Last week, New York passed a new state energy plan. It’s a complicated, 1,000-page document that lays out a roadmap for the state’s energy future. It includes the state’s push to reduce carbon emissions to stop the harmful effects of climate change, an effort New York is currently behind on.
The plan was praised by conservative lawmakers as a clear-eyed, realistic approach. But progressives and environmentalists criticized the continued reliance on natural gas and other fossil fuels, as well as the lack of an aggressive cap on carbon emission, known as “cap and invest”.
NYSERDA CEO Doreen Harris at last week’s meeting when the state Energy Planning Board passed the state’s new 15-year energy plan. Photo: NYSERDA
Doreen Harris, CEO of the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA), chairs the state Energy Planning Board that approved the new plan.
David SommersteinNYSERDA CEO says NY’s new energy plan is “balanced” for the future
She told David Sommerstein it provides a framework for the next 15 years of energy production and consumption in New York, a plan Governor Kathy Hochul calls an “all of the above” approach. Their conversation has been lightly edited for clarity.
DOREEN HARRIS: We’re going to grow wind, solar, and hydroelectric resources on the order of 90% growth over [the 15-year time frame. It also, though, recognizes that these resources must be balanced with other technologies like zero-emission technologies, such as advanced nuclear, which is certainly an area that Governor Hochul has made clear she’s very strongly supportive of.
But there’s also the fact that we will need to continue to rely on the energy systems we have today. So, our fossil fuel assets will need to be maintained and perhaps re-powered over that planning horizon as well.
The Moses-Saunders hydropower dam on the St. Lawrence River is a huge source of carbon-free electricity for New York. Photo: RH Saunders Generating Station, Creative Commons, some rights reserved
DAVID SOMMERSTEIN: A lot of critics of this plan have pointed to the continued reliance on natural gas and other fossil fuels. Building infrastructure in this energy transition takes years to get to a carbon-neutral future. They say this plan just delays and kicks it down the road. What do you say to that?
HARRIS: When we look at what is happening in our state today, regarding the deployment of projects that in many cases have been under development for many years, we’re seeing them actually being constructed across the Upstate region. We see wind and solar projects moving forward. We see the large Champlain Hudson Power Express project bringing Canadian renewables to New York City.
All of that is the product of a level of commitment that has existed in our state for many years, and also the imperative that Governor Hochul has set forward to construct and move forward with these projects. So I’d say at the end of the day, these are projects that take many, many years to move forward, and the durability of commitment from the state of New York has allowed that to happen.
We look at the pace of change in our state energy plan reflective of the realities of the day, however. And we know that many of these technologies are literally under assault from the federal government. So we need to be clear-eyed about the pace of change that can be reasonably effectuated in the coming 15 years. That’s very much the plan’s imperative is to take a bottom-up look at what can reasonably happen, and what is ambitious but achievable for our state.
SOMMERSTEIN: This plan recognizes that New York is not going to reach its goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 40% by the end of this decade by 2030. Why haven’t we met that goal? And how do you get around that being in the [Climate and Community Protection Act from 2019]?
HARRIS: The plan takes into account scenarios that would lay out a pathway similar to what is in our climate act, but it does not use that plan as a base case. The objective of the energy plan is to do what one would imagine to be true, which is to look at policies, to look at market uptake, and to look at pathways that are, as I said, ambitious but achievable.
And in doing so, it really does reflect, I think, an extraordinary level of ambition with respect to the transition that we know is possible in our state. It does reflect progress as compared to the Climate Act. In this case, the achievement of the 2030 objectives within the Climate Act could be realized in the late 2030s. So it reflects an objective, clear-eyed look at the progress that we’re likely to make.
SOMMERSTEIN: As you’ve been saying, there’s a lot of realism in this plan. A lot of lawmakers have praised that realism. As New Yorkers think about it, and as New Yorkers see another very real thing happening, which is they’re seeing the effects of climate change in their neighborhoods, the damaging effects of floods, etc., how should they be thinking about what some critics say is New York pumping the brakes on what was an aggressive climate neutrality plan?
HARRIS: Well, I would say that it is the case that we are solving for multiple objectives through this plan. We know that we need an energy system that is affordable, abundant, reliable, and clean. And we know we need an energy system that can support the economic development that our state is realizing, and the environment that we know we can benefit from.
So this plan is solving for multiple outcomes simultaneously. It’s laying bare the imperative that we need to keep the lights on, that we need to deliver energy that New Yorkers can afford, we need to grow our economy, and we need to invest in our energy system. So the point of the plan is to look at this from all perspectives and then arrive at scenarios that we are able to achieve.
NCPR’s climate change and health reporting is made possible through the generous support of Margot and John Ernst.
(AP Photo/Nati Harnik)