The Partial Observer

What If? Unpacking
the Net-Zero Transition

On December 19, 2022 the Climate Action Council charged with developing strategies to implement New York’s “Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act” issued the “Scoping Plan” that outlines their recommendations to meet a net-zero goal by 2050. This year the Department of Environmental Conservation will propose regulations and the Legislature will consider legislation to implement those recommendations.

The Scoping Plan outlines how to “achieve the State’s bold clean energy and climate agenda.” In brief, that plan is to electrify everything possible and power the electric grid with zero-emissions generating resources by 2040. I have found that New York’s emissions are less than one half of one percent of global emissions and that the average increase in global emissions is greater than one half of one percent. In other words, even if we eliminate our emissions, the increase in global emissions will replace our reductions in less than a year. That does not mean we should not do something, but it does mean that we can and should take the time to be sure that the things we mandate do not do more harm than good and that tradeoffs between today’s resilient and affordable energy system and an “all-electric” energy future are considered.

I am concerned about reliability because the New York State Energy Research & Development Authority, New York State Independent System Operator, and New York State Reliability Council have not agreed on the mix of zero-emissions generating and energy storage resources necessary to keep the lights on. There are significant differences between the Final Scoping Plan and NYISO’s 2021-2040 System & Resource Outlook that represents the best estimate of future electric resources needed by the organization responsible for the New York electric system. American author and economist Thomas Sowell said, “It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong,” and that is exactly what we will be doing if the differences are not reconciled before any implementing regulations or legislation are promulgated.

The Scoping Plan claims that the costs of inaction are greater than the costs of action. I submitted comments that showed that claim is misleading and inaccurate. It is misleading because the costs in the Scoping Plan only include the costs of the Climate Act itself and not the total costs to meet the net-zero by 2050 target. The shell game of hiding the costs omits most of the costs of electric vehicles and the necessary infrastructure from the costs of action that are compared to the costs of inaction. If those costs are included, the claim is invalid. The benefits claim is inaccurate because the benefits of the societal value of carbon reductions are calculated over lifetime investments. The social cost of carbon metric calculates benefits for an emission reduction out to 2300 and it is improper to do that more than once. If I lost 10 pounds five years ago, I cannot claim that I lost 50 pounds, but that is what the Scoping Plan benefits calculation does.

The scale of wind and solar development necessary is astounding. Upstate will be covered with more than 3,000 3 MW turbines and 400,000 acres of solar panels. The cumulative effect of that development on agriculture and wildlife habitat has not been fully evaluated. Most jobs for this development will be in the construction phase. The sprawl of glass and steel will likely affect tourism such that more jobs will be lost in that sector than the few permanent jobs created by the renewables.

Every component of the net-zero transition that I have evaluated has turned out to be more complicated and uncertain than portrayed in the Scoping Plan. Unless the Hochul administration is held accountable to prove the feasibility of their Scoping Plan control strategies and address “what if” questions like what happens when everything is electrified and there is an ice storm that knocks out power for a week, then the inevitable outcome will be unacceptable reliability risks, sky rocketing energy costs and avoidable adverse environmental impacts. I urge anyone with concerns about energy costs and reliable energy sources to speak out by contacting elected officials and by commenting in any of the DEC stakeholder processes. More information is available at the Pragmatic Environmentalist of New York blog.

Born in Cooperstown and a graduate of Oneonta High School, Roger Caiazza holds a bachelor’s in meteorology from SUNY Oneonta and a master’s in meteorology from the University of Alberta, Edmonton. Before his retirement in 2018, he was a certified consulting meteorologist and worked in the air quality industry for more than 40 years. The goal of Caiazza’s blog, “Pragmatic Environmentalist of New York,” is to explain the importance of balancing risks and benefits of both sides of environmental issues.