I. Introduction
The New York State Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (“CLCPA”) has given the New York Public Service Commission (“Commission”) a difficult—if not impossible—task. While continuing to ensure ratepayers “access to safe, reliable utility service at just and reasonable rates,” the Commission must transform New York’s grid, replacing current generation with resources that have entirely different characteristics and, in some cases, have yet to be invented. Although just 27 percent of New York’s net-electricity generation currently comes from “renewable energy systems,”0F 1 the Commission is required to source 70 percent of its electricity from those systems within just 6 years. The Commission is required to bring 9 GW of offshore wind online by 2035—but the first big project was just canceled. Most dramatically, the Commission is required to make the full “statewide electrical demand system . . . be zero emissions” by 2040.
The Department of Public Service (“DPS”) Staff now asks a particularly important question: what does “zero emissions” mean? Predictably, many wind and solar lobbying groups have urged the Commission to simply read “zero emissions” and “renewable energy systems” together. Sierra Club and Earthjustice advocated for an atextual and self-defeating interpretation of “zero emissions,” that would focus the Commission’s efforts exclusively on deploying wind, solar, and hydro. John Cropley, Contentious Commentary on Zero-Emissions Path in NY, RTO Insider (Aug. 21, 2023), https://perma.cc/QT6P-DE7U. The Alliance for a Green Economy balks at the implications of including nuclear power in a definition of zero emissions. Id. And another collection of 43 similar organizations jointly commented that although it was good that the Commission is thinking about the zero-emissions mandate now, it is premature “to water down” the CLCPA to avert a potential resource gap in 2040. Id.
All of this misstates the situation. As New York Independent System Operator (“NYISO”), the Independent Power Producers of New York, the New York State Building & Construction Trades Council, the New York State AFL-CIO, and many others have all explained, wind, solar, and other renewable energy resources will be incapable of meeting New York’s electrical demand in 2040. And the consequences of a “renewable energy systems” only approach are likely to be felt much sooner than that.
If the Commission is to meet its statutory obligations to ensure affordable, reliable, and sustainable power, then it must define “zero emissions” in a broad, flexible, and technologically neutral way. Fortunately for the Commission, a technology-neutral approach is precisely what the text of the CLCPA commands.
CEA writes these comments to explain why the best interpretation of “zero emissions”—and the only interpretation that gives the Commission a chance of success—is “net-zero greenhouse gas emissions.” This interpretation of the term does not foreclose the use of nuclear power (essential for a feasible, reliable scheme under net-zero constrains), offsetting technologies (such as biomass sequestration or carbon capture and storage), innovative energy carriers (like gray, blue, turquoise, or green hydrogen), or other sensible, electricity generation-technologies. CEA also writes to explain that if “zero emissions” is read in the atextual manner that the solar and wind lobbying groups have suggested, even their own favored “renewable energy systems” would not qualify since those systems emit more lifecycle emissions than several of their “non-renewable” counterparts.
Comments on Proceeding on Motion of the Commission to Implement a Large-Scale Renewable Program and a Clean Energy Standard
I. Introduction
The New York State Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (“CLCPA”) has given the New York Public Service Commission (“Commission”) a difficult—if not impossible—task. While continuing to ensure ratepayers “access to safe, reliable utility service at just and reasonable rates,” the Commission must transform New York’s grid, replacing current generation with resources that have entirely different characteristics and, in some cases, have yet to be invented. Although just 27 percent of New York’s net-electricity generation currently comes from “renewable energy systems,”0F 1 the Commission is required to source 70 percent of its electricity from those systems within just 6 years. The Commission is required to bring 9 GW of offshore wind online by 2035—but the first big project was just canceled. Most dramatically, the Commission is required to make the full “statewide electrical demand system . . . be zero emissions” by 2040.
The Department of Public Service (“DPS”) Staff now asks a particularly important question: what does “zero emissions” mean? Predictably, many wind and solar lobbying groups have urged the Commission to simply read “zero emissions” and “renewable energy systems” together. Sierra Club and Earthjustice advocated for an atextual and self-defeating interpretation of “zero emissions,” that would focus the Commission’s efforts exclusively on deploying wind, solar, and hydro. John Cropley, Contentious Commentary on Zero-Emissions Path in NY, RTO Insider (Aug. 21, 2023), https://perma.cc/QT6P-DE7U. The Alliance for a Green Economy balks at the implications of including nuclear power in a definition of zero emissions. Id. And another collection of 43 similar organizations jointly commented that although it was good that the Commission is thinking about the zero-emissions mandate now, it is premature “to water down” the CLCPA to avert a potential resource gap in 2040. Id.
All of this misstates the situation. As New York Independent System Operator (“NYISO”), the Independent Power Producers of New York, the New York State Building & Construction Trades Council, the New York State AFL-CIO, and many others have all explained, wind, solar, and other renewable energy resources will be incapable of meeting New York’s electrical demand in 2040. And the consequences of a “renewable energy systems” only approach are likely to be felt much sooner than that.
If the Commission is to meet its statutory obligations to ensure affordable, reliable, and sustainable power, then it must define “zero emissions” in a broad, flexible, and technologically neutral way. Fortunately for the Commission, a technology-neutral approach is precisely what the text of the CLCPA commands.
CEA writes these comments to explain why the best interpretation of “zero emissions”—and the only interpretation that gives the Commission a chance of success—is “net-zero greenhouse gas emissions.” This interpretation of the term does not foreclose the use of nuclear power (essential for a feasible, reliable scheme under net-zero constrains), offsetting technologies (such as biomass sequestration or carbon capture and storage), innovative energy carriers (like gray, blue, turquoise, or green hydrogen), or other sensible, electricity generation-technologies. CEA also writes to explain that if “zero emissions” is read in the atextual manner that the solar and wind lobbying groups have suggested, even their own favored “renewable energy systems” would not qualify since those systems emit more lifecycle emissions than several of their “non-renewable” counterparts.