It was back in 2021 that I started to ask which country or U.S. state would be the first to hit the “Green Energy Wall.” It has long been obvious to anyone who looks at the situation that the fantasy of a fully de-carbonized energy system, with everything run on electricity generated by intermittent wind and sun, could never happen.
But what would be the limiting condition that would put a stop to the madness? Would it be confronting the absurd costs of grid-scale battery storage? Or perhaps a string of blackouts caused by insufficient backup of the wind and solar generation?
Here in New York, we are starting to see some push back from politicians on the fantasy green energy transition, but the source may be the last thing you would have predicted. The immediate issue is the cost of upgrading local delivery infrastructure to transmit sufficient electricity for the imagined future of electrified buildings and vehicles.
Supposedly, under a statute known as the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act of 2019, we are faced with a 2030 deadline to get some 70% of our electricity from “renewables.” Currently the percent of our electricity that we get from these “renewables” is around 44%, and almost half of that comes from the gigantic waterfall known as Niagara Falls. Without another Niagara Falls on the horizon, theoretically we should be building vast fields of wind turbines and solar panels to meet the statutory mandates; but that effort has stalled out, and the costs of wind and solar generation, and of backup to make the grid run all the time, have barely started to show up in consumer bills. Nor have various big new long-distance transmission projects yet come into consumer bills.
But meanwhile, the big utilities have come forward with large demands for rate increases. So why the need for big rate increases if not from new generators or long-distance transmission? The answer is that the rate increases mainly relate to the portion of the consumer bills referred to as the “delivery” charge, as opposed to the charge for generation. The utilities seek funds to add delivery infrastructure like substations, transformers, and cables to deliver vastly increased amounts of electricity for things like vehicle charging stations (for both cars and trucks) and for the electrification of building heat.
In upstate New York, a utility called National Grid has been petitioning the regulator for a large electricity rate increase, mostly to support these kinds of upgrades to the delivery infrastructure. The service territory of National Grid in upstate New York covers the region between about Syracuse and Albany, and from there North to the Canadian border. After prolonged negotiations, the regulator (Public Service Commission) and National Grid entered into a “settlement” a few days ago on August 14. Here is the PSC release describing the settlement. Basically, the PSC congratulates itself on beating back a much larger rate increase originally sought by National Grid. (The headline is “PSC Dramatically Reduces National Grid’s Rate Request.”). But if you read on you find that they still agreed to a very large increase. The release makes clear that most of the increase relates to the delivery infrastructure:
National Grid had sought a base delivery increase of $509.6 million (25.5 percent delivery or 10.4 percent total revenue) and $156.5 million (29.7 percent delivery or 15.7 percent total revenue) for electric and gas, respectively for one year. Instead, the Commission adopted a joint proposal establishing levelized increases, on a percentage basis, to the company’s electric revenues of $167.3 million in the first year, $297.4 million in the second year, and $243.4 million in the third year.
Basically, they spread NG’s requested increase out over three years; but it still comes to almost a 30% jump on the delivery side by the time it all kicks in.
Governor Hochul then issued a release expressing extreme displeasure:
While I appreciate that the New York Public Service Commission worked to significantly lower the outrageously high initial rate proposals, it’s still not enough. I have been crystal clear that utilities must make ratepayer affordability the priority.
Well, Governor Hochul, good luck trying to blame the utility, but you are the one with all the electric vehicle mandates and incentives and subsidies, thus calling on the utility to provide all this new infrastructure. In all likelihood few will ever buy the electric vehicles, and nobody will ever generate the extra electricity from wind and sun, and thus this infrastructure will mostly be wasted. But can the utility just refuse to make itself ready to meet your ridiculous mandate?
And meanwhile down here in New York City, our utility Con Edison is requesting almost as large a rate increase, again focused on the delivery portion of the bill, and on local infrastructure upgrades necessary to support increased electricity demand. In the City, the increased demand is anticipated to come both from electric vehicles (per the state mandates) and from building electrification (based on a City building electrification mandate known as Local Law 97). It is likely that the result of the Con Edison rate proceeding will be a settlement agreement comparable to what occurred in the National Grid case a few days ago.
I am an intervenor in this Con Edison rate case, and in recent days I have actually been personally participating — in a minor way — in the settlement negotiations. My co-intervenors and I are objecting to any rate increases based on adding infrastructure to support building and vehicle electrification unless and until the additional electricity generation capacity has been built to support these mandates. (There is no chance that this additional capacity, supposedly wind and solar generators, will actually be built.)
The New York Post has a lead editorial today summarizing how the green energy madness is coming around to bite New Yorkers in their pocketbooks. Excerpt:
New York’s state Public Service Commission just OK’d big National Grid rate increases that’ll hike many upstate utility bills by $600 a year — fueling outrage Democrats will soon feel. Downstate, Con Edison is seeking an 11.4% hike to electric bills and 13.3% gas hike — largely thanks to green-energy mandates that Gov. Kathy Hochul embraced along with the rest of the party. The “climate agenda” is delivering pain we’ve long warned of, in New York and New Jersey.
If we ever get to the point of building dozens of gigawatts of wind and solar generation capacity, and enough backup and storage to make them work to support a grid, that would cause electricity rates to multiply by a factor of five or ten or more. We are a long way from that. But here we are just trying to add enough substations and transformers to support 30-50% vehicle electrification, and a comparable amount of building electrification, and it is causing politicians to start to scream. How much more before of this will it take before we quit?
Most people don’t understand the purported science behind Net Zero but they do understand the size of the energy bills that they are paying. They will certainly understand a large increase to their energy bills. This issue has the potential to severely damage the Democratic Party. I expect a U-turn in the not too distant future on Net Zero.
Pray. As the legislature is relying on faith, why not give their system a fair chance? If you pray hard enough, a miracle will occur. Obviously, hard enough is when said miracle occurs.
Currently the percent of our electricity that we get from these “renewables” is around 44%, and almost half of that comes from the gigantic waterfall known as Niagara Falls.
Bet they also count imports from Quebec’s massive James Bay project 800 miles to the north.
Any juice from the massive Churchill Falls hydro plant?
And every bit of worse-than-useless “renewables” aside from hydro power has to be BACKED UP 100% with plants that gruppenfurer Hochul wants to close.
The stupid, it burns.
That 44% includes Niagara Falls as well, I expect.
Yep, that’s what the article said!
Francis Menton: “And meanwhile down here in New York City, our utility Con Edison is requesting almost as large a rate increase, again focused on the delivery portion of the bill, and on local infrastructure upgrades necessary to support increased electricity demand. In the City, the increased demand is anticipated to come both from electric vehicles (per the state mandates) and from building electrification (based on a City building electrification mandate known as Local Law 97) ….”
Some questions for Francis Menton …. Does Con Edison’s rate case proposal to the PSC directly reference the state’s Climate Act mandates and the city’s Local Law 97 mandates in justifying the rate increases? If so, how are these references being invoked in regard to justifying upgrades to the local power infrastructure?
I have been crystal clear that utilities must make ratepayer affordability the priority
========
You cannot order mandatory.
You can have green, reliable, low-cost. But never all at the same time. Green power can be cheap so long as it doesn’t need to be reliable.
In fact green power can be cheap generally only if it is limited to perform at midday.
That is equivalent to saying I can keep my SUV but save money by driving a compact car at midday—once I buy one.
Apologies if I am spelling this out unnecessarily: I’d save on fuel but I’d be much worse off at at day’s end.
Green can never be cheap, even if you give up the dream of reliability. This is because how much of it needs to be built, as well as the infrastructure needed to connect that power to the grid.
And how often the worse-than-useless “collection devices” require replacement.
Green power can be cheap so long as you’re satisfied with a grid that is blacked out more often than functioning.
FIFY
Even when you are paying nothing for power, because there is none available, you still have to pay the connection fee in order to support grid and all the upgrades that were necessary to make producing no power, possible.
But blacked-out reliably – every day at 5 PM.
The insanity will continue until sufficient damage is inflicted.
The problem is that those who are suffering from the damage, are not the ones who are deciding what kind of power the rest of us will be required to use.
“So this is how liberty dies… with thunderous applause…”
Substitute democratic elections, Constitutional Republic, civilization, or any other realistic choice.
And then what? Once commerce and industry have fled, how do you lure them back? We’re playing for keeps here. FAFO.
Do not, please, view my post as positive.
It derives from: The beatings will continue until morale improves.
No, I understood your point . 🙂 I was only attempting to build on it.
When unsure, ask.
The only dumb question is the one not asked.
Dumb used to mean unable to speak.
Using green to triple rates now so that the inevitable anti-green deregulator looks heroic knocking off 33% later?
I am crushed under some of the highest rates in the CONUS. Some of my delivery is over 114 year old wires and poles and such. Imagine the SCE (Southern California Edison) ROI for those lines. Paying dividends all those years. Now we need to pay up, way up, to modernize. I have 200A, 240V service. I’m good thankyouverymuch.
Green fantasy runs headfirst into physical reality. Like a slow-motion test dummy car crash. Emphasis on “dummy.”
If you can have free housing, busing, etc in New York city, why can’t you have free electricity as well? It’s what Communism promises – free stuff.
People keep ignoring the age-old truism: “There is no such thing as a free lunch.”
The Socialists tell us they will tax the rich to pay for your free lunch. The fact is that the mass of the middle class pay for the majority of government operations.
With mobile wealth, the wealthy and industries will gravitate to the jurisdictions with the lowest overall tax burden. Even the middle class “votes with their feet.” We have been seeing this for a long time now: The South and West are the major growth areas.
That’s why the left is so adamant about the need for a one world government. That way there is no place left to flee to.
You omitted the /sarc marking, although it was obviously part of your post.
After the US EPA rescinds the 2009 CO2 Endangerment Finding,
whatever will Gov. Kathy H. do? She will have to eat humble pie
and repeal the NY Climate Act. Interesting times are ahead.
Harold Pierce: “After the US EPA rescinds the 2009 CO2 Endangerment Finding, whatever will Gov. Kathy H. do? She will have to eat humble pie and repeal the NY Climate Act. Interesting times are ahead.”
Regardless of what happens at the national level concerning American energy policy, neither Governor Hochul nor her NYS legislature will repeal the 2019 Climate Act. In addition, NYC will not repeal Local Law 97.
NYS and NYC politicians will pursue their mandates until their energy lifeboat sinks, claiming all the while that although the lifeboat might have a few leaks, it isn’t actually sinking.
The faction within the Democratic Party of NYS which is certain to be successful in electing Zohran Mumdani the NYC mayor is steadily gaining power inside the state party organization. That faction understands New York power politics and its corollary election process mechanics as well or better than Governor Hochul does.
Mumdani is deeper into renewable energy promotion that is Hochul. If Hochul shows any sign of caving on NYS Climate Act mandates, she is likely to suffer the same fate Andrew Cuomo did when he ignored just how powerful the Mumdani faction within the NYS Democratic Party has become.
If she caves, she will be replaced by someone more radical than she is concerning energy and environmental political issues.
There is general electron next year, and the Republicans have promising candidate, Elise Stefanik. Unfortunately, she has swallowed the IPCC propaganda that CO2 causes global warming and climate change. There is huge Wiki file on her.
The EPA won’t issue an announcement rescinding the Endangerment Finding (EF) until after Sept 2, when the period for public comment on the proposed recission of EF ends.
Hopefully The Washington Post will lead the a crusade for the repeal of the NY Climate Act.
The Washington Post? Good luck with that. Perhaps the Wall Street Journal.
That was a mistake. I meant to suggest “The New Post”. I think I’ll check out the NYT. I inform them to check out the late John L. Daly’s website:
“Still Waiting For Greenhouse” available at: http://www.john.daly.com. Do you know about
John Daly?
PS: If you click on the screen shot, it will expand and become clear. Click on the “X” in the circle to return to comment text.
“Regardless of what happens at the national level concerning American energy policy, neither Governor Hochul nor her NYS legislature will repeal the 2019 Climate Act. In addition, NYC will not repeal Local Law 97.”
True, same here in Wokeachusetts. But when the welfare checks for the ruinable industries stops- it won’t be possible to implement the green laws.
And Governor Newsom continues all the Green mandates in California.
Democrat Party – they are hardly democratic.
The inevitable eventually inevitably arrives. As it has now for Hochul. Fitting.
It’s ironic that supposedly still-developing nations like China and India as well as a number of others in Asia and Africa recognized long ago that that wind and solar were essentially pipe dreams. So instead of wasting money on them, they adopted the energy sources that propelled the developed nations into world leaders in power generation, industrial output, rising GDPs and living standards. Meanwhile too many of the advanced nations were foolish enough to fall for putative threat posed by a changing climate and have wasted billions on the types of technologies that not only won’t solve this phantom threat in the 1st place but also has antagonized consumers and voters with higher taxes, questionable new laws and unrealistic green mandates. So who are the real suckers in such a scenario?
Correction: Trillions.
The green energy wall causes a look of surprise! NY’s politicians saw a mythological Chimaera breathing reliable green electrons “real soon” and apparently someone whispered “it’s not real.” Oops!
There is a 4-word name for that false belief, but just now I can’t find it.
One word is sufficient: Delusion.
“But what would be the limiting condition that would put a stop to this madness? Would it be confronting the absurd costs of grid-scale battery storage?”
I’m not up to speed with New York’s demand, but here are some basic UK numbers that perhaps put the battery storage argument in perspective and to bed . . . terminally:
Current UK “normal” demand over the last 12 months has been 30.5GW.
And the contribution over that period from wind and solar generation has been 11.03GW, this from a total wind and solar installed capacity of 54.6GW, which means they operated at a combined efficiency (load factor) of 20.2%.
But by 2030, according to Dead’Ed, the UK will be generating all its requirements “carbon free.” And that means no biomass, of course, wood producing more CO2 per kWh than coal . . . of course.
So, assuming we have no increase demand by 2030 – so it’ll be 30.5GW – and taking into account hydro and nuclear(4.5GW), the demand that will have to be met by wind and solar generation by 2030 will have to be 26GW.
So, at a load factor of 20.2%, the installed capacity of wind and solar will have to be increased from current 54.6GW to . . . 129GW, not forgetting this has to be achieved in less than 5 years.
But it’s not that simple – there are periods called dunkelflaute, when there’s no wind or sunshine, which means wind and solar facilities during these periods will generate approaching PRECISELY NOTHING.
Enter grid-scale battery storage!!
If a dunkelflaute period lasts for one week, say – it’s often much more than that – then the backup battery set would have to be capable of delivering at least 26GW for a period of 7 days, which is 4,368GWh. And if the battery set was chosen to be an LFP system . . . then let’s look at the weight and the cost of these batteries:
The weight of these batteries would be 29.12 MILLION tonnes . . . which is the equivalent of 448 Elizabeth Class aircraft carriers;
And the cost of these batteries, ignoring infrastructure and connections, would be . . . US$440 BILLION.
And then there’s the fact that, of the ALL the materials required to manufacture these 29.12 MILLION tonnes of batteries . . . the UK produces and refines NONE of them – not a single tonne!
So much for “home grown independent power generation which will not be reliant upon nasty horrible despotic tyrants” . . . the complete and utter pillock.
But whoever said that is correct, as batteries don’t generate electricity.
I’m glad to see people are finally seeing the hurt that is bound to come. Better they feel the sting now before this mess goes much further. It was a stupid useless idea from the beginning and has only gotten worse.
I have a question. New “delivery” assets are added to NG’s or Com Ed’s asset base as the demand grows. Growing demand means they are selling more electricity. Selling more electricity means that their revenues grow also. New delivery equipment is expensive BUT the increased revenue from increased sales should more than cover the cost. WHY DOESN’T IT. The rate should reflect the COST / KWH. If COST goes up but KWH goes up as well there should be no rate increase.
I expect the utilities know that the demand will not increase as projected. New York is mandating that the utilities invest in new facilities that will never be utilized – new delivery capacity for EVs that will never exist.
Of course the utilities know that demand will not increase as projected. But the utilities make a profit on additions to the value of their asset base.
From a profit perspective, Con Edison has every reason to add to its asset base even if the bulk of that additional infrastructure will not be needed in the short to mid-term future.
From this perspective, the utility executives are acting as handmaidens of the politicians now promoting the Net Zero transition.
Given that their primary responsibility is their shareholders, not to their power consuming customers, these executives are doing just what they are paid to do — take those actions which maximize profits to the extent those profits can be maximized.
In the legal and regulatory environment New York’s politicians have created, utility executives becoming handmaidens of the politicians now promoting the Net Zero transition is perversely in the best interests of their shareholders.
New York will continue its Net Zero policies as nearly completely as it can manage in the face of major energy policy changes at the national level.
In a perfect market, sellers want to raise prices and buyers want to lower them. With regulated utility monopolies, the sellers, utilities want to raise prices as normal. I don’t fault them for that, it is what sellers are supposed to do. My problem is with the regulators. Their job is to protect the consumers, the buyers.
For decades, all over America, utilities have charged between 6 and 8 cents to deliver 1 kwh (retail). That is because that is what it costs (with a modest profit included). To now claim that delivery costs have doubled is BS.
I am constantly amazed that renewables “the cheapest form of energy” always cost more, always require subsidies.
This reads like the healthcare argument reframed for energy, where the intermediary is insulated from the consumer and populated by the supplier.
With near-replacement population growth, deindustrialization and energy inefficient housing being renovated every year, maybe EVs are the last hope for demand growth?
Suppose we do get demand growth, suppose the projections are correct. I don’t for a moment believe that, but suppose they are. Utilities are only allowed to add new assets to their rate base AFTER they go into service. But in New York the Public Utility Commission is allowing rates to nearly double BEFORE construction has begun.
This is such a swindle.
Democrats screaming is part of the play acting. Do they a Tony Award for that?