NYISO Short-Term Assessment of Reliability July 2023
Roger Caiazza Pragmatic Environmentalist of New York
This is the latest summary update of my recent posts at Pragmatic Environmentalist of New York. 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). This summary describes each of my posts with minimal technical jargon. If you do not want to be on this mailing, list then let me know. Previous updates and a pdf copy of the following information are also available.
NYISO Short-Term Assessment of Reliability July 2023
On July 14, 2023 the New York Independent System Operator (NYISO) released its quarterly assessment of reliability of the bulk electric system. The analysis found a deficit in reliability margins for the New York City area beginning in summer 2025. As a result, something must be done or there will be unacceptable risks to reliability that could cause power outages. I prepared an extensive description of the report that got a bit technical. If you want a good non-technical summary, then I recommend James Hanley’s post Get Ready for the New York City Blackout of 2025.
The report states that assuming the upper bound of “demand under baseline weather conditions (95 degrees Fahrenheit) in 2025 results in a deficiency of 446 MW over 9 hours.” Despite assurances from Hochul spokesperson Katy Zielinski, the reliability of the New York City grid is in question. The plans rely on resources that are new to New York and that increases uncertainty. Presuming that proposed projects will replace operational facilities on the schedule proposed is very risky.
There is another dynamic here that will be interesting to watch. Peaker power plants that currently provide the power during times of highest loads are a primary scapegoat for the New York City Environmental Justice community. The PEAK Coalition has already gone on record stating that “If NYISO is forced to issue reliability-must-run orders, New Yorkers will know that electric utilities and state governments willingly failed to act to protect communities most impacted by fossil fuel emissions and climate change”. The electric utilities and state government have failed to explain the potential impacts to the disadvantaged communities if fossil-fired peaking units are not replaced with proven technology. The risks to those communities imposed by the presence of such resources are not nearly as large as the risks to those communities from blackouts. Keeping the lights on is the better social choice.
Implementation and Compliance with Climate Act Requirements and Targets – First Impression
On July 20, 2023 the first annual informational report on the implementation of the Climate Act was released. This is the first state produced report that provides Climate Act implementation estimated costs for ratepayers.
For the programs included in 2022, the effect of the Climate Act programs on typical monthly electric bills were listed in the following table. I intend to follow up to figure out what programs and costs were included. I am sure that this is just the tip of the eventual costs but need to confirm that. Even without more costs I think the projected monthly cost increases are troubling.
The 2022 combined total costs recovered from gas and electric ratepayers is $1,288,755,498. Another table in the report lists the costs that have been authorized but not yet captured and that total is $43,756,000,000. Clearly ratepayer costs will have to increase a lot more to cover those additional costs.
Net-Zero Transition Myths
In my opinion, two of the most prevalent net-zero transition myths is that the transition to solar and wind will reduce costs and that existing technology is sufficient for the transition. I posted two related articles trying to dispel those myths. In the first I described my letter to the editor of the Syracuse Post-Standard, Expert’s view of solar energy’s potential in NY is far too sunny, that responded to an earlier commentary Five Reasons New Yorkers Should Embrace a Solar Energy Future that included the myths.
The second post I addressed the two myths that were included in the Partners for Climate Action, Hudson Valley webinar titled “Bringing Climate Into the Classroom”. The presentation by Samrat Pathania included a slide that stated that climate change is not a technological problem because “most climate solutions exist and are economically feasible”. I addressed those claims in my post Most climate solutions exist and are economically feasible Not so Fast!
The post explained that the Climate Act rationale was based on these two myths. It is particularly disappointing that the Climate Action Council did not resolve the issues raised in the Integration Analysis and by the New York Independent System Operator relative to the need for a new resource that can be dispatched as necessary without any emissions. Despite the fact that the issue was raised early in the process by the technical experts, some council members never admitted that this “not commercially available” technology was needed. Moreover, the New York State Public Service Commission recently initiated an “Order initiating a process regarding the zero-emissions target” that will “identify innovative technologies to ensure reliability of a zero-emissions electric grid”. Unfortunately, the idea that nothing new is needed persists.
The cheaper costs myth endures because people don’t understand the difference between power and energy. While it may be true that solar power capacity is cheaper to build than fossil-fired capacity, society runs on reliable delivered electric energy. When all the costs associated with providing energy are included, I explained why intermittent and diffuse solar and wind are much more expensive. I also summarized an article by Alex Epstein entitled “The ultimate debunking of “solar and wind are cheaper than fossil fuels.” His analysis is not confined to resources for the electric system. He explains that:
Solar and wind are only cheaper than fossil fuels in at most a small fraction of situations. For the overwhelming majority of the world’s energy needs, solar and wind are either completely unable to replace fossil fuels or far more expensive
There are several troubling aspects to the persistence of these myths. The rebuttals to my letters to the editor arguments did not address my issues so facts don’t matter to the true believers. The fact that the Hochul Administration is also ignoring the warnings from the organizations responsible for electric system reliability will inevitably lead to problems. Finally, I am concerned that the activists who are teaching children claim that all we need to do to prevent climate catastrophe is to make a cultural transformation. The speaker said “Hope and Trust are two of the pillars of a classroom community”. I worry that the constant barrage of existential climate Armageddon stories that can be easily solved being peddled as in this webinar is going to destroy trust when the inevitability of reality eviscerates these myths. Won’t the students lose hope when that happens? Then what will they think?
Syracuse Post-Standard Climate Change Opinions July 11, 2023
As if to atone for my letter to the editor, Expert’s view of solar energy’s potential in NY is far too sunny, the week after it was published the Syracuse Post-Standard Sunday edition opinion section front page published two pieces Climate change is here in CNY – We can do something about it and NY’s economic future requires robust, reliable EV infrastructure with a third article inside Affordable housing & climate crises present opportunity for CNY to lead.
I was encouraged that I got the opportunity to present my explanation why I believe the ambitions for solar technology will do more harm than good to the readers of the Syracuse Post-Standard. On the other hand, it was frustrating to read three flawed commentaries the following week. Because there are restrictions on frequency of guest opinions I could not comment on those flaws in the paper.
I thought all three commentaries deserved rebuttals so prepared this post I noted Kriesel’s characterization of the climate change issue was simplistic and shallow. Her belief that individuals can make a difference is rebutted by Bjorn Lomborg. Lichtenstein claims that readers of the paper should be motivated to support EV infrastructure because it will support the Micron semi-conductor plant proposal. I find that a stretch. Moreover, he did not really address the costs to implement the infrastructure required. Kovel argued that expanding access to affordable housing is important and gloms on to New York’s Climate Act building electrification efforts as a rationale. All three authors have biases. I am skeptical of the opinions of a naïve politician, a professional environmentalist whose career depends on a crisis, and a rent-seeking crony capitalist on anything related to the Climate Act.
Just before publishing this, I found a couple of videos of interest.
There is very little career upside for anyone in a regulatory agency to speak up about the environmental impacts of wind and solar development. Consequently, there is not much apparent support for my belief that the Climate Act net-zero transition will do more harm than good. This post links to a video interviewwith John Baker, retired Assistant Chief with California Fish and Wildlife Department who describes double standards he experienced while enforcing California’s environmental laws.
Paul Homewood introduces a video with Neil Oliver: Weather maps are among the most blatant forms of fearmongering deployed so far. He notes that British weather maps on TV now use daily temperature maps with frightening colors. He calls out the fearmongers by describing historical European heat waves and goes on to call attention to the hypocrisy of the loudest voices. Finally, he notes that the 99.7% of scientists meme is a “scam”.
New York’s ISO Issues a Warning
Since the last edition of this update, Francis Menton writing at Manhattan Contrarian published this article that referenced my work and followed up on the issues raised in the NYISO Power Trends Report. I mention it because I was so flattered by his compliments and the attention I got via links from his blog.
--
Roger Caiazza
Pragmatic Environmentalist of New York
NYpragmaticenvironmentalist@gmail.com
315.529.6711