New York’s climate law will ration fossil fuels and tax the rations

New York Governor Hochul says the emission reduction regulations required by the Climate Act are infeasible and ruinously expensive. She has yet to explain this, so here is my simple assessment.

A woman passionately speaking into a microphone at a podium with a sign that reads 'Save The Climate', set against a backdrop of an American flag.

From CFACT

By David Wojick

New York Governor Hochul speaking at a podium with 'MORE MONEY -> YOUR POCKETS' displayed, with American and New York state flags in the background.

New York Governor Hochul says the emission reduction regulations required by the Climate Act are infeasible and ruinously expensive. She has yet to explain this, so here is my simple assessment.

The regulatory program has two very different mechanisms. First, they ration your fossil fuels. Then, they tax you heavily on the ration you get. The rationing is infeasible; the tax is ruinous.

The program is called “cap and invest,” which sounds good. Note the missing word: “tax.” You need the tax to get the money to “invest.” An honest name is “cap, tax, and spend.”

The cap is the amount of each type of fossil fuel that can be sold to consumers during a given period. Permissions to sell this amount are called allowances and they cost money.

Here is how the Cap and Invest website explains it. (There is almost no other information.)

“The Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) and New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) are designing a program that sets an annual cap on the amount of greenhouse gas pollution that is permitted to be emitted in New York. Under the program, large-scale greenhouse gas emissions sources and distributors of heating and transportation fuels will be required to purchase or obtain allowances for the emissions associated with their activities.”

The cap is the ration, and the allowances are the ration tickets that have to be bought. Note that for heating and transportation fuels the distributor, not the consumer, buys the allowances. Of course, these costs will be passed on to the consumers. We are mostly talking about gasoline and diesel for transportation, fuel oil for heating, and gas for heating and cooking.

Let’s just look at the cap. These fuels are all essential for living, which make rationing a very bad plan. The rationing cap has to quickly come down and a lot under the Climate Act. Statewide emissions have to come down by a whopping 30% by 2030, just four years away.

Fuel use may have to come down even more because other emissions cannot be reduced that much. New York has provided no information about this looming threat, and there is no time to implement new technologies.

Rationing by definition creates shortages, because it means people get less than they would otherwise use. Let’s take home heating fuel oil as a simple case. About 20% of New York homes heat with fuel oil.

Say you live in one of these homes. Your fuel oil supplier has bought allowances for the coming year, and you get a share of that oil. But thanks to the cap, it is less than you burned keeping warm last year. How low will you have to turn your thermostat in order to get through the year on that much oil?

There is no way to know, because it depends on how cold it gets. If it is cold, you might run out of your allowed share in mid-December. Then what? The program is silent on this life-threatening question.

Moreover, if it is a cold year, then most people might run out of heating oil in winter. Heck of a Christmas that would be.

The same is true for gas heat but at a much larger scale, since most New York buildings are heated with natural gas. You cannot just suddenly use a lot less gas with a fixed amount allowed. It is a prescription for running out of heat in winter. This fiasco also applies in more complex ways to cars, trucks, and electricity.

Clearly capping fuel use is infeasible. Energy is fundamental to our way of life.

Electricity Progressive Income Tax: California’s Answer to High Rates?

“These too-high electricity prices are slowing progress on electrification and straining the pocketbooks of lower-income households.” (- Meredith Fowlie, University of California at Berkeley)

From Master Resource

By Kennedy Maize

“These too-high electricity prices are slowing progress on electrification and straining the pocketbooks of lower-income households.” (- Meredith Fowlie, University of California at Berkeley)

California electric customers could be seeing a radical new approach to electricity rates by 2025, if state regulators adopt a plan by the states three large investor-owned utilities. Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E), Southern California Edison (SCE), and San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E) have jointly filed a plan to comply with a state law enacted last June (Assembly Bill 205), that would combined a fixed, monthly recurring bill based on household income, not how much electricity the household uses, along with a more conventional consumption-based charge.

The utilities will lower their consumption rates, making up the losses through the income taxation mechanism.

Under Assembly Bill 205, the three investor-owned utilities must reduce their sky-high retail electric rates, using an income-related fixed charge mechanism. Meredith Fowlie at the University of California at Berkeley’s Energy Institute at Hass commented in a blog, “The impetus for electricity rate reform? California’s retail electricity prices are high and rising.”

Under the plan the utilities have submitted to the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC):

  • Households with annual income from $28,000 – $69,000 would pay $20 a month in Southern California Edison territory, $34 a month in SDG&E territory, and $30 a month in PG&E territory.
  • Households earning $69,000 – $180,000 would pay $51 a month in Edison and PG&E territories, and $73 a month in SDG&E territory.
  • Those with incomes above $180,000 would pay $85 a month in Edison territory, $128 a month in SDG&E territory and $92 a month in PG&E territory.

According to SCE, household income verification would “be managed by a qualified, independent state agency or third party; the utilities would not manage nor have direct access to such data.”

Some customers would be paying less overall, some more. SCE says, “Under the proposal, SCE’s approximately 1.2 million lower-income customers would received an average 16%-21% bill reduction, and about half of SCE’s customers would see lower bills, assuming no change in electricity usage. Rates for each unit of electricity consumer (kilowatt-hours) would decrease by about 33% for all residential customers.”

Haas’s Fowlie says:

We’ve argued here and here that these prices are too high because we’re effectively taxing grid electricity consumption to pay for costs that don’t vary with usage (e.g. rising costs of wildfire risk mitigation, compensating wildfire victims, infrastructure costs, public purpose programs). These too-high electricity prices are slowing progress on electrification and straining the pocketbooks of lower-income households.

She adds:

Revenues not recovered in a per-kWh charge will be collected in a fixed monthly charge that increases with household income. By how much should electricity prices be reduced? How should income-graduated fixed charges be set?

Answering those questions will be up to the CPUC, and the commission’s inquiry is likely to be lengthy. SDG&E notes, “State law requires the CPUC to adopt a new electric rate structure no later than July 1, 2024.”

Fowlie notes:

Under this kind of reform, there will be winners and losers. Most low-income households will ‘win’ reductions in their electricity bills. Households like mine — higher-income households with rooftop solar—are the biggest losers. No one likes to pay more, so some rooftop solar advocates -among others- are pushing back.

Using her own circumstances as illustration:

In California, we use retail electricity prices to raise revenues to cover a long list of non-incremental expenses I described earlier. This means that only a fraction of the savings I see on my bill are savings that my solar panels are actually generating for the world. A significant fraction of my cost ‘savings’ are just cost-shifted onto someone else’s bill since these costs still need to be paid. These proposed changes will reduce my solar PV ‘savings’ and increase my monthly electricity bills.

SDG&E CEO Caroline Winn said, “We have listened to and heard from our customers that fundamental change is needed to provide bill relief,” SDG&E CEO Caroline Winn said. “When we were putting together the reform proposal, front and center in our mind were customers who live paycheck to paycheck, who struggle to pay for essentials such as, energy, housing and food.”

Winn says that SDG&E’s KWh component of the customer’s bill would go down by 42%. The press release notes, “In San Diego County, nearly 85% of customers have their electricity purchased by local governments known as community choice aggregators or other entities – not SDG&E.”

The CPUC staff is likely to go over the utilities’ filing with a magnifying glass, asking fundamental questions, legal and administrative.

Who will verify the incomes of millions of utility customers?

How will they do it? How will they be compensated? Stay tuned….