Roger Caiazza
I recently described the Energy Innovation Policy and Technology analysis: Assessing Impacts Of “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” On U.S. Energy Costs, Jobs, Health, Emissions. The analysis included astoundingly biased claims of the effects of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. I really did not think that I would see something that was as bad if not worse in less than a week but never underestimate the New York climate crazies.
Several days ago Earth Justice, Environmental Defense Fund, WE ACT for Environmental Justice, and Evergreen Action wrote a letter to Governor Hochul and the top managers of the Public Service Commission, the Department of Environmental Conservation, and the New York State Energy Research & Development Authority claiming that the New York Independent System Operator (NYISO) messaging in their summary Power Trends 2025 was misleading when they claimed that additional fossil fuel electricity generation is needed for reliability. The arguments are as bad as the Energy Innovation Policy and Technology analysis. The worst part is it got publicized by numerous media outlets, for example here, here and here.
A month ago, when the NYISO published Power Trends I wrote it up here because these are the folks that are responsible for keeping the lights on. They have a group whose sole responsibility is electric resource planning, and they use the most sophisticated tools available. The results expressed deep concerns about the future of the electric system on its current path to zero-emissions. My article did note that I was disappointed that the report did not explicitly call out the immense challenges of transiting the New York electric system to one primarily reliant on wind, solar, and energy storage by 2040. I should have mentioned that in the absence of clear, definitive explanations that the usual suspects would misinterpret their findings. Guess what happened?
The introductory paragraph of the letter states:
On June 2, 2025, New York Independent System Operator (“NYISO”) issued its annual summary Power Trends report. The undersigned organizations write to correct misleading implications in the report and press release. The report’s messaging—that additional fossil fuel electricity generation is needed for reliability—is not supported by NYISO’s own analysis, and the report should not be used to derail New York’s progress toward a clean energy future. In fact, NYISO’s policies favoring fossil fuel generation and its delays in interconnecting clean energy resources to the grid are the real threats to reliability, and New York should prioritize the buildout of renewable energy and storage, and transmission, to comply with state law and protect New Yorkers’ wallets and health.
Their claims are based on failing to acknowledge the purpose of the report, willful disregard of development schedule constraints, poor understanding of the electric system, and ignorance of weather-related impacts on wind and solar production.
The letter complains that it is “not based on new information or analysis but is rather a summary of prior NYISO reports and analysis”. The Power Trends report is supposed to be a summary overview of the results of other technical analyses. I have my doubts that the authors have delved into those analyses in enough detail to understand the implications of the results.
The letter claims that “NYISO’s technical analyses on reliability that are the basis of this report do not support the implication in Power Trends that immediate investment in additional gas resources is necessary to maintain reliability.” The authors ignore the NYISO concerns about the age of the existing fossil fuel resources and expectations that they may not work when needed most. For the record, during the recent heat wave just about every fossil unit that could run was running. It also was an unusual weather event because the source of the hot air was more of a push of heat and humidity from the south instead of a massive high-pressure system settling in place. As a result, wind resources were higher than as is normal for peak summer loads.
The letter claims that “It seems that NYISO is irresponsibly seeking to create a false narrative that New York needs new gas generation, even though there is no evidence to support that claim.” The authors ignored an explicit explanation why repowering old gas generation is beneficial. In addition to addressing the reliability concerns of old equipment, new combined cycle gas turbines are cleaner than existing sources, more efficient, and could be eventually converted to burn green hydrogen. Repowering extends the lifespans of existing facilities with all the supporting infrastructure and are a more cost-effective alternative than building a new plant.
The letter went on to claim:
Many gas plants have retired in the state over recent years because they are not being utilized and are uneconomic. In addition, Winter Storm Elliott in 2022 exposed serious risks tied to overreliance on fossil fueled generators, particularly gas generators, where freezing and fuel issues resulted in generators failing to deliver power during extreme cold. In response, NYISO is no longer assuming certain gas generators will be available during winter demand peaks. According to the report, the only shortfall in electricity supply that NYISO anticipates would be due to gas supplies freezing during the winter.
These arguments are misleading. Many of the retirements are because the electricity system is rigged to use solar and wind power whenever it is available but does not penalize the sources for not providing the ancillary support services necessary to keep the electric system operating well. Winter Storm Elliott exposed serious reliability risks if fossil fueled generators are not adequately winterized. No plants failed in New York due to the cold weather. Gas supply was an issue, but New York addresses that problem by specifying a minimum number of dual-fueled units that can switch to oil during these conditions. They switched to oil and kept the lights on.
The letter claims that “NYISO has not specifically identified any new reliability need.” That is flat out wrong because Power Trends acknowledges that a new resource for long duration periods of low wind and solar resource availability is needed. The authors do not understand the intensity and extent of these periods. The dispatchable, emissions-free resources (DEFR) needed to solve this problem are not commercially available. The people responsible for electric system reliability recognize that deployment of these resources is years away, but the authors don’t acknowledge this challenge and its implications.
In my opinion, the biggest flaw in the letter is that it does not acknowledge the extraordinary challenge that NYISO system planners must plan for the worst-case scenario. Climate activist preferred alternatives work most of the time, but when needed the most they will not work. Their myopic outlook ignores long-term historical observations and the schedule necessary to meet the aspirational targets of New York’s Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act. The NYISO planners must address those issues, and the results are summarized in the Power Trends report. If anything the report did not describe the severity of the challenges well enough. It is sad that media outlets picked up the description of the letter without considering the motives of the source.
I could go on with more examples, but time is too short. Apparently, NYISO did not provide enough explicit evidence to support their results that contradict the environmentalist narrative. I wonder if the authors could ever be convinced. At the end of the day, I make it a habit to listen primarily to voices who face consequences when their projections are wrong. The organizations who authored this letter do not meet that requirement.
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 wonder if the authors could ever be convinced.”
Exactly.
Another good analysis, here Roger. Well done.
I agree with you it is a good analysis. But you can stop after this:
“Earth Justice, Environmental Defense Fund, WE ACT for Environmental Justice, and Evergreen Action”
They cannot be convinced of anything. They are a religious cult. Truth or falsehood does not exist for them except as it supports or runs counter to their revealed truth. I’ve had to deal with these sort of people in a variety of government consultation meetings with ‘stakeholders’. Nothing anyone says makes the slightest impression on any of them.
In talking to any of them on anything, the only thing they are ever looking for is verbal rocks to throw back at you. Personal participation in two COP conferences taught me the futility of trying to discuss anything with any of them.
For decades, the “trust the science” chant has been repeated endlessly by the activists. But as you say, it most certainly is NOT about “science” in the classic sense of the scientific method.
That chant reminds me of “Hare Krishna, Hare Krishna”. Last time I hitchhiked was in ’73 near the end of my college days. Got picked up by a bus full of Krishna dudes with shaved heads and in full dress. I thought they’d all impress me with their holiness. But the conversations I heard sounded about as holy as a typical male locker room. Kinda shocking actually.
I went to a Hare Krishna gathering in Hawaii once.
It was a unique experience. The people (a couple of dozen) were very friendly and we ate a vegetarian meal, and listened to some religious teaching, and then the whole group started singing and dancing and having a really good time.
I bought a copy of the Bhagavad Gita in the airport at Los Angeles for about $5 on my return from Hawaii in 1971.
I finally got around to reading it last year. The time wasn’t right before then. Now, it is.
David, the problem is that none of these idiots have the slightest idea what science actually is. Objectivity plays no role in their post-Modernist world view where everything is a matter of opinion and personal preference. They fail utterly to understand that the Universe (or physics) doesn’t care in the slightest what anyone’s opinion is about anything. They are simply mouthing the word “science” as a propaganda technique. They don’t particularly seem interested in persuading anyone. Their principal object appears to be a reduction in world population and a diminishing of human civilization.
This is called nihilism.All extreme socialist cults are all death cults in the last analysis of what they actually stand for.
cgh: “In talking to any of them on anything, the only thing they are ever looking for is verbal rocks to throw back at you. Personal participation in two COP conferences taught me the futility of trying to discuss anything with any of them.”
My anti-nuclear nuclear relatives who live in the bay area of California and in various places in New York state are all such people, each and every one of them from the youngest to the oldest.
Just like the west-siders here in Washington state, they are deep into the cult of religion which is wind and solar advocacy pushed at the expense of fossil fuels and nuclear.
I tell these people that their arguments are nothing but a collection of sound bite slogans, and that these slogans don’t work with me because I know way too much about the topic.
Their responses can be summarized as “Oh the horror! You are misinformed! You are a shill for the fossil fuel and nuclear industries! You are deliberately spreading lies and disinformation to line your own pockets!”
In my now rare discussions with these people concerning energy topics, one of my own lines of argument goes like this. Today in the year 2025, 90% of all investment for new-build electricity generation is directed towards wind and solar backed by batteries. And yet the price of electricity continues to rise. Why is this happening?
Their position on that argument generally is some combination of: “The price of batteries is coming down rapidly.”; or “Fossil and nuclear generation isn’t being replaced nearly fast enough.” Or even something as absurd as “The inflation-adjusted price of electricity isn’t actually rising when the effects of general inflation are factored in.”
We tend to think that a series of power blackout disasters will become a wake-up call for these people. But there’s not a chance of this happening. These people are just too deep into their wind and solar cult religion to ever acknowledge that their energy lifeboats are sinking.
Beta, this is the common theme of all religious cults in the history of the world. Everything is interpreted as confirmation of their own beliefs regardless of how irrational or erratic those beliefs may be.
You are entirely right about none of this ever happening. All of these people will live and die utterly useless lives and are soon forgotten thereafter.
cgh: “All of these people will live and die utterly useless lives and are soon forgotten thereafter.”
My own relatives in the bay area of California and in New York state have professional careers which do in fact make productive use of their talents inside their respective professional areas of endeavor.
But when it comes to the nitty-gritty details of energy policy as it relates to the alleged dangers of climate change, they reflexively abandon all pretense of objectivity and go with the flow of their wind and solar cult religion.
I wish I could argue with you that when the big blackout comes it will change minds but I agree that it won’t simply because they will never change their minds.
By and large, their technical analyses for need for power and the ability or renewables to meet that need is based on averages. Electric system managers have to plan for the peaks (plus some added in for contingencies), not the averages.
This is similar to the Biboma EPA practice of selecting the data that gives you the results you want. Can you say “social cost of carbon?”
Another misdirection about the “need for power” is to talk about residential purposes rather than industrial. In my career in industry I was acutely aware of the necessity for reliable supply even in worst-case conditions. For example, there was a huge risk of product loss in a large cultured dairy product plant for outages of more than a few minutes. And even for a few minutes, the measures to recover quickly and prevent those losses were still highly disruptive. We had diesel generator backup for refrigerated storage of finished product, but not for the entire plant.
“Their technical analyses for need for power and the ability or renewables to meet that need is based on averages”. I agree and if they stray outside that metric they base their analysis on yesterday’s weather and claim it refutes our concerns about the peaks.
A lot of ignorant, greedy and selfish individuals are bleeding a significant amount of money prestige, and influence. I’ll maybe toss a quarter in their cup if they end up on my street corner but then give them a kick up the ass for all the damage they have done to societies all over the world. Barstewards every single one of them.
The “fix” is in. Facts and logic are out.
I don’t know how you do it Roger, there is no way I could deal with a bunch of jackasses like those you deal with.
Roger,
You should check the “Federal Register Next Day”. Then check on the right side, the panel “Special Agency Announcements”. The EPA will soon release a draft of the regulations on greenhouse emission, which will rescind the CO2 endangerment finding. The public then has 45 days to review and make comments on the draft of the regulations before the final draft of the regulation is released.
You also check the EPA’s website for any announcements on greenhouse gases. There was recently published a ruling on greenhouse gases from power plants, which they determined presented no threat to humans.
Hopefully, the CO2 endangerment finding will be rescinded by early fall. When this happens, the NY Climate Act will be set aside.
You have nothing to worry about. We will win this climate war, and all those NGO’s will go bust.
Ask Al Gore how to make money out of lies.
Screw NY!
They’re doing it to themselves.
There are some parallels here …
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/engine-fuel-supply-was-cut-just-before-air-india-jet-crash-preliminary-report-says/ar-AA1IrdBx?ocid=BingNewsSerp
I hope we return to reliable energy sources before whole economies start crashing. Or maybe a single costly regional power failure will be required …
And of course when those failures happen- nobody will claim responsibility. They’ll find someway to blame it on, of course, CO2 emissions.
Or Trump.
Also from the linked story:
Ok, you can think “It can’t get worse”, just never, EVER say it out load. The clown car of environistas take it as a challenge.
Sorry. I suspect that i have jinxed us.
I tell the girls working at my local dive bar this a lot. They will be talking and say “Its not very crowded today.” and sure as bubbles rise a crowd appears.
Mr. Caiazza, you wrote “Winter Storm Elliott exposed serious reliability risks if fossil fueled generators are not adequately winterized.”
Traditionally, gas compressors required at frequent intervals along a gas pipeline were powered by a bit of the gas they were pumping. This was done by competent gas system engineers to make the the systems as independent of outside influences as could be. Years ago the Obama administration urged States to require such compressors be electrified to, I suppose, reduce CO2 emissions or so they thought. Texas gas system operators did so placing gas supply at the mercy of the electric power distribution system.
The loss of gas-powered electricity generators during Storm Elliott was primarily due to two reasons: 1) During Elliott, ERCOT was not aware of which circuits were powering the compressors and may not even have been aware that the gas supply was then dependent on electricity. 2) When ERCOT ordered rotating blackouts to conserve electricity, the circuits powering gas pipelines were among those shut down. Very shortly thereafter, a number of gas powered electricity generators shut down for lack of fuel as can be seen clearly on power traces during the incident. This ERCOT misadventure was the primary cause of the loss of electric power during Elliott. One nuclear plant was also shut down because of freezing in its cooling water supply, a problem which I believe has since been or is being corrected.
The primary driver of switching the gas compressors to electricity was to reduce NOx emissions to reduce ozone concentrations. It is astoundingly stupid that the owners did not insist on retaining the capability to use natural gas in the winter or for some other disruption of electricity supply.
“…did not insist on retaining the capability to use natural gas…”
Very difficult to do and not economic. Compressors are directly coupled to their driver. Either a large recipicating engines or gas turbines.
The only way to maintain the capability to use gas would be to double the footprint of the station either by having backup (unused) compressor strings or to install gas driven gensets and all of the ancillary electrical switching equipment to be able to power the electric motors independently. 10s of Millions of dollars in equipment that sits idle but still has to be maintained.
I see there is no longer talk about the “Smart Grid” which was going to allow the utilities to turn off customer loads at peak demand times. Wasn’t Siemens developing it? Faded into history. I suppose there was little demand from customers to buy those smart panels for turning their power off.
It is all green hydrogen now. It hasn’t been produced either.
If residential load shedding were a new house requirement, then older houses without the hardware would become more valuable due to reliability and autonomy.
(Coincidence?: If electric motors were a new car requirement, then older cars without the hardware would become more valuable due to reliability and autonomy.)
That said, “Smart Grid” had more to it than allowing the utilities to turn off customer loads at peak demand times. It allowed the operators to read meters without well-paid meter-reading staff and replaced older, long-lasting hardware built for 1950s purpose with newer, less durable hardware built for 1990s purpose. It is less talked about because it has mostly already happened – most American utility companies have wireless reading and remote shutoff. The newer, less durable hardware built for 1990s purpose have become standard. Thirty year-old technology is sufficient because cellular and Internet existed in the 1990s. Your electric meter sends rare, short text messages and hopefully never requires the bandwidth to play un-lagged Call of Duty.
Indeed, remote meter reading is pretty standard now but I don’t see the customer load shedding feature installed where I am.
The current label is virtual power plants so the idea is still out there.
Wow! I was not aware of that. I just looked it up. That is the new name. Battery storage and solar added in. Pretty much nonsense. Still guaranteed to not work.
Why would a sensible customer buy a battery and let the utility discharge it just when it is needed most? Assuming that the battery is charged when most needed, which is very unlikely.
I feel that persuasion cannot possibly convince the authors of such stupidity, no matter how logical or sensible it may be. What we need is to ridicule and mock these authors to the general public, mocking them within an inch of their lives, making them loathe to ever put pen to paper, again..
Zorhan ‘Hugo Chavez II’ Mambani will make an excellent test case. Climate scaredy-twits will do as well. Let’s get to it.