Pragmatic Environmentalist of New York Balancing the risks and benefits of environmental initiatives, Citizen’s Guide to the Climate Act Page
By Roger Caiazza
Assemblyman Stirpe and the NY Heat Act
Recently I posted two articles about the New York Home Energy Affordable Transition Act, or NY HEAT, legislation that was being considered by the New York legislature but did not pass in the legislative session. At the same time I posted the last article (13 May 2024) I sent the following to my NYS Assemblyman Al Stirpe: “I am opposed to the NY HEAT Act for the reasons in documented in this article: NY HEAT is not so hot”. This post describes the response I received on 11 July 2024.
I have followed the Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (CLCPA) since it was first proposed, submitted comments on the CLCPA implementation plan, and have written over 400 articles about New York’s net-zero transition. I am convinced that the CLCPA will adversely affect affordability, reliability, and that the environmental impacts of the proposed transition are greater than the possible impacts of climate change. The opinions expressed in this post 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.
Overview
The CLCPA established a New York “Net Zero” target (85% reduction in GHG emissions and 15% offset of emissions) by 2050. It includes an interim 2030 reduction target of a 40% reduction by 2030 and a requirement that all electricity generated be “zero-emissions” by 2040. The Climate Action Council (CAC) was responsible for preparing the Scoping Plan that outlines how to “achieve the State’s bold clean energy and climate agenda.” In brief, that plan is to electrify everything possible using zero-emissions electricity. The Integration Analysis prepared by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) and its consultants quantifies the impact of the electrification strategies. That material was used to develop the Draft Scoping Plan outline of strategies. After a year-long review, the Scoping Plan was finalized at the end of 2022. In 2023 and 2024 the Scoping Plan recommendations were supposed to be implemented through regulation, PSC orders, and legislation. NY HEAT is an example of Climate Act legislation.
NY HEAT Act Response
As noted I did a couple of articles about the HEAT act a couple of months ago. The first described Rich Ellenbogen’s response to Sane Energy Voice claims that NY HEAT Act should be enacted. The second article referenced additional op-eds that argue this legislation is not a good idea.
While I appreciate the fact that someone on Stipe’s staff responded to my note, the response was unsatisfactory. As is always the case, the amount of energy necessary to refute BS is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it. In the following I provide my annotated comments to the email received from Assemblyman Stirpe.
The first paragraph was the usual boilerplate response:
Thank you for reaching out to me with your concerns regarding the NY HEAT Act. I greatly value the feedback I receive from my constituents, as it plays a crucial role in my decision-making process.
The meat of the response addressed NY HEAT:
First, I want to address some misconceptions about the NY HEAT Act. The Act will not eliminate existing gas services; it will end subsidies for new gas hookups. Currently, when a new home is constructed, the first 100 feet of gas hookup is free for the homeowner, with the cost being distributed among all ratepayers. The NY HEAT Act aims to remove this subsidy to encourage home builders to consider alternative energy sources, such as geothermal systems. If a developer chooses a geothermal system for a neighborhood instead of gas, the monthly heating and cooling costs could be 40%-50% lower, benefiting both the environment and New York homeowners.
The suggestion that NY HEAT will not eliminate existing gas services is solely concerned with the new gas hookups is either deliberate misinformation or outstanding naiveté. Consider the following sections of NY HEAT with my highlights:
Section 5: Amends section 30 of the public service law. Removes a residential customer’s legal entitlement to utility gas services, while maintaining this entitlement for electric service.
Section 7: Amends section 31, subdivisions 1,3, and 4, of the public service law. Implements the policy established in section 5 with respect to applications for electric and gas services. Acknowledges gas service may be limited or discontinued to facilitate achievement of the CLCPA climate justice and emission reduction mandates.
Section 8: Amends section 12 of the transportation corporations law. Removes the entitlement of non-residential customers to utility gas service, but maintains it for electric service.
Section 9: Amends section 66, subdivision 2, of the public service law and creates a new subdivision 12-e. Grants the commission authority to order the curtailment or discontinuance of the use gas for any customer, group of customers, or section of the gas distribution system, where the commission has determined that such curtailment or discontinuance is reasonably required to implement state energy policy.
Section 11: Repeals section 66-b of the public service law. Removes the entitlement to continuation of gas service following the demolition and reconstruction of any structure owned by a customer.
I am not a lawyer, but this language seems clear to me that the legislation is intended to do more than just change new gas hookup requirements. The only possible excuse is that the legislation does not explicitly include language to eliminate existing gas service. However, it clearly provides the enabling legislation to make it possible for the State to shut down gas service to existing customers. The claim that NY HEAT is solely concerned with the 100 foot rule is incorrect.
The rationale to eliminate the subsidy for new hookups claims that: “If a developer chooses a geothermal system for a neighborhood instead of gas, the monthly heating and cooling costs could be 40%-50% lower, benefiting both the environment and New York homeowners.” My response to that is show me the numbers. I am not going to take the time to find alternate numbers. However, my understanding is that geothermal systems are expensive to install and the oft-repeated narrative that a neighborhood system would bring down costs is long on wishful thinking and short on real world examples.
The response from Stirpe went on to provide the narrative rationale for NY HEAT:Addressing the climate crisis is essential, as record-breaking temperatures and fossil fuel emissions significantly contribute to global warming. The NY HEAT Act did not pass during this session, but it is important to take measures for mitigating the impact of fossil fuels on our planet. We all want our kids and grandkids to exist in a livable world.
Addressing the climate crisis is essential, as record-breaking temperatures and fossil fuel emissions significantly contribute to global warming. The NY HEAT Act did not pass during this session, but it is important to take measures for mitigating the impact of fossil fuels on our planet. We all want our kids and grandkids to exist in a livable world.
It is a Sisyphean task to try to debunk the emotional “existential” climate crisis rationale and the climate porn argument that every record-breaking temperature is proof that the climate is changing due to fossil fuel emissions that significantly contribute to global warming. There are many attempts to address those claims amongst my articles on the Climate Act but I think it is impossible to change many minds on those claims.
Importantly however is my unaddressed concern is about New York’s role in this global problem. Using GHG emissions data from Our World In Data I looked at emissions in the last year with global data. In 2021, NYS GHG emissions (GWP-100) were 247 million metric tonnes (MMT). GHG emissions from China were 13,774 MMT and from India were 3,879 MMT. The increase in emission from 2020 to 2021 were 498 MMT in China and 265 MMT in India. New York emissions will be supplanted by emissions from China or India in less than one year. New York’s emissions are less than a half a percent of global emissions. This does not necessarily mean that we should not do something, but it does mean that NY HEAT is not going to make a bit of difference to climate change impacts.
I also want to address the last emotional argument: “We all want our kids and grandkids to exist in a livable world”. I agree that we should be worried about our children and grandchildren. On the other hand, I know that the societal cost of carbon benefitsare based on contrived calculations and that New York’s Value of Carbon calculations project alleged impacts out to 2300. The children and grandchildren argument changes when you understand that we are talking about the impacts today relative to those ten generations in the future. The emotional argument is less impactful when you consider the hubris involved with claims that we can predict or even imagine what the world will like 275 years in the future.
One final point about New York’s efforts to go to net-zero. My work indicates that New York’s Climate Act will do more harm than good. There are enormous challenges associated with the proposed energy plan that relies on wind and solar energy that have not been resolved and will undoubtedly affect reliability. Because the proposed energy plan relies on intermittent and diffuse generating resources the costs of just wind and solar capacity do not tell the whole story. When solutions are proposed for intermittent and diffuse wind and solar the costs involved skyrocket. It is also not clear that when all the environmental impacts are considered that the proposed energy sources will not cause more environmental harm than the alleged impacts of climate change.
Discussion
I distribute a fortnightly summary of my recent posts to an email distribution. I think one of the recipients is the Assemblyman’s communications director. The last paragraph suggests that the Assemblyman is aware of my work:
Thank you for your advocacy and engagement on behalf of our community’s well-being. If you have any questions about this or other issues, please feel free to contact me.
I doubt that there is a constituent in his district that has a greater understanding of the Climate Act and its ramifications for the state and its residents than I do. If I was asked to provide the Assemblyman one question that needs to be addressed, it would be how much will it cost to meet the 2040 target for 100% carbon-free emissions. The Hochul Administration claims that the costs of inaction are less than the cost of action. Does Assemblyman Stirpe know that claim only refers to the costs associated with the Climate Act itself? The baseline of “no-action” described in the Scoping Plan as “Business as usual plus implemented policies” includes the following programs:
Growth in housing units, population, commercial square footage, and GDP
Federal appliance standards
Economic fuel switching
New York State bioheat mandate
Estimate of New Efficiency, New York Energy Efficiency achieved by funded programs: HCR+NYPA, DPS (IOUs), LIPA, NYSERDA CEF (assumes market transformation maintains level of efficiency and electrification post-2025)
Funded building electrification (4% HP stock share by 2030)
Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards
Zero-emission vehicle mandate (8% LDV ZEV stock share by 2030)
Clean Energy Standard (70×30), including technology carveouts: (6 GW of behind-the-meter solar by 2025, 3 GW of battery storage by 2030, 9 GW of offshore wind by 2035, 1.25 GW of Tier 4 renewables by 2030)
That means that the costs of all these programs that are required to meet the Climate Act mandate of 100% carbon-free emissions by 2040 are not included in the evaluation “proving” that the costs of inaction are more than the costs of action. Sadly that is not the only deceptive analysis or down right incorrect approachused to make the claim.
It is also becoming clear that those of us that have argued that NY HEAT is dangerous and represents something too far, too soon are right. I would be willing to provide briefings that support my concerns. The Public Service Commission recently released its Clean Energy Standard Biennial Review Report. That report admits that the 2030 goal for 70% renewable energy will not be met. The New York State Comptroller Office released an audit of the NYSERDA and PSC implementation efforts for the Climate Act titled Climate Act Goals – Planning, Procurements, and Progress Tracking. It found that “the costs of transitioning to renewable energy are not known, nor have they been reasonably estimated”. Concerns raised by the New York Independent System Operator in its Power Trends 2024 report include decreasing reliability margins, electrification of heating and transportation will increase loads and shift the maximum to winter, the ambitious schedule, and the need for a new category of electric resources that are not yet commercially available. The issues raised in these reports mean that the mandates in NY HEAT are premature.
Conclusion
It is long past due for the Hochul Administration to provide New Yorkers with the real costs. My Assemblyman has not looked at the Scoping Plan in enough detail to understand the shortcomings and dangers of the current path. I think it would be prudent for New York to take a deep breath and pause implementation until questions about reliability, affordability, and environmental impacts are addressed openly and comprehensively. I would welcome the opportunity to explain why to him or anyone else.