From THE MANHATTAN CONTRARIAN
When New York passed its utopian Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act back in 2019, it set mandatory targets for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from the state’s energy consumption. But none of the mandates were scheduled to take effect prior to 2030. The earliest mandates were: 70% of electricity from “renewables” by 2030, and 40% overall reduction in GHG emissions by the same year. (Still more ambitious mandates were also set for 2040, followed by a “net zero” mandate for 2050.). These dates all seemed so terribly far away — plenty of time for somebody to invent some new gizmos in the off chance that new technology might be needed to hit the goal.
Our legislators, innumerate to a person, had bought into the fantasy — peddled by lightweight academics like Mark Jacobson and Robert Howarth, and by grifting promoters like the American Wind Energy Association and investment bank Lazard — that wind and solar were now the cheapest way to make electricity. To abolish the evil fossil fuels, all that was needed was some political will.
The legislators definitely did not pay the slightest attention to the Manhattan Contrarian. Beginning in 2016, and consistently from then until the CLCPA was enacted in mid-2019, this site published one clear warning after another that the costs of a wind/solar energy system that would work full time would inevitably be a large multiple of those claimed by the promoters. If you want to entertain yourself for a while on this subject, you might be interested in my series “How Much Do The Green Energy Crusaders Plan To Increase Your Cost Of Electricity?” Part I (August16, 2016), Part II (August 20, 2016), and Part III (November 29, 2018). Well, I tried.
There actually was one other important deadline in the CLCPA, which was not a deadline for emissions reductions themselves, but rather a deadline for the state Department of Environmental Conservation to publish regulations to direct how the mandated emissions reductions would be achieved. The text from the CLCPA setting this deadline was codified in Section 75-0109 of the state’s Environmental Conservation Law. It states that DEC “shall . . . promulgate rules and regulations to ensure compliance with the statewide emissions reductions limits.” The deadline to promulgate these regulations was January 1, 2024.
January 1, 2024 came and went, and then another year went by, and still no regulations, nor any indication of when or whether they would be forthcoming. A reasonable inference would be that Kathy Hochul (who had taken over as Governor in 2021), or more likely some people on her staff, had figured out that this was not going to work. But they also knew that saying that out loud would be political suicide. Thus, silence.
By March of this year, the environmental zealots had had enough. In that month, a collection of environmental groups — Citizens Action of New York, People United for Sustainable Housing Buffalo, Sierra Club, and We Act for Environmental Justice — filed what we call an “Article 78” proceeding in the state Supreme Court of Ulster County, to compel the DEC to comply with the statute and issue the regulations. (Article 78 is a part of the state procedural statute that provides for lawsuits to compel state agencies to comply with the law.). The case was assigned to Justice Julian Schreibman.
The court held a hearing on July 25, and then on August 11 took a supplemental letter submission from the New York Attorney General’s office on behalf of the DEC. Then the court issued its decision on October 27.
The Attorney General’s August 11 letter submission is truly a remarkable document. Basically, it states that the emissions-reduction mandates of the CLCPA are “infeasible,” and it asks the court to refrain from enforcing the mandate to issue regulations on the ground that because the emissions reductions are infeasible the regulations to compel them to happen would cause “damage to the public interest.” As a little background, the letter frequently refers to the state’s draft “Energy Plan,” which was issued on July 25, and which I covered here at Manhattan Contrarian in a post on August 11 titled “New York’s Official Energy Plan Is No Plan,” where I called the Energy Plan “hundreds of pages of fluff.”
Here are a few excerpts from the state’s August 11 letter for your enjoyment:
The draft [Energy Plan] itself shows that a 40% greenhouse gas reduction from 1990 levels by 2030 is infeasible under the Climate Act’s accounting methodology and unaffordable for consumers. . . . [W]hile New York’s current policies and additional action would be expected to raise economywide costs for the state energy system in 2040 by less than 10%, the two net zero scenarios the Board considered raise energy-system costs by at least 35% in 2040, which is $42 billion in additional costs for that year alone. . . . In sum, under even the most aggressive scenario the State Energy Planning Board considered—one that by 2040 would lead to an added $42 billion in annual energy costs—New York would not meet the Climate Act’s 2030 goal. While the draft plan shows that ambitious progress under the Climate Act is achievable, the 2030 goal itself is not practically feasible due to costs consumers simply cannot bear.
So they have actually calculated that the attempt to reach “net zero” emissions on the statutorily-mandated schedule will cost consumers an extra $42 billion per year by 2040. They don’t give us numbers for other years, but presumably other years would be comparable. So figure, $42 billion per year. Let’s say that that is slightly different from wind and solar being “cheaper” than our existing fossil fuel infrastructure.
Frankly, I think that the $42 billion per year is a very low-ball estimate. But for today, I will take it.
The state’s August 11 letter essentially advocates that the deadlines should be allowed to slip while we implement these policies more slowly. What the letter does not mention is whether the total cost of this transition will be reduced in any way by stretching it out or, alternatively, whether the cost will be equal or more if spread over a longer period of time. I can’t think of any reason why spreading the cost over a longer period of time would reduce the total cost. And thus, if the cost is “infeasible” for consumers, it will be equally infeasible if stretched out.
Justice Schreibman was extremely unimpressed by the very weak argument made by the state. From the court’s opinion (page 8):
Faced with this [statutory] mandate, DEC does not have the discretion to say no or to decide that it has the authority to choose not to follow the express legislative direction at issue. Under our system of separation of powers, upon concluding, based on its subject-matter expertise, that achieving the goals of the Climate Act might be “infeasible” for the reasons stated, the DEC had just two options. One, it could issue compliant regulations anyway, and let the chips fall where they may for the State’s political actors. Or, two, it could raise its concerns to the Legislature. . . .
The court’s decision gives the state until February 6 to issue the regulations. The reason for the three month window is that the state Legislature will not come back into session until January, and thus the option to ask the Legislature to reconsider is kept open.
But what is the exit strategy? Will they soon start spending $42 billion per year on a crash emissions reduction program that still will clearly be insufficient to meet the ridiculous mandates of the CLCPA? Or will they ask the state Legislature to revise the statute? The second option will bring a huge outcry from the dominant progressive group in the Legislature and their environmentalist backers, all of whom are convinced (without ever having done serious analysis) that wind and solar are cheaper than fossil fuels and only corrupt influence from oil and gas interests is preventing the energy transition.
Maybe they postpone the deadlines for a year or two. But when the year or two is up, the problem will be back bigger than ever.
There is no graceful exit strategy. The CLCPA will inevitably be abandoned. Exactly when or how, I don’t know, but it will happen.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Bit of a perfect storm brewing.
Randle Dewees: “Bit of a perfect storm brewing.”
I suggest in the comment below that the perfect storm can be accelerated if the plaintiffs themselves would write an interim set of DEC emission regulations which comply with the 2019 Climate Act’s requirements.
And then after 2/6/2026, when the state has taken no further action to comply with the judge’s ruling, to ask the judge to impose these ‘interim’ regulations on the DEC, forcing the DEC to immediately issue those regulations without further public involvement.
One way or another, New York is headed for the power blackout abyss. That abyss might as well happen sooner rather than later. It would be a character-building experience for everyone involved.
What is beyond the abyss?
An energy Mariana Trench.
What is beyond the energy hole. Do you have a theory? I’m don’t do legal/political scenario musings, I’m wondering how this hole (if it happens) gets fixed.
Eventually, the plaintiffs will be told to pack sand. I’m wondering how they will get the message.
I live in the Middle of Nowhere in southeastern Washington State. But I have relatives in upstate New York, on Long Island, in Manhattan, and in the Bay Area of California.
Based on their attitudes towards politics and towards environmental issues — which are representative of a majority of their state’s respective populations — then even after the blackouts begin to occur with some frequency, they will not acknowledge that the transition into a wind and solar future is the basic root cause of why those blackouts are happening.
The other facet of this developing situation in New York state is that the faction of the Democratic Party which has placed Zohran Mamdani into office as mayor of New York City will eventually gain full control of the larger state party and will then double down on efforts to achieve the state’s Net Zero commitments.
This will result in a slowly accelerating exodus of both population and industry from NYS as those who have the resources to go elsewhere begin to make their escape in ever-larger numbers, leaving behind a state which has a huge disparity between rich and poor, and next to no middle class to speak of.
Will those who have left New York State, and California as well, carry the hard lessons learned of the Net Zero transition with them to their new homes in other states? It’s not certain at this point that they will.
even after the blackouts begin to occur with some frequency, they will not acknowledge
Therein lies the bigger problem – this is evidenced by the people who leave states that are falling apart due to certain policies, but when they reach their new home continue to vote for the exact policies that drove them away in the first place. They are unable to understand cause and effect.
As for Mamdani, a lot of people are saying he won’t be able to do most of what he’s saying – but he’ll be able to do whatever they (city council and state) LET him, and I have a feeling they’re not going to fight very hard against him.
I think this sums up the situation very well.
The
maniacsplantiffs em;ission regulations would impose a cap on emissions in 2030 that corresponds to the Climate Act target. Because there is no way to achieve that limit by then affected sources would have to stop operating during the year when they run out of allowances. Welcom to an artificial energy shortage. Surely an abyss.By the way there has been no hint of any suggestion what the Hochul Administration plans to do.
Indeed. But at least you will be able to get a free subway ride.
Doesn’t matter what the issue. If you have no exit strategy you are toast. The search for the guilty begins immediately.
.
So what poor, clueless minion will be the fall guy? “cuz it ain’t gonna be any of the fools responsible for this madness.
y guess it will be the usual suspects, power companies and oil companies are refusing to cooperate and create the magic tech needed to make these plans work.
and all the deniers helping them /s
I’ve heard big oil is funding the deniers with $$$billions$$$ to bury grass roots climate justice activists with disinformation. Billions!!
I think Big Oil has also bought up all of the DEFR patents and paid to suppress further research into DEFRs. That’s why CLCPA isn’t/won’t work.
/s
Wait – where the hell is my check?
Followed immediately by punishment of the innocent.
Energy policy ignorance will not be detoured or reformed. It is relentless.
I attended a seminar by Mark Jacobson so many years ago, in the mid 90’s I think. His main message was the wind is always blowing somewhere. His thesis helped me to realize that the renewable energy circus was being driven by clowns who were also idiots.
I’ve since come to realize that some people can grow up, acquire new perspectives and knowledge. Some idiots just grow old.
Wind is always blowing somewhere is BS. Wind droughts are frequently continental wide.
The Feb 2021 freeze, the wind was dead across the entire north american continent for 3 days and very light for a total of 10 days. See EIA website
He didn’t mean geographical wind; he meant biological wind-his.
The fallacy in the “wind is blowing somewhere” myth is that there needs to be enough energy in that place where the “wind is blowing”, to power all of the places where the wind isn’t blowing.
Assume that wind is always blowing over 50% of the land/sea surface area. Under this scenario, each place on earth needs to have enough to power itself, plus 100% more, to power the 50% where the wind isn’t blowing.
If the wind only blows on 1/3rd of the land, than each place where the wind does blow will need to over build by 200%.
needs to be enough energy in that place where the “wind is blowing”, to power all of the places where the wind isn’t blowing.
Don’t forget about the infrastructure to get it from the first place to the second.
He sounds like a hopeless student of Jeffrey Sachs. Sorry to mention that name at all.
NY 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 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, 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:
1) increase command/control by governments
2) enable the moneyed elites to become more powerful and richer, at the expense of all others, by using the foghorn of government-subsidized/controlled Corporate Media to spread scare-mongering slogans and brainwash people, already for at least 50 years; extremely biased CNN, MSNBC, NPR, PBS, NBC ABC, CBS come to mind.
.
NY State Utilities will:
Pay foreign Owners 15.5 c/kWh for 20 to 25 years
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 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
18 c/kWh, wholesale, after 50% subsidies, for electricity from floating offshore wind
.
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
.
Offshore wind full cost of electricity FCOE:
30 c/kWh + 11 c/kWh = 41 c/kWh, no subsidies
15 c/kWh + 11 c/kWh = 26 c/kWh, 50% subsidies
The 11 c/kWh is for various measures required by wind and solar. Power plant to landfill cost basis.
This compares with 7 c/kWh + 3 c/kWh = 10 c/kWh from existing gas, coal, nuclear, large reservoir hydro plants.
Terrific analysis.
The most important point is that the cost of renewables is the same with or without subsidies. Subsidies just move the peas around on the plate.
The government does not have any money. The only source of money for subsidies is either money extracted from taxpayers or rate payers.
The cost for offshore wind according to the comment is 41 c/kwh vs 10 c/kwh for existing sources. The only number that matters economically is the cost of 41c/kwh regardless of who pays it.
As if electing a socialist as mayor of NYC is not enough to convince businesses to move out of the state of New York, quadrupling energy costs will be even more compelling.
“People are brainwashed to love wind and solar.”
When a solar “farm” was proposed next to my ‘hood, here in north central Wokeachusetts- I went to the planning board meeting. The company showed a large poster showing a solar “farm” loaded with gorgeous flowers. Now that it’s built, I see no flowers- in fact, the entire 20 acres is nothing but bare sand.
That seems over complicated way to price. The fair way to price when adding W&S would be to build out and price with reliable electricity only as is now done. Then make W & S pay all their cost of construction and conditioning and delivery to the grid and pay them only for the offset fuel cost. The owners of the reliable system would get paid the original price less fuel cost offset. That is fair because all cost of the reliable grid go on and the W&S does not offset any capacity. No matter how much W&S is added, the reilables must be able to handle 100% of the load. If W&S can’t deliver for the offset fuel cost, don’t buy it. You could argue that W&S should get and adder for offset wear on equipment, but I doubt it would be real.
That method is so convoluted, no sane energy systems analyst and economist and financer would advocate it.
Well let’s be honest. Once you remove government mandates that worse-than-useless wind and solar power be given priority on the grid and all the various tax credits, subsidies and curtailment payments, wind farms and solar farms simply would not be built.
They only way wind and solar ever made sense financially was as “mandate, tax credit and subsidy farms.”
That also is the opinion of Warren Buffett, who must have talked to Gates to make him see energy and climate reality.
Why do left leaning politicians find it so hard to admit they are wrong?
It is human to err, do these idealogues imagine they are not human like the rest of us?
When the much championed ideology they advance hits the hard wall of reality they will be forced to come out and say, ‘sorry folks we got it all wrong’
The sooner they do that the better for all concerned including themselves.
They won’t ‘fess up; they’ll just choose not to run again for reelection…and blame somebody else…or ask for more grift to solve the problem. And no, they are not like the rest of us-they’re elitist, power hungry politicos well bought and paid for who could care less.
Cause they don’t have the wherewithal to know they are wrong.
In today’s media environment, if you admit you were wrong the mainstream news media and the political activists will stomp all over you.
‘Why do left leaning politicians find it so hard to admit they are wrong?’
The goal for all ‘left leaning politicians’ is absolute power. Regardless of which flavor of socialism they are offering, being ‘wrong’ isn’t a bug, it’s a feature.
$$$$$$$$$$
If something cannot go on forever, it will stop.
-Herbert Stein
The exit strategy for the inhabitants of New York is to migrate to California where the Government is …… . No, wait a minute …. .
Well, the weather is a bit better … .
They will lose their standard strategy.
These people migrate to red states (you don’t leave one shithole for another).
Bringing with them their dysfunctionalities and perversions and, the worst thing, their attitudes and voting habits(this time it’ll work,promise).
Like a bunch of locusts, after the work of destruction is done they move on to the next red state.
Aren’t the attitudes, dysfunctionalities etc. similar in both places?
New Yorkers came to North Carolina with ideas that Raleigh should build toll roads and commuter rail. Also they brought the “education Lottery”, so the progressive income tax could be properly inverted.
Both are turning to trash – but the blues is generally twice as bad.
The criminal statistics are officially somehow identical as result of climate science tactics, as the blue states ignore the majority of felonies as result of soft on crime approach and a deliberately demoralized police force,
but I wouldn’t be surprised if the crime ratio is 2.5:1 .
If both places were similar the population movement from one place to another would be the same but
“a bit better”
Understatement of the year award nomination.
Only in Northern California
Excellent review of our situation here in NY!
In that draft NY “Energy Plan” there is this figure in which the “Health Benefits” at $40B per year and “Avoided GHG Benefits” at $28B per year are posed as offsets to the $42B cost for a “Net Benefit” of $26B per year.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hVZYwkkHHXE8sakGPAbQZQo_j560FaLf/view?usp=sharing
Lunacy.
Those “benefits” are speculative. Fictional. Imaginary. Delusional. There is no stream of hard money receipts to justify even the first dollar of the costs.
The estimated costs are hard money expenditures. There is no escape from the impact on ratepayers and consumers.
The train wreck will happen. Slow or fast, sooner or later.
Repeal every last line of the CLCPA and every related regulatory mandate for vehicles and buildings!
Thank you for listening.
DD:
Yep.
The “benefits” are modeled, likely using all sorts of arbitrary inputs & parameters
to obtain the preferred result.
But since the Church of the Climate Crisis believes modeled data is more real than
observations, then modeled cost savings must be just as real.
Somehow, I bet this idea fits quite well with their Modern Monetary Theory as well.
To be fair, the costs are modelled to. But, with the biases involved, I’m confident in predicting that the costs will be way higher than modelled and the benefits will be far less.
As in:
costs = astronomical;
benefits = nonexistent
I would just like to point out that, to me, it’s not so much that the claimed benefits are “modeled” but that the supporting claims are fundamentally unsound. Will I ever be able to experience a tangible improvement in climate-related losses? No. Will I ever be able to experience those lower health care or health coverage costs (meaning I pay less) when gas-fired electricity goes away? Also no.
Same thing happening all over. People are realizing the cure is worse than the disease. No one wants to admit they fell for a scam hook, line, and sinker, so now it will be the blame game.
“No one wants to admit…” that Trump has been essentially right all along on the climate issue and on the inferiority of intermittent sources of electricity. That is a yuge problem in their heads, no doubt.
The MRNA “vaccine” was also worse than Covid.
Seems killing with the cure is main part of their strategy,
just as they replaced standing armies with IMF loans,
NATO /Membership and revolutions.
I guess it will take some time before the majority realizes this.
Only the “disease” is actually an improvement, and the “cure” wouldn’t do a thing about it even if the “disease” was an actual “problem.”
It is simply bad governance to replace an existing robust energy generation and delivery system with an unproven technology counting on future engineering.
More like “with OBVIOUSLY INFERIOR technology dependent on MAGICAL THINKING.”
Our glorious Labour government has the answer for anyone looking for an exit…
Extremely well-off Britons leaving the UK for tax havens face having to pay a charge as they depart under plans being drawn up ahead of this month’s crunch Budget.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/rachel-reeves-budget-exit-tax-emigration-b2856599.html
All you have to do is define what you think a well-off Briton is… And they will. If we did not throw all these billions at net zero we wouldn’t be in this position to begin with.
Today, wasted wind has already cost Britain:
£1,798,802
£504,108 switching off wind turbines
£1,294,694 buying energy elsewhere
Yesterday, wasted wind cost Britain:
£3,246,441
£658,107 switching off wind turbines
£2,588,333 buying energy elsewhere
Wasted Wind
It’s incoherent and utterly stupid.
Yes. The UK has no exit strategy either. Its situation is similarly technically impossible – in a word, its trying to move the country to heat pumps for heating and EVs for transport, while at the same time it allows its gas generation to reach end of life and tries to move the country to wind and solar for power generation. And to add to this, its trying to create an expanding AI industry while having the highest industrial electricity prices in the world. And if this is not bad enough its also trying to close down its gas exploration and production industry.
And, like NY State, it has cast its power generation policy objectives in legislation which the present government will find politically impossible to repeal.
It is indeed incoherent and utterly stupid. But Miliband shows no sign of backing off, and Starmer has already bottled it when he tried to move him to somewhere where he would do less damage.
Like NY State, the UK is headed for blackouts. Blackouts which will have been caused by policies and legislation passed (and strengthened) by governments of both Labour and Conservatives.
Its all very well for the Conservatives now to say they would change policy. Time has just about run out, and anyway, the Labour majority makes them immovable till 2029. And Miliband is evidently immovable and not for turning, and its even possible he could become the new Prime Minister, if, as rumoured, there is an internal Labour Party coup against Starmer, when he would undoubtedly accelerate the madness.
Blackouts it is, then. And as the facts about this fiasco become apparent, its Farage too, and its whatever genuinely far right populist replaces him. This is Weimar on Thames, and it has the same root cause: the total failure of an entire political class. And it will have similar consequences.
Just pray that the English have retained their sense of proportion and humor enough to get through it with democracy in one piece. Though considering the spectacle of the woke recent years, you can’t be all that optimistic about that.
Sadly, I never had religion. Much like Rory Gallagher
I’m not optimistic at all…I’ll seriously, and sadly, miss the UK…we here in the US got many wonderful and superbly cultural things, from haute coture, to music, to wonderful literature and art…and so very much of our history and its lessons.. A truely Greek tragedy-do the Gods hate the UK?
Judge is correct legally. How delightful for the ‘new’ legislature convening in January in an election year featuring Hochul v Stefanik.
Once enough people have frozen to death because they couldn’t pay the electricity bill it will become very simple. A very angry mob marching with pitchforks on the Legislature and threatening to hang the dumb politicians, the lawyers and judges.
No, it won’t be that. It will be a charismatic politician who has identified some group who can be blamed and made enemies of the people. His party will get elected, pass enabling legislation in the light of the crisis, and then rule by decree. And Heaven help the country that finds itself in this situation without a written constitution and a people strong enough and willing enough to stand by it.
Torches and pitchforks.
We have that tendency in our history, but do we have the testicular fortitude?
The 2021 winter storm that caused huge electricity blackouts in Texas killed over 200 and caused $billions in damages, yet no angry mobs. Sadly, it seems it will require a much larger disaster to get people’s attention.
“mandatory targets” is an interesting phrase from the first paragraph. A target is something to aim for that might be missed. Mandatory means do something or else suffer a consequence. The words together can mean either one must aim or one must hit, but the meaning is not obvious without other words added. I will return to the article to see whether the article defines the consequence. If the article does not describe the consequence, then I’ll have to Google. If Google does not describe the consequence, then I’ll be out of time for that digging this morning. Without that answer I think about Goldman Sachs receiving fines in the financial crisis of 2008 – the profits for their supposed crimes were orders of magnitude greater than the financial penalties for committing them, so the regulatory system made their crimes a good business decision. Unless the consequences for New York violating its own mandatory targets exceed the benefits of New York violating its own mandatory targets, then by all means New York should go all in on the biggest coal plants it can build, and F- the scrubbers because they have regulators to pay off.
Nope. No consequences for failure in article.
No consequences described on climate.ny.gov either, Does anyone know? If the consequences are nothing, then who cares about targets.
I think the intent is to pass regulations that include consequences in the implementing regulations. In the preferred cap-and-invest control program every ton of CO2 emitted without a permit gets fined at an exorbitant rate. Or the affected source just stops running. My advice was always to stop running.Sorry cannot sell you gasoline or provide you with electricity.
The Williams Company pipeline will quietly become their backstop. This will allow them to continue with the noisemaker political tactics to nowhere.
“The 23.5-mile underwater pipeline aims to deliver natural gas to New York and surrounding regions”
NG piped from Pennsylvania to NYC. I had not heard about it so posted this for others.
“peddled by lightweight academics like Mark Jacobson”
That is an understatement
Jacobson claims in his 100% renewable studies that A – renewables are cheaper and B that he ran “an every 30 second stress test” proving 100% renewables work. Both claims are outright lies, as exposed by his own tables S1 through S17.
Cheaper ? Jacobson’s supplemental tables show that the “average” capacity factor is approximately 3x the estimated “average demand” for electricity. Of course “actual ” capacity varies considerably from “average ” capacity. Likewise actual usage at any point in time varies considerably from average usage. Therefore the need for 3x average. That means production has considerable over production (wasted production ) and therefore a lot of idle usage, which deflates the denominator by 3 in the cost computation.
30 second Stress test – Again using Jacobson supplemental tables with capacity and using the actual supply from the EIA website for any winter month and there several times during those months where the generation drops 20% -30% below demand for 8-12 hours, with little overage to recharge the batteries. Using the Feb 2021 actual production/capacity factors, and the North american continent is short by nearly 50% of demand for 7-10 days. In other words, jacobson is full of blank
I have to say ” Our legislators, innumerate to a person, had bought into the fantasy — “
is one of the best ` hooks to an article in an email I’ve seen in quite a while . ! LoL !
Problem with fantastical, fanatical, religious ideas? They elected Peter Pan, let him solve it.
“lightweight academics like Mark Jacobson and Robert Howarth”
Excellent insult for academics because they all think of themselves as heavyweights in their specialties – so calling them lightweight really cuts to the bone. 🙂
Repeating a comment I made to an earlier WUWT article on this topic, the plaintiff environmental groups have another option, assuming the state legislature doesn’t modify the Climate Act and the DEC doesn’t meet the judge’s 2/6/2026 deadline.
These environmental groups are well funded and have a variety of regulatory experts at their beck and call. In the next two months, the plaintiffs could fund an effort to quickly draft an interim set of emission regulations which meet the Climate Act’s requirements.
After the 2/6/2026 deadline passes without state action, the plaintiffs can then ask the judge to impose that ‘interim’ set of regulations on the DEC, in the form of a judicial decree which takes immediate effect without further public hearings.
The plaintiffs could also fund a quick effort to develop a pencil-whipped, more-detailed engineering feasibility analysis which supports their own talking points concerning what the Net Zero transition compliance targets in New York state will cost, and how long the transition will take.
Based on how well the plaintiff’s own proposed set of regulations comply with the Climate Act, and on how well their pencil-whipped engineering feasibility analysis appears on paper in terms of having a professional look and feel, the judge would have every justification to impose an interim set of emission regulations on the DEC.
The plaintiff’s pencil-whipped engineering feasibility study doesn’t have to be honest and accurate. The study just has to have the look and feel of being a credible analysis, even if it isn’t one. Moreover, presenting such an analysis to the legislature would bolster the plaintiff’s political position that the Climate Act shouldn’t be modified.
The environmental group plaintiffs could make things even worse for Governor Hochul and her people.
After Zohran Mamdani takes office, the plaintiffs could ask him to formally intercede as a recognized Friend of the Court by submitting an amicus brief on their behalf, acting in his official capacity as Mayor of New York City. This is something Mamdani might be more than happy to do, as it would be a visible form of virtue signaling to his affordability-focused NYC voter base.
Other benefits accrue for Mamdani and his socialist/communist supporters, and for their plan to take full control of the state Democratic Party.
If the Hochul Administration tells the legislature and later the court that the plaintiff’s feasibility analysis is deeply flawed, Hochul and her people have admitted in a very public forum that the Net Zero goals of the Climate Act can’t be achieved. But if they do challenge the validity of the plaintiff’s study, Mamdani will make big points with his affordability-driven voter base by calling Hochul and her people liars.
At any rate, taking this approach gets everyone off the hook, for now anyway. (Except for New York’s ratepayers, of course. They are all screwed one way or another.)
— Governor Hochul can say, “It wasn’t me who did this. I have to follow the court’s and the legislature’s decisions.”
— The DEC doesn’t have to go through an involved public comment process. The DEC senior staff can say, “It wasn’t us who did this. We have to follow the court’s decree and impose the interim regulations without further public input.”
— The power utility CEO’s don’t have to defend themselves from an angry public. The CEO’s can say, “It wasn’t us who decided to do this. We have to comply with the court’s decision and with the regulations the DEC imposes on us according to the court’s demands.”
— The environmental groups can keep themselves busy monitoring the state’s compliance with the judge’s court order. And pursuing more litigation if the state, the DEC, and the power utilities don’t comply with the judge’s decree.
The environmental groups which comprise the plaintiffs have every good reason to adopt this strategic plan; i.e. to have the judge impose an interim set of emission regulations on the DEC.
Forcing an interim set of emission regulations on the DEC would further grease the skids which lead into the power blackout abyss. No doubt about it. One reason why the course of events would go that way is because the ‘interim’ regulations would become permanent, for all practical purposes.
But hey … If New York is certain to fall into the blackout abyss anyway, it might as well happen sooner rather than later.
“But hey … If New York is certain to fall into the blackout abyss anyway, it might as well happen sooner rather than later.”
New York City (and the state) need to have nice lo-o-o-o-o-o-ng blackout in the worst way. The problem with that of course is that it will lead to serious economic consequences that will likely reverberate throughout the whole U.S. economy given that NYC is the U.S. financial center.
As painful as it is to say this, sometimes we humans learn things the hard way after we’ve done something really, really stupid and have suffered the consequences. It is the price we pay when we allow our politicians to listen to the wrong people or put the wrong people in office.
CLCPA sounds like a sexually transmitted disease. Although there is no cure for CLCPA.
Exit strategy? Oh ye, of little faith. For shame!
Electric power is the least of it. They would have to cut statewide gasoline usage 30% in four years including all the interstate traffic.
Impossible.
David Wojick: “Electric power is the least of it. They would have to cut statewide gasoline usage 30% in four years including all the interstate traffic. Impossible.”
David, with enough political will backed by enough creative thinking, nothing is impossible for socialist/communist climate activists to achieve.
In a previous comment above, I suggest that the perfect storm of 2019 Climate Act compliance can be accelerated if the lawsuit plaintiffs themselves would write an interim set of DEC emission regulations which comply with the 2019 Climate Act’s requirements.
And then after 2/6/2026, when the state has taken no further action to comply with the judge’s ruling, to ask the judge to impose these ‘interim’ regulations on the DEC, forcing the DEC to immediately issue those regulations without further public involvement.
Reducing gasoline consumption in New York state 30% by 2030 is one fustercluck of a sticky wicket. So I asked Google AI this question: “Does the New York Department of Environmental Conservation have any involvement in regulating gasoline consumption in New York state?”
This was the AI response:
————
Yes, the New York Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) has significant involvement in regulations that indirectly affect gasoline consumption, primarily through its authority over environmental protection, air quality, and climate change initiatives.
The DEC does not directly regulate individual consumer gasoline consumption or set fuel efficiency standards for vehicles (which are primarily federal EPA functions), but it plays a key role in:
— Vehicle Emissions: The DEC is responsible for the administration and enforcement of regulations related to mobile source (on-road) emissions, using models like the EPA’s MOVES to estimate air pollution from vehicles. These efforts aim to reduce air pollutants and greenhouse gases associated with gasoline use.
— Climate Goals: Under the state’s Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA), the DEC is mandated to develop and implement regulations to achieve economy-wide greenhouse gas emission reductions, which includes emissions from the transportation sector.
— Infrastructure and Storage: The DEC regulates the bulk storage of petroleum in aboveground and underground tanks (Petroleum Bulk Storage program) and licenses major oil storage facilities to prevent spills and leaks, which are environmental protection measures related to gasoline supply and handling. The agency also conducts enforcement details at gas stations to ensure compliance with vapor recovery systems and other environmental rules.
— Policy Advocacy: The DEC’s own sustainability plan includes goals to reduce employee commuting in single-occupancy fossil-fuel vehicles, encouraging broader shifts in transportation behavior. The agency is also involved in interagency initiatives like the Climate Smart Communities Program which offers grants and technical assistance to help local governments reduce emissions, including those from transportation.
Furthermore, recent court rulings have ordered the DEC to issue overdue regulations to ensure compliance with the state’s ambitious climate goals, which could lead to more direct regulations affecting fuel use across various sectors, including potentially a low-carbon fuel standard if the legislature passes such a bill.
(End of AI response)
———-
OK …. It has been noted that New York’s GHG Cap and Trade program is expected to carry a good deal of the burden of implementing the 2019 Climate Act. But the Hochul Administration hasn’t updated the NYS cap and trade program in ways which directly support the Climate Act’s goals.
Great galloping gigawatts, what are climate activists to do!?!?!
The lawsuit’s plaintiffs could, in writing their own ‘interim’ DEC regulations per my suggestion, include provisions which directly impose a gasoline & diesel fuel rationing scheme on New York state if the state’s cap and trade program hasn’t been effective in reducing consumption by 2030.
If the judge imposed contingent regulations on gasoline consumption through a mandatory fuel rationing scheme, wouldn’t that be a spectacle worth watching play out in the next four years?
Missing in the discussion is the fact that NYS has regulations that require time periods for new regulations. 2/6/25 cannot be achieved. Also DEC was planning to promulgate three new regulations. They are in the process for the reporting component bur the rules implemeting the cap-and-invest allocations and trading program infrastructure were never proposed. In theory the lunatics could propose rules but in reality they have no clue. I guess that is the point and a well taken one.
Roger, two points here:
(1) When the judge issued his order, he knew that 2/6/26 was not achievable if the NYS time period requirements were followed. IMHO, he was opening the door to having the plaintiffs submit their own set of emission rules for his review and approval, once it was clear the state would not comply with his original decision. At which point he would issue a decree that the DEC immediately implement the plaintiff’s rules with no further public review or any other pre-implementation review action.
(2) The plaintiffs may not have cap-and-invest expertise easily available to them. But they do have expertise available to them in the areas of emission control standards and in areas such as low carbon fuel standards. If they were inclined to do so, they could use the expertise they actually do have to throw a nasty monkey wrench into Governor Hochul’s political messaging concerning energy affordability issues.
Let’s acknowledge another key point. The socialist/communist organizations which have managed to place Zohran Mamdani into the NYC mayors office are determined to gain control of the state Democratic Party and to defeat anyone who stands in their way. Which means they have to do whatever they have to do to defeat Governor Hochul if and when she stands her ground and resists their takeover of the party.
Good points. Just when I thought it could not get worse you show why worse is inevtiable.
Should also note that it is very likely that Hochul will appeal the decision. That would delay the reckoning witht the lunatic fringe on the left and the affordability concerns inevitable for this debacle with everyone else
The election of what’s-his-name as mayor of NYC is just one of the reasons to exit the Big Apple and probably the state. The consequences of the CLCPA are the second one, although a lot of people in the Empire State may not know much about latter. They may find out soon enough.
So the income on the New York Thru Way will decrease? I wonder if they will make passers thru abide by their law?
If you are able, the wise move is to move out of NY. The state is not going to change until it hits rock bottom.
Francis, love your updates. Did the Legislature consult with/request technical details from the DEC indicating this was “feasible” in the first place, i.e., BEFORE requiring them to supply an Energy Plan by law?
I will take this one. Nope. Jacobsen and Howarth said it would be feasible so that was good enough.
Thanks, Roger. Very much enjoy your posts, too…
This is comedy gold, people with useless degrees and high-faluting “Legislator” titles thinking they can make electricity decisions because it is simply substituting one for another to come out of the plug in their walls… Sad how many people, even “educated” ones, are clueless about how the world actually works.
Very nice Francis. This is the clearest example of why government should not be in charge of anything as important as energy production and transmission. My guess is that 99% of those voting for this mess have no clue what they were voting for. The most they should be allowed to do is request a feasibility study but I am sure they would select their people to conduct the survey so I guess they shouldn’t even be allowed o do that.
The problem with New York is that enough of its population is located in NYC that what *they* vote for overrides the rest of the state. And 4 out of 5 of the boroughs consist largely of people who think the whole world is reachable by the subway and don’t care or think about what the 5th borough and the rest of the state need in terms of transportation.
So in their insular and decidedly leftist bubble they think they are virtuous by voting for such moronic policies.
That’s not to say they have given any genuine intelligent thought to the consequences of course. When the grid goes down and they’re shivering and hungry in their apartments (because all the restrictions on transport will probably put severe limits on all those diesel trucks from which their groceries emerge), they’re going to start seeing the chickens of their stupid voting choices come home to roost.