In the real world, the climate scam is rapidly falling apart, along with the related government-subsidized schemes for worldwide energy transformation. So how should New York react? After all, we claim to have the ultimate program of “climate leadership” for showing everyone else how easy it is to do this energy transformation thing. We’ve started with mandating under our Climate Act an electricity system having 70% of its generation from “renewables” by 2030 (a mandate known as “70 x 30”). The deadline for 70 x 30 is now just over four years away.
So, is this really happening? Fortunately, our Public Service Commission has just come out with a Report with the long title “NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICE SECOND CLCPA [Climate Act] INFORMATIONAL REPORT ON OVERALL IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CLIMATE LEADERSHIP AND COMMUNITY PROTECTION ACT, WITH CORRECTIONS,” bearing a date of September 23, 2025. Today, I will take a look at that to see what we can learn about New York’s progress toward its goals.
Separately, a different bureaucracy called the New York State Energy Planning Board a couple of months ago (July 25) issued something called the 2025 Draft Energy Plan for the state. I had a post discussing that document back on August 11 (“New York’s Official Energy Plan Is No Plan”). That Draft Energy Plan then became subject to a period for public comment, so I took the opportunity to submit my Comment on September 25.
Let’s say that the PSC’s Report and my Comment on the Energy Plan are two very different takes on the progress toward New York’s energy transformation.
I’ll start with the PSC’s Report. The Report came with a three-page press release announcing and summarizing it. Oddly, the press release does not contain any link to access the Report itself. Instead, if you want to review the Report, you are instructed to go to the Commission’s page for accessing its case documents, where you must then input the correct case number (22-M-0149) in a box provided, and then scroll through the docket entries until you find the Report. Why would they make finding this so difficult? I’ll bet you can guess.
A summary of both the press release and the Report itself is this: a lot of empty talk about all the wonderful plans, without any quantitative information on whether any progress is being made toward the 70 x 30 mandate, or toward any of the various other mandates (including 100% of electricity from zero-emissions sources by 2040, or “100 x 40.”). From the press release:
The New York State Public Service Commission (Commission) today received an update from Department of Public Service (DPS) staff regarding progress toward the clean energy goals of the 2019 Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act or Climate Act. The report details actions taken in pursuit of these ambitious clean energy goals while working to keep ratepayer costs manageable with benefits that are widely shared. . . . The Climate Act’s directives require the Commission to build on its existing efforts to deploy clean energy resources and energy storage technologies, implement energy efficiency and building electrification measures, and support electric vehicle charging infrastructure. This year’s update included: Progress on achieving the targets mandated within the renewable energy program.
OK, so the press release specifically says that the update includes “progress on achieving the targets mandated,” but what exactly does that progress consist of? There’s nothing about that in the press release, so we must go over to the Report itself. The Report is some 63 pages, including appendices. Most of it is about qualitative descriptions of the various schemes (e.g., “renewable energy and energy storage,” “transmission and distribution investment and development,” etc., etc.). Finally at page 37 we get to a section headed “Progress Toward CLCPA Green Energy Targets.” Surely, this is where we will get the quantitative information we are seeking on the progress toward New York’s plans? Here is the entire text of that section:
The subject of this subsection has been covered in depth in the Draft CES Biennial Review. 109
Wait a minute! I thought the press release had specifically said that the PSC Report itself contained an update on this progress. But in fact the update is completely missing. Following that footnote 109, we find out that this CES Biennial Review came out on July 1, 2024 — over a year ago — and must in turn be hunted down on another PSC docket, this one numbered 15-E-0302. This time the Report is some 98 pages long. If we make it to page 53, we find a section titled “The Path to the 70% Goal.”
This section of some 7 pages entirely discusses how many GWh of demand are in the state’s load forecast for 2030, and how many GWh of generation from renewables it will take to produce 70% of that. Excerpts:
Under the base case load forecast assumption of 164,910 GWh by 2030 as described above, the 70% goal equates to 115,437 GWh.
On page 56 in a Table 8, we find the amount of renewables “operational as of 2022” — 29,289 GWh. That’s barely one-quarter of the 115,437 needed by 2030, and by the way more than half of the 29,289 GWh comes from one source, Niagara Falls, that cannot be replicated. The same table on page 8 indicates that an additional approximately 36,000 GWh of renewable generation, consisting of onshore and offshore wind and solar, has been “contracted” by 2024. After substracting a few small miscellaneous items, they come up with a “gap to 70% (2030)” of 42,145 GWh. Then, after further assuming large additions to offshore wind and rooftop solar will provide about half of that, they get to this bottom line:
To achieve this pathway, just over 3,900 GWh of onshore large-scale renewables resources would need to be procured per year, or approximately 5,600 GWh per year with attrition.
Well, in the time since this CES document was issued in mid-2024, all of the off-shore wind has been shot down by the federal government, and all of the federal subsidies for additional wind and solar developments have disappeared. None of the 5,600 GWh per year of additional renewables procurements is in the works. All of this was known and obvious by the time the most recent PSC Report came out on September 23, and yet they don’t mention any of it. I guess they figure that nobody will take the time and effort to track through their references to figure out the problem.
And one more thing: There is not one word in these reports mentioning that wind and solar do not produce electricity at the same time that consumers use it, meaning that there must be storage or batteries or backup of some kind. The entire approach is to assume that if the amount of electricity generated is equal to the amount consumed, the two can be easily matched up somehow, without any issues or costs worth discussing.
In summary, New York’s PSC is entirely engaged in throwing up a smokescreen to obscure the fact that the state’s energy transformation is dead in the water.
Now let’s turn to my Comment on the Draft “Energy Plan.” Although I submitted it a couple of days ago, I can’t yet find it on the website, so I don’t have a link to provide. As an alternative, I’ll provide some extensive excerpts. The bulk of my Comment focused on a chart, Figure 19, appearing on page 22 of a portion of the Plan called the “Pathway Analysis,” purporting to show how the Climate Act mandates, like 70 x 30 and 100 x 40, would be achieved. Here is that Figure 19:

Here are some portions of my reactions to this chart:
- Installed capacity of natural gas power plants declines from about 25 GW today to about 15 GW in 2035 – and then completely disappears by 2040. What will keep the lights on 24/7/365 when the natural gas generation is gone? There is no answer here.
- In the same Figure, a new generation category called “Zero-Carbon Firm” suddenly appears in 2040, with 17.2 GW of capacity – about three-quarters as much as our entire current fleet of natural gas power plants. They have no idea what this “Zero-Carbon Firm” category might be. Text seems to indicate that they might be thinking about new nuclear or maybe so-called “renewable” gas from landfills. In fact nuclear is completely blocked in this state, although Governor Hochul has supposedly started a process to build one 1 GW nuclear plant starting now. That plant has not even yet gotten to the stage of site selection, and will not possibly be ready by 2040 even if construction started today. And it is also only 1 GW, when the “Energy Plan” is saying that 17.2 GW of “Zero-Carbon Firm” is needed by 2040. And landfills can produce only a tiny fraction of the gas they are talking about here, while meanwhile the Pathway Analysis admits elsewhere (see page 14) that this supposedly “renewable” gas does not count as zero-emissions under the Climate Act.
- Professor Lindsay Anderson of Cornell did an analysis of the New York electricity system, which found that if natural gas generation was eliminated and demand increased as projected, the actual amount of firm emissions-free resources needed to meet the state Climate Act mandates would be about 37 GW of capacity. NYISO analysis of the same issue comes up with a requirement 35 GW of firm emissions-free generation. Where did the Energy Plan come up with the ridiculously low figure of 17.2 GW? I guess it doesn’t really matter, because the “firm emissions-free resource” is just magical thinking anyway, and does not exist in the real world.
- The same Figure shows a massive increase in capacity of solar generation, from about 7 GW today to supposedly 35.4 GW by 2040. That capacity, if built (it won’t be), will be lucky to generate electricity at 15-20% of rated capacity over the course of a year in cloudy and snowy upstate New York, and will be next to useless to provide electric heat in the winter, when we have 15 hours of darkness per day.
My Comment goes on and on from there. Some concluding lines:
[T]he so-called “Energy Plan” is not an energy plan at all. It would more accurately be described as random musings and wishful thinking by some completely incompetent people who have no idea what they are doing. The so-called “Plan” envisions a future of a fully transformed energy system within the next 15-25 years. Yet it contains no meaningful feasibility analysis, nor any meaningful cost analysis. . . . It’s time to start over, with some people in charge who know what they are doing.
So I think the vision of New York’s politicians and bureaucrats is to put their heads in the sand until this all falls apart, and then try to blame somebody else. We are living at peak absurdity.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“So I think the vision of New York’s politicians and bureaucrats is to put their heads in the sand until this all falls apart…”
That’s indeed the plan. Anyone with any sense understood that New York buggered itself when it allowed radicals and a corrupt governor to force the shutdown of Indian Point. We’ve seen this before. Three decades of incompetent government doomed Detroit to lose 2/3rds of its population, most of its taxpayers, and all of its industry.
New York is on the same path of implosion along with Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle and Portland. When companies start relocating banking, investment and financial centres out of New York, only the Tombstone on the Hudson and its UN grifters will remain. What will happen in New York will be the greatest urban collapse since the destruction of Rome after 538 AD.
And New Yorkers themselves voted for this horror. Hence, they deserve it.
Looks like New York (City) is going to vote for Mamdani, sorry, it’s going to get much worse. Think about Florida?
They’re all Mad Men there. Madmani would be a shoe in
Not sure where the report got their figures for capacity proportions of renewable energy (solar/wind) Presuming “Renewables” refers to Solar and Wind.
According to Google AI…
New York’s 2024 energy mix was primarily natural gas (48.7%), followed by hydroelectric power (21.3%) and nuclear power (20.6%). Other sources included wind (4.6%), solar (2.6%), biomass (1.2%)
The Solar/Wind renewable portion was just a paltry 7.2% in 2024.
The only way to make their 70% in 4.25 years would be to add 15% per year or include Hydro and Nuclear in their renewable counts.
Nuclear is not reneewable but is zero emissions so it is out but hydro is included and NY has a lot thanks to Niagara Falls and the St Lawrence Seaway
‘What will happen in New York will be the greatest urban collapse since the destruction of Rome after 538 AD.’
So well said. If the Left has it’s way, NYC, and Western civilization for that matter, will look like a Giovanni Paola Panini painting wherein the locals are oblivious to their heritage while grazing their goats in the ruins of the Roman Forum.
Unfortunately it won’t happen until after the US taxpayer is dragged down with them in several more stimulus rounds for subway projects and many other items from the wish list. They will make a case for a stock trading tax, another climate tax, and various surcharge taxes along the way to make all wobbly.
I agree with your list. Thing is, additional taxes will simply speed the exodus. The real blow will hit home when the NY Stock Exchange relocates out of state. That will be accompanied by a host of related businesses fleeing as well.
When these collapses happen, it can often occur rather quickly. In the case of Rome, captured by Frank’s painting, a city of over one million sank to under 100,000 within a year. During the siege of 537 AD, the Visigoths destroyed all the aqueducts. No water, so now everyone had to leave pretty much immediately.
‘The real blow will hit home when the NY Stock Exchange relocates out of state.’
I would be surprised if many of the ‘back-office’ operations of the financial sector haven’t already been relocated. At some point, even the front-office folks are going to have to bug out, notwithstanding NYC’s ‘high-brow’ cultural attractions and taking some major hits on their residential real estate holdings throughout the tristate area.
As the left continues to take over the “arts”, highbrow attractions are becoming less and less attractive.
Yesterday Mamdani announced that he intended to create a $100 million dollar fund to pay for representation of illegal aliens.
He did not say where he intended to get the money from, but my guess is even more taxes or a reduction in the police budget.
That painting captures it completely.
“Look on my works, ye mighty.
And Despair” – Shelley, Ozymandias 1818.
The United States has already done this once in Detroit, 1950-2000.
42 Staggering Photos Of Abandoned Detroit Today
NetZero beckons.
New York may well achieve NetZero.
And what exactly is the “Zero Carbon Firm”? Replacing FF in 2040 seems like a stretch for something that doesn’t even exist yet.
Is it progress to note, in July 1, 2024, that the hydroelectric power stations* at Niagara Falls have existed for some time?
*Note: Niagara’s original Edward Dean Adams Power Plant began commercial operation in 1896 as the world’s largest hydroelectric development at the time. It was shut down and replaced by the more modern, more powerful Robert Moses Niagara Power Station that began producing electricity in 1961.
Very nice Francis. You are far too kind to these mongrels. They are liars and cheats. Every person who signed onto this fiasco should immediately be fired and blackballed from ever working in any government or government related capacity. Lying and cheating isn’t okay not even for government agents. It is past time to put an end to this crap.
“So, I think the vision of New York’s politicians and bureaucrats is to put their heads in the sand until this all falls apart, and then try to blame somebody else. We are living at peak absurdity.”
_________________________
Among the numerous quotations of H.L. Mencken that have been referenced here in the past, this one comes to mind right now regarding New York State government (and NYC in Mamdani wins):
“Government is the art and science of running the circus from the monkey cage.”
There are so many low-information people (“lofos”) who have been so indoctrinated to believe that we must take drastic measures to “save the planet”, that the scam is likely to continue to suck up taxpayer money and votes for years to come. Especially in blue states like New York.
Politicians especially on the left will use this to their advantage whether they believe the propaganda or not. Oh and the mainstream media will be in lockstep with them.
Sites like this one are essential in the fight to combat the scam. What a waste of time and money the whole climate and energy scams are!
Battery storage should never be included in energy supply. Battery storage requires overcapacity to be recharged during the daily use time or takes capacity away from the mix
And it certainly should not be added to generating sources as MC’s graphs show. They have different units.
Here is a cost analysis of grid-scale battery systems by an energy systems analyst
.
BATTERY SYSTEM CAPITAL COSTS, OPERATING COSTS, ENERGY LOSSES, AND AGING
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/battery-system-capital-costs-losses-and-aging
.
Utility-scale, battery system pricing usually is not made public, but for this system it was.
Neoen, in western Australia, has just turned on its 219 MW/ 877 MWh Tesla Megapack battery, the largest in western Australia.
Ultimately, it will be a 560 MW/2,240 MWh battery system, $1,100,000,000/2,240,000 kWh = $491/kWh, delivered as AC, late 2024 pricing. Smaller capacity systems will cost much more than $500/kWh
.
Annual Cost of Megapack Battery Systems; 2023 pricing
Assume a system rated 45.3 MW/181.9 MWh, and an all-in turnkey cost of $104.5 million, per Example 2
Amortize bank loan for 50% of $104.5 million at 6.5%/y for 15 years, $5.484 million/y
Pay Owner return of 50% of $104.5 million at 10%/y for 15 years, $6.765 million/y (10% due to high inflation)
Lifetime (Bank + Owner) payments 15 x (5.484 + 6.765) = $183.7 million
Assume battery daily usage for 15 years at 10%, and loss factor = 1/(0.9 *0.9)
Battery lifetime output = 15 y x 365 d/y x 181.9 MWh x 0.1, usage x 1000 kWh/MWh = 99,590,250 kWh to HV grid; 122,950,926 kWh from HV grid; 233,606,676 kWh loss
(Bank + Owner) payments, $183.7 million / 99,590,250 kWh = 184.5 c/kWh
Less 50% subsidies (tax credits, 5-y depreciation, loan interest deduction) is 92.3c/kWh
Subsidies shift costs from project Owners to ratepayers, taxpayers, government debt
At 10% throughput, (Bank + Owner) cost, 92.3 c/kWh
At 40% throughput, (Bank + Owner) cost, 23.1 c/kWh
.
Excluded costs/kWh: 1) O&M; 2) system aging, 1.5%/y, 3) 20% HV grid-to-HV grid loss, 4) grid extension/reinforcement to connect battery systems, 5) downtime of parts of the system, 6) decommissioning in year 15, i.e., disassembly, reprocessing and storing at hazardous waste sites. Excluded costs would add at least 15 c/kWh
COMMENTS ON CALCULATION
Almost all existing battery systems operate at less than 10%, per EIA annual reports i.e., new systems would operate at about 92.4 + 15 = 107.4 c/kWh. They are used to stabilize the grid, i.e., frequency control and counteracting up/down W/S outputs. If 40% throughput, 23.1 + 15 = 38.1 c/kWh.
A 4-h battery system costs 38.1 c/kWh of throughput, if operated at a duty factor of 40%.
That is on top of the cost/kWh of the electricity taken from the HV grid to feed the batteries
Up to 40% could occur by absorbing midday solar peaks and discharging during late-afternoon/early-evening, which occur every day in California and other sunny states. The more solar systems, the greater the peaks.
See URL for Megapacks required for a one-day wind lull in New England
40% throughput is close to Tesla’s recommendation of 60% maximum throughput, i.e., not charge above 80% and not discharge below 20%, to perform 24/7/365 service for 15 y, with normal aging.
Owners of battery systems with fires, likely charged above 80% and discharged below 20% to maximize profits.
Tesla’s recommendation was not heeded by the Owners of the Hornsdale Power Reserve in Australia. They excessively charged/discharged the system. After a few years, they added Megapacks to offset rapid aging of the original system, and added more Megapacks to increase the rating of the expanded system.
http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-hornsdale-power-reserve-largest-battery-system-in-australia
Regarding any project, the bank and Owner have to be paid, no matter what. I amortized the bank loan and Owner’s investment
Divide total payments over 15 years by the throughput during 15 years, you get c/kWh, as shown.
There is about a 20% round-trip loss, from HV grid to 1) step-down transformer, 2) front-end power electronics, 3) into battery, 4) out of battery, 5) back-end power electronics, 6) step-up transformer, to HV grid, i.e., you draw about 50 units from the HV grid to deliver about 40 units to the HV grid, because of A-to-Z system losses. That gets worse with aging.
A lot of people do not like these c/kWh numbers, because they have been repeatedly told by self-serving folks, battery Nirvana is just around the corner.
.
NOTE: EV battery packs cost about 135/kWh, before it is installed in the car. Such packs are good for 6 to 8 years, used about 2 h/d, at an average speed of 30 mph. Utility battery systems are used 24/7/365 for 15 years
NEW YORK STATE DYSFUNCTIONAL ENERGY POLICY
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/new-york-state-dysfunctional-energy-policy
.
People are brainwashed to love wind and solar. They do not know by how much they screw themselves by voting for the woke folks who push them onto everyone. Their ignorance is exploited by the woke folks
.
If owned/controlled by European governments and companies, would be a serious disadvantage for the US regarding environmental impact, national security, economic competitiveness, and sovereignty
.
Western countries cajoling Third World countries into Wind/Solar, and loaning them high-interest money to do so, will forever re-establish a colonial-style bondage on those recently free countries.
What is generally not known, the more weather-dependent W/S systems, the less efficient the traditional generators, as they inefficiently (more CO2/kWh) 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 GDP.
.
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.
Ignore CO2, because greater CO2 ppm in atmosphere is essential for: 1) increased green flora to increase fauna all over the world, and 2) increased crop yields to better feed 8 billion people.
.
Net-zero by 2050 to-reduce CO2 is a super-expensive suicide pact, to increase command/control by governments, and enable the moneyed elites to get richer, at the expense of all others, by using the foghorn of the government-subsidized/controlled Corporate Media to spread scare-mongering slogans and brainwash people.
.
New York State Utilities will be paid foreign Owners 15.5 c/kWh for 20 to 25 years
New York State Utilities will mark this up before averaging it into their cost of purchased electricity.
Ratepayers and taxpayers are being screwed
.
Per various laws, the federal and state government will pay enough subsidies, so the foreign Owners can sell for 15.5 c/kWh, for 20 to 25 years, instead of 31 c/kWh, without any subsidies, such as:
.
1) Federal and state tax credits, up to 50% (Community tax credit of up to 10% – Federal tax credit of 30% – 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 to reduce any taxable profits from whatever source.
Subsidies shift costs from project Owners to ratepayers, taxpayers, government debt
.
Utilities forced to pay:
At least 15 c/kWh, wholesale, after 50% subsidies, for electricity from fixed offshore wind systems
At least 18 c/kWh, wholesale, after 50% subsidies, for electricity from floating offshore wind
At least 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 far-flung 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 means 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 means 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
Total ADDER 2 + 2 + 2 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 2 = 11 c/kWh
Some of these values exponentially increase as more W/S systems are added to the grid
.
An A-to-Z picture to show the extent of ratepayer/taxpayer screwing
Offshore wind full cost of electricity FCOE = 30 c/kWh + 11 c/kWh = 41 c/kWh, no subsidies
Offshore wind full cost of electricity FCOE = 15 c/kWh + 11 c/kWh = 26 c/kWh, 50% subsidies.
Good article for showing the complexity of calculating the cost/pricing of grid-scale batteries on a kWh basis!
Thanks.
religion /rĭ-lĭj′ən/noun
Good review and analysis – thank you Francis Menton!
There is a short time remaining – about a week – to comment on the draft “Energy Plan”, so I better get with it.
This is so true: “So I think the vision of New York’s politicians and bureaucrats is to put their heads in the sand until this all falls apart, and then try to blame somebody else. We are living at peak absurdity.”
That figure 19 cited by you included battery power of 6 and 9.4GW.
It would be interesting to know how long such power would be stored aka the installed GWh needed for it.
If it were to buffer changes in the electricity production from solar cells the storage period for some of that might be up to 6month over the sun-poor winter months to cover the night demand in a cold April week.
I winder if, talking about potential battery storage capacity to cover wind/solar lulls in Winter, are we talking GWh, TWh, or PWh of needed storage?
Current electricity demand PLUS…
Heating
Cooking
Hot Water
Transportation
Trucking
Bussing
Trains
Planes
Shipping
All will need additional generation and storage capacity plus infrastructure upgrades to the electrical system and Grid
AS my “guestimate” in 2040 NY will be looking at about 50% (or more) of the 36.4GW produced by solar cells for about a month (roughly 1000h) which needs to be stored over the sun poor winter months.
So I am thinking they need astorage capacity for roughly 0.1PWh for 6months combined with a 20GW peak power output
After EPA Administer Lee Zeldin rescinds the 2009 CO2 Endangerment Finding, whatever will Gov. Kathy H. do? She will have to eat humble pie and repeal the draconian Climate Act. New Yorkers will be liberated! There will be celebrations and dancing in the streets!
Rule number one from the Hillary book of evasion is to make it complicated and have reporters also dismiss it as being complicated.
New York could ease its energy (and fiscal) problems by allowing fracking and NG-fueled powerplants. Since the economic benefits of fracking would go to largely Republican areas, it’s not likely to happen.
“We are living at peak absurdity.”.
Nice thought, but for that you have to stop the Long March.
Every time we reach peak absurdity, it reveals yet another peak beyond.
“The entire approach is to assume that if the amount of electricity generated is equal to the amount consumed, the two can be easily matched up somehow”
no problemo– everyone will simply have to adjust their lives around when the sun is shining and/or the wind is blowing! /s
From the image at the top, looks like the ETs are arriving in force. 🙂
Roger Caiazza and Richard Ellenbogen have filed an Article 78 petition for judicial review of the May 16, 2025 decision of the New York Public Service Commission (“PSC”) in its Case No. 15-E-0302 approval of a Clean Energy Standard (“CES”) Tier 4 Implementation Plan.
https://pragmaticenvironmentalistofnewyork.blog/2025/09/22/article-78-filing/
Roger Caiazza says this concerning the petition ….. ‘On September 19, 2025 Rich Ellenbogen and I served papers announcing our intent to litigate. Our filing states that “The PSC does not appear to have considered or rationally evaluated the evidence presented to it, to the effect that the Tier 4 Implementation Plan is unfeasible and unreasonable.’
The Article 78 process is described here:
https://www.lawny.org/node/62/article-78-proceedings-how-appeal-agency-decision
It remains to be seen if any action of any kind will be taken on the Caiazza/Ellenbogen petition for an Article 78 review. Maybe something will come of it, or maybe not.
The 1960s Population Bomb. Reduce the population by 90% and all the problems in the world go away.
Report? It’s nothing but obfuscation because the truth hurts. So what will become of all these “renewable” energy installations when the world gets low on fossil fuel and eventually nuclear takes over electricity generation? Even our great grandchildren won’t witness it. I see EOL coming soon with no replacement other than nuclear.
New York stays in the race to have a grid blackout alongside Australian states, Germany and the UK.