From Manhattan Contrarian
Francis Menton
The article's headline is the same one that appears in the New York Daily News today as a large banner across pages 26 and 27 of the print edition (the main column page). The two pages contain two op-eds taking opposing positions on the future of New York’s Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act of 2019, which the Daily News calls a “climate statute.” The column on page 26 is written by Emily Gallagher and Kim Fraczek and is titled “Accessing Affordable Clean Energy Solutions.” The headline on page 27 is “We must rethink the state’s climate bill”; signed by Jane Mendon. Both articles are behind the Daily News' paywall, although it appears you can read it by paying them $1 for an introductory subscription. In my case, when I found out Jane's article was running, I went out and bought the print copy for $3.50.
A comparison of these two articles will give us an idea of the quality of the ongoing debate in New York about the so-called energy transition.
Both columns began by pointing to recent news in New York that state officials have publicly admitted that the 2030 deadline set out in the Climate Act will not be met. The two articles take opposing views of what happens next. As the title suggests, Jane’s article argues that “we must rethink” the climate bill. Gallagher and Frazek's point is that we need to redouble our efforts.
I will begin by describing Jane's work. The arguments in this article will be familiar to regular readers here. But first I should mention that although Jane only played a small role in the writing of this article. The main author is Roger Caiazza, a pragmatic environmentalist in New York. Roger and I (along with Richard Ellenbogen) recently collaborated on a report on the unworkability of the Climate Bill, as described in my post here , and we've also been working together in part on Efforts, partly working independently and partly in collaboration with Jane, resulted in the publication of a column discussing these ideas. Roger originally wrote the article and submitted it to the Daily News as an op-ed, but they initially refused to run it because they had recently published another article by Roger. They then asked Roger if they could resubmit the article under a different byline. Jane volunteered, and Roger graciously agreed to relinquish the honor. (Thankfully I didn’t volunteer. So far, I’ve had a 100% rejection rate for various op-eds I’ve submitted to local newspapers, including the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and New York Post.) As a result, this article ended up with only minor revisions to what Roger had written.
The basic point of Jane/Roger's article is that New York fails to meet the requirements of the climate bill because it simply cannot provide the electricity it needs through renewable energy sources. The article cites three recent reports from the Public Service Commission, the New York Independent System Operator, and the New York State Comptroller, all of which present formidable obstacles.
- The Public Service Commission report laid out the amount of electricity needed to meet the 2030 mission and found that approval rates and the pace of construction of facilities fell far short of providing the needed power. (The PSC report doesn’t even address the question of whether, if unlimited amounts of wind and solar facilities could somehow be built, electricity would be available at times that matched demand.)
- The comptroller's report notes that the entire climate bill energy transition is happening, but no one has looked at how much it will cost.
- Finally, the NYISO report does address the question of whether intermittent wind and solar generation can meet demand, concluding that significant amounts of what they call “DEFR” (dispatchable emissions free resources) are needed. DEFR is a magical power source that does not exist in the real world.
From Jane/Roger’s column:
What's the most obvious problem here? These [DEFR] The technology has not yet reached commercial scale and is certainly not fulfilling its purpose of replacing renewable energy sources that have been slow to implement.
The conclusion is:
Taken together, these reports from three official and reliable sources suggest that the transition to the climate bill will present insurmountable reliability risks. It's time to reassess.
Now let's look at the other side. Writing for The Other Side are Emily Gallagher and Kim Fraczek. Ms. Gallagher is a state legislator from the Greenpoint neighborhood of Brooklyn, a relatively affluent area across the river from Manhattan, and Ms. Frazek is a climate/energy director with a group called the Sarn Energy Project Director of an advocacy organization.
Don’t kid yourself if you think these two might actually solve the problem of how the proposed energy transition should work from an engineering perspective. Instead, the gist is to accuse existing utility companies of being “racist” in the operation of their systems and poisoning people by emitting toxic substances. excerpt:
The Governor must act now to regain New York’s position as a climate leader. . . . Our climate laws were passed to ensure inclusion in a historically racist energy system. State Grid [the gas utility in Brooklyn]Therefore, there is no denying that vulnerable groups have been excluded. . . . The governor must debunk National Grid’s explanation for the massive increase in utility bills and take action to block the company’s proposed rate hikes.
Where does the impetus for the energy transition come from? Here's what Gallagher and Frazek propose:
[S]Because the private market has failed our governor. . . There is an opportunity to direct the New York Power Authority (the largest state public electric utility in the United States, providing some of the lowest-cost electricity in the country) to build 15 gigawatts of renewable energy by 2030 and shut down peaking power plants that operate to emit toxic fracked gas.
However, wind and solar energy can only provide electricity part of the time, so what should we do if it does not meet customer needs? Is DEFR required? I won’t mention these things here. in conclusion:
[W]We should invest in cost-effective, energy-efficient upgrades. By moving away from expensive and potentially dangerous gas systems rooted in 19th century technology, we can create healthier, more comfortable living spaces for all.
This is the quality of thinking we are dealing with.
I guess I should give credit to the Daily News – usually a left-wing newspaper – for publishing the Jane/Caiazza article. But so far, the Gallagher/Vlasek debate is what gets you elected in Brooklyn. The question is whether these people can be awakened before the power goes out.
related
