Pragmatic Environmentalist of New York Summary Update August 11, 2025 – August 24, 2025
This is a summary update of posts at Pragmatic Environmentalist of New York over the last two weeks. I have been writing about the pragmatic balance of the risks and benefits of environmental initiatives in New York since 2017 with a recent emphasis on New York’s Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act). A pdf copy of the following information and previous summaries are also available. The opinions expressed in these articles do not reflect the position of any of my previous employers or any other organization I have been associated with, these comments are mine alone.
Draft Energy Plan
The are many Climate Act initiatives currently under review in New York. Most important in my view is the draft State Energy Plan. I have provided background information and a list of previous articles on my Energy Plan page. The New York State Energy Research & Development Authority (NYSERDA) is developing the supporting analyses.
Virtual Hearing Personal Comments on the Draft Energy Plan
On August 19, NYSERDA hosted the first public hearing on the Draft Energy Plan. NYSERDA only allowed two minutes per speaker, so I wrote this article to document the comments and mentioned that in my oral presentation. There did seem to be a spike in visitors viewing this article.
The order of the commenters was based on the order that people registered. I imagine it was not appreciated by the State agencies that I was the first commenter because I was critical of the stakeholder process. I said that this stakeholder process appeared to be following the approach used in the Scoping Plan and that is not a good thing. I argued that the agencies treat the stakeholder process as an obligation and do not try to reconcile critical comments. If the purpose of the stakeholder process is to inform members of the Energy Planning Board, then NYSERDA must document all comments received and explain how the comment was resolved.
The biggest problem is that the Draft Energy Plan analysis “No Action” scenario is not a baseline that excludes all programs necessary to achieve the Climate Act targets. It includes legacy programs in place prior to the Climate Act. This hides the true costs of the net-zero transition. I stated that a “no GHG emission reduction” program scenario is needed so we can know the true costs to achieve net-zero.
I also argued that given the tremendous uncertainty related to Federal programs, the comment period for the Draft Energy Plan should be extended. If that is not done, then it is likely that the Energy Plan will be obsolete as soon as it is completed. Finally, I explained that the Energy Plan will only be credible if it establishes specific affordability, reliability, and environmental impact acceptability criteria. As it stands now there is no measure that can be used to determine if the energy plan is on track. Once the criteria are established then a tracking mechanism must be established for each and there should be a mandatory course of action in place if the criteria are exceeded.
I have little expectation that the State will acknowledge my comments and no hope that they will consider my suggestions to improve the process. The only hope for change is if politicians catch on to the fact that they will be left holding the bag when the costs can no longer be hidden. New Yorkers should contact their elected officials and demand that the Draft Energy Plan include a no GHG baseline scenario so that the costs of the entire net-zero transition can be estimated.
Boundary Conditions
Despite the wails of anguish that New York is falling behind the Climate Act implementation schedule by the usual suspects at the hearings for the Draft Energy Plan and the New York Power Authority Renewables Draft Updated Strategic Plan, there are indications that even Governor Hochul is starting to understand that the Climate Act may be too extreme. She made remarks in early August, according to local news outlet Spectrum News that showed her awakening. “I was intent on becoming known as a strong environmental governor”, but she added: “I also cannot ignore the fact that the disruptions in our economy that have occurred since the laws went into place, but also since we even supported this, that need to be examined in terms of what is happening to people’s pocketbooks right now. … I also have to moderate and make sure that I’m not doing something that’s going to drive up costs for consumers, and the data shows at this time it would.” I have argued for years that there are boundary conditions in the Public Service Law that addresses the renewable energy mandates of the Climate Act. I published two articles about that requirement. Note that I published a summary elsewhere too.
Climate Action Council Member Letter to the PSC
In the first of three articles, I described a letter from two members of the Climate Action Council, Donna DeCarolis and Dennis Elsenbeck, to Rory Christian, Chair & Chief Executive Officer of the New Yok State Public Service Commission (PSC). The letter notes that “there are more than sufficient circumstances to warrant the PSC commencing” a hearing process to “consider modification and extension of New York Renewable Energy Program timelines.”
The letter describes three reasons for the PSC to consider a pause in the schedule. They cited Public Service Law (PSL) 66-p and its provision for a a PSC hearing. The letter also pointed out that the Draft Clean Energy Standard Biennial Review “details the numerous factors, including inflation, transmission constraints, shifting federal energy and trade policies and interconnection and siting challenges that have adversely impacted renewable development and the state’s trajectory towards achieving the Program’s 2030 target” leading to the conclusion that the 2030 70% renewable energy goal likely will not be met. They also quoted the Draft New York State Energy Plan: “Consistent with the findings of the CES biennial review, the [Draft Energy Plan’s] modeling shows achievement of a 70% renewable grid in 2033.” Moreover, the letter points out that the Draft Energy Plan goes on to “acknowledge that the anticipated buildout of renewables could be limited by external factors and the 70% target by 2030 may not be met until much later in the decade.”
Given that many of the arguments in the letter are like those that I have been trying to make for several years, I am very much encouraged that powerful voices have come out advocating a similar approach.
Climate Act Safety Valve Filing
The second post describes a filing that I made with Richard Ellenbogen, Constatine Kontogiannis, and Francis Menton to New York Public Service Commission Case 22-M-0149 – “Proceeding on Motion of the Commission Assessing implementation of and Compliance with the Requirements and Targets of the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act” that also argues that the PSC should commence a hearing process to “consider modification and extension of New York Renewable Energy Program timelines” per PSL 66-p.
Ellenbogen, Kontogiannis, Menton, and I have intervened in the National Grid and Consolidated Edison utility rate cases. In both cases, we included testimony arguing that PSL 66-p should be considered in the context of the rate case programs included to meet requirements of the Climate Act. The Department of Public Service (DPS) staff response to our arguments boils down to “rate cases are not the appropriate forum to consider limitations of the renewable energy program”. Our filing argues that Case 22-M-0149 is the appropriate forum and should address this issue.
Our filing points out that PSL 66-p includes a trigger for the hearing process if there is a significant increase in the number of ratepayers in arrears. My evaluation of current data on customer arrears and service disconnections demonstrates that New York may already meet thresholds for invoking PSL Section 66-p safety valves. We also argued that other circumstances indicate a hearing is appropriate. With utility arrears reaching $1.8 billion and affecting 1.2 million households, CLCPA implementation is creating significant affordability burdens. The Commission has failed to provide comprehensive cost reporting required under its own orders, making it impossible to assess true ratepayer impacts. The proposed transition to weather-dependent renewable resources poses unacceptable reliability risks that warrant safety valve consideration.
New York has never done a feasibility analysis because the politicians and the activists who wrote the law naively believed that the net-zero transition was only a matter of political will. It has always been inevitable that New York’s net-zero transition would collapse because of physics and costs issues that would have been flagged in a proper feasibility analysis. Now that the consequences of ignoring the fundamentals are becoming so evident that they cannot be ignored, the search is on for an excuse to pause implementation. This filing argues that there are already provisions in place to reconsider the schedule.
Climate Act Safety Valve Filing – Customers in Arrears Trigger
The final boundary condition post documents the status of the PSL 66-p trigger for utility customers in arrears. The post describes the safety valve trigger, the residential bill collection data, the methodology to calculate a significant increase in arrears, and the results. Details are available in the article.
The results are notable. I calculated whether there had been a significant increase in arrears since the Climate Act was introduced for the statewide average and for ten of the largest utilities in the state. The following table shows that there has been a statistically significant increase in customers in arrears since the start of the Climate Act for the statewide average and for four utilities: Consolidated Edison, Central Hudson Gas & Electric, National Grid Metro - Natural gas to Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island, and National Grid Upstate: the former Niagara Mohawk service territory.
Summary of Analyses of Customers in Arrears More Than 60 Days Difference Before the Climate Act and Since Implementation Showing Whether the Difference in the Number of Customers Changed Significantly Before 2019 and After 2020
In addition to the argument that individual rate cases were the incorrect proceeding to consider this implementation issue, DPS staff said we did not prove that the increases were due to the Climate Act. That response overlooks the fact that the information necessary to determine whether the costs are due to the Climate Act is not available because DPS has not fulfilled its obligations. The information in the DPS informational report required as part of Case 22-M-0149 is needed to determine if the increase is related to the CLCPA program. The DPS has not updated that report since July 2023 so only information through 2022 is available. State agencies are running out of excuses to ignore the clear mandate to hold a hearing to determine if it is appropriate to suspend or modify the Climate Act schedule.
National Grid Rate Case Approval August 17, 2025
The PSC unanimously approved a joint proposal on August 14, 2025, establishing a three-year electric and gas delivery rate plan for Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation (NMPC) d/b/a National Grid for service years 2025-2028. This article documents the rate case increases and describes how DPS blew off the concerns I raised about implementation of the Climate Act net-zero programs in the rate case.
The press release that announced the adoption of the rate plan headline stated that “PSC Dramatically Reduces National Grid’s Rate Request” and explained:
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.
By spreading the costs out over three years total electric delivery revenues are reduced by “over $340 million (67% decrease from request) and total gas delivery revenues by nearly $100 million (63% decrease from request) in the first year.”
The press release also claims that “The adopted joint proposal delivers $110 million in annual efficiency savings, defers non-essential capital projects, and supports energy affordability programs and protections for vulnerable customers.” Note, however, that the costs of state mandates are not explicitly listed. Needless to say, the idea that the massive expenditures for renewable energy support and other Climate Act capital projects should also be deferred given that the current plan relies on an as yet unidentified technology that may not be feasible was not acknowledged I believe that the crisis facing NMPC customers is not from the changing climate, but rather this irrevocably flawed climate policy, especially as it relates to affordability.
Higgins Comments on the NYPA 2025 Draft Strategic Renewable Energy Plan
Dennis Higgins graciously agreed to let me publicize his comments on the New York Power Authority (NYPA) draft update to its inaugural Strategic Plan. I provided background, linked to the scripted comment submitted by many zealots, and then summarized his excellent comment in the article.
I think that mixing energy policy and politics is a recipe for disaster. The hubris of the supporters of energy policy knows no bounds. It is not only that their legislation mandates the impossible, but they also hamstring organizations in the state responsible for providing affordable, clean, and reliable electricity. Upset that the deployment of renewable energy was not progressing fast enough to save the planet, the legislators forced NYPA to develop a plan to deploy more renewable energy.
Submitted comments on the 2025 NYPA Renewables Draft Updated Strategic Plan can be viewed. I extracted the most common scripted comment. There are multiple reasons that deployment is slower than envisioned by the authors of the Climate Act. Now activists demand that NYPA double down on the number of public renewables going from the proposed 7 GW to 15 GW but offer no way to do so.
Higgins prepared extensive comments that questioned whether any energy plan “reliant upon low-capacity factor, land hungry assets will prove reliable or affordable.” His comments cover six points:
1. NERC on the NY plan
2. Neither academic nor empirical evidence indicate the state plan will succeed
3. NERC warning -- IBRs undermine grid reliability
4. Capacity markets hammered by intermittent resources increasing energy costs and undermining reliability
5. Intermittent resources will not prove economical or reliable according to Sweden and others
6. NYISO has repeatedly warned of reliability issues
Please consider submitting comments for the proceeding. Written comments on the NYPA Renewables Strategic Plan can be submitted through Sept 12th here:
https://publiccomments.nypa.gov/
. I suggest that you explain that you are worried about costs and reliability, incorporate a paragraph or two of his, and suggest that the strategic plan should take those factors into account.
More Reasons to Pause August 23, 2025
This is another edition of reasons that New York needs to pause implementation and figure out how best to proceed with the Climate Act transition. This post summarizes three articles that support the need to pause.
An Institute for Energy Research article describes the misleading nomenclature used by activists to describe clean and dirty energy. For example, the Climate Act Scoping Plan claims renewables are “clean” but did not consider the life-cycle impacts. If those effects had been considered, then the benefits of renewables would have been reduced.
Tisha Schuller advises her readers that two things are true:
· Energy prices are likely to rise in the short term.
· Those price hikes were largely baked in before the Big Beautiful Bill even arrived.
The fact that the cost increases were inevitable will be ignored. She notes that the Myth of an Easy Energy Transition is “throwing a timely tantrum”, and there will be an overreaction that has its own consequences for future energy and climate politics. I like her description: “Get ready for an extinction burst of myth-making”
The relentless propaganda over the last couple of decades that climate science unequivocally shows that the climate change is real and has no upsides has shaped the New York energy debate. Just as the myth of an easy and cheap transition is falling apart as reality set in, there will be an eventual recognition that the over the top claims about climate change impacts are just another myth. Climate Discussion Nexus Newsletter describes a couple of items that address the root cause for the Climate Act transition.
John Robson’s Newsletter featured an article that described the response to the major new climate report from the U.S. Department of Energy. The report by five esteemed scientists dared to say that the “science” that claims there is a catastrophic threat from climate change is much less certain than advocates for the transition away from fossil fuels acknowledge. They have been so blunt to say that the “science” is unfit for policy purposes. In a pragmatic world that means that the urgency to transition away from fossil fuels is unwarranted and certainly does not support the idea that New York must transition before the technology necessary for the Climate Act renewable energy plan is available.
The inability of Climate Act proponents to distinguish between weather and climate is a continuing sore point for me. In another note related to the DOE report, Robson points out that “climate change isn’t something that causes weather to change, it’s a statistical description of long-term changes in the weather.” The simple explanation of the difference is that climate is what you expect and weather is what you get. A separate article on the DOE report also addresses the difference between weather and climate.
Another beneficial aspect of the DOE report is that it informs the public about the facts regarding climate science. Namely, it finds fault with those who invoke process-based reasoning and simple thermodynamic arguments to assert that warming is worsening extreme weather events. Because climate is the statistical property of weather over decades, single event attribution to climate change is not possible by definition.