Lights Out: The CLCPA and New York’s Energy Future

From Roger Caiazza, the Pragmatic Environmentalist of New York

On May 3, 2022 the Empire Center for Public Policy hosted a panel of climate and energy experts from across the state to explore economic and energy impacts of the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (Climate Act.  This post describes my impression of Lights Out: The CLCPA and New York’s Energy Future.

Everyone wants to do right by the environment to the extent that they can afford to and not be unduly burdened by the effects of environmental policies.  I have written extensively on implementation of New York’s response to climate change risk because I believe the ambitions for a zero-emissions economy embodied in the Climate Act outstrip available renewable technology such that it will adversely affect reliability, impact affordabilityrisk safety, affect lifestyles, and will have worse impacts on the environment than the purported effects of climate change in New York.  New York’s Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions are less than one half one percent of global emissions and since 1990 global GHG emissions have increased by more than one half a percent per year.  Moreover, the reductions cannot measurably affect global warming when implemented.   The opinions expressed in this post do not reflect the position of any of my previous employers or any other company I have been associated with, these comments are mine alone.

Climate Act Background

The Climate Act establishes a “Net Zero” target by 2050. The Climate Action Council is responsible for preparing the Scoping Plan that will “achieve the State’s bold clean energy and climate agenda”.  They were assisted by Advisory Panels who developed and presented strategies to the meet the goals to the Council.  Those strategies were used to develop the integration analysis prepared by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) and its consultants that quantified the impact of the strategies.  That analysis was used to develop the Draft Scoping Plan that was released for public comment on December 30, 2021. The public can comment until June 10, 2022. 

The overall question for the speakers was whether the state can meet its energy needs under the new law and what will be the cost to New Yorkers?  Six speakers made brief presentations followed by questions and answers addressing those questions.  I have described my impressions of the speaker presentations below.  If a recording of the meeting is provided, I will update this post.

Introductory remarks

James Hanley, Senior Policy Analyst, Empire Center for Public Policy gave some brief introductory remarks but focused on his new research.  Hanley recently completed an analysis he did for the Empire Center titled Cold and Dark? New York’s Risky Energy Future.  It is a good summary of the essential problem that the Climate Act will increase demand at the same time New York is retiring existing nuclear and natural gas-fired generation.  He shows that the state is on track for an energy shortage equal to “almost three New York Cities without power”.  He explains that wind and solar cannot make up the gap because of their variable output.  The Draft Scoping Plan notes that 15 to 25 GW of installed dispatchable emissions-free generation capacity is “needed in 2040 to meet demand and maintain reliability”.  However, as Hanley points out, the Plan does not identify a source for this generation capacity.  The report is well-researched and gives a good overview of the problems inherent in the net-zero transition.

Panel Discussion: Meeting New York’s Energy Needs Under Climate Act. 

Three speakers addressed the question: How do we deliver what’s needed and how soon can we get there?

Donald Chahbazpour, Director of Policy and Regulator Strategy, National Grid talked up the National Grid plan that was recently announced.  He explained that there are three components of their plan: energy efficiency, hybrid heat pumps, and a fossil free gas network.  Among the benefits expected are that it is more cost-effective and will require 60 GW less electric generation capacity.  At some point I will try to do a post on the plan but want to point out a couple of points he made about the natural gas system.  The gas peak load is 3 to 4 times higher than the size of the electric peak load.  That makes sense because heating makes up such a large proportion of natural gas load.  He also said that heating with natural gas is cheaper: thirty cents on the dollar cheaper than electric with natural gas.  Part of the National Grid plan is to use renewable natural gas and he admitted that will be more expensive than natural gas.  The last statistic that I wanted to mention is that he gave a number for the daily conversion rates necessary to meet the Scoping Plan for just New York City.  I did not get the exact number but it was so large that it was clearly unreasonable.

Gavin Donohue, President of the Independent Power Producers of New York is a member of the Climate Action Council.  He said his top issue with Climate Act was that there was no funding mechanism.  He also made the point that there is no dispatchable emissions-free resource available today so the schedule is ambitious.  Gavin has been arguing since the beginning that reliability is critical but he pointed out that it still has not received adequate attention.  He made another point that is often overlooked.  New York City has special considerations that have not been addressed.  He claimed that one hidden cost is that 25% of homes will require electric service upgrades.  Donohue also made the point that the Climate Action Council does not make the final decision on the strategies.  At the end of the year the Scoping Plan goes to the Governor and legislature for them to pick policies for implementation in 2023.

Ken Pokalsky, Vice President of the Business Council of New York, was the third speaker on the panel.  He pointed out that most business owners are unaware of implications.  When told about it they go through the five stages of grief: denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance.  He explained that New York businesses are finally starting to get involved.

Panel Discussion: Consumer Effects Of Climate Act;

The second panel discussion addressed costs, benefits and consumer impacts.  Due to a scheduling problem, there were only two speakers.

Michael Butler, Mid-Atlantic Regional Director of the Consumer Energy Alliance discussed consumer effects.  His presentation is available.    He made the point that the reason that emissions have gone down so much is because of natural gas. Therefore, he argued that it is inappropriate to ban natural gas at this time.  He also commented on Pennsylvania’s recently joining the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative by executive decree.  He thinks that the Pennsylvania governorship will flip Republican next election and that will end the state’s membership in RGGI

Commissioner John Howard, New York State Public Service Commission, made some interesting points and his answers to questions were very illuminating.  If there is a recording, I will do a post just on his remarks.  One of the great mysteries to me has been how this will affect rate payer costs.  He said that he thought the existing REC, ZEC, OREC programs and possibly some other similar programs currently add 10% to consumer bills.  He emphasized the four tenets of Public Service Commission concern are safe, reliable, just and reasonable electricity for all rate payers.  He noted that New Yorkers are intolerant of blackouts for any reason.  After claiming that peaking power plants have significant health impact, he said he thought that they would be needed much longer than many want.  By the way I am working on a post about that issue to follow up my latest post describing the New York City peaking power plant controversy.  One of his best comments was that he said that unelected bureaucrats should not be in control of the scoping plan.  He clearly he has figured out that there are issues with the ambition and schedule of the Plan.

I asked the penultimate question.   

We have heard a lot about costs today and the large number of pages in the scoping plan and appendices.  I am a numbers guy and want to point out that in addition of the upwards of 600 pages in the text documentation there are two spreadsheets with over 100 tables provided.  Based on my analysis of those spreadsheets there are no control measure cost numbers provided.  I think the Scoping Plan should describe, list the costs, and estimate the emissions reductions for all the control measures.  What do you think should be provided?

Commissioner Howard responded.  He basically said that it does seem that they are obfuscating the costs.  He also said that people should be outraged that those numbers are not available.

Conclusion

Unfortunately, attendance was light so there was not a lot of coverage.  That is too bad because the speakers made some excellent points that deserve wider coverage.  If a recording is provided I will update this post with more information.

5 23 votes
Article Rating
58 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
fretslider
May 9, 2022 6:16 am

Why not just rename New York as Gotham?

Dave Yaussy
May 9, 2022 6:22 am

It is pretty clear that New York’s energy transition will be expensive and have serious reliability issues. I’m disappointed that there aren’t more business leaders and consumer groups pointing out the obvious problems. My concern is that proponents of the NY plan are conditioning people to accept the restrictions, inconvenience and danger caused by lack of sufficient energy, just as they accepted COVID restrictions.

Coach Springer
Reply to  Dave Yaussy
May 9, 2022 6:29 am

My guess with absolute certainty is that businesses and consumers have already swallowed the hook. And yes, exactly like COVID – without reasoning or question. The only thing on their minds is how to best comply with governement.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Coach Springer
May 9, 2022 3:57 pm

The Net Zippy Action Plan goes to the NY Legislature next year. They will be required to price it before voting on it. If adopted, the Plan would require large tax increases and significant business and consumer price hikes. The fit will hit the shan when those costs becomes apparent. As noted, NY businesses are beginning to take notice. They are organized and have alot of money and political power. Additionally, given that NY City is involved, instead of yellow vests and protest signs it could be body armor and firearms.

Bill Toland
Reply to  Dave Fair
May 9, 2022 9:21 pm

How can a plan be priced which relies on technology which doesn’t exist?

Dave Fair
Reply to  Bill Toland
May 9, 2022 11:01 pm

Precisely one of the fundamental issues Bill.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Dave Yaussy
May 9, 2022 3:33 pm

Ken Pokalsky, Vice President of the Business Council of New York, was the third speaker on the panel. He pointed out that most business owners are unaware of implications. When told about it they go through the five stages of grief: denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance. He explained that New York businesses are finally starting to get involved.”

The serious resistance to Net Zippy begins, as predicted.

paul
Reply to  Dave Yaussy
May 9, 2022 6:19 pm

it’s going to be interesting when the blackout comes that all of those people in all of those
hi-rises are going to be stuck there till power is restored or they going to be doing some mighty fancy stairstepping to get out. I can;t imagine walking down 50 stories worth of stairsteps. Pity those who are in elevators when the power goes kaput.

Reply to  paul
May 10, 2022 4:45 pm

Wonder how many will die on the way down, Aren’t a lot of them over 100 stories?

Coach Springer
May 9, 2022 6:34 am

Ruinous costs, failures, unquestioning total compliance – for no discernible effect. Is there anything the Precautionary Principle, love of control and some money can’t do?

Last edited 1 month ago by Coach Springer
May 9, 2022 6:51 am

Note that in addition to gas energy being 3-4 times electric, its winter peak is huge compared to annual average use. So the generating capacity to electrify it will be equally huge.

Reply to  David Wojick
May 9, 2022 7:53 am

It already is huge. The climate crazy Left controls the media outlets. The media and the reporters are simultaneously too dumb and too indoctrinated to dissent, and simply just keeps “gas lighting” the public that the solution is more “cheap” renewable electricity. It is also why California faces substantial threats of rolling blackouts this summer.

Albert H Brand
May 9, 2022 7:02 am

I suspect the population will vote with their feet. Only those well heeled or on the government dole will remain until things become unbearable. One possible interim solution would be diesel powered backup and oil heat. As long as oil is still available one can keep warm and electrified.

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  Albert H Brand
May 9, 2022 8:03 am

‘One possible interim solution would be diesel powered backup and oil heat.’

Distillate and other oil derivatives are pretty expensive now, particularly in the US north east, where the marginal barrel is brought in by boat. Stupid domestic policy meets stupid foreign policy.

Paul Blase
May 9, 2022 7:05 am

They should make a movie about this. Oh, wait….

May 9, 2022 7:08 am

The push to shutdown the Nuclear power plants feeding NYC their abundant electricity and the final acceptance by the utilities convinced me that this is NOT about reducing CO2. The average Highschool kid, even with their lower than grade level standards in math proficiency, can easily determine that 100% Renewable energy is an impossibility for NYC and that the lights will soon go out in NYC.

Worse “The Draft Scoping Plan notes that 15 to 25 GW of installed dispatchable emissions-free generation capacity is “needed in 2040 to meet demand and maintain reliability”. Yet the brainless activists insist on “NO NUCLEAR POWER.” That is equivalent to playing Russian Roulette with six shells in the Cylinder of the Revolver. 

John K. Sutherland.
May 9, 2022 7:18 am

Just let them ‘blackout’ a few times, and then watch them scramble. The sooner it happens, the better.

Al Miller
Reply to  John K. Sutherland.
May 9, 2022 7:36 am

Absolutely! We need some great examples of the pathetic fallacy of “net zero” to push on. The sooner the better so the world can sadly watch the suffering and make their own minds.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Al Miller
May 9, 2022 4:08 pm

Yep, flyover country needs crash test dummies from both Left Coasts.

paul courtney
Reply to  Dave Fair
May 10, 2022 4:03 am

Mr. Fair: Need them? I could do without them, but since they are all so eager to volunteer in CA, NY etc.

observa
Reply to  John K. Sutherland.
May 9, 2022 7:54 am

Well in Oz with the interconnected National Electricity Market they’re managing to keep the lights on but look at the peak wholesale price spikes that have to feed into the power bills-
Spot market volatility across all 4 mainland regions of the NEM – but particularly South Australia – WattClarity
When they reach $10000 that’s $10/kWh wholesale or $7USD. Already quarter one has seen average wholesale power prices increase 146% apparently and no mercy at the petrol bowser or the supermarket. It’s high time for the dedicated net zero Labor Gummint methinks as they have all the answers judging by their election promises.

Last edited 1 month ago by observa
observa
May 9, 2022 7:28 am

“Every market around the world is trying to deal with the same issue,” said Brad Jones, interim chief executive of the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, which operates the state’s power grid. “We’re all trying to find ways to utilize as much of our renewable resources as possible…and at the same time make sure that we have enough dispatchable generation to manage reliability.”
Electricity Shortage Warnings Grow Across U.S. (msn.com)
In their enthusiasm for solar and wind they forgot about the battery storage and it’s simply too hard politically to fess up about that now. However those tasked with keeping the lights on are getting increasingly nervous about that massive oversight and copping it in the neck.

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  observa
May 9, 2022 7:53 am

Not to worry – there are always abundant Dispatchabe Emission Free Resources (DEFR) to fall back on. (/S)

Last edited 1 month ago by Frank from NoVA
Kit P
Reply to  observa
May 9, 2022 9:00 am

The WSJ article is BS.

In 50 years, I have only found 2 journalists that are good at reporting about energy. That was because they lived near places like Hanford or Oak Ridge. When they write BS, they get taken to the wood shed by their neighbors.

Every spring and fall there are warnings. This is because every winter and summer there are extreme weather event that are impossible to design for.

There are warning because people will die if as a society we are not prepared to deal with the loss of power.

I was working in the control room of nuclear power plants for two such events. It had nothing to do with renewable energy.

In my 50 years of making electricity, there is one constant. Idiots who think they can do it better than the power company and have a ‘plan’ for 30 years into the future.

Making electricity is a public service. If enough idiots want renewable energy, power companies will provide it.

The good news is power companies have a resource management plan for providing reliable electricity.

Retired_Engineer_Jim
Reply to  Kit P
May 9, 2022 10:29 am

If they are allowed to. But if the state Government says no more fossil fuels by 20xx, then the resource management plan isn’t worth the paper on which it has been printed.

Kit P
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
May 9, 2022 1:08 pm

That is a big if, Jim. Smoke and mirrors

I can predict which states might ban fossil fuels. One of those states, California, has also banned new nuclear power plants.

I worked at a nuclear power plant in California until it was closed by politics. The voters were told that it would be replaced renewable energy. There is a gas fired power plant next to the closed nuke.

California is not a leader in renewable energy. They are pretty good with smoke and mirrors on the other hand.

Others states will continue to sell power to California and California will get out the smoke and mirrors.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Kit P
May 9, 2022 4:23 pm

Others states will continue to sell power to California …” Until they don’t. Other States have political problems developing and keeping reliable sources of electric generation for their own growing loads. And Pacific Northwest hydroelectric power is only available when there is excess generation from the integrated grid, which will be less and less available in the future. Shit happens; planning for other States’ bailouts is not rational.

Kit P
Reply to  Dave Fair
May 10, 2022 10:04 am

Correct, California dose not have a rational policy.

Last time there was not enough hydro, POTUS Clinton ordered power be sent south to a state that took no measures to conserve. No one died because it was a unusually wet and mild winter.

The following winter was different. We came very close to disaster.

Since then the two coal plants in Oregon and Washington have closed.

I go to the desert southwest or the gulf coast every winter.

Nit my problem any more.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Kit P
May 9, 2022 4:14 pm

Any Resource Plan that includes commercial and residential “demand side management” is just allocating shortages like all good socialist systems. I know; I wrote and approved Resource Plans.

Last edited 1 month ago by Dave Fair
Kit P
Reply to  Dave Fair
May 9, 2022 8:10 pm

Call me old school but the power company roll is to provide power where and when customers with a 25% reserve margin.

It was not until I worked at a nuke in California that I heard of managing load by turning off customers power.

I was sitting at my desk in an air conditioned office at the power plant when I got a call from an irate women. She had signed up for a discount on her rate and her A/C was off.

I suggested that she take a book and go downtown and read in the lobby of our air conditioned offices.

My resource management plan would include 100 devices to turn off power. The first would turn of the power to the power company CEO home. The second would be for the governor.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Kit P
May 9, 2022 11:06 pm

Kit, you are absolutely correct; it used to be that government strived to meet the needs and wants of citizens. Now we are all expected to serve the whims of government. What our Founders feared has come to pass.

Kit P
Reply to  Dave Fair
May 10, 2022 10:06 am

Have you considered moving to Texas?

Reply to  observa
May 10, 2022 10:23 am

In their enthusiasm for solar and wind they forgot about the battery storage and it’s simply too hard politically to fess up about that now.”
I clearly recall reading reports on various Climate Change supporters pages how renewable energy from one area could make up the short fall in another. Their were even proposals for building a massive transmission line from FL to NY to spread the Wind Turbine power around, No one has explained to me how the northern states are going to get sufficient Solar power. Look at any Solar Energy Irradiance Map. Those not living south of Wyoming and east of New Mexico are out of luck.

May 9, 2022 7:43 am

“He emphasized the four tenets of Public Service Commission concern are safe, reliable, just and reasonable electricity for all rate payers. “.

Safe, reliable and reasonable electricity rates are semi-quantitative. You can put numbers on blackout impacts, accidents, and rates ($costs). But the “just” is absolute garbage, virtue signaling because it is exclusively subjective. If you want “just(ice)”, then keep electricity reliable and affordable for low income social groups. The “just” concern is simply whatever the climate crazy libtards want it to be and has no place in a public utility commission’s concerns.

Kit P
Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
May 9, 2022 9:44 am

I agree 100%.

I have seen a case where the PUC caved to the crazy anti nukes and would not let a new nuke plant in the rate base because it was not needed.

Good power companies also know how to sway the public. On my next bill, the power company explained they had to sell the cheaper electricity to NYC.

One of the reason NY and California have higher electric rates is they import power from other states.

Here is a link to BPA: https://transmission.bpa.gov/business/operations/wind/baltwg.aspx

*VER means Variable Energy Resources, which are primarily wind and solar in the BPA BA

The purpose of wind in the PNW is to suck money out of California.

Andy Pattullo
May 9, 2022 7:59 am

Heading back to the horse and buggy days at warp speed. We need to remind all those who voted for this mess when the time comes to “live the dream” that it was their votes that took us back to poverty.

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  Andy Pattullo
May 9, 2022 8:59 am

Kinda like ‘Little House on the Prairie’, except without hygiene, food, clothing, shelter, medicine, etc.

observa
Reply to  Andy Pattullo
May 9, 2022 9:04 am

Heading back to the horse and buggy days at warp speed.

Some have reservations but what would they know?
VW Group Boss Says It’s Too Early To Go All-In On EVs (msn.com)
The Great Transition has been ordained by the Holy ones and blasphemy heresy or impure thoughts will not be tolerated.

Olen
May 9, 2022 8:06 am

“Everyone wants to do right by the environment to the extent that they can afford to and not be unduly burdened by the effects of environmental policies.”

I doubt everyone nor should they. They have never asked for a legal input from the public. And they will not because it is easier to do it and deal with it after the damage is done.

Kit P
Reply to  Olen
May 9, 2022 10:08 am

Locating wind and solar for political reasons has more environmental impact than coal based on LCA.

It is a legal requirement of a EIS ‘Finding of no significant impact (FONSI)’. In the US, all power plants are ‘clean’.

Now we are debating the insignificant. For example, for minute I could not hear sound of the wind because a train carry coal to China was going by. I never hear the sound of wind turbine over the sound of the wind.

On the other hand, the net generation of a solar panel near me is negative. It is located with a poor solar resource for political resource. It has a positive output at the meter at the panels but ignores the 24/7/365 losses putting the power on the grid.

Worse than coal!

Steve Case
May 9, 2022 8:40 am

 Moreover, the reductions cannot measurably affect global warming when implemented. 
__________________________________________________________

Implicit in that statement is that if enough of humanity reduced their greenhouse gas emissions it would measurably affect global warming. Further more it implies that such an effect is desirable. A quote from Monckton of Brenchley would be appropriate:

     The right response to the non-problem of global
     warming is to have the courage to do nothing.

TonyL
May 9, 2022 8:54 am

Observa (above) notes that electric rates have spiked repeatedly in Aus. to $7.00/kW USD. for comparison, Here in the NE US. retail costs are ~$0.21/kW even with all the “green+renewable” charges added in. So how do the Aus. people respond to this bone-crushing cost of an essential item. They roll over and take it. They have not even considered holding their politicians accountable. The same thing happened with COVID, stupid, useless, horribly expensive, and for the people harmful and ruinous. They submitted.
Am I taking cheap shots at Aus? No I am trying to take a lesson. Closer to home, We see the same mentality at work here in the US. Use the COVID response as a proxy for ruinous energy policy and what should we expect? Sheeple, all sheeple.

Here, we have another WUWT posting which gives an insight into the development of an energy policy which will end in disaster. Once again, several commenters note a coming grid failure, hoping that people will learn and the mistakes will not be repeated. Fat Chance.
The people will not protest. they will not learn. They will ride it all the way down, ending when their state’s economy is ruined, The state’s debt has skyrocketed, and there is not enough money left to recover from the bad policy.
Like This:

observa
Reply to  TonyL
May 9, 2022 5:27 pm

At present these climate changers are hiding behind average power prices but there is the odd voice in the election campaign warning about those growing marginal price spikes-
‘Absolute disaster’ of electricity price spike (msn.com)
Our remaining coal fired power stations are being run on sticky tape and string to eke the last revenue from them knowing they’re to be closed. As particular units fail for repair we get a taste of the future with gas backed weather dependent generation and those price spikes.

Gordon A. Dressler
May 9, 2022 9:11 am

So much smoke . . . so little heat.

Pat from Kerbob
May 9, 2022 9:24 am

Its pretty clear the entire process is based on magical thinking, decree it and it shall happen.

“Everything looks simple to those with no clue”.
Me

Rud Istvan
May 9, 2022 9:45 am

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
The soon to be prize here is a failed grid and an uninhabitable NYC.

May 9, 2022 10:24 am

What did we use for lights before candles?

Electricity.

Retired_Engineer_Jim
May 9, 2022 10:36 am

The speakers were not adhering to the narrative. Have they been sent to a reeducation camp? Have they been cancelled?

Philip
May 9, 2022 11:00 am

Straight out economic suicide, in the long run it won’t happen but a lot of damage could be done in the meantime.
Maybe New York state and city might go republican if they do enough damage.

aaron
May 9, 2022 12:03 pm

If we were properly focused on energy security, greenhouse gas emissions would be a moot point. #AntiFragileEnergy #GreenNUCLEARDeal #HighlyFlexibleNaturalGas #IncineratePlasticPollution #WasteToEnergy

AB9B2B6D-FA0A-4C21-81CD-68BBD3EB110C.jpeg
aaron
May 9, 2022 12:04 pm

If we were properly focused on energy security, greenhouse gas emissions would be a moot point. #AntiFragileEnergy #GreenNUCLEARDeal #HighlyFlexibleNaturalGas #IncineratePlasticPollution #WasteToEnergy

The Northern Hemisphere climate was much more extreme in previous centuries. The past 150 years have been unusually kind. We are not prepared for reversion to the mean. #AntiFragileEnergy #GreenNuclearDeal #HighlyFlexibleNaturalGas #IncineratePlasticPollution #WasteToEnergy

F27D1950-4302-4B68-8294-14C2659B891F.jpeg
Beta Blocker
May 9, 2022 12:29 pm

Jo Nova — “Australia – Crash Test Dummy of Renewable Energy”: Monday night US. Tuesday morning AU

The advocates of the renewables in Australia and here in the US claim that the solution to the ever-rising cost of electricity is to quickly expand wind and solar backed by battery storage. Here where I live in the US Northwest, this claim has been sold with great success to the public and to our regional politicians.

One way to quickly expand wind and solar is for our respective governments — at the federal, state, and local levels — to guarantee a ten percent annual rate of return on every dollar invested in the renewables, without regard to the impacts on the costs of electricity for business, industrial, and residential consumers.

The expansion of wind and solar will then proceed more or less as fast as predicted — up until the point is reached where demand for renewable technology outstrips supply to such an extent that no increase in the price of electricity, however large, will produce larger supplies of wind turbines, solar panels, and grid-scale batteries.

When that point is eventually reached, how much will electricity cost? Two times what it costs today, on average? Three times? Five times? Ten times?

In any case, the slide towards a less reliable grid and a much more expensive supply of electricity cannot be stopped, and is even likely to accelerate.  

Who exactly will be the winners, and who exactly will be the losers, in this transition will become more clearly evident as the slide towards a wind and solar energy future progresses through time.

Waza
May 9, 2022 2:11 pm

While I acknowledge the discussion about NY climate act is dominated by the magic sources of electricity needed by 2050, local law 97 must not be forgotten.
Local law 97 comes into effect in 2024. This law places carbon caps on more than 50,000 NY buildings. It is essentially a now issue for millions of New Yorkers.

Beta Blocker
Reply to  Waza
May 9, 2022 3:03 pm

I have close relatives in central NYC, out on Long Island, and in upper New York State. So I spent some time this afternoon taking a look at the amended version of Local Law 97 of 2019 at §28-320 and §28-321 of the Administrative Code.

The requirements are both horrifically expensive to implement and would be impossible to achieve on the dictated schedule even if the money was available to pay for the necessary upgrades. Which it won’t be, of course.

New York City’s business community has been hit hard by the COVID pandemic and by local and state government’s response to the pandemic. Will Local Law 97 be the last straw for NYC businesses which would prefer remain in the city if it was still a rational decision to stay there?

Last edited 1 month ago by Beta Blocker
Reply to  Beta Blocker
May 9, 2022 3:49 pm

The New York City law is the crash test of the Climate Act, It will be interesting to see if the City backs off when the businesses fold their tents and leave

Dave Fair
Reply to  Beta Blocker
May 9, 2022 4:42 pm

Yep, NY, piling more costs and restrictions on businesses and residents is a sure-fire way to keep businesses and people in NY. FJB & FLeftists.

S Browne
May 9, 2022 5:30 pm

‘Renewable natural gas’ produces CO2 just like natural gas, is more expensive and the supply is insufficient. So…dumb alternative.

Boris
May 12, 2022 3:35 pm

“Part of the National Grid plan is to use renewable natural gas and he admitted that will be more expensive than natural gas. ”

Exactly where is this “Renewable” Natural gas supposed to come from. My former company was involved in supplying “Renewable” Natural gas from garbage land fills. A number of issues with this as a source for Consumer grade natural gas made this supply very difficult to use on a continuous basis.

First the BTU content of this gas never went over 350 while pipeline grade Natural gas was around 995.
Second this gas is very “Wet” and full of components that made it difficult and VERY expensive to clean up. Any filtration system we tried to use would foul up in a short time and the corrosion factor of the systems was horrendous.Upgrading of the piping in later systems to all Stainless steel made the costs go al most 10 times the original designs.
Three this source of gas has not only H2S in it but it is a wet H2S which makes it even worse. The outlet has to have no more than .01 % H2S allowed by law and the systems that extract that unwanted gas component were very expensive to maintain and keep running to allow for gas sales.
After 5 years of trying to use this “waste” gas from land fills I was one of many of the people on the work team that was trying to convince management why bother trying to sell this gas as Renewable to our customer base. It would have been cheaper and more efficient to use this gas in a generator and make some power to sell to the customer base. The end price was over 20 times more expensive than pipeline gas and the company due to consumer regulators was only allowed to charge 5 times the normal gas price to consumers who wanted “Renewable Gas”. So we always were losing money. That loss was added to the regular users rate base so in the end everyone paid for this gas.

%d bloggers like this: