The Partial Observer by Dennis Higgins

A New Push for the Build Public Renewables Act

Recently, two downstate legislators—Senator Julia Salazar and Assemblywoman Sarahana Shrestha—renewed the pressure to get the state power authority (NYPA) to compete with private industry to build out industrial solar and wind across rural New York. (https://www.cityandstateny.com/opinion/2024/07/opinion-nys-climate-progress-failing-new-plan-public-power-can-fix-it/398385/)

They begin by noting that the state energy research and development authority (NYSERDA) recently came out with a report indicating that New York will not meet a 70 percent renewable energy grid by 2030, the first of several decarbonization targets in the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act. They conclude from this that, “We must launch a bold new era of public power in New York.” The state power authority –NYPA—should start installing solar and wind. With language right out of the Big Green playbook, they claim: “[We] can build a truly green New York, with 100 percent renewable energy, plentiful union jobs, lower bills and cleaner, healthier air.” Sadly, their real concern with global warming was undermined by their many misstatements and factual errors.

Salazar and Shrestha contend that the slow rate of solar and wind installation is caused by developers’ greed. “Thanks to a mix of inflation, supply chain issues and an outdated grid system that was designed for fossil fuels, building renewables just isn’t profitable enough in New York.” Certainly, supply chain issues and inflation are partly to blame for higher costs. Those issues, along with siting slowed by recalcitrant communities unwilling to sacrifice their forest and farmland to panels and turbines, would also impact NYPA. NYPA might manage to lower costs somewhat, but the authors seem not to understand that the current grid was designed for centralized power plants which could generate electricity 24/7. Solar, which delivers 14 percent of nameplate, or onshore, wind, which generates 20 percent or so—resources which, mostly, deliver little or no energy at all—need lots of land, dedicated transmission, 20-year replacement and landfill space, new storage, as well as continued backup support which often translates to gas peaker plants. NYPA’s efforts would not change any of that.

The authors claim that “a broad coalition of climate groups, environmental justice organizers, labor unions and everyday New Yorkers” support the plan, but seem unaware of the scores of community groups which have organized to block industrial solar and wind. The discussion in this piece, as in postings from The Sierra Club and Earth Justice, is singularly unconcerned with the environment—farmland and forest—or economies of rural towns. State law forces communities to host industrial projects regardless of local law and regardless of adverse environmental impacts. At the same time, towns are denied fair tax compensation.

Without any citation, the legislators claim that research indicates that 15 gigawatts of solar and wind would get New York to its 2030 goals. We won’t go into the numbers here, except to note that, due to the low capacity factors of these intermittent resources, 7.5 GW each of solar and onshore wind would total about 2.5 GW of average capacity, possibly delivering no energy at all when you need it, but requiring a full 15GW of fossil-fuel backup. The authors further suggest lots of jobs, lower energy bills, and the closure of fossil fuel power plants would result. “By building 15 gigawatts—enough to power 12 million households—NYPA would create roughly 25,000 good-paying green jobs.”

Jobs? “[These projects] will also open up the green jobs sector to people in disadvantaged communities who have historically faced steep structural barriers to entering the trades.” In fact, solar and wind installations, after the bulldozers leave and Danish turbines or Chinese solar panels are installed, may generate one job per thousand acres cleared. Alle-Catt, a wind project in western New York, has a 100-square-mile footprint and may create a dozen permanent jobs.

Lower cost energy? “A 15 gigawatt [renewable installation target] would also help put the brakes on skyrocketing utility bills. NYPA can use profits from renewable energy to lower bills for New Yorkers currently struggling to pay them. As for-profit utilities seek massive rate hikes around the state, we have an opportunity to put money back in people’s pockets.” With current wholesale electricity costs about $50/MWh and the strike price for newly contracted offshore at $150/MWh, we see costs tripling for rate-payers even before transmission and storage have been built and paid for. A major contributing factor for utilities’ price hikes: under RAPID (Renewable Action Through Project Interconnection and Deployment Act), they will pass along costs for the hundreds, perhaps thousands, of miles of new transmission needed to support solar and wind.

We can see our own future by looking at California and Germany which are, respectively, 20 and 30 years ahead of New York in efforts to power their economies with solar and wind. California energy costs are 80 percent higher than the national average. California has had to build new gas plants to support intermittent resources, including the recent addition of 2,800 megawatts of back-up power to its grid. With the largest battery in the world, California dumped three terawatt-hours last year. They could not store or give away excess midday solar. Germany has the highest energy prices in Europe. It mines and burns coal, imports U.S. LNG, and needs electricity from France’s nuclear plants to ensure grid reliability.

“On top of supporting the health of the planet, an ambitious public renewables buildout would also improve the health of our communities. Unless NYPA builds aggressively, we are unlikely to shut down dirty peaker plants by the legally-mandated 2030 deadline.” As early as last year, the grid operator—NYISO—indicated most of the state’s current fossil-fuel fleet will be needed after 2030. Both NYISO and NYPA have indicated that, as the state pursues intermittent buildout, peaker plants will continue to be needed to meet demand. NYISO expects the metro region will experience a half-a-gigawatt capacity shortfall next summer in normal weather. Certainly, any additional load—bitcoin mining, a Micron plant, AI centers, excessively hot summers or cold winters, building electrification—will exacerbate this situation.

In the end, though, even my response to this commentary is looking at the problem backwards. No credible fiscal or engineering analysis was ever presented to support the state plan. While Governor Hochul herself recently noted that state policy will prove costly, any expense at all to tax- or rate-payers in pursuit of a plan which will not work, which, ultimately, will require a new plan to fix the ensuing energy catastrophe, is a mistake.

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.