{"id":388595,"date":"2025-07-13T17:30:56","date_gmt":"2025-07-13T15:30:56","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=388595"},"modified":"2025-07-13T17:30:58","modified_gmt":"2025-07-13T15:30:58","slug":"just-when-you-think-it-cannot-get-worse","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=388595","title":{"rendered":"Just When You Think It Cannot Get Worse"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From Watts Up With That?<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Roger Caiazza<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I recently described<\/a> the Energy Innovation Policy and Technology analysis: Assessing Impacts Of \u201cOne Big Beautiful Bill Act\u201d On U.S. Energy Costs, Jobs, Health, Emissions<\/a>.  The analysis included astoundingly biased claims of the effects of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.   I really did not think that I would see something that was as bad if not worse in less than a week but never underestimate the New York climate crazies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Several days ago Earth Justice, Environmental Defense Fund, WE ACT for Environmental Justice, and Evergreen Action wrote a letter<\/a> to Governor Hochul and the top managers of the Public Service Commission, the Department of Environmental Conservation, and the New York State Energy Research & Development Authority claiming that the New York Independent System Operator (NYISO) messaging in their summary Power Trends 2025<\/a> was misleading when they claimed that additional fossil fuel electricity generation is needed for reliability.  The arguments are as bad as the Energy Innovation Policy and Technology analysis.  The worst part is it got publicized by numerous media outlets, for example here<\/a>, here<\/a> and here<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A month ago, when the NYISO published Power Trends I wrote it up here<\/a> because these are the folks that are responsible for keeping the lights on.  They have a group whose sole responsibility is electric resource planning, and they use the most sophisticated tools available.  The results expressed deep concerns about the future of the electric system on its current path to zero-emissions.  My article did note that I was disappointed that the report did not explicitly call out the immense challenges of transiting the New York electric system to one primarily reliant on wind, solar, and energy storage by 2040.  I should have mentioned that in the absence of clear, definitive explanations that the usual suspects would misinterpret their findings.  Guess what happened?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The introductory paragraph of the letter states:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

On June 2, 2025, New York Independent System Operator (\u201cNYISO\u201d) issued its annual summary Power Trends report. The undersigned organizations write to correct misleading implications in the report and press release. The report\u2019s messaging\u2014that additional fossil fuel electricity generation is needed for reliability\u2014is not supported by NYISO\u2019s own analysis, and the report should not be used to derail New York\u2019s progress toward a clean energy future. In fact, NYISO\u2019s policies favoring fossil fuel generation and its delays in interconnecting clean energy resources to the grid are the real threats to reliability, and New York should prioritize the buildout of renewable energy and storage, and transmission, to comply with state law and protect New Yorkers\u2019 wallets and health.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Their claims are based on failing to acknowledge the purpose of the report, willful disregard of development schedule constraints, poor understanding of the electric system, and ignorance of weather-related impacts on wind and solar production.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The letter complains that it is \u201cnot based on new information or analysis but is rather a summary of prior NYISO reports and analysis\u201d.  The Power Trends report is supposed to be a summary overview of the results of other technical analyses<\/a>.   I have my doubts that the authors have delved into those analyses in enough detail to understand the implications of the results.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The letter claims that \u201cNYISO\u2019s technical analyses on reliability that are the basis of this report do not support the implication in Power Trends that immediate investment in additional gas resources is necessary to maintain reliability.\u201d  The authors ignore the NYISO concerns about the age of the existing fossil fuel resources and expectations that they may not work when needed most.  For the record, during the recent heat wave just about every fossil unit that could run was running.  It also was an unusual weather event because the source of the hot air was more of a push of heat and humidity from the south instead of a massive high-pressure system settling in place.  As a result, wind resources were higher than as is normal for peak summer loads.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The letter claims that \u201cIt seems that NYISO is irresponsibly seeking to create a false narrative that New York needs new gas generation, even though there is no evidence to support that claim.\u201d  The authors ignored an explicit explanation why repowering old gas generation is beneficial.  In addition to addressing the reliability concerns of old equipment, new combined cycle gas turbines are cleaner than existing sources, more efficient, and could be eventually converted to burn green hydrogen.  Repowering extends the lifespans of existing facilities with all the supporting infrastructure and are a more cost-effective alternative than building a new plant.    <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The letter went on to claim:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

Many gas plants have retired in the state over recent years because they are not being utilized and are uneconomic. In addition, Winter Storm Elliott in 2022 exposed serious risks tied to overreliance on fossil fueled generators, particularly gas generators, where freezing and fuel issues resulted in generators failing to deliver power during extreme cold. In response, NYISO is no longer assuming certain gas generators will be available during winter demand peaks. According to the report, the only shortfall in electricity supply that NYISO anticipates would be due to gas supplies freezing during the winter.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

These arguments are misleading.  Many of the retirements are because the electricity system is rigged to use solar and wind power whenever it is available but does not penalize the sources for not providing the ancillary support services necessary to keep the electric system operating well.  Winter Storm Elliott exposed serious reliability risks if fossil fueled generators are not adequately winterized.  No plants failed in New York due to the cold weather.  Gas supply was an issue, but New York addresses that problem by specifying a minimum number of dual-fueled units that can switch to oil during these conditions. They switched to oil and kept the lights on.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The letter claims that \u201cNYISO has not specifically identified any new reliability need.\u201d  That is flat out wrong because Power Trends acknowledges that a new resource for long duration periods of low wind and solar resource availability is needed.  The authors do not understand<\/a> the intensity and extent of these periods. The dispatchable, emissions-free resources (DEFR) needed to solve this problem are not commercially available.  The people responsible for electric system reliability recognize that deployment of these resources is years away, but the authors don\u2019t acknowledge this challenge and its implications.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In my opinion, the biggest flaw in the letter is that it does not acknowledge the extraordinary challenge that NYISO system planners must plan for the worst-case scenario.\u00a0 Climate activist preferred alternatives work most of the time, but when needed the most they will not work.\u00a0 Their myopic outlook ignores long-term historical observations and the schedule necessary to meet the aspirational targets of New York\u2019s Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act.\u00a0 The NYISO planners must address those issues, and the results are summarized in the Power Trends report.\u00a0 If anything, the report did not describe the severity of the challenges well enough.\u00a0 It is sad that media outlets picked up the description of the letter without considering the motives of the source.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I could go on with more examples, but time is too short.  Apparently, NYISO did not provide enough explicit evidence to support their results that contradict the environmentalist narrative.  I wonder if the authors could ever be convinced.  At the end of the day, I make it a habit to listen primarily to voices who face consequences when their projections are wrong.  The organizations who authored this letter do not meet that requirement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

Roger Caiazza blogs on New York energy and environmental issues at Pragmatic Environmentalist of New York<\/a>.  This represents his opinion and not the opinion of any of his previous employers or any other company with which he has been associated.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

I recently described the Energy Innovation Policy and Technology analysis: Assessing Impacts Of \u201cOne Big Beautiful Bill Act\u201d On U.S. Energy Costs, Jobs, Health, Emissions. The analysis included astoundingly biased claims of the effects of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. I really did not think that I would see something that was as bad if not worse in less than a week but never underestimate the New York climate crazies.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":121246920,"featured_media":388597,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_coblocks_attr":"","_coblocks_dimensions":"","_coblocks_responsive_height":"","_coblocks_accordion_ie_support":"","_crdt_document":"","advanced_seo_description":"","jetpack_seo_html_title":"","jetpack_seo_noindex":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[1],"tags":[691818113,691818228,691836369,691819849,691829254,691836417,691819094],"class_list":{"0":"post-388595","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","6":"hentry","7":"category-uncategorized","8":"tag-climate-activist","9":"tag-fossil-fuels","10":"tag-governor-hochul-2","11":"tag-green-hydrogen","12":"tag-new-york-independent-system-operator-nyiso","13":"tag-one-big-beautiful-bill-act-obbba","14":"tag-renewable-green-energy","16":"fallback-thumbnail"},"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/0AQPp875macw_X12jZ1O7hdx-Qo7PJR8OJtdQEMNsf-fQumNcuIcEbannTC0VQNjEcfct8h7EjEgCdJRXq61KIT7VpSzk9KVvbohCnK4UyD39ZLgXctdVSSw-d2SziebPo-IxLzBAmSXFbrkuF2DLO4DEx1bm-1.jpeg?fit=1280%2C1280&ssl=1","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/paxLW1-1D5F","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":387794,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=387794","url_meta":{"origin":388595,"position":0},"title":"Energy Innovation Policy & Technology on \u201cBig, Beautiful Bill\u201d","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"09\/07\/2025","format":false,"excerpt":"I suspect that variations of my local newspaper\u2019s article about regional impacts of the passage of the \u201cBig, Beautiful Bill\u201d (BBB) have been published across the country recently.\u00a0 My local article said that it would increase energy prices and that piqued my interest.\u00a0 My paper said that New Yorkers could\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"cutting subsidies\"","block_context":{"text":"cutting subsidies","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=cutting-subsidies"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/04\/0Cipher_Illustration_11_5_U_S_President_Clean_Energy_Donald_Trump_1500x1000_v3.webp?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/04\/0Cipher_Illustration_11_5_U_S_President_Clean_Energy_Donald_Trump_1500x1000_v3.webp?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/04\/0Cipher_Illustration_11_5_U_S_President_Clean_Energy_Donald_Trump_1500x1000_v3.webp?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/04\/0Cipher_Illustration_11_5_U_S_President_Clean_Energy_Donald_Trump_1500x1000_v3.webp?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/04\/0Cipher_Illustration_11_5_U_S_President_Clean_Energy_Donald_Trump_1500x1000_v3.webp?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":217969,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=217969","url_meta":{"origin":388595,"position":1},"title":"The Latest from the Experts on New York\u2019s Climate Act Implementation","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"08\/09\/2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Energy planning analyses such as this work normally evaluate different scenarios of the future by comparing them to a business-as-usual scenario.\u00a0","rel":"","context":"Similar post","block_context":{"text":"Similar post","link":""},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/image-456.png?fit=848%2C565&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/image-456.png?fit=848%2C565&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/image-456.png?fit=848%2C565&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/image-456.png?fit=848%2C565&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":429387,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=429387","url_meta":{"origin":388595,"position":2},"title":"Hochul Blinks When It Comes to Climate Act Costs","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"03\/03\/2026","format":false,"excerpt":"Rebecca Lewis posted two City and State articles that cited evidence that the Hochul Administration recognizes that the Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act) is so expensive that the Governor appears ready to propose changes to the Climate Act to reduce the costly clean energy transition.","rel":"","context":"In \"Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA or Climate Act)\"","block_context":{"text":"Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA or Climate Act)","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=climate-leadership-and-community-protection-act-clcpa-or-climate-act"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/AQMEnx_hkh4WfG70op6cnHRa7RtyQtrxAnCI62SBeUlbcpS2ETpCuCsHnGFDsrz_QcEAaLgwx3X43GpkJ7PkzZdGYuZyaoBxx2uymbT17Xjx401dq2420qWtJtrEP2L0.jpeg?fit=1200%2C597&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/AQMEnx_hkh4WfG70op6cnHRa7RtyQtrxAnCI62SBeUlbcpS2ETpCuCsHnGFDsrz_QcEAaLgwx3X43GpkJ7PkzZdGYuZyaoBxx2uymbT17Xjx401dq2420qWtJtrEP2L0.jpeg?fit=1200%2C597&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/AQMEnx_hkh4WfG70op6cnHRa7RtyQtrxAnCI62SBeUlbcpS2ETpCuCsHnGFDsrz_QcEAaLgwx3X43GpkJ7PkzZdGYuZyaoBxx2uymbT17Xjx401dq2420qWtJtrEP2L0.jpeg?fit=1200%2C597&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/AQMEnx_hkh4WfG70op6cnHRa7RtyQtrxAnCI62SBeUlbcpS2ETpCuCsHnGFDsrz_QcEAaLgwx3X43GpkJ7PkzZdGYuZyaoBxx2uymbT17Xjx401dq2420qWtJtrEP2L0.jpeg?fit=1200%2C597&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/AQMEnx_hkh4WfG70op6cnHRa7RtyQtrxAnCI62SBeUlbcpS2ETpCuCsHnGFDsrz_QcEAaLgwx3X43GpkJ7PkzZdGYuZyaoBxx2uymbT17Xjx401dq2420qWtJtrEP2L0.jpeg?fit=1200%2C597&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":237671,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=237671","url_meta":{"origin":388595,"position":3},"title":"The Pied Piper Has No Clothes","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"04\/01\/2023","format":false,"excerpt":"In the last article I quoted a portion of\u00a0Dr. Robert Howarth\u2019s statement\u00a0in which he more or less claimed credit for the Climate Act.\u00a0 \u00a0This post uses two children\u2019s tales to illustrate my concerns about his claimed basis for the Act.","rel":"","context":"Similar post","block_context":{"text":"Similar post","link":""},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/01\/image-109.png?fit=1051%2C828&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/01\/image-109.png?fit=1051%2C828&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/01\/image-109.png?fit=1051%2C828&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/01\/image-109.png?fit=1051%2C828&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/01\/image-109.png?fit=1051%2C828&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":414496,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=414496","url_meta":{"origin":388595,"position":4},"title":"DEFR Technoeconomic Assessment","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"24\/11\/2025","format":false,"excerpt":"Readers may recall my articles (DEFR Concerns Update\u00a0November 2024 and\u00a0Compendium of DEFR analyses\u00a0July 2024) last year about New York\u2019s magical new\u00a0Dispatchable Emissions-Free Resource\u00a0(DEFR) technologies. New York agencies all agree that new resources are needed to make a solar and wind-reliant electric energy system viable during extended periods of low wind\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"carbon capture and storage (CCS)\"","block_context":{"text":"carbon capture and storage (CCS)","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=carbon-capture-and-storage-ccs"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/OIG-2023-11-30T091010.805.jpeg?fit=1024%2C1024&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/OIG-2023-11-30T091010.805.jpeg?fit=1024%2C1024&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/OIG-2023-11-30T091010.805.jpeg?fit=1024%2C1024&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/OIG-2023-11-30T091010.805.jpeg?fit=1024%2C1024&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":248853,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=248853","url_meta":{"origin":388595,"position":5},"title":"NY Climate Act Cap and Invest Plan Going Off the Rails","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"21\/03\/2023","format":false,"excerpt":"One of my pragmatic interests is market-based pollution control programs that are a key component of net-zero transition plans everywhere.","rel":"","context":"Similar post","block_context":{"text":"Similar post","link":""},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/image-843.png?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/image-843.png?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/image-843.png?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/image-843.png?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/image-843.png?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/388595","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/121246920"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=388595"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/388595\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":388599,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/388595\/revisions\/388599"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/388597"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=388595"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=388595"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=388595"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}