Roger Caiazza
Francis Menton’s recent article about New York’s Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act) explained that the decision by Interior Secretary Doug Burgum to halt to all construction work on a project called Empire Wind means that one interim target cannot be achieved. As reality causes the implosion of the Climate Act outsiders undoubtedly wonder why New Yorkers have not called for repeal of the law before. A recent poll by the Empire Center offers some insight into that question.
The Climate Act established a New York “Net Zero” target (85% reduction in GHG emissions and 15% offset of emissions) by 2050. It includes an interim requirement for 70% of electricity 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.” Lately the State has been trying to implement the Scoping Plan recommendations through regulations, proceedings, and legislation.
Poll Overview
The Empire Center is an independent, not-for-profit, non-partisan think tank dedicated to promoting policies that can make New York a better place to live, work and raise a family. In the interests of full disclosure, I am an adjunct fellow of the Empire Center.
Late last year the Empire Center canvassed 1,021 New York registered voters in a poll conducted by Morning Consult. There were 38 questions in the survey and 16 questions about the demographics of the respondents. Survey toplines and crosstabs are available. For survey neophytes like me the topline lists the questions and the overall results. Crosstabs provide the breakdown of responses to questions by the demographic categories.
There were six questions were included about the Climate Act. I only address the first two questions in this article.
Climate Act Awareness
The responses to the question “How familiar are you, if at all, with the provisions of the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (also known as CLCPA or the Climate Act) that was signed into law in New York in 2019?” show that the reason that there hasn’t been much pushback about the Climate Act is that the majority of New Yorkers are unaware of it. The survey found that 45% of the people polled had never heard of it and another 24% had heard of it, but didn’t know what it is. In my opinion, if they only have a general sense of the law (another 19%), then they are probably unaware of the details. That means 88% of New Yorkers polled do not know what is coming in enough detail to understand its impacts on affordability, personal choice, reliability, and environmental impacts.
I guess New York is getting what it deserves but I wonder how many people in other jurisdictions with similar net-zero legislation have any idea about the impacts of unrealistic policies header their way.
Willingness to Pay
In my opinion, the reality slap to New Yorkers will be when the costs go up and the Hochul Administration can no longer hide the extraordinary costs. This is because I have never seen any poll regarding a willingness to pay that did not find most people are willing to pay very much. This is verification for Roger Pielke Jr.’s Iron Law of Climate “While people are often willing to pay some price for achieving climate objectives, that willingness has its limits.”
This poll is no different. One third of the respondents are not willing to anything on their monthly energy bill for cleaner energy. Another 28% are only willing to pay up to $20 a month for cleaner energy while another 20% would pay up to $40 a month. Nineteen percent are willing to pay up to $200 a month but only 3% are willing to pay more than $200 per month. Another 7% did not know or had no opinion.
National Grid Long-Term Gas Plan
One of the components in the Scoping Plan is to eventually electrify the natural gas system. I recently described the comments I submitted on Case 24-G-0248 Review of the Long-Term Gas System Plan for National Grid. That plan describes how the three National Grid New York operating companies intend to transition away from natural gas projected out to 2050.
I was frankly surprised with the consumer costs projected for just this component of the Climate Act transition plan. The scenarios include a reference case, CEV or “clean energy vision”, and AE or “accelerated electrification”. The difference between the reference case and the CEV scenario represents the minimum cost of the Climate Act. The following tables (using original table numbers) are from the Long-Term Gas System Plan document for three service territories now owned by National Grid in New York.
The 2030 average monthly increase for National Grid customers in the former Niagara Mohawk service territory in Upstate New York ranges from a 50% increase to a 96% increase. The Climate Act cost by 2030 is $57 additional per month.
Table 12-11: Niagara Mohawk Bill Impacts by Scenario
Credit: National Grid Long-Term Gas System Plan
The 2030 average monthly increase for National Grid customers in the former Brooklyn Union Gas service territory in New York City ranges from a 65% increase to a 148% increase. The Climate Act cost by 2030 is $43 additional per month.
Table 12-12: Brooklyn Union Gas Company Bill Impacts by Scenario
Credit: National Grid Long-Term Gas System Plan
The 2030 average monthly increase for National Grid customers in the former Key Span service territory on Long Island ranges from a 41% increase to a 90% increase. The Climate Act cost by 2030 is $44 additional per month.
Table 12-13: KeySpan Gas (LILCO) Bill Impacts by Scenario
Credit: National Grid Long-Term Gas System Plan
Willingness to Pay for National Grid Long-Term Gas Plan
In the National Grid Long-Term Gas Plan, the expected increase in price to implement the “clean energy vision” consistent with the Climate Act exceeds $40 per month for all three service companies. I consolidated cross tab survey results as show in Table 1 that lists the willingness to pay $40 per month for selected demographics of the survey participants in the Empire Center poll. Note that 71% of respondents said that they were unwilling to pay more than $40 per month. I am not going to discuss the demographic breakdowns but present them for your edification.
Table 1: Empire Center Willingness to Pay for Increased Energy Costs Relative to National Grid Expected Gas System Transition Costs of at least $40 per Month Additional by 2030
Discussion
The electric and gas utilities must invest in programs that will implement the Climate Act mandates and those costs are starting to show up in their rate case proceedings. The National Grid Long-Term Plan to transition the gas system out of existence which is necessary to comply with the Climate Act is but one example. The expected cost increase by 2030 to fulfill the clean energy vision is more than $40 per month. Only 22% of the people polled were willing to pay that much.
I recently submitted comments about affordability in Proceeding 22-M-0149 “Assessing Implementation of and Compliance with the Requirements and Targets of the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act”. On March 26, 2025, Jessica Waldorf, Chief of Staff and Director of Policy Implementation for the Department of Public Service (DPS) posted a letter responding to a letter from Michael B. Mager Counsel to Multiple Intervenors that had been submitted earlier in March to Chair of the Public Service Commission Rory Christian regarding the affordability standard. The Mager letter from the Multiple Intervenors pointed out that the DPS and New York State Energy Research & Development Authority (NYSEDA) were supposed to provide an annual report describing Climate Act implementation costs. No report was produced in 2024 and the letter asked when the next report would be provided. Waldorf’s response made no commitment. Given the politicization of all New York agencies and the “willingness to pay” results I don’t think that it is surprising that the Hochul Administration is failing to report on Climate Act as mandated.
Keep in mind that the natural gas transition cost component is only one program. Electric bills will need to increase by at least the same amount to pay for the infrastructure necessary to electrify everything. The New York Cap-and-Invest program is nothing more than a tax on carbon that will necessarily increase the cost of gasoline and heating fuels. Personal investments in electrifying homes and transportation by most New Yorkers will be necessary. I believe that a proper cost estimate will show that consumer costs will exceed $200 a month.
Inevitably people will figure out that there is a law in place that is causing much of the observed increase in energy costs. I also believe that the Hochul Administration is fully aware of the ramifications of Climate Act costs on the next election. Consequently, they are delaying implementation of the mandate to produce an annual cost information report as long as possible and may even try to wait until after the 2026 election.
In the meantime, the politicians will be more than willing to let the utilities take the heat for the inevitable observed cost increases. No doubt they will simultaneously forbid the utilities to explicitly break out the Climate Act costs in the consumer bills all the while demanding that utilities lower their rate case proposals.
Conclusion
Any way you look at the willingness to pay question response, the Empire Center survey confirms Roger Pielke Jr’s Iron Law of Climate. People polled are not willing to pay much for the net-zero aspirations of the Climate Act if 50% are unwilling to pay more than $10 per month for cleaner energy. It is troubling that 88% of the New Yorkers polled had no more than a general sense of the Climate Act and many had never heard of it. This is setting up a reckoning for all the politicians that foisted the Climate Act on New Yorkers. It is inevitable that the politicians will reconsider and give up on it or be voted out for utter stupidity. The only question is whether political reality will occur before the electric and gas system is destroyed and costs bankrupts the state.
Roger Caiazza blogs on New York energy and environmental issues at Pragmatic Environmentalist of New York. The opinions expressed in this post do not reflect the position of any of his previous employers or any other organization he has been associated with.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
No one should be surprised by their dumb laws as they are dominated by leftist morons who thinks they can make a difference when it is impossible mathematically.
The mania over CO2 MUST end and get on with dealing with a cooling future that is INEVITABLY coming.
From Duck Assist: “Assuming an average inflation rate of about 3% per year, a $40 item in 2025 could cost approximately $52.40 in 2030. “
So the cost to households will increase like the cost of a loaf of bread. At least we can eat the bread.
New York’s Net Zero aspirations are as practical as Sri Lanka’s organic agriculture initiative, and will end up in the same way if not withdrawn. No wonder Kathy Hochul is also into gun control.
HIGH COST/kWh OF W/S SYSTEMS FOISTED ONTO A BRAINWASHED PUBLIC
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/high-cost-kwh-of-w-s-systems-foisted-onto-a-brainwashed-public-1
.
What is generally not known, the more weather-dependent W/S systems, the less efficient the traditional generators, as they inefficiently counteract the increasingly larger ups and downs of W/S output. See URL
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/fuel-and-co2-reductions-due-to-wind-energy-less-than-claimed
.
W/S systems add great cost to the overall delivery of electricity to users; the more W/S systems, the higher the cost/kWh, as proven by the UK and Germany, with the highest electricity rates in Europe, and near-zero, real-growth GDPs
At about 30% W/S, the entire system hits an increasingly thicker concrete wall, operationally and cost wise.
The UK and Germany are hitting the wall, more and more hours each day.
The cost of electricity delivered to users increased with each additional W/S/B system
.
Nuclear, gas, coal and reservoir hydro plants are the only rational way forward.
Increased CO2 ppm is an absolutely essential life gas for increased growth of green flora that supports abundant fauna, and increased crop yields to feed 8 billion people
Net zero by 2050 to reduce CO2 is a super-expensive suicide pact
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/we-are-in-a-co2-famine
.
Subsidies shift costs from project Owners to ratepayers, taxpayers, government debt:
1) Federal and state tax credits, up to 50% (Community tax credit of 10 percent – Federal tax credit of 30 percent – State tax credit and other incentives of up to 10%);
2) 5-y Accelerated Depreciation write off of the entire project;
3) Loan interest deduction
.
Utilities pay 15 c/kWh, wholesale, after 50% subsidies, for electricity from fixedoffshore wind systems
Utilities pay 18 c/kWh, wholesale, after 50% subsidies, for electricity from floating offshore wind
Utilities pay 12 c/kWh, wholesale, after 50% subsidies, for electricity from larger solar systems
.
Excluded costs, at a future 30% W/S annual penetration on the grid, based on UK and German experience:
– Onshore grid expansion/reinforcement to connect distributed W/S systems, about 2 c/kWh
– A fleet of traditional power plants to quickly counteract W/S variable output, on a less than minute-by-minute basis, 24/7/365, which leads to more Btu/kWh, more CO2/kWh, more cost of about 2 c/kWh
– A fleet of traditional power plants to provide electricity during 1) low-wind periods, 2) high-wind periods, when rotors are locked in place, and 3) low solar periods during mornings, evenings, at night, snow/ice on panels, which leads to more Btu/kWh, more CO2/kWh, more cost of about 2 c/kWh
– Pay W/S system Owners for electricity they could have produced, if not curtailed, about 1 c/kWh
– Importing electricity at high prices, when W/S output is low, 1 c/kWh
– Exporting electricity at low prices, when W/S output is high, 1 c/kWh
– Disassembly on land and at sea, reprocessing and storing at hazardous waste sites, about 2 c/kWh
Some of these values exponentially increase as more W/S systems are added to the grid
.
The economic/financial insanity and environmental damage of it all is off the charts.
No wonder Europe’s near-zero, real-growth economy is in de-growth mode.
That economy has been tied into knots by inane people.
YOUR tax dollars are building these projects so YOU will have much higher electric bills.
Remove YOUR tax dollars using your vote, and none of these projects would be built, and YOUR electric bills would be lower.
At least they started with the admission it’s going to cost more. You see the activists in the media and even here like Nick and mates peddling the lie that it’s cheaper and/or free energy.
It will cost so much for Net-zero by 2050 to reduce CO2, an absolutely essential ingredient of life on earth, only the very richest of countries MIGHT be able to afford it
New York State is on a path to death’s door
It can keep company with the UK and Germany
NO FEDERAL BAILOUTS FOR NEW YORK STATE
“The Owners of Empire Wind One were awarded a contract to charge 15.5 cents/kWh for
variable, intermittent power,” O’Donnell told The Post. “It’s a subsidy, because if you didn’t have Empire Wind One, the utilities would buy much more valuable, steady power from the wholesale market at about 5 c/kWh.”
.
Owners would have to charge 30 c/kWh, if there were no subsidies, such as:
1) Federal and state tax credits, up to 50% (Community tax credit of 10 percent – Federal tax credit of 30 percent – State tax credit and other incentives of up to 10%);
2) 5-y Accelerated Depreciation write off of the entire project;
3) Loan interest deduction
Subsidies shift costs from project Owners to ratepayers, taxpayers, government debt
.
The total amount of the subsidy, O’Donnell said, would be $9 billion.
The New York Independent System Operator (NYISO), who manages the state’s power grid, is mandated, by law, to buy grid-disturbing power from environmentally destructive windmills, that last 20 to 25 years, instead of from 60%-efficient, gas-fired CCGT plants, that last 40 years or nuclear plants, that last 60 to 80 years.
And there will be no affective change in anything weather/climate due to these preposterous actions.
I checked with my niece who lives in NY, near Syracuse. She was only vaguely aware of the law, but took state subsidies to replace her furnace last year, expecting her gas prices to go down because she bought the model the state encouraged. She was surprised that they went up instead. And now is “disgusted” to be told that gas prices will likely increase by 50-148% in the next 4 years. Oh, well. She is a NY voter, and she is getting what she voted for, even if she didn’t know it at the time.
Well let them hit the wall at lightning speed, lefties dumb as they are never learn so let them suffer. Smart people vote with their feet and prosper elsewhere.
The only thing, besides screwing everything up, lefties are better at is blaiming others for their own and everlasting stupidity.
New York should better call itself the “Big ROTTEN Apple” – show at least some honesty lefties !!! SARC !!!
Much snowflake emotion and blubbering over the prior Indo nickel guilt tripping motion-
Electric vehicle charger company pulls out of Yeppoon installation
but there was no money in it anyway for Evie Networks. Sound familiar?
It couldn’t happen to a nicer people?
They figured it out for the lawfaristas-
Scientists say they can now calculate the trillions in climate damage caused by fossil fuel giants
as you do with the scientific method.
Of course, no such study could accomplish what is claimed. I am sure that they forgot to account for the benefits of using the products, and so far as I can see, there have been no damages via weather or long term climate. Damages from actual pollution (e.g., lead, ground level ozone; NOx, toxics, waste disposal) have been dramatically reduced and are stable or falling in developed nations.
As for actual damages or imagined, unverifiable weather/climate effects, the study apparently places blame on the wrong people. The product doesn’t cause emissions until people use it. Therefore, damages, if any, are caused by the end users, not the suppliers.
Can anyone imagine life without Coal, oil, or NG? World population still less than 1 Billion. Still grinding flour with two flat rocks, and the miller would only be grinding when the wind blows. Horse population would be equal to human population. Half of food producing land used to feed horses. Average life span will not exceed the 30’s.
Go ahead and let you imagination run; where would civilization be today? Perhaps some advanced version of the Roman Empire in some locals.
“Scientists say….”
Stop reading at that point.
That works most of the time as it’s silly to continue reading after that statement.
I’ve never met anyone who could predict the future, including scientists.
Nice post. Roger exposes with data the stark contrast between green dreams and economic realities.
Altruism dies when it costs.
Altruism dies when it costs your money.
“Nothing is so unimportant that you can’t spend someone else’s money on it.”
As energy costs go up in NY I expect many companies to leave the state.
I think companies are already leaving the state. The key for most businesses is reliable energy which will be gone shortly in NY. Winters will see significant reductions in the remaining populations.
“…politicians will be more than willing to let the utilities take the heat for the inevitable observed cost increases…”
This will be the inevitable outcome of that ridiculous law. The one who touched it last is responsible.
You see, the utilities did not start the conversion to “green” power soon enough and are only interested in making money even though it kills the Earth. That will be the inevitable politicians’ story line when it hits the fan.
Excellent review, Roger. Keep up the good work.
Some big news was announced Tuesday about a huge dairy products plant to be built by Chobani at the Griffiss Business and Technology Park in Rome NY. I am very familiar with the energy usage profile for this sort of operation. I will be trying to find whatever commitments have been made for natural gas supply and for electricity for this new plant. This will be a $1.2B investment, 1,400,000 square feet of facility, capable of taking in 12 million lbs per day of milk. This is more than 2x the milk intake capacity of their already huge South Edmeston facility in Chenango County.
Why am I mentioning this? Because surely there have been NY State commitments made that limit or moderate the energy costs for this new facility. It cannot be otherwise and make any sense at all that Chobani would do this. The politicians know all this, of course, and the lunacy of the CLCPA will have to come to light. The State will have to continue to shovel favorable energy deals out to businesses while forcing residential and commercial users toward much higher costs.
Thank you. Very good points about the Chobani proposal. I am sure you are right.
Excellent review, Roger. Keep up the good work.
Some big news was announced Tuesday about a huge dairy products plant to be built by Chobani at the Griffiss Business and Technology Park in Rome NY. I am very familiar with the energy usage profile for this sort of operation. I will be trying to find whatever commitments have been made for natural gas supply and for electricity for this new plant. This will be a $1.2B investment, 1,400,000 square feet of facility, capable of taking in 12 million lbs per day of milk. This is more than 2x the milk intake capacity of their already huge South Edmeston facility in Chenango County.
Why am I mentioning this? Because surely there have been NY State commitments made that limit or moderate the energy costs for this new facility. It cannot be otherwise and make any sense at all that Chobani would do this. The politicians know all this, of course, and the lunacy of the CLCPA will have to come to light. The State will have to continue to shovel favorable energy deals out to businesses while forcing residential and commercial users toward much higher costs.
I have no idea why this comment was duplicated. I didn’t do it.
Probably because it was worth repeating.
Thanks for that. 🙂
Treat it as reinforcement!
The takeaway seems to be that Blue voters are, by and large, clueless about what is going on, but eagerly, or at least dutifully, keep following along. Never been to a slaughterhouse, but I imagine the same applies there.
The goal is economic slavery for the deplorables.
The real tragedy will occur when people cannot heat their homes and the inevitable next mini ice age arrives.
I’m 88yo and would like to live long enough to see how is turns out, but probably won’t make it. ‘Probably take a couple of big, bad blackouts to convince the politicians to change course in NY state. Thanks to Roger for his long-term efforts to inject sanity into this process.
Great post, Roger.
Of note: the responses to question 8 run somewhat contrary to the others. When people ask about “balance” the respondent begins to ponder the issue I would say “in a vacuum.” They would like to find a balance between green and economical, but the green aspects are viewed in a vacuum. This is at least partially because people may think they understand economics, but most know so little about the topic that they can’t even evaluate their own ignorance. Yet, a significant portion of the responses are because balance presents considerations of two things that occupy different judgments — I.e. the Venn diagram of idealistic “green” outcomes and the harder reality of economic considerations has no overlap, even when they receive that startling power bill.
Roger, I assume New York still has a moratorium (or whatever the proper terminology is) on gas exploration in the state? Is there any chance that they will ever change to take advantage of their own state resources?
They banned hydraulic fracking a long time ago because of dangers to the water supply. Recently they banned tests usihg propane in the fracking process apparently because it was inimical to the Climate Act. I don’t know for sure but I believe that gas exploration is stalled in NY. When they bvanned fracking gas companies shut down existing wells. Absent a major change in policy, exploiting natural gas is stalle.
Thanks for the reply. my sister and two brothers have mineral rights (if they haven’t been confiscated while we weren’t paying attention) to a small parcel in Chemung County. Guess we’ll never see a penny in royalties from that. oh, well…
And it will change ‘climate’ favorably by 0%. Same crap is trying to happen here in MN too. These idiots need to be tarred and feathered and much worse.
I notice that every question that is asked assumes the legitimacy of government to dictate individual energy use.
I didn’t see any provision in there for Laissez-faire, which used to be the case. Even FERC held for some time an avoidance to “name the fuel” in its policies, allowing those directly involved in energy production, distribution and consumption to work it out.
New York had “home rule” provisions where a local jurisdiction could say that, for example, they did not want solar farms. Not surprisingly there are no renewable energy siting mandates in place that over rule home rule.