Global warming, climate change, all these things are just a dream come true for politicians. I deal with evidence and not with frightening computer models because the seeker after truth does not put his faith in any consensus. The road to the truth is long and hard, but this is the road we must follow. People who describe the unprecedented comfort and ease of modern life as a climate disaster, in my opinion have no idea what a real problem is.
New data recently released by the Energy Information Administration (EIA) shows a decrease in wind power production in 2023. Despite record highs in installed wind capacity and continually rising subsidies production is falling.
New data recently released by the Energy Information Administration (EIA) shows a decrease in wind power production in 2023. Despite record highs in installed wind capacity and continually rising subsidies production is falling.
Thanks to these subsidies, including the longstanding Production Tax Credit (PTC) and Investment Tax Credit (ITC), and the extensions that these credits received in the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), subsidies for wind power have seen a dramatic increase over the last decade. The IRA extended these credits through 2025, and replaces them with the new, but similar, Clean Energy PTC and Clean Energy ITC through 2032. It also added provisions to provide even larger subsidies for projects that meet “Environmental Justice” requirements. All of this together will maintain, and increase, both the scope of subsidies for wind, and the impact that those subsidies have on the overall market for electricity.
Will this money do any good for the power grid? Will added investment in renewable sources, particularly wind, lead to any increase in the amount of wind power generated? And will that capacity increase or decrease the resiliency of the grid?
The answer to all of the preceding questions is an emphatic “no” and recent reality bears this out.
The highest installed wind capacity on record was last year, with nearly 150 gigawatts of installed wind capacity in the US.
Even with this record capacity last year, there was also a decline in power generated from wind for the first time. There was 2.1 percent less wind power generated in 2023 than in 2022. This was in part due to slower wind speeds that year, an inherent flaw of wind power. The intermittency of the source also means that sometimes wind power is unavailable when demand is high, but available when it is not, which can also result in less wind power being used.
These aren’t problems that subsidy dollars can solve, they’re inherent to the technology. Despite this, lawmakers have continually tried throwing money at the problem. From 2016 to 2022, the federal government spent approximately $18.7 billion on subsidies for wind power alone. This is a massive amount of money. It’s even more considerable given that wind’s intermittency heavily limits its benefit to reliability.
During that period, wind subsidies were much higher than the subsidies for any of the conventional power sources: natural gas, coal, and nuclear. Specifically, the wind subsidies were about 2.5 times greater than both coal subsidies and refined coal subsidies, and greater than both coal and refined coal subsidies combined. The wind subsidies were also about double the subsidies for natural gas and petroleum liquids and about 6.5 times greater than nuclear subsidies.
Renewables received 46 percent of overall power subsidies, despite constituting a very small portion of overall power generation.
This isn’t subsidies per kilowatt hour of generation. It’s total subsidies. If it were per kilowatt hour of generation, the disparity would be even more extreme given how much more output conventional sources have. To be clear, policymakers shouldn’t be increasing the subsidies for reliable sources to account for this disparity. The way to fix power markets is to subsidize everything less (ideally not at all). The solution to grid reliability problems is certainly not to subsidize the least reliable sources the most.
Decreasing wind generation makes wind’s power production limitations more obvious. It also emphasizes what many reliability advocates have been saying for years: government meddling in electricity markets in favor of unreliable sources will have consequences for reliability as money is funneled away from what works and toward what does not.
As a general matter, lawmakers should stop subsidizing energy sources. To protect reliability, lawmakers should look to repeal the IRA extensions of wind and solar tax credits as a first step toward repairing the damage that these subsidies have done to electricity markets.
Paige Lambermont is a Research Fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute in the Center for Energy and Environment. She covers the electrical grid, energy regulation, nuclear power issues, and other free-market energy topics. Paige has a Bachelor’s Degree in Political Science from American University and a Master’s Degree in Public Administration from the University of Idaho. She is also a Columnist Fellow at Catalyst. Catalyst articles by Paige Lambermont | Full Biography and Publications
Before everything got disrupted by the attempt on President Trump’s life, I had written a post last week titled “Big Tech On The Path To Net Zero.” That post looked at the most recently issued “sustainability” reports from Google, Microsoft and Meta, and noted that all three admit to going rapidly in the opposite direction from “net zero.”
Before everything got disrupted by the attempt on President Trump’s life, I had written a post last week titled “Big Tech On The Path To Net Zero.” That post looked at the most recently issued “sustainability” reports from Google, Microsoft and Meta, and noted that all three admit to going rapidly in the opposite direction from “net zero.” As their businesses grow in the direction of power-hungry data centers and AI, they inevitably require large incremental amounts of always-available electricity — the kind of electricity that wind and sun cannot provide. Lacking viable alternatives to fossil fuels, their “emissions” rise.
But, you might ask, how about Amazon and Apple? They too put out annual “sustainability” reports. Here is the “2023 Amazon Sustainability Report” (that appears to have just been issued); and here is the “Apple Environmental Report covering fiscal year 2023,” that came out in April. Unlike the similar Reports issued by Google, Microsoft and Meta, these Amazon and Apple Reports do not admit to lack of progress (let alone negative progress) on the “net zero” goal. Are they being honest?
The answer is that these Reports from Amazon and Apple are substantially less honest than the efforts of Google, Microsoft and Meta. Amazon’s Report follows the general pattern of the Google, Facebook and Meta Reports, with happy talk in the introduction and summaries and then some potentially real information buried deep in the interior. Apple’s Report is the worst of the lot, and can best be described as an effort at deception and misdirection. Let’s take a look.
From Amazon’s Report, the introductory letter from Chief Sustainability Officer Kara Hurst:
On renewable energy, we set an ambitious goal to match 100% of the electricity consumed by our global operations with renewable energy by 2030, and we reached that goal in 2023—seven years early. As we look to the future, we are steadfast in our Climate Pledge commitment to be net-zero carbon across our operations by 2040. We will continue to lead and invest in creating carbon-free energy around the world at scale, including through solar, wind, nuclear, and other emerging energy technologies.
What does it mean to “match 100% of electricity consumed . . . with renewable energy”? It sounds like it has something to do with actually using wind and solar electricity for operations, but does it? You won’t find any real answer in this Report. What you know is that Amazon demands and uses electricity at all hours of the day and night, and expects the power to be available when they need it. Wind and solar don’t and can’t deliver that. Clearly, they are drawing electricity from the grid at times of overcast days and calm nights. Are they paying some fee to utilities to get the utilities to say that they have allocated some solar power from a sunny afternoon to “match” the power that Amazon bought on a calm night? That would be my inference. If that’s what they are doing, I would call it a pure scam.
If you should make it as far as page 11 in the body of the Report, you will come to a chart headed “Amazon’s Carbon Footprint”:
They claim that this “carbon footprint” thing is down 3% since last year. But do the comparison since 2019, and you will see that the overall “footprint” has gone up from 51.17 MMT CO2e to 68.82 MMT CO2e in 2023. That’s an increase of more than 25%. The 3% reduction in 2023 over 2022 largely flows from the line headed “Emissions from Purchased Electricity (Scope 2).” Although they don’t say it here, that likely relates to the widely proclaimed Amazon program to build their own massive wind and solar farms. Is this 3% the puny reduction that they can get from this program?
Over at Apple, here’s the key quote from the introductory letter:
Apple 2030 is our commitment to be carbon neutral for our entire footprint by the end of the decade. We’ll get there by innovating at every stage of the product lifecycle — from how they’re made, to what they’re made from. That starts with bringing new clean energy online across our supply chain. Today, more than 320 suppliers have committed to using renewable electricity for Apple production. With over 16 gigawatts already online, they’re avoiding more than 18 million metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions.
The letter comes from Lisa Jackson, Apple’s VP of Environment, Policy and Social Initiatives. Do you recognize the name? Jackson was EPA Administrator back in the Obama Administration.
But where is the real information on “emissions”? I can’t find it. The closest I can find is an incomprehensible chart on page 14, accompanied by this text:
In 2023, we estimate that our environmental programs avoided 31 million metric tons of emissions across all scopes. Initiatives that we’ve been growing for years continue to yield clear results, including sourcing 100 percent renewable energy for our facilities, transitioning suppliers to renewable energy, and using low-carbon materials in products. While our revenue has grown by more than 64 percent since 2015, our gross emissions have decreased by more than 55 percent.
There is no clue as to the methodology of how they came up with that line that emissions “decreased by more than 55%.” Sure they may have found some efficiencies, or maybe they are using some lighter materials. But the only way they could come up with a number as large as a 55% decrease is by buying supposed carbon offsets and credits. In other words, scams. And they provide no information sufficient to evaluate the legitimacy of how they derive this figure.
There is no real possibility that any of Google, Microsoft, Meta, Amazon or Apple can operate its business without large-scale carbon emissions, at least until there has been a massive build-out of nuclear power that as of now has not even gotten started. Likely these Reports pledging adherence to the carbon neutrality creed are just so many words intended to buy time until the whole climate change mania blows over. When that happens, all these programs will be quietly scrapped. Along the same lines, note this piece from the New York Post today, reporting that Microsoft has just quietly scrapped its DEI program.
After five years of hype a couple of recent reports show that New York’s Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act) is not going as planned. Maybe there is hope that the ill-considered net-zero transition plan can be halted before it does irreparable harm to the state.
After five years of hype a couple of recent reports show that New York’s Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act) is not going as planned. Maybe there is hope that the ill-considered net-zero transition plan can be halted before it does irreparable harm to the state.
Clean Energy Standard Biennial Report
The Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act) requires that the Public Service Commission (PSC) issue a review for notice and comment that considers “(a) progress in meeting the overall targets for deployment of renewable energy systems and zero emission sources, including factors that will or are likely to frustrate progress toward the targets; (b) distribution of systems by size and load zone; and (c) annual funding commitments and expenditures.” The recently released Clean Energy Standard Biennial Review Report (“Biennial Report”) fulfills some aspects of that requirement.
The Biennial Report compares the renewable energy deployment progress relative to the Climate Act goals to obtain 70% of New York’s electricity from renewable sources by 2030 (the 70% goal).
Section 5 summarizes the “Path to the 70% goal”. The description of the Table 8 “Summary of progress” states:
Under the base case load forecast assumption of 164,910 GWh by 2030 as described above, the 70% goal equates to 115,437 GWh. Table 8 below summarizes the contributions towards the goal from currently operational and contracted renewables, as set out above in Section 2 and Section 4 of this Report. In addition, it projects 10 GW of distributed generation by 2030 secured outside the CES framework.
It describes Table 8, (my highlights added):
With these conservative assumptions, the expected amount of renewable generation from operational and awarded/contracted sources in 2030 totals 73,292 GWh. Under the base case forecast for the 2030 statewide electric load, there is a renewable energy supply deficit of 42,145 GWh that would have to be addressed through future procurements in order to reach the 70% goal amount of 115,437 GWh.
Consider these numbers in context. There is an admitted gap of 42,145 GWh which is greater than the sum of the operational renewable generation in 2022, 2022 imports of renewable energy, and generation from projects operational after 2022 (37.692 GWh). Trying to cover that gap is an ambitious challenge.
While it is encouraging that they admit there is a problem, the suggested solution maintains the fiction that it can be done. The Biennial Report proposes to double down on building renewables to cover the gap and meet the target.
To fill the expected gap, three Tier 1 annual solicitations – those for 2024, 2025, and 2026 – are currently scheduled and will seek projects capable of deploying by 2030. However, the amounts procured in these solicitations would need to be adjusted to secure the needed quantity of 42,145 GWh. The analysis suggests NYSERDA would have to procure approximately 14,048 GWh per solicitation, assuming no project attrition, or, assuming a 30% attrition rate, an amount of 20,068 GWh per solicitation. This volume is significantly higher than the annual procurement quantity of 4,500 GWh per Tier 1 solicitation (before attrition) estimated in the 2020 CES White Paper and 2020 CES Order.
The best efforts of the State to date for renewable solicitations are far lower than what is needed. The report admits that “the maximum annual new project development rate would likely be in the range of 6,000-7,000 GWh per year at least in the near term” and that is contingent on meeting a number of conditions. Table 9 below describes what the report argues is feasible.
Even under the revised assumptions the PSC projects that the 70% renewable energy goal will not be achieved until 2033 when the historic renewable resource deployments are considered. They still cannot let go of the narrative that the renewable resources can be deployed on a schedule that is close to the Climate Act mandates. I do not think this approach is feasible.
Comptroller Report
On July 16, 2024 the New York State Comptroller Office released an audit of the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) and Public Service Commission (PSC) of their implementation efforts for the Climate Act titled Climate Act Goals – Planning, Procurements, and Progress Tracking (“Comptroller Report”). This report is particularly gratifying because it confirms my long-held argument that the Climate Act cost estimates are unsatisfactory.
The Audit Highlights section of the Comptroller Report lists the key findings and key recommendations:
Key Findings
While PSC and NYSERDA have taken considerable steps to plan for the transition to renewable energy in accordance with the Climate Act and Clean Energy Standard, their plans did not comprise all essential components, including assessing risks to meeting goals and projecting costs. Specifically:
PSC is using outdated data, and, at times, incorrect calculations, for planning purposes and has not started to address all current and emerging issues that could significantly increase electricity demand and lower projected generation, such as increased push to transition to electric vehicles by 2035 and the cancellation or delay in renewable energy projects. Between 2005 and April 2023, 12% of contracted large-scale renewable projects were canceled.
The costs of transitioning to renewable energy are not known, nor have they been reasonably estimated. Moreover, funding sources to cover those costs have not been identified, leaving the ratepayers as the primary source of funding. The lack of alternative funding sources adds additional risk to whether the State can meet its goals timely. Data shows utility costs have already risen sharply over the last two decades and more New Yorkers are having difficulty paying their utility bills.
PSC has taken steps to address some risks and issues; however, it has not yet begun to formally review progress toward Climate Act goals with updated generation and electricity demand forecasts. While PSC noted it has until July 2024 to begin this assessment, waiting until that point to fully review all efforts and costs of the transition to renewable energy increases the risk that Climate Act goals will not be met within the established time frame.
Finally, a formal backup plan has not been established in the event Climate Act goals are found to be unachievable within the prescribed time frames, other than PSC suspending or modifying the obligations under the Climate Act and relying on the continued use of fossil fuels to generate electricity until sufficient renewable electric generation is developed. However, continuing to use fossil fuels as a backup plan would delay emission reductions and increase the burden on ratepayers by forcing them to continue to support fossil-fuel generation that otherwise could be retired—including the additional cost of the infrastructure to safely transport the fossil fuels to where they will be used to generate energy.
Key Recommendations
• Begin the required comprehensive review of the Climate Act, including assessment of progress toward the goals, distribution of systems by load and size, and annual funding commitments and expenditures.
• Continuously analyze the existing and emerging risks and known issues to ensure they are evaluated and addressed to minimize impact on the State’s ability to meet Climate Act goals.
• Conduct a detailed analysis of cost estimates to transition to renewable energy sources and meet Climate Act goals. Periodically update and report the results of the analysis to the public.
• Assess the extent to which ratepayers can reasonably assume the responsibility for covering Climate Act implementation costs. Identify potential alternative funding sources.
Power industry experts interviewed by the Times Union have said at the time the legislation was passed there was no analysis done on what’s achievable and at what cost, and no real plan for pulling away from a power grid that’s more than 70 years old. This week, roughly 85 percent of electricity being supplied to New York City and Long Island is from gas and oil.
John Howard, who was a member of the Public Service Commission from 2019 until February, said Tuesday that he had long questioned why no one could estimate the cost to New Yorkers of transitioning to clean energy in such a short amount of time — and whether it could be done.
“Here we have the biggest statute of all time practically in this area, (and) no hearing record, no fiscal note, no background to underpin the legislation,” he said. “I was on the commission for five years; I couldn’t get hard numbers on costs.”
Howard and other energy industry stakeholders noted that many other Democrat-led states, including California, also adopted bold green energy mandates but are struggling to meet them.
“There was this herd mentality … and I think it was unworkable from day one; I said so as much internally,” Howard said.
The first step must be to document the net-zero transition plan in sufficient detail so that it can be used to track progress. The Comptroller Report does not acknowledge this deficiency.
Discussion
These reports admit that the renewables are not being deployed fast enough and there is insufficient cost information. This is the first time any state agency has broken the narrative that the Climate Act is on track and will be affordable.
As important is a footnote for the first sentence in the Introduction. It states: Public Service Law §66-p(4) provides the Commission with authority to “temporarily suspend or modify” the obligations created by the Program if, after conducting a hearing, it finds that the Program “impedes the provision of safe and adequate electric service,” “is likely to impair existing obligations and agreements,” and/or is related to “a significant increase in arrears or service disconnections.” This looks like it could be the eventual path forward. Clearly, the schedule is not going to be met so that obligation will have to be suspended. I believe that the Comptroller Audit makes the case that insufficient information is available to determine whether there is “a significant increase in arrears or service disconnections.” Perhaps that can also be used to suspend or modify the obligations too.
Conclusion
There is a certain amount of vindication in these reports. The work of Richard Ellenbogen, Francis Menton, and myself has consistently argued that the schedule was overly aspirational, and the costs were not documented appropriately. A plain reading of the New York Independent System Operator resource adequacy reports also argue that there will be reliability issues, which has been another theme of our work. Now the question is how the Hochul Administration will respond to these agency reports. Backing off any of the mandates will certainly bring howls of outrage from the usual suspects but failing to address the issues risks outrage from the voters who want reliable and affordable energy.
Roger Caiazza blogs on New York energy and environmental issues at Pragmatic Environmentalist of New York. This represents his opinion and not the opinion of any of his previous employers or any other company with which he has been associated.
Five Just Stop Oil protesters, including one of its co-founders, have been jailed for conspiring to organise protests that blocked the M25 motorway.
Roger Hallam, an environmental activist who was one of the founding members of the group, agreed to causing disruption to traffic by having protesters climb onto gantries over the motorway for four successive days in November 2022.
The 58-year-old was joined by Daniel Shaw, 38, Louise Lancaster, 58, Lucia Whittaker De Abreu, 35, and Cressida Gethin, 22, as they were all sentenced at Southwark Crown Court on Thursday.
Hallam was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment while the remaining four defendants were each handed four years’ imprisonment.
Apparently, a journalist from the Sun recorded one of their planning sessions and gave it to the police.
Judge Christopher Hehir said the Zoom call showed ‘how intricately planned the disruption was and the sophistication involved’, and was ‘compelling evidence’ of the existence of a conspiracy.
The caterwauling on the Just Stop Oil account on X is a fun read.
🚨 BREAKING: THE WHOLE TRUTH FIVE IMPRISONED FOR 4-5 YEARS
⛓️ Lucia, Cressie, Louise and Daniel have received 4 year prison sentences today, whilst Roger has received 5 years.
— Eleanora (formerly LeftieStats) 🍉🏳️⚧️ (@LeftieStats) July 18, 2024
I've just been sentenced to 5 years in prison.
The longest ever for nonviolent action.
The 'crime'?
Giving a talk on civil disobedience as an effective, evidence-based method for stopping the elite from putting enough carbon in the atmosphere to send us to extinction.
You must be logged in to post a comment.