From: Anthony Kownack, Corning Place Communications

Subject: Weekly Articles of Interest (New York Propane Gas Association)

Date: August 25, 2023

Bill,

Below, please find a compilation of articles, issued this week, that may be of interest to you. Articles
are also hyperlinked within each headline.

Thank you,

Anthony

Weekly Articles of Interest Include:

 State continues to lose farmland to residential, solar developments, reports show

 PSC approves 'tweaks' of Quebec-to-NYC power line
 New York state increases clean energy storage research incentives
 New York City’s energy grid faces a power shortfall. Here’s why.
 Micron vs. New York Energy Policy
 Make cap & trade work for all NYers: Environmental justice must be a factor in state
emissions program
 States have big hopes for renewable energy. Get ready to pay for it.

State continues to lose farmland to residential, solar developments, reports show

Emily Kenny
State of Politics
August 18, 2023

More and more farmland in New York is being purchased and rented for residential
developments and solar power, decreasing the number of viable agricultural acres and
increasing the price of land, federal and state data show.
Karin Reeves, whose family has farmed in Baldwinsville since the 19th century, said they
are constantly approached by people who want to rent pieces of their 300-acre land for
solar power. The Reeves family produces approximately 5 million pounds of produce per
year.
“There is a big push to use renewable energy, which I'm totally in favor of, but it’s just not
the best use for prime agricultural land,” Reeves said.
New York has lost 253,500 acres of agricultural land to development between 2001 and
2016, according to the American Farmland Trust, a nonprofit that works to protect
farmland. The report found 78% of those acres were converted to low-density residential.
AFT’s research shows that by 2040, 452,009 acres will be lost to urban and low-density
conversion.  
In addition to acres lost, AFT found it would be the equivalent of losing 2,500 farms, $288
million in farm output and 7,200 jobs.  
The type of land being developed matters as, especially in New York state, the  quality of
soil  can vary. Reeves said different soil types are better than others for agricultural use
such as growing crops, and using land that is lower quality should be targeted for
development.
“That’s what should be used for solar, not prime agricultural land where you can grow
vegetables and a wide variety of things,” she said.  
According to research from Cornell University, on existing solar structures in New York,
44% of the projects were sited on crop, pasture or hay land, and 58% of solar projects
were built on good quality soil or what has been defined as prime farmland.
Reeves does not fault farmers who chose to rent or sell their land to be used for solar or
other purposes as they have faced financial challenges in the past few years.  
“Farms are being pinched. We’ve had rising input costs, labor costs, we’ve seen record
inflation,” Reeves said. “We’ve had pressure from imports. A lot of our customers can buy
things cheaper from Mexico or Canada.”
The family rents out a portion of their land to a nearby farmer, who pays approximately
$100 per acre, but solar companies are offering 10 times that rate, Reeves said.  

“I believe it’s anywhere from $1,000 to $1,500 an acre per year, and most of these places
are going to want you to sign a 30-year lease,” she said.
Sen. Michelle Hinchey, D-Saugerties, chair of the Committee of Agriculture, said an energy
crisis cannot be exchanged for a food crisis.  
“That is the vital element at risk of being lost when our agricultural lands are increasingly
subject to aggressive development pressure,” Hinchey said.  
By planning, siting and scaling renewable energy correctly, it’s possible to achieve a net-
zero future, while still protecting the food system and farmland, Hinchey said.  
“Failing to do so will make New York even more vulnerable to the whims of the climate
crisis, and through legislation I sponsor, we can take a smarter approach to understand the
all-encompassing implications of solar development for the future of our state and planet,”
she said.
Hinchey has proposed a bill  that would require the Office of Renewable Energy Siting to
consider agricultural impacts on active farmland when siting and constructing energy
facilities.  
The New York Department of Agriculture and Markets and the New York Office of
Renewable Energy Siting did not immediately respond to requests for comment on how the
state balances solar siting with farmland protection.
Switching farmland to a solar field can happen without even needing a zoning change, said
Michael Kalet, director of sales and broker for Pyramid Brokerage Company in Syracuse.  
The prices for land purchased for solar or commercial use have skyrocketed due to high
demand, Kalet said.
“You have seen the prices increase dramatically to the point that it’s not even on the same
page as agriculturally zoned land,” he said.
Farmland for agricultural use in New York goes for about $5,000 an acre, whereas to
redevelop that land for commercial use can cost $30,000 an acre or more, Kalet said.  
While there is some protection for land that is zoned as agricultural use such as paying
additional fees if the land is converted from farm use, Reeves said she would like to see
prime farmland receive protections similar to wetland areas, which are restricted from a
lot of uses. 
"They [solar energy companies] claim if you put solar on farmland, it can be restored to
what it was originally, but it will never be the same,” she said.  
New York is one of the leading states for incentivizing the use of non-prime agricultural
land for developments and solar, said Samantha Levy, conservation and climate policy
manager for AFT.
New York has a mitigation fee that they charge if land is converted out of agricultural
production of the class 1 through 4 soil types, Levy said. Additionally, the New York
Department of Agriculture and Markets has guidelines for topsoil use, how to bury cables
and building access roads.
Steve Ammerman, director of communications for the New York Farm Bureau, said the
lower supply and higher costs for land also impacts new and beginning farmers.  
“There’s a lot of land out there, but prime land is limited. Buying farmland with really good
soil types and that’s really productive, we want to make sure that we try and protect as
much of that as we can,” Ammerman said. 
Mikaela Perry, New York policy manager at American Farmland Trust, said they are
working to create a system where renewable energy is balanced with protecting farmland.  
“We want to prioritize renewable energy siting on land not well suited for agriculture and
we want to safeguard the ability for land to be used for agriculture and that really gets into
the heart of soil health,” Perry said. 
AFT has developed its own scorecard for soil health within their  smart solar siting
research  using the regulations put out by the United States Department of Agriculture and
Cornell University.
“Developers will look for the least cost options, which often means looking to rural areas
where the land values are lower, the land is flat, already clear and sunny because any
additional grading of the land will cost money,” Levy said.  
PSC approves 'tweaks' of Quebec-to-NYC power line
Larry Rulison
Times Union
August 18, 2023

ALBANY  —  The Champlain Hudson Power Express, a high-voltage, direct-current power line being
built to bring electricity from Quebec to New York City — buried underground and underwater
along the way  —  received permission to make small changes to new sections of the project that
will eventually pass through Washington and Saratoga counties.

The project, backed by the investment firm Blackstone Group, closed on financing to start initial
construction in November. The following month, Gov. Kathy Hochul presided over a ceremony in
Whitehall, Washington County, celebrating the start of construction.

James Denn, a spokesman for the state's Public Service Commission, which approved the project in
2013, said the approvals given were for "tweaks" to small sections of the line.

Once completed, the line will bring up to 1,250 megawatts of electricity to the New York City area
— enough power for about 1 million homes. Construction will progress north and south at the same
time, venturing through the Capital Region at one point, mostly along railroad beds or underwater. 
Unlike traditional high-voltage power lines across the state that use alternating current and hang-
on metal towers, direct current, or DC, power lines can be made very small and buried
underground, although they can only bring electricity to one destination.

Quebec generates most of its electric supply from large hydroelectric dams, and so the line will
greatly help the state meet the requirements of its strict climate change law that requires all
electricity generated in the state to be carbon-free by 2040, a major task. Most of New York City's
electric supply comes from fossil fuel power plants, so the line's completion is critical to keeping an
adequate electric supply running into the city.

On Thursday, the PSC granted new approval for a segment that will run through Kingsbury and the
village of Fort Edward in Washington County. Another segment in Saratoga County that runs
through Moreau, Milton, Northumberland, Wilton, Greenfield, Ballston, and the city of Saratoga
Springs was also approved.

“New York continues to make significant upgrades and additions to the state’s existing transmission
systems to integrate new large-scale renewable energy projects into the state’s energy supply,”
PSC Chair Rory Christian said in a statement.

New York state increases clean energy storage research incentives

Jerusha Kamoji
PV Magazine
August 21, 2023

Climate and renewable energy advocates suggest that the New York State Build Public Renewables
Act can help to ensure that New York achieves economy-wide carbon neutrality by the middle of
this century. That scheme includes the construction of a green transmission grid, which requires
safe and affordable energy storage systems that can power vast residential and commercial electric
needs.
In July, Governor Kathy Hochul announced the creation of a new Inter-Agency Fire Safety Working
Group. The organization comprises state emergency environmental and public service institutions
that will research energy storage facility fires and safety standards. It will also collaborate with
national experts and laboratories to stay current on fire causes appropriate responses and
approaches to building green grid infrastructure that can accommodate vast amounts of electricity
while decreasing the risk of fires.

The state is also heavily investing in affordable long-duration renewable energy storage solutions.
Four demonstration projects have received financial awards in line with this goal.

Climate science specialist Ecolectro secured $1.08 million to scale up its approach to reducing the
cost of sustainably produced hydrogen. Clean hydrogen is made through electrolysis, or the
separation of water to generate hydrogen and oxygen. The element is excellent for storing vast
quantities of green energy over a long period. These reserves can give consumers backup power
during peak hours or weather storms. However, current hydrogen production methods are pricey.

According to a 2018 study by the Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems, and Innovation the
Future Progress and Neutrality (ISE and IPA) using the proton exchange membrane (PEM)
approach, generating one standard cubic meter of hydrogen in 60 minutes costs between $4,900
and $6,000. Ecolectro will deploy its 10 kW electrolysis unit in a pilot demonstration in partnership
with Liberty Utilities.

Form Energy, a Massachusetts-based grid-scale energy storage developer, has proposed a

commercial-scale, low-cost 10 MW iron-air battery demonstration system, which stores energy by
converting iron into rust and rust back into iron. It secured $1.2 million from New York state and
recently announced plans to set up a manufacturing facility in West Virginia.

New York City’s energy grid faces a power shortfall. Here’s why.
Marie French
Politico
August 21, 2023

ALBANY, N.Y. — New York City’s electric grid is forecasted to be at risk of falling short of the
demand to light Times Square, power Wall Street and crank air conditioners — and it is triggering a
process to fill the short-term gap.

The state’s independent grid operator has been sounding the alarm for months, warning that
emissions rules targeting some of the city’s highest-polluting plants that run infrequently pose a
reliability risk to the grid. To avoid potential blackouts under certain conditions, those plants may
have to remain online beyond 2025 when they are set to shutter, the grid operator said.

“The power grid is going through a monumental change,” said Rich Dewey, president and CEO of
the New York Independent System Operator, a nonprofit that oversees the state’s electricity system.
“When we look at these reliability studies, it's really about making sure we balance the entry and
the exit — we don't prematurely retire resources until we're sure that that replacement supply is
there and it can perform.”
Keeping the peaker plants online would be a last resort and a temporary step, Dewey said.
Proposals to fill the gap are due in October. If completed on schedule in 2026, a transmission line
from Canada is expected to resolve the issue.
In the meantime, the state’s decision to close the Indian Point nuclear plant in Westchester County
has in the short term led to more reliance on natural gas to power homes and businesses in the
New York City area.

The reliability gap is an early sign of the challenges for New York’s aggressive mandate to have a
zero emissions electric grid by 2040. It also reflects the concerns of utilities and grid operators
nationally as federal regulators push to ratchet down power plant emissions in the coming decades.

Turning off fossil fuel plants as renewable energy projects face delays has proved challenging
across the country. California regulators recently decided to keep three gas plants online to ensure
reliability and avoid blackouts.

New York policymakers see the NYISO’s process kicking off as a sign that the system is working.

“It's a timing gap that we just need to plan for,” said NYSERDA president and CEO Doreen Harris.
“We all know that this transition is not necessarily going to be completely smooth for a variety of
reasons.”

The looming issues in New York City are outlined in NYISO’s most recent quarterly reliability
report. The grid operator used to do the reviews once every two years, but now does them four
times a year as the state pushes to decarbonize more quickly.

These “peaker” power plants — called that because they run on peak demand days and are typically
the last to be turned on by the NYISO due to their higher costs — are aging units. They’re also the
highest polluting units on the system and are located mainly in low-income and predominantly
Black and brown communities due to a history of environmental racism.

Shutting the units down is a top priority for environmental justice groups in the city.
“We think it's unacceptable that for the sake of reliability, we would have to sacrifice communities
for two more years or potentially even longer just to ensure that we don't have blackouts or
brownouts,” said Daniel Chu, the energy planner for the NYC Environmental Justice Alliance.

“We don't want blackouts or brownouts, but we also don't want continued pollution.”

Tougher regulations loom

New York has some of the strictest reliability requirements in the nation.
Dewey said the portions date back to the historic 1977 blackout in New York City after lightning
took out a transmission lines in the Hudson Valley. Building in a cushion of power plants and
transmission capacity for such incidents has become routine.

The NYISO’s report indicates that on a 95-degree day in 2025, there’s expected to be a gap of 446
megawatts of electricity for nine hours when two generators or transmission lines are
unexpectedly offline. That is the equivalent of needing to power about 446,000 homes.

“What I see as most critical is the fact that we have systems and processes in place that can plan for
these contingencies, rather than planning for blackouts or brownouts, which is what we saw
happen in Texas,” Harris said. “It would simply not be acceptable in the state of New York to be
planning in the way that they're planning in Texas.”
What she is referring to is Texas’ grid has been strained in summer heatwaves, which are more
likely because of climate change caused by humans burning fossil fuels. The state also experienced
blackouts during a winter storm in 2021.

But the shortfall estimated in New York indicates the state is not preparing for its own goals, said
Gavin Donohue, the president and CEO of the Independent Power Producer of New York. The group
represents the state’s merchant fossil fuel, nuclear and renewable power plant owners.

“The pace of planning isn't keeping up with the pace of the promises,” Donohue said. “We can work
to make progress towards a clean energy transition, but we can't do it at the expense of reliability.”

The last phase of New York’s 2019 peaker rules, which have already led 1,000 megawatts of power
to retire, kicks in in 2025. Unless the NYISO decides other solutions won’t be ready and directs
them to stay on, another 509 megawatts are set to shut down in May 2025. One megawatt powers
about 1,000 homes.

“It just seems like the state is hiding behind NYISO and saying ‘NYISO has a reliability gap.
Therefore, there's nothing we can do but keep the power plants open,’ even though the state very
much has a lot of tools in their toolkit,” Chu said.

There could be storage or demand response projects that will “shave” some of the reliability need,
Dewey said. And longer term solutions would be transmission to better connect the areas where
demand is high to the rest of the system.

“It seems unlikely that we're going to get enough of a response to completely eliminate the gap,”
Dewey said.

The peakers slated to shut down are only the first wave of fossil fuel retirements likely under New
York’s climate plan.

Hochul announced in 2022 that state agencies would develop a “blueprint” to guide the retirement
and redevelopment of New York City’s oldest fossil fuel plants by 2030. That report is due out this
year led by Department of Public Service staff.

NYPA, whose fossil fuel plants ran more in 2022 than the previous two years, is required by state
law to craft a plan to shut its New York City peakers by 2030.

A plan is due by May 2025, but there are caveats if there’s a reliability issue or the authority finds
retiring its plants would increase emissions from other plants in disadvantaged communities.

Role of Indian Point

New York City’s grid has become more reliant on fossil fuel power plants, including peakers, since
the closure of Indian Point.

The nuclear facility provided 2,000 megawatts of zero-emissions energy to the downstate grid —
enough to cover roughly 2 million homes. But the last unit stopped running in April 2021, and data
shows that more emissions have been released after the closure as gas plants filled the gap.
“You're talking about a third of the electricity in New York City that was removed,” Donohue said.
“It just frustrates me because we want to reduce carbon, and we're doing things to increase
carbon.”

Dewey said he couldn’t be certain that the closure of Indian Point contributed to the shortfall.
That’s because it’s based on transmission security requirements, so power from the nuclear plant
might not have reached the load pockets impacted by the peakers slated to retire.

New resources for New York City’s fossil fuel dominated grid are coming.
The under-construction Champlain Hudson Power Express, a transmission line that will run more
than 300 miles and carry 1,250 megawatts of Canadian hydropower into New York City, is expected
to resolve the shortfall.

That project was originally scheduled to be completed in 2025, but was delayed to 2026. Any
further delays will pose continued reliability issues, according to the NYISO.
“We're only talking about a short duration extension of those peakers, and it's really just to have
them to hit those peak loads, not to run on a regular basis,” Dewey said. “I know that that's not
consistent with what a lot of people want to see, but the alternative is jeopardizing the reliability of
the power system, which is also pretty impactful to health, safety and the economy in New York.”

Offshore wind projects plugging into the city’s grid will also be key to providing the electricity
needed. Those have also faced delays, and the largest project developers are asking for increased
state subsidies and warning they otherwise won’t get built.

Harris said the NYISO report highlights the importance of staying on schedule with the new
developments.

“We need to think about not just the vision for projects, but the realities of projects, and all the
things that are necessary to support the transition,” she said.

Micron vs. New York Energy Policy

James E. Hanley
Empire Report
August 21, 2023

Computer chip manufacturer Micron has revealed that by the 2040s its Onondaga County factories
are going to be sucking up enough electricity to power New Hampshire and Vermont combined. Put
another way, in a single year Micron will use enough energy to power the city of Buffalo for more
than six years.

All of it is supposed to come from renewable energy—but to date, despite offering Micron $6.3
billion in taxpayers’ money to move to New York, the state has no plan for providing that much
renewable power.

Micron predicts it will use over 16,000 gigawatt-hours of electricity annually. To get a sense of how
much that is, a gigawatt-hour is roughly the amount of energy produced by a single large nuclear
reactor in one hour. Micron’s expected demand is almost exactly what the two reactors at the Nine
Mile Point nuclear plant produce each year.
But since their factories will allegedly use 100 percent renewable energy, the big question is where
it will come from.

Micron will need to draw 1.85 gigawatts of power from the grid continually, 24 hours a day, to
power its operations. The New York Power Authority has offered Micron 140 megawatts (0.14
gigawatts) of hydropower. It may not have that much to spare, except at night when statewide
electricity demand drops. But even if it can steadily provide Micron that much power, that’s just
over 7 percent of the company’s needs.

Micron has also signed a 178-megawatt (0.178 gigawatt) onshore wind power agreement. That will
produce less than 467 gigawatt-hours annually, a mere three percent of Micron’s needs.
Add those together, and 90 percent of Micron’s power demand remains to be determined.

Even before Govenor Hochul bribed Micron to come to New York, the state faced a 10 percent
deficit in its energy supply by 2040, creating a risky future of probable blackouts due to insufficient
power production.

The danger is caused by the state’s climate policies. As consumers are mandated to buy electric
cars, and households are forced to switch from natural gas to electric heat, electricity demand is
expected to as much as double by midcentury. And 70 percent of that future electricity demand
must be supplied by renewable energy.

Because hydropower output will not increase significantly, solar and wind power must increase
from their current output of approximately 7,600 gigawatt-hours to as much as 185,000 gigawatt-
hours by 2050. When Micron is added to the mix, the need will rise to almost 200,000 gigawatt-
hours of wind and solar, a 2,600 percent increase from today.

That’s a challenge New York simply has no real plan for achieving, because the state’s renewable
and clean energy goals are based more on wishful thinking than hard-headed analysis about the
technical challenges of radically restructuring the state’s power system.

Make cap & trade work for all NYers: Environmental justice must be a factor in state
emissions program
Jessica Gonzá lez-Rojas, Eunice Ko and Celeste Perez
New York Daily News
August 22, 2023

The climate crisis is growing in intensity, threatening our communities and is affecting the lives
of all New Yorkers. Just this summer New Yorkers have been confronted with new, more deadly
and debilitating climate emergencies, from the severe flooding in the Hudson Valley to the thick,
choking wildfire smoke from Canada causing an increase in respiratory issues and asthma-related
ER visits, disproportionately in low-income, predominantly Black and Hispanic communities .

In the coming months, Gov. Hochul will roll out her administration’s proposal for a “cap-trade-
and-invest” (CT&I) program, an economy-wide, sector-based program intended to help New York
lower its emissions and meet the targets in New York’s ambitious climate law, the  Climate
Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA) . This new program would set an annual limit,
or a cap, on New York’s greenhouse gas emissions and create permits that businesses could
purchase, allowing them to pay to emit an amount of emissions up to the cap.
We urge the Hochul administration to adopt guardrails to minimize costs, maximize benefits,
encourage early action, undo legacy pollution, and protect frontline communities
disproportionately impacted by climate injustice from increased emissions and pollution
hotspots.

It is crucial that state regulators build a just system prioritizing low-income communities and
communities of color over polluters. Any program must comply with the CLCPA’s mandate to
prioritize the reduction of emissions and co-pollutants in disadvantaged communities. We can’t
let CT&I be a distraction from direct emission reductions and climate investments, such as ending
our reliance on fossil fuels and decarbonizing our homes and buildings. Cap-and-trade systems do
not guarantee emissions reduction, and CT&I alone will not undo the legacy air pollution that has
sickened environmental justice communities across the state.

Much to the alarm of environmental justice advocates, the Hochul administration has proposed
using a form of emissions trading. The ability to trade means that polluters that do not use all
their emissions allowances under their cap can sell the remainder to other polluters who want to
emit more than their cap. Done wrong, New York’s cap program could risk making mistakes
similar to those California made with its version of the program, where emissions have actually
increased in certain sectors.

Recent research on cap-and-trade programs shows a general pattern in which low-income

communities and communities of color received improvements and emissions reductions at a
lower and slower rate for all pollutants when compared to wealthier, white communities.  To
avoid this outcome in New York, it’s imperative that a just cap-and-invest program refrain from
the use of trading, offsets, and unlimited banking, which are key components of the California
program.

“Cap and invest” regulations must prohibit allowance trading that could potentially exacerbate
pollution in already overburdened communities and impose facility-specific and sector-based
caps. Specific caps can be designated for facilities or sectors to ensure the state meets its CLCPA
targets. For example, each power plant could have a cap on how much it can emit, with the cap
amount decreasing to zero over time to meet the zero-emissions by 2040 mandate for the power
sector. These specific caps would help prevent the inequitable distribution of air quality benefits
from emissions reductions and ensure all facilities in disadvantaged communities decrease
emissions as fast as the statewide average amount.

Done right, an emissions cap program would make corporate polluters pay for their toxic
pollution, raising billions of dollars to create good, green union jobs, and directing money to
Black, Brown, Indigenous, and working-class communities. The program could also lower energy
costs across the board for all New Yorkers. Reducing emissions and subsequent pollution would
lower rates of asthma, heart disease, and stroke and increase New Yorkers’ life expectancy. This
means New Yorkers could lead longer, healthier lives with lower prescription drug costs and
medical bills.

A CT&I program alone will not position New York to meet its CLCPA targets and, if done in
isolation without guardrails, could deepen the impacts of environmental racism. It’s incumbent
on the state Department of Environmental Conservation and the New York State Energy Research
and Development Authority to listen to the voices of all New Yorkers in order to equitably design
and implement New York’s ambitious climate legislation.
A program that includes trading, but doesn’t prioritize the health and well being of those who
have faced the brunt of the climate crisis, isn’t the kind of program New York needs or deserves.
We call on decision makers in Albany to ensure that in implementing New York’s landmark
climate law, they center environmental justice and equity at every stage of the planning process.

González-Rojas represents parts of Queens in the state Assembly. Ko is the deputy director of the
NYC Environmental Justice Alliance, where Perez is a policy organizer.

States have big hopes for renewable energy. Get ready to pay for it.
Marie French
Politico
August 22, 2023

ALBANY, N.Y. — A generational push to tackle climate change in New York is quickly becoming a
pocketbook issue headed into 2024.

Some upstate New York electric customers are already paying 10 percent of their utility bill to
support the state's effort to move off fossil fuels and into renewable energy. In the coming years,
people across the state can expect to give up even bigger chunks of their income to the programs —
$48 billion in projects is set to be funded by consumers over the next two decades.

The scenario is creating a headache for New York Democrats grappling with the practical and
political risk of the transition.

It’s an early sign of the dangers Democrats across the country will face as they press forward with
similar policies at the state and federal level. New Jersey, Maryland and California are also wrestling
with the issue and, in some cases, are reconsidering their ambitious plans.

“This is bad politics. This is politics that are going to hurt all New Yorkers,” said state Sen. Mario
Mattera, a Long Island Republican who has repeatedly questioned the costs of the state’s climate
law and who will pay for it.

Democrats, Mattera said, have been unable to explain effectively the costs for the state’s goals. “We
need to transition into renewable energy at a certain rate, a certain pace,” he said.

Proponents say the switch will ultimately lower energy bills by harnessing the sun and wind, result
in significant health benefits and — critically — help stave off the most devastating climate change
scenarios. And they hope federal money from the Inflation Reduction Act, celebrating its one-year
anniversary, can limit costs to consumers.

New York has statutory mandates calling for 70 percent renewable electricity by 2030 and a fully
“zero emissions” grid by 2040, among the most aggressive targets in the country. The grid needs to
be greened, while demand for electricity is expected to more than double by 2050 — the same year
when state law requires emissions to be cut by 85 percent from 1990 levels.

But some lawmakers in New York, particularly upstate Democrats, and similar moderates across
the nation are worried about moving too quickly and sparking a backlash against higher costs. The
issue is another threat to Democrats heading into the critical 2024 battleground House races in
New York, which will be instrumental in determining control of Congress.
Even Gov. Kathy Hochul, a Democrat who is fond of saying that “we’re the last generation to be able
to do anything” about climate change, last spring balked at the potential price tag of a policy to
achieve New York’s climate targets. And she’s not the only top member of her party to say so.

“If it's all just going to be passed along to the ratepayers — at some point, there's a breaking point,
and we don't want to lose public support for this agenda,” state Comptroller Tom DiNapoli, a
Democrat, warned in an interview.

Ramping up renewables

Part of the problem is New York has been unable to meet its previous renewable targets, which
DiNapoli’s office in a recent report attributed in part to permitting challenges and inconsistent
contracting efforts.

New York got about 29 percent of its electricity from renewables in 2022, three-quarters of which
came from large hydropower dams in upstate New York.

The costs of the state’s renewable energy mandates are being paid for almost solely by New York
residents and businesses through their electric bills. With renewable developers asking for higher
subsidies to deal with inflation, those costs are expected to increase while expected savings from
the transition takes longer to materialize.

Democrats who control New York’s government are increasingly worried about the fallout.

“I'm very concerned about the cost and the impact on our ratepayers, our constituents,” said
Assemblymember Didi Barrett, a Hudson Valley Democrat who chairs the chamber's Energy
Committee. “People right now are already complaining about where their utility costs are, so it has
to be part of the conversation.”

Utility rates are a particularly regressive way to fund the clean energy transition. Wealthy residents
pay the same amount for electricity as people struggling to make ends meet.

While some programs exist to assist low-income individuals, those aren’t available to middle-
income people and can be difficult to access. The state also has a policy goal of capping utility costs
at 6 percent of income, which some lawmakers want to enshrine in law to ensure it is achieved.

But the mounting costs for the transition continues to draw warnings from a wide array of
regulators, advocates and legislators.

New York City “supports efforts to transform our electric system away from fossil fuels to
sustainable, carbon-free technologies,” a lawyer for Mayor Eric Adams’ administration wrote in
recent comments on a potential new clean energy subsidy. “However, the City is very concerned
that the cost of utility service is becoming unaffordable for many New Yorkers.”

Democratic lawmakers are planning a hearing in the fall on the costs of the climate law to
ratepayers.

Transition benefits awaited

Bringing new renewables online will, in the long run, lower costs for electricity and insulate New
York residents from the volatility of oil and gas prices, proponents said.

“Our optimistic view — our view of the future — is that as we include additional renewable energy
resources; the instability that we experienced recently and have experienced historically with
fluctuating energy prices can be mitigated; and we can have a far more stable energy system and a
far more affordable energy system,” Rory Christian, the chair of the state’s Public Service
Commission that regulates utilities, said in an interview.

Academic research supports his view, with studies of the transition ultimately showing benefits,
especially when factoring in the value of eliminating greenhouse gas emissions. Lowering co-
pollutants also has significant health benefits.

But there is still the question of customers’ tolerance for higher bills, especially during the current
inflationary period, and whether their anger will translate to trouble at the polls for Democrats.

A recent report by the state Public Service Commission’s staff found the transition is already
increasing utility bills. National Grid electric customers in upstate New York saw 9.8 percent of
their bills go toward climate investments in 2022; for Con Edison customers in New York City, it
was 4.4 percent. That amounts to an average of about $9.40 out of a $96 monthly bill for upstate
Grid customers and $7.90 out of a $182 monthly bill for Con Ed customers.

Christian said that benefits from the Inflation Reduction Act, which in part subsidizes clean energy
projects, will help lower the cost to ratepayers for some programs. But details of how some of those
programs will work is still sparse.

Cost concerns rampant

Other states are also dealing with similar concerns.

In New Jersey, all of the state’s legislative seats are on the ballot this fall, and the expense of moving
away from natural gas and building new state-backed offshore wind projects are major campaign
issues in some races.

Republicans have been hammering Democrats, including Gov. Phil Murphy, on the costs of his clean
energy plan.

A study released by the state’s utility regulators last summer found Murphy’s clean energy
policies could increase rates by 10 percent to 20 percent unless people use less energy, buy an
electric car and rip out their natural gas appliances to install new electric appliances.

And that was before he set even more ambitious clean energy targets this year.

Meanwhile, the outgoing chair of Maryland’s utility regulator, appointed by moderate Republican
Gov. Larry Hogan, recently cautioned policymakers to make sure ratepayers don’t foot the bill for
aggressive climate policies.

In California, Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom proposed substantial cuts to climate programs at the
beginning of the year and ultimately cut a deal with lawmakers to trim spending.
Still, California has a longstanding cap-and-trade program and a low carbon fuel standard that
incentivizes electrification and alternative fuels, with proceeds aimed at reducing costs of the
transition.

And while those programs increase gas costs between 22 and 44 cents per gallon, Newsom is now
in the midst of implementing an anti-price gouging law targeting oil and gas companies.

Washington state’s first auctions under a new cap-and-trade program have raised significant
revenue. But the program has been linked to rising fuel prices in the state, with farmers saying
they’re getting hit despite an exemption in the law.

Alternative funding mechanism

Democratic lawmakers approved New York’s landmark climate law in 2019, but haven’t had to
grapple with the policies — and the costs —that will allow the state to achieve its goals until
recently.

“My job at this point is: How are we going to achieve the goals, which I support and I voted for, and
how are we going to pay for them,” Barrett said.

The main mechanism to raise funds, backed by a Hochul-administration dominated panel, looks
likely to be an economy-wide cap-and-trade system to ratchet down emissions over time and
auction off the right to pollute. Such a program will likely raise fossil-based energy costs, including
at the pump and on utility bills.

Citing the high prices in Washington, Hochul officials earlier this year said the state’s climate law
needed to be rewritten because the potential cost impacts under cap-and-trade would be too
burdensome. But Hochul backed down after backlash from environmentalists and groups that
pushed for passage of the climate law.

Assemblymember Ken Zebrowski (D-Rockland County) said at the time the increases in gas prices
estimated by the Hochul administration under cap-and-trade were not reasonable.

“Assuming those are real numbers, they are absolutely unaffordable for New Yorkers — and we will
need to amend the law,” Zebrowski said.

Some key Democratic lawmakers are instead pushing for a Superfund-style program to charge large
fossil fuel companies for damages caused by historical pollution, pitching it as a way to raise
billions without costs being passed to consumers. The Hochul administration, though, has been
wary of the potential litigation that could come from it.

Lawmakers earlier this year instead approved a rebate program for a third of any revenue raised by
the cap-and-trade program, which is still in development.

“We're waiting to have some information to react to,” Barrett said. “The world has changed since
2019 in lots of ways, so we have to work in the reality of where we are now.”