Roger Caiazza
There finally has been a long overdue admission that the New York Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act) might not be affordable.
As part of local re-election outreach Governor Hochul turned up at a western New York restaurant to discuss affordability issues. Buffalo TV Station WRGZ 2 On You Side asked (suggested that a “slow down” on the Climate Act was needed and costs are an issue:
We asked: “On affordability, you mentioned utility bills. Heard you say it, governor. Isn’t it true that ratepayers are paying for that because of the climate change law. We do know the the Public Service Commission (in February 2023) actually allowed for increased rates to be able to pay for some of that, connecting various …”
The Governor responded, “This law goes back a number of years.”
At the end of her long response on utility rates and energy strategy, there was this summation from Hochul: “You’re absolutely right. Utility costs are a huge burden of families, and I’ll do whatever I can to alleviate that.”
It was inevitable that the impact of the Climate Act on energy affordability would become a political liability. The Governor’s suggestion that a “slow down” on implantation of the Climate Act was needed suggests that implementation has been on schedule. That is not true. Implementing regulations, proceedings, and legislation are all lagging behind schedule.
I used Perplexity (https://www.perplexity.ai/) to generate summaries and references related to the implementation status and impact on rates for this response. In one example, the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) failed to meet the January 1, 2024 deadline for promulgating emissions reduction regulations. That prompted a lawsuit by environmental groups demanding action.
As a result of delays interim Climate Act targets are in danger. According to the Climate Act Dashboard , New York has achieved only a 9% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions compared to 1990 levels, representing just 23% progress toward the 2030 target of 40% reduction.
WGRZ-TV confronted Hochul about the implementation status and she said: “I had to take a closer look and realize we cannot reach those objectives there were, back before I became governor, in a time frame that’s going to not hurt ratepayers, so we’re slowing things down. I want to make sure people know that.” My cynical take is that this statement is pure political theater.
The reality is that there is a Public Service Commission mandate to provide an annual update of implementation status and ratepayer cost impacts. The first Informational Report was released in July 2023 but there hasn’t been an update since. I believe that the decision to delay the release was at the behest of the Governor’s office. There is no more direct and immediate impact of Climate Act implementation to New Yorkers than utility bills and that reality is becoming too large to hide.
The Perplexity reference analysis noted that the first and only Informational Report provided detailed breakdowns of climate-related costs passed through to customers. For residential electric customers, CLCPA-related costs represented 3.7% to 9.8% of total monthly bills, with some utilities showing higher percentages. For non-residential customers with 2,000 kW and 720,000 kWh usage, CLCPA costs represented 4.6% to 11.8% of total monthly bills. This evaluation was for 2022 when implementation efforts were just getting started. The most recent rate cases request double digit increases – National Grid’s Niagara Mohawk case is asking for 20% increase in electric delivery revenues.
It is no wonder that Governor Hochul has realized that she cannot simultaneously complain about the greedy utility rate increase requests and continue to support the inevitable costs associated with the net-zero transition.
There is another apparent realization by the Hochul Administration. They have figured out that wind and solar cannot be the backbone of the electric system and have come out in favor of developing new nuclear resources. The WGRZ-TV article noted:
“We need all of the above for energy,” she said. “We’re going to have to do more than just rely upon wind and solar and thermal. We have a large percentage of our state powered by hydro power. We’re blessed to have that, but I want to lean into nuclear power. Build it.”
Of course, the usual suspects are not happy.
Cornell Professor Robert W. Howarth, who is a biogeochemist and environmental scientist, told us: “The New York Climate Law is one of the most progressive pieces out there when we passed it in 2019. It was held up as a model to the rest of the world as to how we should move ahead. We’re behind in reaching those targets, and I’m disappointed that the governor doesn’t see the urgency in pushing ahead to meet those targets. We really should be doing that.”
Regarding nuclear power, Howarth said: “Nuclear power is extremely expensive technology, extremely slow to deploy. The resources are just much better put into renewable technology and the heat pump technologies.”
Professor Howarth also pointed out that the higher cost of electricity could also be tied to the higher cost of natural gas, which, again, is a significant part of the current power production mix for the state power grid.
I disagree with everything he said. Howarth has not had a stellar record for academic rigor. Nonetheless he has always had an outsized influence on the Climate Act and the Scoping Plan implementation process. Reality is catching up to him too.
Where does New York go from here? The Climate Act has always been about emotional arguments to cater to climate activist constituents and supporting crony capitalists feeding at the trough. I have spent the last couple of months trying to intervene in utility rate cases arguing that the State has not defined what they mean by affordability and reliability making continued investments risky. I believe that the Hochul Administration could use previously unacknowledged safety value provisions to argue that it is inappropriate to implement the Climate Act. The political approach could be to simply acknowledge that without Federal tax breaks and incentives that may all be gone with the recent passage of Trump’s Big, Beautiful, Bill that the net-zero transition is impossible. She already threw previous Governor Cuomo under the bus when she suggested that “we cannot reach those objectives” that were put in place before she became governor. The strategy where a Progressive Democrat blames others for the failure of her own misguided initiatives seems most likely to me.
I do not care how the madness ends if it stops.
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.
I believe this program, like similar programs in California and elsewhere, were exercises in “demand the impossible”, a delusion Moore’s Law applies to all technologies.
I think Hochul, Cuomo, and Newsom are baffled by any technology more complex than a screwdriver.
Are you referring to a + or a – screwdriver?
I think I am engaging in understatement.
I have no doubt you would baffle them completely if you asked them about Torx, Phillips or Flat.
Damn, I thought it was a vodka and orange juice.
Never mind a McFeely drive.
Could be a U screwed driver.
As liberal arts “professionals” anything beyond the Stone Age is baffling.
If their plan, written by lawyers and lobbyists with systems to sell, were implemented, we would be back to the Stone Age, but there would be much less than one tenth of us, because of brutal conditions
WW2, my dad worked with American troops. Some time later he was doing some repair work at home. He held up his hammer, “This is what Americans use to drive screws.” (Over 30 years too late now to ask if he was making a joke.)
If at first you don’t succeed use a bigger hammer.
Moore’s Law for Power Production is Comic-Book Technology:
Another good review of our situation here in NY. Keep up the good work!
Here’s a suggestion – let’s get Professor Howarth to testify before the U.S. Senate. I would love to see Senator Kennedy from Louisiana question him about why NY is sitting on billions of cubic feet of untapped natural gas, perfect for supplying new combined-cycle natural gas power plants, and yet here we are pushing offshore wind and battery storage.
And let’s hammer on this issue too, that the Governor mentioned – upstate electricity consumption is already over 80% non-emitting with all those hydro and nuclear sources. Why does the downstate situation, so heavily reliant on gas and dual-fuel sources, get to dictate anything about energy or “climate” policy up here?!? /rant
https://www.nyiso.com/d/51813991
Because downstate has lots and lots of Dems and rich idiots who make large campaign donations
I admit I don’t know how all this stuff works. It would seem to me that any rate increase would be the result of the utility requesting it from the controlling regulatory office. It would be up to the regulatory office to increase the rate or not. I can’t imagine that the request wouldn’t include a complete itemized account for costs/expenses to justify the increase. Wouldn’t all regulatory costs be a part of that report? The cost of net zero regulations should clearly be there for everybody to see. We should all be able to distinguish the cost to us for net zero that is included in our payments to the utility.
Get the government OUT OF ENERGY
All it does is make it more expensive
As I recall from my past life in the utility industry, rate increases associated with meeting regulatory requirements were almost a pass-through, not to be questioned. Too bad they are not a line item on one’s bill so we can see exactly how much those requirements contribute to our bottom line billing.
The rate case costs are there, sort of.There is no summary description in the rate cases I have reviewed. There are some numbers but it is not clear if they are are inclusive. There are specific projects that include Climate Act costs but it is not clear if they were it not for the law or stuff that needs to get done that is classifed that way to make sure it gets done. The big issue is that the state is supposed to do an annual evaluation of the costs but the repport covering 2023 is a year late. The decision to not release that is all Hochul.
Thanks Roger. The cost of energy regulation should be clearly shown on my power bill. I don’t mind too much paying for gas and electricity but I loath paying for more crappy government.
I just bought gasoline at a station today which had several conspicuous signs which read
“You just bought a quarter of a tank of taxes and fees.”
$5.699 for regular; granted, right by Interstate 5-
what’s in it, eggs?
Rod Adams of Atomic Insights shares my opinion that if the state of New York actually does build a nuclear plant in upstate New York, the GE Hitachi BWRX-300 design is the likely choice.
New York’s next nuclear plant is likely to be a four unit BWRX-300 installation
Adams’ reasoning is very similar to mine. A partnership with Ontario Power Generation would seem to be very advantageous for New York state if it can become a supplier of nuclear technology working in cooperation with the Canadians.
But here’s the big problem. OPG has estimated the nominal capital cost for the very first BWRX-300 reactor unit to be approximately $18,000 per kilowatt. This compares with ~ $14,000 per kilowatt for Vogtle 3 & 4.
Renewable energy advocates don’t care what wind and solar costs. But they do care what nuclear costs and will be making the point that OPG’s first SMR reactor will cost more per kilowatt than Vogtle 3 & 4 did.
Agreed. The problem is that Unit 1 of any technology is always the most expensive.
Russia, China and South Korea all build turnkey nuclear plants for $6000/kW, in about 5 to 7 years
wilpost: “Russia, China and South Korea all build turnkey nuclear plants for $6000/kW, in about 5 to 7 years.”
The Russians, the Chinese, and the South Koreans are always building a nuclear reactor somewhere. Unlike most western nations, they don’t lose their nuclear construction industrial base in long periods between reactor orders.
The constant-dollar costs of all large-scale industrial construction projects in the United States, not just nuclear projects, are two to three times more expensive than they were in the 1980’s.
A variety of factors are at work here. Competition for land and for access to civil infrastructure. The offshoring of supply chains for large-volume industrial commodities. Lack of indigenous suppliers for specialized low-volume industrial components such as electrical transformers. Lack of a skilled and experienced industrial construction workforce — tradesman, construction craft workers, project administratiors and managers. Onerous environmental compliance rules. Excessively long regulatory review and approval cycles.
Fifteen years ago, when we were doing cost estimates for US new-build 1,200 MW reactors, long-time industrial construction professionals were shocked at the numbers we were coming up with. The situation has only gotten worse since then as the deindustrialization of western nations continues.
Yep. South Korea has built 13 nuclear reactors since 1996 at an average construction time of 4.5 years – shorter for the most recent ones.
Decades ago, before 1985, I was in the design/build business of utility power plants, including nuclear.
Now, the US has a total lack of STEM professionals who are in high places to call the shots.
That vacuum was filled by lawyer/liberal arts/enviro functionaries who know next to nothing, except obstruction; Hochul and Newsom are demagogue-style examples
SMALL MODULAR REACTORS
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/small-modular-reactors
.
SMRs sounds good, but the electricity cost/kWh would be at least 2 times gas fired CCGT plants.
Such plants are up to 60% efficient, have very low CO2/kWh.
.
It would take at least 5 to 8 years to build SMRs at a rate of say 50 units per year, because the US no longer has the thousands of educated and trained nuclear engineering professionals capable of designing any nuclear plants.
The US lost that capability after Three Mile Island in March, 1979, more than 45 years ago.
.
Also, the US has not enough working-age people who 1) know how to do more complicated stuff, 2) care enough to do it, 3) have the work ethic and mental discipline, or 4) are otherwise inspired to make them selves useful.
Factories have 400,000 unfilled jobs, but there are few skilled, ambitious people to take them.
People have weird expectations; they want to make big bucks doing nothing.
.
The US has a total lack of Science/Technology/Engineering/Mathematics (STEM) professionals who are in high places to call the shots.
The US has been filling the shortfall with Chinese, Indian, etc., STEM folks.
The vacuum at the top was filled by lawyer/liberal arts/enviro functionaries who know next to nothing, except obstruction; Hochul, Newsom, etc., are demagogue-style examples.
.
At present, no country is set up to produce, say 50 SMRs per year, at 200 MW each.
China, Russia, South Korea, and the US, with large command/control economies, would be the only countries able set up the required A-to-Z infrastructures.
.
A 500 MW (2 units at 250 MW each) CCGT power plant can be built in two years, at a turnkey cost of $2000/kW.
New York State has finally agreed to allow the building of the gas pipeline from Pennsylvania to New England.
.
If four countries were building 50 SMRs/y each, it would require:
.
Increased uranium mining,
Processing the uranium into fuel bundles,
Constructing factories to produce components and subassemblies,
Constructing factories for assembling the final units near harbors.
Shipping the assembled unis to the site, likely by ship or barge,
Selection and preparation of the site near harbors,
Adding the remaining balance of plant systems,
Plant test operation of each subsystem,
Connecting the plant to the grid, with switchyard,
Test operation of the entire plant,
Commissioning the plant to produce electricity at design output
.
AI systems require lots of steady electricity
Each major AI system should be required to have its own power plant
.
By definition, weather-dependent, variable/intermittent, grid-disturbing, heavily subsidized, expensive wind and solar systems do not qualify.
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/high-cost-kwh-of-w-s-systems-foisted-onto-a-brainwashed-public-1
wilpost: “A 500 MW (2 units at 250 MW each) CCGT power plant can be built in two years, at a turnkey cost of $2000/kW.”
I’ll guess that the capital cost of a large CCGT power plant in the US has gone up substantially in the last five years because of inflation and because of a resurgence in worldwide demand for gas-fired generation.
What would it cost for a US-built 500 MW gas-fired CCGT plant of two 250 MW units ordered in the year 2025? Would such a plant cost $3000/kw and and take four years to build because of delays in the delivery of key long-lead systems?
Trump has declared a national energy emergency, which means he can prioritize, as needed.
NUCLEAR PLANTS TOO EXPENSIVE?
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/nuclear-plants-too-expensive-1
.
In France, the turnkey cost of the 1,600 MW Flamanville plant was $13.7 billion, or $8,563/installed MW
Plants built by Russia, China and South Korea are about $5,500/installed MW
Expensive nuclear plant building is strictly a “rules-based” Western thing.
.
Nuclear Plants by Russia
According to the IAEA, during the first half of 2023, a total of 407 nuclear reactors are in operation at power plants across the world, with a total capacity at about 370,000 MW
Nuclear was 2546 TWh, or 9.2%, of world electricity production in 2022
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/batteries-in-new-england
Rosatom, a Russian Company, is building more nuclear reactors than any other country in the world, according to data from the Power Reactor Information System of the International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA.
The data show, a total of 58 large-scale nuclear power reactors are currently under construction worldwide, of which 23 are being built by Russia.
.
In Egypt, 4 reactors, each 1,200 MW = 4,800 MW for $28.75 billion, or about $5,990/kW,
As per a bilateral agreement, signed in 2015, approximately 85% of it is financed by Russia, and to be paid for by Egypt under a 22-year loan with an interest rate of 3%.
That cost is at least 40% less than US/UK/EU
.
In Turkey, 4 reactors, each 1,200 MW = 4,800 MW for $20 billion, or about $4,200/kW, entirely financed by Russia. The plant will be owned and operated by Rosatom
.
In India, 6 VVER-1000 reactors, each 1,000 MW = 6,000 MW at the Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant.
Capital cost about $15 billion. Units 1, 2, 3 and 4 are in operation, units 5 and 6 are being constructed
.
In Iran, Rosatom started site preparation for a nuclear power plant at the Bushehr site.
Phase 1: Unit 1 went on line in 2012.
Phase 2: 2 VVER-1000 units, each 1050 MW. Construction started March 2017. Units 2 and 3 to be completed in 2024 and 2026.
.
In Bangladesh: 2 VVER-1200 reactors = 2400 MW at the Rooppur Power Station
Capital cost $12.65 billion is 90% funded by a loan from the Russian government. The two units generating 2400 MW are planned to be operational in 2024 and 2025. Rosatom will operate the units for the first year before handing over to Bangladeshi operators. Russia will supply the nuclear fuel and take back and reprocess spent nuclear fuel.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rooppur_Nuclear_Power_Plant
.
Russia is the only country with nuclear powered ice breakers.
The biggest ones steadily go through up to 7 METERS of ice.
.
Rosatom, created in 2007 by combining several Russian companies, usually provides full service during the entire project life, such as training, new fuel bundles, refueling, waste processing and waste storage in Russia, etc., because the various countries likely do not have the required systems and infrastructures
.
Remember, these nuclear plants reliably produce steady electricity, at reasonable cost/kWh, and have near-zero CO2 emissions
In the US, they have about 0.90 capacity factors, and last 60 to 80 years
Nuclear does not need counteracting plants. They can be designed as load-following, as some are in France
Wind: Offshore wind systems produce variable, unreliable power, at very high cost/kWh, are far from CO2-free, on a mine-to-hazardous landfill basis.
They have lifetime capacity factors, on average, of about 0.40; about 0.45 in very windy places
They last about 15 to 20 years in a salt water environment
They require:
1) A fleet of quick-reacting power plants to counteract the up/down wind outputs, on a less-than-minute-by-minute basis, 24/7/365,
2) Major expansion/reinforcement of electric grids to connect the wind systems to load centers,
3) A lot of land and sea area,
4) Curtailment payments, i.e., pay owners for what they could have produced
.
Major Competitors: Rosatom’s direct competitors, according to PRIS data, are three Chinese companies: CNNC, CSPI and CGN.
They are building 22 reactors, but it should be noted, they are being built primarily inside China, and the Chinese partners are building five of them together with Rosatom.
American and European companies are lagging behind Rosatom, by a wide margin,” Alexander Uvarov, a director at the Atom-info Center and editor-in-chief at the atominfo.ru website, told TASS.
Let them stew in their own mess.
The higher cost of natural gas is a self-imposed problem. If Hochul wanted a mix of energy sources, they should end the ban on developing natural gas resouirces in New York.
Anything is possible if someone else is responsible for accomplishing it.
“So shall it be written, so shall it be done.” (as long as it does not affect her reelection.)
“There is nothing so unimportant that you can’t spend someone else’s money on it.” -oeman50
And paying for it, too.
You could define a city as a place where the denizens are completely dependent on systems and infrastructure. Take away even one, and a near-instant replacement is necessary, or a descent into anarchy is inevitable.
Imagine, if you can, a city that loses adequate electricity, water, sewers, roads, communications, or any other perceived necessities. The average citizen cannot hope to replace or adapt, hence chaos.
“The strategy where a Progressive Democrat blames others for the failure of her own misguided initiatives seems most likely to me.” So true.
“implantation of the Climate Act“. That should do it. 😉 Sorry couldn’t resist.