Roger Caiazza
Here is another example of a jurisdiction desperately trying to put a positive spin on their floundering net-zero transition efforts.
The New York State Energy Research & Development Authority (NYSERDA) has an important role in the Climate Act implementation. They publish “featured stories” that “take you inside the work to build a clean energy future in New York.” The term “propaganda” implies the dissemination of information, often biased or misleading, to promote a particular agenda. That description perfectly describes the February 11 Clean Energy Growth story “EVs hit record numbers in NY and the US”.
New York’s Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act) established a New York “Net Zero” target (85% reduction in GHG emissions and 15% offset of emissions) by 2050. It includes two 2030 targets: an interim emissions reduction target of a 40% GHG reduction by 2030 and a mandate that 70% of the electricity must come from renewable energy by 2030. 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.” 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, proceedings, and legislation.
This article compares the numbers in the “EVs hit record numbers in NY and the US” story and the numbers in the Scoping Plan.
EVs Numbers in NY
NYSERDA gave the following numbers for New York based on this reference:
In 2024, New York saw 90,221 new EV registrations, bringing the total number of EV drivers to more than 271,000 at the start of 2025. EV registration in 2023 totaled 78,950, meaning that 2024 saw a 14.3% jump in electric vehicle adoption across New York State.
Of the new EVs registered in New York State, 54,664 were battery-electric models and 35,557 were plug-in hybrid electric vehicles[2]. Battery-electric EVs run completely on electricity, whereas plug-in hybrids have an all-electric range of around 20 to 50 miles and an internal combustion engine fueled by gasoline that kicks in once the battery power is exhausted.
Scoping Plan EV Numbers
The Scoping Plan is New York’s blueprint for meeting the Climate Act mandates. NYSERDA hired a contractor who developed a list of control strategies, estimated costs and emission reductions, turned a crank and conjured up three decarbonizing scenario “plans” for New York to meet the aspirational Climate Act schedule. Feasibility, accountability, and transparency are not valid descriptors of the results produced.
After no little effort I found the projected EV data. Table 1 lists the projected 2024 EV sales for the three scenarios compared to the observed sales. Scenario 1 (Strategic Use of Low-Carbon Fuels) was the most realistic projection, the other two (Accelerated Transition Away from Combustion and Beyond 85% Reductions) were based on fantasies from the beginning. For our purposes, note that battery electric vehicle sales were 10% lower than projected and plug in hybrid vehicle sales were 34% lower than Scenario 1 last year.
Table 1: 2024 NY EV Sales Comparison Scoping Plan Scenarios vs. Observed Sales
Comparing the Strategic Use of Low-Carbon Fuels scenario projections over time shows that 2023 was te only year when the observed Battery Electric sales exceeded the projections. The Plugin Hybrid vehicle sales exceeded projections only in the first year.
Table 2: EV Sales Comparison Strategic Use of Low-Carbon Fuels Projection vs. Observed Sales
The trends are shown in Figure 1. The Scoping Plan modeling projects that Battery Electric sales will increase sharply in the future. The modeling also projects that Plugin Hybrid sales will peak in 2026 and then tail off.
Figure 1: EV Sales Comparison Strategic Use of Low-Carbon Fuels Projection vs. Observed Sales
Discussion
Trying to estimate how every sector will be affected by changes in energy use and fuels in the NYSERDA sponsored modeling for the Climate Act implementation is a massive effort. The additional effort required to completely document the reduction strategies, emissions changes expected, and costs for each strategy undoubtedly led to the decision to not provide sufficient information for meaningful stakeholder review. Conveniently, the lack of transparency means that stakeholders have difficulty asking embarrassing questions. However, New York State is proposing a complete transformation of all facets of the energy system of the state at a likely cost of over a trillion dollars so in my opinion, the lack of comprehensive documentation is unacceptable.
Attempting to verify the Scoping Plan projections to observations is difficult. Given these results, the obfuscation is likely deliberate. In 2024 the Battery Electric vehicle sales were 10% less than projected. This is not a good result given that the projection was made three years ago. The model projects that sales will rapidly increase in 2026 and beyond. Note that Plugin Hybrids are not good enough for New York’s zero-emissions aspiration so the modeling projects that sales will peak and tail off.
My problem with the modeling results is that they are too convenient. I am convinced that the projections just interpolated between the Climate Act goals and current conditions to quantify vehicle sales. The rationale driving the sales is not documented. Why does the state expect that electric vehicle sales will increase as projected?
Up until Trump paused the program there was a Federal mandate that said all vehicles sold at a certain date will be electric. All the mandates and incentives for the manufacturers are fruitless if the public says no thanks. In this case there is no evidence that there is pent up demand for electric vehicles as shown by the result that Ford lost $5.1 billion in 2024 and $4.7 billion in its electric vehicle business. Common sense says the projected sales trajectory is wishful thinking.
Conclusion
New York electric vehicle sales are not meeting the projections necessary to meet the Climate Act mandates. NYSERDA’s reports describing “record sales” don’t bother to mention that fact. The lack of evidence that the electric vehicle transportation sector emission reduction plan will work is one more reason that New York State needs to pause the process and determine if the plans are feasible before more money is squandered. I suspect that this is a universal problem for all similar initiatives. No number of cheerful claims of record sales will be able to hide the facts much longer.
Roger Caiazza blogs on New York energy and environmental issues at Pragmatic Environmentalist of New York. This represents his opinion and not the opinion of any of his previous employers or any other company with which he has been associated.
BEVs are a problem for greens, as they really want the peasants walking. Or carrying them around in sedan chairs.
In other words, the political lefts thinks there’s doesn’t stink.
That’s no problem for the greens. They are also shutting down dispatchable power generation, so eventually it will not be possible to recharge the batteries, and only the elites with their exemptions for fossil-fueled vehicles will be able to travel.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Exactly what I want. However, so far the industry isn’t making a two door version small run-about and I don’t have room for a full size four door.
Anyway, visits to the gas station for a plug-in would be a rare event.
I agree that plug in hybrids are an improvement that might succeed without government interventions. The insistence on zero emissions will backfire spectacularly.
As it is, hybrids get nearly double the mileage of a 100% gas car.
Yep, and it’s cheap, assuming one has a driveway to park a car on.
Around 45% of homes in the UK don’t have driveways, and it’s now so expensive to use a public supercharger, petrol (gas) is cheaper.
A study was undertaken a few years ago on company car drivers (those given a car as part of their job package, usually high mileage drivers) in the UK, and it was found that the vast majority of plug in hybrid drivers didn’t bother plugging their cars in and just drove on petrol alone.
Petrol retailers engage in healthy competition. There are at least 6 different vendors within a 10 minute drive of me, and most small towns (around 120,000 pop.) are the same.
I know of one Tesla charging station within the area and there’s the odd regular stations dotted around, although I’m not an EVangelist, so I don’t pay any attention to them.
But, also quite a bit more expensive because you need two powertrains.
That’s only true because you are ignoring the electricity being used to recharge the battery.
Indeed, I bought a used hybrid because my MPG has more than doubled when driving around the county. Not a plug-in but a well engineered Atkinson DOHC 4 cyl and a 95 hp electric drive thru a electronic controlled Continuously variable transmission. I regularly see over 30 – 35 mpg whereas I was lucky to get 15 mpg with my last vehicle.
Conspiracy theory that might make no sense, but heck, this is an Internet message board:
Toyota (Japanese profits) was running away with hybrid technological dominance. What could USA and Europe do with regulations to protect lagging local auto makers for another several decades? Enviro-protectionism?
The term “zero emissions” should correctly be replaced with “displaced/relocated emissions”.
If a Plug-In Hybrid runs on its ICE at all, isn’t it producing the evil CO2 at that time? Not really zero emissions then, is it? But the advocates of Net Zero will redefine words to make their case.
It is very likely that most of the juice for the plug-in hybrids was produce by a thermal power plants using coal or nat. gas which emit CO2. New York gets lots of hydro power from Canada.
“Evil” CO2 comes out of your nose, so what’s your point?
Story tip:
You should post Vice President Vance’s speech
Vice President J D Vance just gave a speech at the Munich Security Conference where he castigated the European leaders for straying from Democracy and for censoring free speech and locking people up for silently praying in public, among other things.
It was a *very* good speech, and Vance pulled no punches, and then Fox News cut away from it before he finished, which made me extremely unhappy.
Vance was giving a great speech concerning things that people who come here are concerned with. I was very impressed.
I would have posted this to you on your news tip page, but couldn’t find a news tip page.
Locked up for silent prayers in public? Really?
Yes, outside an abortion clinic. There are plenty of places in the UK where you can pray silently, but outside an abortion clinic is not one of them. The view taken by the authorities, rightly or wrongly, is that silent prayer outside an abortion clinic is a sort of public demonstration from which visitors should be spared.
England defines where people can pray?
No, it doesn’t. It restricts what people can do within a certain distance of abortion clinics, and this includes engaging in a demonstration under either the pretense or reality of praying, silently or aloud.
I am not saying this is right or wrong, but the fact is, its not particularly regulating prayer, its regulating what people can do in some particular places.
The law in England permits abortion in some circumstances. There are people who do not think this is right, and wish the law was different, and who also think that no-one should be accessing these clinics under the present law. So they began by demonstrations outside them with a view to discouraging the clients. These were banned as constituting harassment of the clients. So the demonstrators then found less obvious ways of demonstrating, one of which was prayer, and finally silent prayer.
Whether rightly or wrongly the Government is seeking to ban demonstrations outside these clinics primarily directed at their clients, and by that it means any kind of demonstration. Its basically saying pray all you want, aloud or in silence. Just not in this particular place and in the path of those using the perfectly legal services offered.
This doesn’t strike me really as a free speech issue. You can say whatever you want about the subject, and you can demonstrate your views in lots of ways, including by either silent or aloud prayer. Just not outside a clinic and in the path of those coming to it in search of services which, whatever we think of them, are legal under UK law.
For the sake of disclosure, I do think there are very significant ethical issues with the current UK law on this subject. I am not arguing the merits of the law. There are also a host of free speech issues in the UK at the moment, I am not minimizing them.
I am just saying, this is not one of them.
Why not outside a clinic? It’s public space and you are not impeding anyone, unlike the Xtinction mob who glue themselves to roadways. And if you are praying in silence, who’s to say what your thoughts are.
This is very much a matter of free speech. The UK has very much lost its way and is well down the road to 1984 and Wokedom. Perhaps being on the inside, you have no good perspective on the problem.
Tried to explain what the real situation on this is, but it seems to be rejecting my post. The answer is yes, but it was not simply silent prayer, which you can do pretty much anywhere in the UK, except for the particular place where this guy chose publicly to do it.
It’s really sad that some people are so afraid of religion, that even the sight of someone praying, triggers them.
No, that is not what is going on. There are probably people all over London silently praying at the moment, on buses, in department stores, in Trafalgar Square, in coffee shops. All kinds of denominations. Probably there are Druids praying at Stonehenge as I write. No-one cares and neither does the Government.
The issue here is that these guys are demonstrating in the form of ostentatiously praying. Its the demonstrating that is being banned.
Its entirely understandable that people should object to the current state of UK law, and to the current practices which it has given rise to. And they are at liberty to demonstrate their feelings and to try and get the law changed. They are also at liberty to (and do) take action to try lower the use of the clinics – they have set up alternative counselling centers, I am not sure how much used or successful, and that is perfectly lawful also.
Its just that expressing this opposition in this particular way at this particular location is not lawful.
Last I looked, Scotland is part of the UK. According to their law, if your home is within the ‘exclusionary’ zone around a clinic, it is technically illegal to pray in your own home. Please clarify if that is not the case.
But that’s the point. Why is it not lawful in this particular way at this particular location?
Yes, really. https://reason.com/2023/02/10/in-britain-you-can-be-arrested-for-silently-praying-outside-an-abortion-clinic/
One woman has apparently defended herself to the point where she got a small payout but no admission of wrongdoing by the police.
Full speech available here:
I appreciate that! 🙂
Hybrids are expensive to repair – replacing the battery is not cheap. And, I forget, why do I want more gas mileage? I believe I pay more in vehicle taxes and insurance than gasoline.
Most EVs worldwide are powered by carbon fuels….there goes another Tesla powered by…..coal…….don’t tell Elon.
…or most likely nat. gas.
Pffft,Elon doesn’t care, he already got the sale..!
In the ’70s & ’80s Jet Industries produced all electric cars using lead acid golf cart batteries they went about 50 miles on a charge. At least that’s what the I met about ten years ago said. He showed me the batteries before he silently drove off. Jet Industries Wikipedia
I’m of the opinion that a small plug-in Hybd with acid batteries instead of the fire prone Lions currently being pushed on us would be just the ticket .
GM produced the EV 1 years ago powered by lead bats….the EV 1 was lease only and GM concluded there was a small market composed of EV enthusiasts only and recalled the EV 1. Auto co.s will gladly sell whatever people will buy……hybrids are more complex and expensive than gasoline.
There are numerous large “golf carts” in the town of Laguna Beach, California. They have license plates and are street-legal. Not very fast, especially going up hill, but ideal for a run to the grocery store.
Toyota has used nickel-metal hydride (NiMH) batteries with great success in many of its hybrid electric vehicles. I believe they are still putting them in some of their cars but I’m not positive.
nickel-metal hydride batteries don’t spontaneously combust like lithium batteries do.
A non-plug-in hybrid EV would be a good choice if it used safe batteries, which rules out lithium batteries, as far as I’m concerned.
“In the ’70s & ’80s Jet Industries produced all electric cars using lead acid golf cart batteries they went about 50 miles on a charge. At least that’s what the I met about ten years ago said.”
One of the pop science magazines of that time, Popular Science or Popular Mechanix had some articles about converting a pickup truck to battery power.
They fixed the pickup truck bed so that they could elevate it like a dump truck does, for the purpose of getting easy access to the lead-acid batteries that were mounted underneath the bed in a special frame attached to the truck’s frame rails. I forget how many batteries they used, but they filled up the space from the back bumper to just behind the truck cab with batteries.
They claimed they could get about 75 miles on one charge.
Roger, informative article, as usual. Notwithstanding NY’s ongoing energy nuttiness, I can’t help but notice that electricity prices (LBMPs) are usually much lower in NY-ISO than in NE-ISO. I assume this is because ‘progressive’ NY, even if it won’t allow the development (via fracking) of its own plentiful gas reserves, still has access to interstate gas, while effectively blocking access of this resource to its equally progressive New England neighbors. Given that my state (CT) has some of the highest energy prices in the US, I can only hope that either NY comes to its senses or that the Trump administration or the NE AGs goes after NY for impeding interstate commerce.
What keeps you in that hell hole called CT?
I want so badly to move out of MN with it’s spectacularly stupid governor.
“Comparing the Strategic Use of Low-Carbon Fuels scenario projections over time shows that 2023 was te only year when the observed Battery Electric sales exceeded the projections.”
The average USA car lasts (need to update this with search but for now: about) 20 years.
It is now 2025.
The average car bought this year will still be on the roads in 2025+20 = 2045.
I don’t how the people who made the scenario skipped this most basic analysis.
Maybe they expect the chairman to start confiscating the pre-2025 gas cars by 2030?
I don’t know.
“In 2024, the average age of cars and light trucks in the United States was 12.6 years, according to S&P Global Mobility.”
12.6 is age not lifespan… lifespan must therefore be much greater than 12.6.
What it means is that if you pass a car you don’t recognize and have to guess its age, then 12 years old (circa 2013) is a good guess.
Show me a battery that gets 1000 miles per charge, charges in less than 10 minutes, and doesn’t catch fire when damaged and I’ll show you a parabolic sales chart.
OK, but the bat costs $50k
How do they determine how many electric vehicles are “on the road”? It looks like they are just adding together the total number of new electrics registered over the time period being measured.
I wonder what percentage of electrics sold 6 or more years ago, are still on the road?
Those ugly electric trucks probably have a niche resale market forever just so the buyer can show off.
I can’t think of a reason anyone would buy a 6 yo Nissan Leaf.
Paperweight for really huge paper?
Boat anchor that explodes into fizzy stuff when deployed?
Sinking four cement blocks through thick sod in front yard?
There are no surprises here since figures from Europe have also shown drops in EV/hybrid sales and overall production in most countries, especially in Germany, the biggest continental producer. The projections cited above are inevitable from the most optimistic and usually unrealistic sources; i.e., environmentalists, academics and bureaucrats paid to present overestimations of EV/hybrid/ and general green product demand.
Very nice Roger. It is past time to directly challenge the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act. Those responsible for the act must be made to publicly prove the things they have included in the act. If they can’t convincingly prove everything in the act then the act must be abolished until it can be proved. There is absolutely no reason to put up with dishonest legislation purposely misleading the people. It must stop now.