t see anyone claiming projected temperature changes from this action.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Roger Caiazza
June 20, 2019 9:54 am

That 2010 0.55% is much lower now in 2019.
The rise of emissions from China, they’ve over the last 15 years.
The US emissions have fallen due to natural gas fracking and closing of coal power plants.

So That NYS figure is now likely < 0.25% for 2019.

Petit_Barde
June 20, 2019 7:24 am

“By exercising a global leadership role on greenhouse idioty acceleration and climate change lunacy, New York will devastate its economy, technology centers, financial institutions, and businesses and will soon benefit from national and international efforts to address poverty.”

Fixed !

Gordon Dressler
June 20, 2019 7:26 am

The most obvious, sophomoric mistake by the New York State legislators was assuming that climate is primarily governed by atmospheric concentrations of CO2. They forgot the most basic fact that correlation does not equal causation.

Not only is there little scientific evidence supporting “CO2 drives the global climate” (in the context of a water vapor dominated GHG atmosphere), there is ample EMPIRICAL evidence since 1850—and, of course, overwhelming paleoclimatology evidence—that this cannot be true.

I would like to ask those legislators this simple question: “What do you think caused the Earth to exit the last global glacial period and start warming up into the on-going Holocene period, before there were automobiles, petroleum refineries, electrical power plants and cement manufacturing (i.e., any human civilization)?”

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  Gordon Dressler
June 20, 2019 9:46 am

” . . . the last global glacial period . . .”

In your question, consider changing the above to “Younger Dryas, Roman Warm Period, and Little Ice Age.”
Many people consider the glacial and interglacial periods to be explained by Earth’s orbit, etc.
The three periods I’ve suggested are not well explained, and likely not known about by the legislators you will direct your questions to.
Perhaps they will still ignore you, but not without a moment of thought that there might be something they do not know.

Wade
Reply to  Gordon Dressler
June 20, 2019 10:12 am

I would like to ask them how something that is 0.041% of the air has so much control over the weather.

old engineer
Reply to  Wade
June 20, 2019 4:37 pm

Wade-

The evidence I’ve I seen here on WUWT has convinced me that C02 is not a big player in atmospheric temperature. And I used to use the argument you have expressed, until I realized that the same 0.041% of the air is responsible for every plant on earth. The point being that a small quantity of something can produce a big effect.

John W. Garrett
June 20, 2019 7:29 am

It is insanity on a scale so large that it is incomprehensible.

Jamaica, Queens
Reply to  John W. Garrett
June 20, 2019 1:45 pm

They are creating a problem that they can sell the green new deal as the solution.

Goldrider
June 20, 2019 7:32 am

Hope they all learn to ride unicorns to work when the subways fall into chaos and the leaky tunnel that links the entire Eastern seaboard fails; which may happen in the next 15 minutes, the way it’s going . . . but BIKE LANES, y’know!

Curious George
June 20, 2019 7:33 am

New York is on the way to become an undisputed leader in the number of children per one orange.

ResourceGuy
June 20, 2019 7:34 am

Throw another billion tons of coal on the fire in China and India to celebrate.

Col J.S. Mosby
June 20, 2019 7:34 am

There is no need for “chargers on thestret.” EV will refule the same way that gas powered cars refuel, and most likely ar rge same gas stations. Shell, Exxan, Mobil and others are installing fast chargers in their stations and EVs will recharge to 80% in 5 to 10 minutes in thenear future, long before there are significant numbers of EVs on the streets

Drake
Reply to  Col J.S. Mosby
June 20, 2019 8:58 am

Links please!

I don’t believe any of this is true. Wishful thinking perhaps.

MikeH
Reply to  Col J.S. Mosby
June 20, 2019 9:11 am

So let me take a back of the napkin stab at this, charge an electric car in 10 minutes?
I’ll make up some numbers here, but please let me know if my logic is sound.
Energy is energy, you can raise the voltage to lower the current for transmission, but the wattage should calculate out the same, Power = Voltage x Current (P=I x E)
So, lets say that the vehicle is a 300 volt system. Also, lets say that the power of the electric motors in the car are 100hp. Since 1 HP = 745 watts, that would equate to 74,500 watts (or 74.5KWatts) for every hour of use, 74.5KWh. Presuming the vehicle should be able to run 3 hours without recharging (not an unfair request IMHO), that means 223.5 KW of energy was used in that 3 hours. So, now at the Rainbow Unicorn recharging station, the equivalent of223.5KWh of energy is to be replenished in 10 minutes. It took 180 minutes to discharge that amount of energy. So 180/10 = 18. So we need to recharge at 18x’s the rate of discharge. At 300 V, the 74.5KW system uses 248 amps, but it was ran for 3 hrs.. So to replenish in 10 minutes, we’d need to have a charging current of 248 x 18 x 3 = 13,392 amps at 300V. I can’t imagine the size of those conductors that would have to plug into the receptacle of the car.

I’m sure I have something wrong in my logic and calculations, that’s why I put it out there for peer-review.

But also, you will need to supply that electricity from somewhere. OK, not evil Coal or Natural Gas, and they’re shutting down nuclear. Is every charging station going to have a windmill on its roof? No, wait! They’ll utilize those industrial diesel generators at each station, just like TESLA used.

What’ll happen when this becomes enacted is that the poor will be hurt the most, and their lives will be much harder because energy is prosperity.

Chad
Reply to  MikeH
June 20, 2019 11:17 am

So is that 13,392 AMPs per vehicle recharge? ( estimation)

So if you have a filling station that has 8 pumps at four islands I cannot imagine that all 8 pumps would require 13,392 AMPs to operate at a time. I would think it might be more along the lines of each pump requiring maybe 13 AMPs. Possibly not even that as I would have a hard time imagining that he submersible pumps used at the islands are requiring 3-Phase service.

Greg F
Reply to  MikeH
June 20, 2019 12:44 pm

I’m sure I have something wrong in my logic and calculations, that’s why I put it out there for peer-review.

Going with your numbers. To charge a 223.5 kWh battery at 300 V in one hour would require 745 amps. To do it in 10 minutes (1/6th of an hour) you have to increase the current by 6 times or to 4,470 amps.

Getting some real numbers the newest Tesla battery is 100 kWh at 400 V. A one hour charge would require 250 amps. A 10 minute charge would require a charge current of 1,500 amps which means the supply has to put out 600 kW’s.

This assumes 100% efficiency which is likely closer to 90%. If you wanted to be able to charge 4 cars at the same time you now need a 2.4 MW supply. Not bloody likely.

Kevan Daly
Reply to  MikeH
June 20, 2019 2:16 pm

Sorry MikeH, you’re way out.
The stated capacity of recent TESLA batteries is about 100kWh. So to charge 80% of this in 10 minutes = 1/6 hour requires 80/(1/6) = 480 kW.
If this were to come from a DC source of 300V then the current needed would be 480/300 kA = 1600 A.
The power electronic devices in the charger would be non-trivial even at this current level.

LdB
Reply to  Kevan Daly
June 21, 2019 3:57 am

I want to see you flex a cable that connects to the car at that amperage. Looking at most normal electrical sites they peak out under 1000 amp which requires 300,000 square mm (gauge 1000 wire).

Don
Reply to  Col J.S. Mosby
June 20, 2019 9:29 am

More unicorn farts.

Charging a battery that rapidly is detrimental to its lifespan and is best avoided if you want the battery to last five years or so. If you really want a fully-charged battery in a short period of time (ie. a few minutes), about the only realistic way to do it would be to make the battery modular and easily swappable, like with power tools.

Paul Penrose
Reply to  Col J.S. Mosby
June 20, 2019 10:51 am

How “near” is that future? Do you have any idea how much power you are talking about pulling off the grid to charge a battery of that size in 5 – 10 minutes? The charging stations will need a large power substation right next to them!

MarkW
Reply to  Col J.S. Mosby
June 20, 2019 4:08 pm

Recharging in 10 minutes is a good way to make sure your batteries die in just a couple of years.

Roger Caiazza
Reply to  Col J.S. Mosby
June 21, 2019 5:01 am

At a recent forum on National Grid’s 80% reduction by 2050 that I attended (https://wp.me/p8hgeb-bn) the panel discussion on electric vehicles talked about “fast charging” and that was defined as 25 to 30 minutes. I also would like to see some links to even faster charging times.

2hotel9
Reply to  Roger Caiazza
June 21, 2019 7:27 am

It takes 6 minutes to charge my Grand Caravan, then I can drive over 400 miles before I have to charge it again. Gasoline, THE fuel for a prosperous Human Race.

Gary Pearse
June 20, 2019 7:44 am

This legislation will overturn itself. It’s happened in Germany and if the Germans cant make it work, even with total disregard for the terrible burden it places on its people, I’m confident it can’t be done, or even half done, but I’m also confident a lot of money will be wasted and with it a lot of pain with no gain for its citizens or the atmosphere.

Rod Evans
June 20, 2019 7:45 am

Thankfully the old adage, give them enough rope and they will gang themselves, will come to the people’s rescue.
Put simply, if a stated ambition is impossible to achieve, then those advancing the nonsense will be seen for the charlatans they are and removed from office.

ResourceGuy
Reply to  Rod Evans
June 20, 2019 8:32 am

Stopping the policy tumor before it spreads is also a big concern.

DonM
Reply to  Rod Evans
June 20, 2019 10:51 am

give em rope and they hang themselves.

give em power & the willingness to abuse it, conceit, no (real) morals, AND the need to show others that they are virtuous (so as to compensate for the first noted flaws) they will be willing to gang themselves.

ResourceGuy
June 20, 2019 7:46 am

It looks like we will need refugee aid stations set up in zones bordering NY in addition to the ongoing need for them bordering California. Be kind to the refugees and don’t repeat the Grapes of Wrath saga. Offer them heat and light with fossil fuel-powered generators and route maps to get to low tax states.

Adam
June 20, 2019 7:47 am

Yikes, I’m invested in a NY company which is currently installing robotic assembly. They are in the process of dismissing 70% of their hourly workers, who were involved with manual production. This was necessary due to yearly state-mandated minimum wage increases. Don’t know energy consumption of robotic vs. human assembly. Anyone know?

Drake
Reply to  Adam
June 20, 2019 9:03 am

My question is if they needed to retool to the extent noted, why didn’t they just relocate to a lower cost state? Get while the gettings good.

So I agree Yikes!

Adam
Reply to  Drake
June 20, 2019 2:18 pm

All their R&D manpower is located in NY, and wouldn’t be willing to move elsewhere. Without R&D, they couldn’t function. Also, the R&D must be on the same property as production. They really can’t move, although they have a facility in Asia which serves some of the lower margin markets in Asia and Africa.

Drake
Reply to  Adam
June 20, 2019 3:15 pm

Question answered!

MarkW
Reply to  Adam
June 20, 2019 4:13 pm

While robots require more electric power than do humans, robots can do without lights and have a lower A/C requirement.

Joel Snider
June 20, 2019 7:47 am

Well, we certainly aren’t any better off here in Oregon – Gov. Kate Brown – EBFH – is currently ramming through a cap and trade – and get this – local republicans want to stay home, denying the ‘quorum’ to pass legislation, so Brown is threatening to send the STATE POLICE to drag them in, so they can sit there, not vote (not needed due to the Dims super-majority), and be forced to watch the legislation be forced through.

I’ve obviously sent in my grievances, but if anybody else would like to tell her about herself, this is her e-mail: info@katebrownfororegon.com

MikeH
Reply to  Joel Snider
June 20, 2019 10:41 am

Just like a good progressive, forced participation at the end of a barrel.
Hitler, Stalin & Mao are looking up from hell and smiling..

Stevecsd
Reply to  Joel Snider
June 20, 2019 12:52 pm

Joel, is there a state law that requires a legislator to attend any given session? If not the governor would be acting under the “color of law” a federal violation, 18 U.S. Code § 242. She could be charged by a U.S. Attorney. See: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/242

Drake
Reply to  Stevecsd
June 20, 2019 3:26 pm

Nice code section, kidnapping under color of law punishable up to the death penalty.

Joel Snider
Reply to  Stevecsd
June 20, 2019 4:14 pm

I’ve sent that one up the grapevine – thanks for the tip.

Apparently unlike some others, I learn something new every day here.

old engineer
Reply to  Joel Snider
June 20, 2019 5:29 pm

This happened about 40 years ago in Texas. A group of 12 Democrat state senators, nicknamed the “Killer Bees,” hid offsite from May 18 – May 22, 1979, to prevent the 31-member state Senate from reaching a quorum on two bills. As I recall the Texas Rangers were sent to look for them but didn’t find them. Note that this worked in Texas, because by law, the legislature only meets every two years for 140 days.

Rocketdan
June 20, 2019 7:54 am

It looks like “progress” so far amounts to setting unreasonable goals and setting up bureaucracies to develop plans. But I think they actually do have a plan to make these huge reductions a reality. By continuing the outrageous spending and taxing they will drive millions more people out of NY. Millions fewer cars, less heating and AC, less industry in general. Sure that’ll do it.

Beta Blocker
Reply to  Rocketdan
June 20, 2019 10:05 am

Mark Jacobson’s paper, the one which claims America can reach 100% renewable energy, with no need for nuclear power, acknowledges that for his goal to be reached, our per capita consumption of electricity must be cut in half.

That must happen even while much of what is now being done with liquid carbon fuels is being replaced by electricity.

As it affects the transportation sector, how will GHG emissions from gasoline and diesel powered vehicles which are transiting the state on their way to and from New England be counted in New York State’s GHG figures?

How about GHG emissions from jet aircraft passing through the airspace above New York State? How are those to be counted?

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  Rocketdan
June 20, 2019 6:15 pm

beta blocker,

GHG emissions from gasoline and diesel powered vehicles which are transiting the state on their way to and from New England

will not be counted in New York State’s GHG figures,

thei’re already counted in the states where those vehicles where fuelled.

Same with jet aircraft passing through the airspace above New York State.

Gordon Dressler
June 20, 2019 7:56 am

From the above article: “d. the adoption of a state energy plan establishing clean energy goals for the year 2030 aimed at . . . increasing energy efficiency from 2012 levels by 23% . . .”

Sure, we, as lawmakers, declare that the Carnot efficiency of power plants and refrigerators should be increased from 82% to 105%. /sarc

As Pharaoh stated in the movie The Ten Commandments, “So let it be written, so let it be done!”

Roger Knights
Reply to  Gordon Dressler
June 21, 2019 2:40 am

“Sure, we, as lawmakers, declare that the Carnot efficiency of power plants and refrigerators should be increased from 82% to 105%. /sarc”

As Rbt. Anton Wilson said, “If A > B, and B > C, then A > C, except where prohibited by law.

climanrecon
June 20, 2019 8:00 am

Flooding and strong winds must be a problem in New York, so a simple way to counter this futility is to ask why all spare money is not being spent on resilience to extreme weather. Do “greenies” have a genetic defect that stops common sense when their emotions are aroused?

Greg Cavanagh
Reply to  climanrecon
June 20, 2019 8:06 pm

Apparently it’s cheaper to destroy civilisation than to harden your infrastructure by 10%.

I often bring up this point myself. There is no sane explanation for their solutions even if the problem was real. Their solution does not solve anything. Most bizarre.

Latitude
June 20, 2019 8:00 am

All the countries…that are not contributing to global warming….are the only ones doing this crazy sh1t

MikeH
June 20, 2019 8:06 am

I also live in ‘Up State NY’ (where anyplace above NYC is ‘up state’), what bugs me is that these politicians that are mandating all of this will not be in office when the ‘fit hits the shan’ in 2030, and they know this. Heck, they’ll probably be retired on a beach somewhere sipping on a frosty beverage. I say that anyone in power that mandates things like this should have their pension 100% invested in a stock portfolio that only invests in ‘green energy’. If they feel so strongly that this is the path forward, they should have skin in the game too. (wishful thinking, it’ll never happen)

Kamikazedave
Reply to  MikeH
June 20, 2019 10:22 am

Mike, I grew up in Wellsville NY, due south of Rochester close to the Pa border. Moved to Virginia in 1988 and have been here ever since. I heard from a friend who still lives there that included in this new law is banning wood burning stoves. Have you heard or read anything about this?

George Daddis
Reply to  Kamikazedave
June 20, 2019 11:41 am

Ouch! If true, that portion of the law should result in a huge pushback from the virtue signalling Birkenstock crowd.
I lived in Canadice NY (on one of the smaller Finger Lakes) and a huge portion of the population heats with wood stoves (despite being able to afford alternatives).
However, when Industrial Wind installations threatened the town, these same folks voted for restrictive ordinances that rendered wind energy economically infeasible. (Would have spoiled the “view” of ridges between lakes.)
Ironically, the community lies directly above a large segment of Marcellus shale.

Joe E
June 20, 2019 8:31 am

What I found interesting is how many times the words or phrases ” people of color’, disadvantaged communities’, ‘justice’, low income’, ‘low income’, ethnic’ etc. are used throughout the law. And also for good measure let’s throw in ‘prevailing wage’ which is another term for ‘making implementation of these programs more expensive due to minimum wages/rules that must be met.

its like nothing but a welfare program as far as I could tell

Roger Caiazza
Reply to  Joe E
June 20, 2019 9:54 am

I agree with you. I have decided that the community protection part of the act is the reason.

Scary part is having inexperienced people reviewing and voting on technical reports. What if the reports conclude you cannot do it and they vote to ignore the results.

Wharfplank
June 20, 2019 8:46 am

Why am I counting my tulip bulbs?

Bruce Cobb
June 20, 2019 8:50 am

Alas, poor New Yorick, I knew it well! My gorge rises at it.

JimG1
June 20, 2019 8:57 am

Pack rats into densely populated situations and they eat one and other. I suspect that people in NYC, LA and the like will eventually do the same. They’re already shooting each other in Chicago just not stopping to eat their victims, yet.

DHR
June 20, 2019 8:58 am

All this when the clearest possible evidence that “climate change” is not much of an issue, the tide gauge at The Battery in New York City has shown absolutely no change in the rate of sea level rise for over 150 years!

Rob
June 20, 2019 9:22 am

It’s not about green house gases. It’s about destroying what underpins the capitalist free market system, and modern civilization.

“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”

– Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP)

oeman50
June 20, 2019 9:26 am

One of my news feeds said this AM, “New York, like other states, is looking towards decarbonization as a potential boost for the state’s economy — even as clean energy displaces some workers.”

So how does paying more for electricity boost the economy? And how does that work when you fire workers from good paying jobs at power stations, as well?

David Chappell
Reply to  oeman50
June 20, 2019 11:37 am

It’s the Broken Windows Principle of boosting GDP.

Moderately Cross of East Anglia
June 20, 2019 9:27 am

The delusion that EVs are going to be the mass transport to replace continually improving ICEs is put into context by an article by Professor Greg Offer in the current issue of the magazine for the Imperial College, London, community about “The future of Batteries”. While the Professor strikes an optimistic tone, I note a number of key points he makes which convince me his confidence may well be misplaced.
For example, he notes that “Lithium-ion batteries – the last revolution in battery technology – were designed to be used in small, portable electronic devices, and putting them to new uses like powering electric vehicles generates new challenges”.
Further on he says “ …two of the most crucial questions concern diagnostics. Batteries have finite lifespans. Each time they’re used they lose a little capacity, and as they age they also produce less power, so the battery eventually needs replacing. But while this is a minor inconvenience for a mobile (sic)phone or laptop, it’s a major issue for an electric vehicle that’s made worse because we lack the technology to diagnose a battery pack’s state of health.”
While it is refreshing to read such an honest appraisal by an advocate of EVs as the future, he also notes “…two similar batteries aged in different ways can show the same capacity and power fade, but one can remain safe to use for a further 1,000 cycles, while the other could explode the next time it’s used.”
I really wish the Professor and Imperial well in their aim to overcome these truly serious problems, but how on earth can any responsible person put our safety and prosperity at risk by the premature deployment of EV technology. If it fails the stability of our society may well collapse into a period of chaos with potentially fatal consequences for many – the poor and the weak especially. Irresponsible barely seems to cover it.
Equally mystifying is why should anyone wish to put this same immature technology into aircraft, do you really want to travel in a passenger jet reliant on and stuffed with these batteries?
Lastly, a point I’ve made before but to which I fail to find any adequate answer, is that in the U.K. there are still large areas that are still not on a fast broadband service, despite the many years that have passed since this became a mature technology. Does anyone seriously think the fantasy of a national charging network for EVs is seriously going to achieved in the timescale claimed. In New York City or London, well maybe- for some and at a price.

markl
Reply to  Moderately Cross of East Anglia
June 20, 2019 11:04 am

Moderately Cross of East Anglia said: “‘…Does anyone seriously think the fantasy of a national charging network for EVs is seriously going to achieved in the timescale claimed. In New York City or London, well maybe- for some and at a price.” You’re not keeping up, reread Agenda 21 until you understand. The “plan” for the densely populated cities is to do away with individual transportation. Rural living …. anything not within walking distance of mass transit … will be eliminated and all your needs will be provided for within a prescribed area, to prescribed specifications, and you’ll like it. Or else.

Moderately Cross of East Anglia
Reply to  markl
June 20, 2019 2:59 pm

Marks
Fair enough, but my point is that very large numbers of people ARE under the impression that they will be able to replace their ICE vehicles with EVs because they are being deliberately misled that that is possible and that the costs of the EVs, recharging and home power supply will be affordable. I think most of us who follow WUWT know that none of this is true.

Joel O'Bryan
June 20, 2019 9:46 am

And if anyone was wondering if AOC was a one-off phenomenon within her politcal party… look no further.
The entire Democratic Party is afflicted with an incurable case of DumbAss.

kevin kilty
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
June 20, 2019 10:34 am

Indeed, she appears to be the winner of a political “beauty” contest designed to find electable people like her.

Joel Snider
Reply to  kevin kilty
June 20, 2019 11:53 am

As I understand it she auditioned for the part. She’s a representative of the money behind the DNC.

Neo
June 20, 2019 10:00 am

I wonder how many times the same “green energy” is sold

Greg Cavanagh
Reply to  Neo
June 20, 2019 8:10 pm

LOL, good question. One also wonders how long the dead continue to vote…

Al Sommer
June 20, 2019 10:01 am

Mind you -WE will all pay for this eventually – California & New York , supposedly the richest states can look to Federal Bail-Out, the less rich States – all in-between will pay the bill – once again the less rich pay. This is all EXPERIMENTAL to test your/my will – don’t forget to vote.

Art
June 20, 2019 10:06 am

Getting to zero CO2 emissions is easy-peasy! Just pass a law requiring it. Mission accomplished.

King Canute could tell them how well that works, but I doubt they’d listen.

RLu
Reply to  Art
June 20, 2019 11:58 am

It’s very easy to accomplish. Just stop importing energy. Instant success.
Unfortunately, all real estate above the 10th floor becomes instantly worthless without water pumps and elevators. Bank managers in their marble floored board rooms and penthouses will just have to make some sacrifices.

RACookPE1978
Editor
Reply to  RLu
June 20, 2019 12:56 pm

Walkup stairs are limited to five floors by endurance and real world problems.
In the US-CA, that’s 1,2,3,4 and 5 is difficult for most people.
In the EU, that 0,1,2,3 and nbr 4 is difficult.

Now, let’s limit elevator use, prohibit escalators to save electricity!

Bryan A
Reply to  RACookPE1978
June 20, 2019 8:29 pm

Just need to change elevators to a dumbwaiter style lift with pull rope and counterweight.

Russ Wood
Reply to  Bryan A
June 22, 2019 3:44 am

My wife added that there aren’t enough ‘dumb waiters’. I replied that there are too many dumb politicians!

joe
Reply to  Art
June 20, 2019 4:50 pm

And once you’ve stopped using fossil fuels how do governments replace the tax revenue?

Tax electricity!

markl
June 20, 2019 10:32 am

The only thing that will stop the mad rush of virtue signaling to so called “zero carbon” is reality and those that are demanding it won’t know until it bites them in the ass. Unfortunately the people become the victims of the unintended consequences. The pool of useful idiots is growing geometrically.

Stevecsd
Reply to  markl
June 20, 2019 1:51 pm

“The pool of useful idiots is growing (not geometrically) EXPONENTIALY”. (ftfy)

Tom in Florida
June 20, 2019 10:44 am

Well, I suppose when the wind blows from the southwest through New Jersey all the greenhouse gases from there will stop at the border as they will not be allowed in New York, just as the dirty air pollution does now.

Bruce Cobb
June 20, 2019 11:11 am

Climate and community protection go so well together; like rat poison and pie.

Yirgach
June 20, 2019 11:44 am

This whole thing reads like a poorly written Science Fiction story meant to be taken as gospel truth. The really sad part is that the plot line is being enthusiastically endorsed without any critical examination. Just a symptom of the current age where an entire generation has grown up in their own virtual reality, where the facts are what you make them.

Just like Alice in Wonderland.

So now we now have elected officials of such magnitude as AOC that her moronic ideas are giddily accepted by that same generation without any further thought. St. Greta, who has the miraculous power to see an invisible trace gas, is feted at the highest level. You cannot make this stuff up!!

Passage of the CCPA is just the next step of a growing Idiocracy. Things are starting to look a bit gloomy.

TomB
June 20, 2019 12:25 pm

They keep on basing their goals by the recent declines that have been attained. This does not take into account that, at the beginning, you’re picking the low hanging fruit. Goals of far less magnitude will, in the future, be much harder and more expensive to attain. Some may well be unattainable at any level of effort or expenditure.

Matt
June 20, 2019 12:38 pm

This is what occurs when the Sierra Club, spurred by innuendoes that business lobbyists write legislation, and not to be outdone, decides that it too can impose legislation on the masses through lobbying.

William Astley
June 20, 2019 1:02 pm

The Politicians are clueless, sheep. Calling schemes green and forced spending on green stuff does not change engineering reality or economic reality.

Germany has already proven that forced spending of billions and billions of dollars on sun and wind gathering has a limited engineering benefit to reduce CO2 emissions (i.e. when energy storage is required) and makes electricity very expensive.

For example, the first wind turbines are located in the best windy places where land is available. As the scheme is forced, wind turbines are installed in less and less favourable sites, reducing the average system capacity rate (capacity rate = wind turbine average power output/wind turbine maximum power output) reduced from 40% best case to in German’s case 17.4% average which is ridiculous.

Germany and the UK, have both acted to stop installation of new land base wind farms because of complaints from rural complaints (wind farms turn idyllic countryside into some kind of surreal lego factory and make people how live near them sick) and in the case of Germany because the CO2 emissions did not drop as they have reached the point where energy storage is required.

https://notrickszone.com/2019/06/11/wind-energy-woes-german-expansion-collapses-to-near-zero-2019-threatens-to-be-a-disaster/

German news site iwr.de here reports that the expansion of wind energy in Germany has “come the a stop” as the government has scaled back subsidies and enacted stricter permitting laws.

“A catastrophe” for wind power
At Twitter green energy activist Prof. Volker Quaschning called the collapse a “catastrophe”, tweeting that the expansion of wind power “collapsed completely”. He added that “it will be impossible to meet the CO2 reduction targets” and that 40,000 jobs in the wind industry are “on the brink”.

Germany has reached the engineering/economic end of the green scheme fiasco.

http://notrickszone.com/2015/02/04/germanys-energiewende-leading-to-suicide-by-cannibalism-huge-oversupply-risks-destabilization/#sthash.8tE9YRDj.PSllYaQF.dpbs

The coming age of power cannibalism…Germany on the verge of committing energy suicide
Capacity without control
The problem with the “renewable” power sources of wind and solar is their intrinsic volatility coupled with their poor capacity utilization rates of only 17.4% for wind and 8.3% for solar (average values for Germany).

So far €500 billion (William: €500 billion is $550 billion US) has already been invested in the “Energiewende”, which is clearly emerging as a failure. Yet all political parties continue to throw their full weight behind the policy rather than admitting it is a failure (which would be tantamount to political suicide). Instead, the current government coalition has even decided to shift into an even higher gear on the path to achieving its objective of generating 80% of German electric power from “renewable” sources by 2050. If the situation is practically unmanageable now with 25% renewable energy (, it’ll be an uncontrollable disaster when (if) it reaches 80%.

Wiliam Haas
June 20, 2019 1:24 pm

For those that believe in the radiant greenhouse effect, their data regarding greenhouse gases is all wrong because they have totally ignored the primary greenhouse gas, H2O, Their reduction in CO2 emissions will have no significant effect on the total radiant greenhouse effect and hence no effect on climate. If they are really serious about reducing the use of fossil fuels then they need to start building nuclear power plants to generate the electricity that they need.

Gamecock
June 20, 2019 1:58 pm

“Governor Andrew M. Cuomo today [2011] announced that he has launched “New York Open for Business,” a coordinated communications and marketing effort that will demonstrate to business leaders all across the world the benefits of doing business in New York State.”

How funny is that?

‘By exercising a global leadership role on greenhouse gas mitigation and climate change adaptation, New York will position its economy, technology centers, financial institutions, and businesses to benefit from national and international efforts to address climate change.’

You couldn’t make this stuff up.

“Come to New York! But bring your own electricity; we don’t have any. And we’re BENEFITING from it!”

Wiliam Haas
Reply to  Gamecock
June 20, 2019 7:57 pm

It sound like New York is now closed for business.

Tanstafl
June 20, 2019 2:43 pm

Clowns to the left of me,
Jokers to the right, here I am,
Stuck in the middle with you —-IN THE DARK.

Rule of Peace: Don’t initiate, or threaten to use, violence to achieve personal, social or political goals! More simply – Don’t hit me or take my stuff!

James Snook
June 20, 2019 3:04 pm

Hypocrisy like that of the Scottish Government.

They have banned fracking in Scotland but happily see their biggest industrial employer import fracked gas from the USA in specially commissioned tankers! Grrrrr.-…-

RickWill
June 20, 2019 5:00 pm

Legislation such as New York’s Climate and Community Protection Act indicates the legislators are suffering from dingbatitis. It is becoming increasingly apparent that the affliction has a strong association with cocaine use. Dingbats typically display anxiety and paranoia and these are recognised effects of cocaine use.

Looking at the wastewater data for New York it is evident that cocaine is indeed the drug of choice in the City precinct:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/20961790.2019.1609388

Cocaine

This group includes cocaine and its two metabolites, BE and cocaethylene, which is only present when cocaine is consumed with ethanol. All 48 samples were positive for these analytes. The analyte with the highest concentrations was BE, followed by cocaine then cocaethylene. BE and cocaethylene had their highest concentration, BE 3 947.2 ng/mg and cocaethylene 57.0 ng/mg, in Hunts Point (The Bronx) before Memorial Day. BE’s lowest concentration was 389.6 ng/mg in Newtown Creek-Brooklyn/Queens after Memorial Day, and for cocaethylene the lowest concentration was 5.8 ng/mg in Tallman (Queens) after New Year’s. The highest concentration of cocaine was 1 814.8 ng/mg in Hunts Point (The Bronx) before 4th of July and the lowest was 92.4 ng/mg in Newtown Creek-Brooklyn/Queens after Memorial Day.

It is also not surprising that Blue states have bigger drug problems than Red states:
https://wallethub.com/edu/drug-use-by-state/35150/#red-vs-blue
Although the rankings are not markedly different- 28.03 v 23.1

In Australia, the drug of choice for dingbats is also cocaine – see figure 13:
https://www.acic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2019/06/nwdmp7_140619.pdf

Cocaine is also strongly associated with the incidence of dingbatitis in Europe:
http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/topics/pods/waste-water-analysis_en

The message here is that logic will never persuade a dingbat to reconsider their position. So be wary of getting into a discussion with a dingbat. They are more than likely to be under the influence of cocaine and that induces violent tendencies as well as anxiety and paranoia noted above.

Also do not be flippant by making a cynical comment such as; “and what drug are you on”. This comment could provoke a violent response from a dingbat.

Jeff Alberts
June 20, 2019 5:13 pm

Tip to the author: Quotes should be visually set apart from the main text, so readers know where quoted text starts and ends.

Michael S. Kelly LS, BSA Ret.
June 20, 2019 6:31 pm

Erstwhile blogger Iowahawk (David Burge) once commented on the Obama CAFE standards of 54 (IIRC) mpg by 2025. He wrote “why not 54 million mpg?” It would certainly have had a bigger effect – and have been just as impossible.

One of Ayn Rand’s deepest insights into the mind of a government controller is that he/she has no idea how reality works, but believes that simply mandating those who do know how reality works perform some task will make it happen…somehow. Mao was one of these, but his mandates resulted in the death of nearly 50 million people by starvation.

These virtue-signalling laws will be the death of many, many people some day.

rwisrael
June 20, 2019 9:12 pm

In Rockaway, NY, that part of Queens on the Atlantic Ocean, new homes are being denied natural gas service because the companies can not guarantee sufficient NG due to the cancellation of the proposed pipeline. That’s the reality of the future of energy in NY.

Kv s
June 20, 2019 9:21 pm

This mandate for emission reductions will not alter any climate but will certainly degrade NY’s economy.
The only question now is who will be first to recognize the damage, the public at the ballot box, or the politicians who may reverse course?
In either case, I applaud the federalism. Let NY, CA, and WA experiment with emission reduction and let the chips fall where they may.

%d bloggers like this: