The Partial Observer by Dennis Higgins
Bad Energy Planning Dangerous, Irresponsible
Under the 2019 Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act, a group of political appointees—the Climate Action Council—was charged with developing a scoping plan to achieve major decarbonization goals in the law. Their plan, as implemented by the state energy and research development authority, NYSERDA, would require 55 gigawatts of solar, 10 GW of onshore wind, and 17 GW of offshore wind. NYSERDA believes we’ll need storage 50 to 100 times the size of the largest lithium-ion battery complex on earth, as well as backup generation equal to or greater than the state’s entire fossil-fuel power-plant fleet. Solar and wind resources will also need new transmission lines to connect them to the existing grid.
The North American Energy Reliability Corporation just came out with a report (www.nerc.com/comm/RISC/Related%20Files%20DL/RISC_ERO_Priorities_Report_2023_Board_Approved_Aug_17_2023.pdf) identifying major risks to the bulk power system. The top two risks NERC identified are energy policy and grid transformation made in pursuit of that policy. In other words, it is precisely state policies arising from the CAC’s energy scoping plan, and the grid transformation currently underway, that are the top risks to our power system.
If an engineer had at their disposal a source of carbon-free baseload electricity which needed little land, could employ thousands of workers in high-paying jobs, required fewer materials than other resources, was as safe as solar or wind, and could last a hundred years, wouldn’t they make it the backbone of the grid? Or would they ignore rural opposition in order to bulldoze a million acres of farmland and forest for resources requiring new transmission, back-up generation, and storage infrastructure? Would they choose resources generating little energy and almost no permanent jobs; requiring the sacrifice of home rule, environmental review, and fair tax levies?
With pressure from big greens like Riverkeeper and support from NRDC, Sierra, AGREE, Food and Water Watch, and others, New York unplugged 2,100 MW of emission-free electricity when it shut down Indian Point. In all its safe years of operation, IP never prompted a “shelter in place” order from the governor, as recent fires at battery energy storage systems did. IP, which had supplied a quarter of metro NY’s power, was partially replaced with two big new gas power plants, increasing state emissions by tens of millions of tons annually. The grid operator NYISO notes that due to IP’s closure, energy prices have increased downstate. We see those price hikes are now percolating through upstate. Also related, NYISO’s recent second quarter reliability report (www.nyiso.com/documents/20142/16004172/2023-Q2-STAR-Report-Final.pdf/5671e9f7-e996-653a-6a0e-9e12d2e41740) indicates insufficient capacity margins for the metro region over the next decade. Even with normal weather, NYISO has predicted that New York City could experience a capacity shortfall of about 450 megawatts—meaning blackouts in the summer heat that could last many hours.
The Champlain-Hudson Power Express will bring hydro-generated electricity to the metro region. But Quebec is not obliged to send power during a polar vortex. With building electrification, New York will experience winter demand peaks.
Bad energy planning is not just irresponsible. It is dangerous. Roll-out of the state’s policy—in land-hungry panels and turbines, fiery BESS units, transmission cables, and back-up peaker plants—may ultimately be embarrassing for the governor, for NYSERDA, and for the CAC. But summer or winter power failures could prove fatal for the most vulnerable urban and rural populations: the elderly and poor.
New “environmental justice” communities are being created across rural New York. The land is being plastered with solar panels and gigantic turbines without full environmental review, over the rule of local law, robbing communities of fair revenue. And opposition is growing.
Ontario abandoned a “green energy” plan like New York’s in the face of fierce backlash from the rural north which was required to host the renewables resources expected to power the wealthier, more populous, south. Acknowledging the program’s failure, Ontario’s Energy Minister Glenn Thibeault issued a mea culpa. As reported, (globalnews.ca/news/4243590/billion-dollar-mistake-hydro-ontario-green-energy/) Economist Brady Youch at the Canadian Consumer Policy Institute said that “[the government] appears to have overridden concerns of experts” and “now you have a political electricity system, as opposed to one that’s based on economics or cost-effectiveness,” he said. Liberals ignored advice that could have saved Ontarians billions. Ontario will instead add a third generating station to the Bruce Power nuclear facility near Kincardine.
Here in New York, too, a more efficient and economical grid could be achieved by relicensing existing upstate nuclear plants and integrating new nuclear power into the grid. Nuclear does not require new transmission or new storage. Each nuclear reactor can last 80 years and support a thousand good jobs. It requires a fraction of the land needed for solar or wind. Pursuing New York’s slogan-driven policy, the first 80,000 acres of farmland bulldozed for Chinese panels will represent New York’s flawed effort to replace Indian Point’s reliable baseload generation with under-performing solar.
As gas and electricity prices continue to spike, as grid reliability declines, as rural New York becomes more resolute in its opposition to state-sponsored energy sprawl, perhaps we will hear similar mea culpa coming out of the CAC, NYSERDA, and the governor’s office in the next few years.
Dennis Higgins is a retired math/computer science professor. He and wife Katie run a farm in Otego and, as a family, they are committed to addressing climate change any way they can, including 20KW of solar panels, geothermal heat, all electric appliances, and driving an EV. Dennis has been engaged in regional energy issues for approximately 15 years.
