New York is in an energy crisis. Despite tens of billions of dollars of investments, electric and heating bills are going higher and higher for families and businesses. Fights over land use, control and different types of energy have no end in sight.
Does the Hudson Valley have the moral fitness to find solutions that are good for our state, country and humanity as a whole? To solve the problem, we first must understand how we got here.
Join us for a screening of Kingston resident Fox Green’s latest documentary, Energy/Empire: America’s Green Counter-Revolution, which tells a uniquely Hudson Valley story that starts with the American Revolution, detours to the dark founding of the eugenics movement, and recounts the true contours of the lawfare that blocked the Storm King pumped hydro project and helped RFK Jr. shut down the Indian Point nuclear plant.
Afterwards, continue the conversation with a panel discussion and Q&A with:
Fox Green, co-founder of New York Energy Alliance and Kingston Creative Steve Carroll, President and Business Manager of IBEW Local 320 Jillian Fried, an emerging leader in the No Battery Plant on Hurley Ave movement.
Screening: The film will start promptly at 2 PM.
Panel Discussion: The discussion will run from 4 to 4:45 PM.
Don’t miss this opportunity to engage with history, philosophy, organized labor and local leaders in charting our energy future. We look forward to seeing you there!
A program created by Andrew Cuomo in 2016 to keep vital nuclear power plants running is now up for renewal. As New York faces rising energy costs, declining grid reliability, and a flawed climate law that was written for headlines instead of households, it’s time to stop discriminating against nuclear energy.
The New York State Department of Public Service (DPS) is requesting feedback on its proposed extension of New York’s nuclear Zero Emission Credits program (ZEC). The program originally was created as a way to keep the Lake Ontario nuclear plants open, while allowing Indian Point to close prematurely, through ratepayer subsidies. The DPS wishes to continue the program, justified through the plants’ contributions to NYS’s economic, climate, and electrical goals. The existence of this program brings up a question: Why can’t we just roll nuclear into the wider renewable framework so it can benefit from already existing programs?
To put it more bluntly: why not just call nuclear renewable?
The current definition of renewables in NY was set by the state’s climate law in 2019:
“renewable energy systems” means systems that generate electricity or thermal energy through use of the following technologies: solar thermal, photovoltaics, on land and offshore wind, hydroelectric, geothermal electric, geothermal ground source heat, tidal energy, wave energy, ocean thermal, and fuel cells which do not utilize a fossil fuel resource in the process of generating electricity.
This definition is the one used by the major environmental policies in NYS: the aforementioned climate law (CLCPA), the clean energy standard that created RECs (Renewable Energy Credits) and ZECs, the Build Public Renewables Act (BPRA), and the Office of Renewable Energy Siting (ORES). The major benefit would be that new nuclear power plants could then benefit from already-existing subsidies. The ZECs program as such is worded so that only existing Upstate nuclear plants can benefit. However, if nuclear power was classified renewable, the power generated could be used for mandatory and voluntary Tier 1 RECs (reserved for new renewables) and Tier 4 RECs (reserved for renewables that are used in NYC). It would also allow batteries that are charged through nuclear power to count as renewable. This, combined with the baseload nature and already zoned industrial sites of nuclear, would make the two a perfect match.
The arguably biggest upside would come from expanding the capabilities of the BPRA. Though NYPA has been directed to build 1 GW of new nuclear power, it cannot use its expanded BPRA authority to get the job done:
Nuclear power plants do not meet the current definition of a renewable energy system in New York State and are therefore outside of the scope of strategic plans issued under PAL § 1005 (27-a)(e).
The simple addition of nuclear to the renewables definition would let NYPA use already-granted authority to hit the ground running on new nuclear projects beyond even the 1 GW already ordered.
Classifying nuclear energy as renewable could also force needed reforms for the Office of Renewable Energy Siting and Electric Transmission (ORES), which has raised many concerns for upstate and western New Yorkers. The process of siting any kind of energy infrastructure must address legitimate community pros and cons so that they are built for the true benefit of all. Removing the solar and wind silo from ORES could enable important dialogues about “energy democracy” where a community that rejects intermittent renewables can be more empowered to say yes to nuclear or hydrogen, hydropower, geothermal and more through the same office, or vice versa, with full awareness of the tradeoffs of union jobs, land use concerns, tax and ratepayer benefits.
The ZEC program was crafted to allow then-Governor Cuomo to keep the Lake Ontario plants open while closing Indian Point, the most expedient political move for him at the time. In the same way, a redefinition of nuclear as renewable would be the most expedient political move for the majority of New Yorkers, allowing for the quick reversal of NY’s energy policy from irrational to rational.
This proposal would take the tools built to destroy NY’s energy infrastructure and instead use them to build a reliable, cheap, and industrious grid for all New Yorkers.
Note: The author’s views are only representative of NYEA and not any employer past or present.
Later this year, environmentalists around the world will celebrate the 60th anniversary of the Storm King decision. The official tale is well-rehearsed: courageous locals rose up to stop a corporate behemoth from defacing Storm King Mountain with a monstrous hydroelectric plant.
But what if that story is more of a myth than a memory?
What if the project would have been nearly invisible, tucked beneath the mountain while leaving it intact?
What if the host community of people, who actually lived in Cornwall, overwhelmingly supported it?
What if organized labor backed it, prominent politicians endorsed it, and the plan promised not destruction, but revival: clean power, jobs, and desperately needed investment in a declining region?
What if Storm King wasn’t stopped because it was evil, but because it was too good?
And how many preventable deaths and hospitalization occurred in New York City because it wasn’t built?
Storm King marked a turning point in American history, where a powerful alliance of elite families, foundations, and ideological operatives learned how to kill a future they couldn’t control. It was the moment when the postwar dream of progress and development gave way to something darker.
In the 1960s, New York City was at a breaking point. Electricity use had more than doubled since the end of World War Two, and office towers filled with lights, elevators and early computers were being built at a dizzying pace.
Brownouts and blackouts were becoming increasingly common in Manhattan and the Bronx, especially during the hottest days of the year when demand would spike. Consolidated Edison, the local utility company, relied on an aging patchwork of oil and coal-fired plants that were located within city limits. These plants were largely the source of massive amounts of air pollution in the city.
In particular, Con Ed’s Astoria Energy Complex, consisting of the “Big Allis” Ravenswood peaker plant, the Astoria Generating Station, and the Charles Poletti Power Plant, was the nucleus of what is now known as “Asthma Alley,” where there are disproportionate health impacts from air pollution to this day.
These two factors meant that Con Ed was desperate for reliable and clean sources of energy that were close enough to the city’s grid to help shoulder the load. The addition of Indian Point 1 in 1962 helped, but electricity demand kept increasing at a rate of 7% a year.
That’s when the Storm King hydropower plant, 60 miles north of New York City on the Hudson River, was proposed. A 2,000 megawatt pumped-storage facility, it would have been among the largest in the world and added more than 25% to Con Ed’s capacity.
A Consolidated Edison graphic showing how an underground tunnel would carry water from an intake on the Hudson River to a manmade reservoir behind Storm King Mountain.
“The Cornwall plant would do much to cut down the amount of air pollution in New York City… it would enable us to reduce the amount of coal and oil burned in New York and to shut down several hundred thousand kilowatts of our older steam electric generating units.”
M.L Waring, senior vice-president of Con Ed
A Plan With Many Supporters
The Storm King project was very popular in its host community of Cornwall and the nearby city of Newburgh. Village and Town citizens, officials and labor leaders were vastly in favor of the project for the benefits it would provide: economically, environmentally and in funding infrastructure improvements for their community.
Learn the full history of the Storm King controversy, the premature shutdown of the Indian Point nuclear power plant, and how they are intertwined with the decades-long environmental battle within the Kennedy family in this 2025 documentary by Fox Green.
The biggest booster of the plant was the Village of Cornwall’s mayor, Michael Donahue.
Con Edison will pay annual taxes of $500,000, and with these increased revenues we shall be able to construct a new village hall, library, village garage, parks, a recreational center, nature trails, and municipal ski slopes.
Village of Cornwall Mayor Michael Donahue, 1964
Cornwall’s tax assessor, Wesley Rowland, estimated that the $400 million facility would contribute approximately $100 million to the town’s existing $132 million tax base. It was an enormous boost for a community of only 10,000 residents.
In nearby Newburgh, the struggling city had just gone through a vicious multi-year welfare crisis. A $165M industrial development project just five miles away was needed to “bolster its depressed economy, to provide employment, and to add stimulus to the rebirth of Newburgh.”
Organized labor also stood firmly behind the Storm King project, viewing it as a rare chance to bring long-term, well-paid employment to a region suffering from chronic underdevelopment. Construction unions, engineers, and utility workers all testified in support of the hydroelectric plant, emphasizing jobs, economic stimulus, and the project’s environmental compatibility.
Henry P. McArdle, business representative of Local 825 of the Operating Engineers Union, said the plant would offer years of steady employment.
“This would [be] long-term employment for these men,” he said. “There are few jobs for men in the area.”
Con Edison also offered to clean up the waterfront in Cornwall, which was littered with industrial waste. The Cornwall Local reported that 1,700 people signed a petition in support, with only 100 opposed.
The Opposition: From Aesthetics to Fish
Initial designs for the facility had transmission lines running across the Hudson River and a small but noticeable intake area on the waterfront. In an early flyer about the plant, Consolidated Edison zoomed in on the design rendering to show detail, which gave the false impression that the project was going to swallow the mountain whole.
“An artist’s rendering… showed the side of the Mountain cut away, leaving a gash… It was this illustration, in particular, that roused lovers of the Highlands to action.”
Albert Butzel, 2014
New renderings were quickly created, but it was too late. The original is the one that was plastered everywhere.
A group of “old money” Hudson River families saw the project as a threat to their legacy of conservation efforts in the region. Several of them were clustered across the river and to the south in Garrison, NY.
“From a very early point, diehard opponents of Con Ed’s plans would refuse to see the project in isolation; instead, they would come to view it as a harbinger of the industrialization of the Hudson River valley. Perhaps more importantly, many environmentalists, feeling overwhelmed at the changes they had witnessed during their lives, developed a militant, winner-take-all attitude when it came to land-use struggles.
Carl Carmer [took]… a definitive stand: ‘It is my conviction that those who would destroy the beauty of our landscape should be fought off, not appeased. Appeasement is a postponement and if we are to preserve the landscape of the America we have come to love, postponement is the equivalent of complete surrender.’”
Robert Lifset, Power On the Hudson, 2014
Alexander Saunders was one of the leaders of the opposition to the plant. From his estate in Garrison, he said “we don’t feel this is the right area for industry. Of course, there are a lot of people on the welfare rolls in Newburgh, but as a businessman, I can tell you it doesn’t represent a very high calibre for a work force… the ideal land use for this area should be for recreation for people from New York City.”
Today, the name “Storm King” is synonymous with an outdoor post-modern art museum beloved by day-trippers from New York City.
For these new preservationists, the Storm King battle was not about securing improvements or concessions; it was about fighting an indefinite war against industrial society in all its forms. Once it was clear that the plant would be virtually invisible on the Hudson River and an aesthetic argument would be impossible, the activists seized upon the idea of fish and fishermen being affected by the plant.
This strategic pivot was led by Bob Boyle, the future mentor to Robert F. Kennedy Jr., in his sensational 1965 Sports Illustrated article, “A Stink of Dead Stripers.” Writing with a hysterical verve, Boyle abandoned the dry legal terrain of viewshed arguments and plunged instead into a lurid story of ecological doom, spinning a pile of decomposing fish near the Indian Point nuclear plant into a casus belli for total war over Storm King.
“Perhaps, ironically, the Hudson River, the living river, may yet be saved by dead fish long thought buried in an obscure dump.”
Robert Boyle
After publishing the article, Boyle met with two Scenic Hudson leaders, and congratulated them for their ongoing legal case against the plant.
“He wanted them to know that the Hudson River in the vicinity of the Storm King plant was one of two principal spawning grounds for America’s Atlantic Coast striped bass population… “The striped bass spawn here,” Boyle said, “and it’s a very important area for larvae and plankton, and the pump storage plant will suck up the eggs and young.” [Scenic Hudson co-founder] Duggan recognized that this was the issue that could win the case. She rose with a gleeful smile and proclaimed, “They’re going to kill the fish! They’re going to kill the fish!” She was so excited, recalls Boyle, “It was like Churchill hearing Pearl Harbor had been bombed.”
John Cronin, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., The Riverkeepers, 1999
This strategic pivot was also noted by Con Ed:
“[The opponents are] still not satisfied; they now purport to espouse seriously a whole series of objections based on what will surely be shown here to be insupportable, far-fetched and exaggerated theories of disaster to flora, fauna, dikes and water supplies. One opposing witness has even taken the desperately extreme position that the plant should not now be built underground and invisible, the witness will know it’s there.”
James O’Malley, Con Ed Chief Counsel, 1966
This extremism was even noted by New York Senator Robert F. Kennedy, who testified to Congress that he “cannot believe that our marine biologists are unable to offer assistance in meeting this problem on the Hudson. I cannot believe that a solution to the problems with the Storm King project…. cannot be found.”
He also noted that Con Ed had offered to build a screen shielding the intake pumps at Storm King, and believed a solution could be found to the fish life questions.
Alfred Perlmutter, a professor of biology at New York University said that “one active sport fisherman would have as much effect on striped bass egg larvae” as the project would.
It was the romanticism of fish and fishermen on the Hudson River that stretched out an open-and-shut case over aesthetics into something that could go on indefinitely. Environmental non-profits spawned like fish in the Hudson; the old guard of the Hudson River Conservation Society led to Scenic Hudson, which led to the Rockefeller-supported Clearwater, the Ford Foundation-supported National Resources Defense Council, the Rockefeller/Harriman-led Hudson River Valley Commission, and the Hudson River Fisherman’s Association, which soon morphed into the Robert F. Kennedy Jr.-led Riverkeeper group.
The Death of Storm King
Storm King was a David & Goliath fight, but it’s quite possible that Con Ed was David and the old money hydra it faced was Goliath. By the 1970s, changes to the U.S. monetary system and interest rates meant that what was once a $150M plant was slowly turning into a $1B project, where the economics could never pencil out despite an ongoing energy crisis and multiple blackouts in New York City.
The financing was made even more difficult because the national response to the energy crises of 1970s was, as Jimmy Carter put it, to put on a sweater and turn the heat down. Con Ed could not rely on steady growth in electric demand to pay for the plant. Additionally, the plant became leverage for Con Ed in negotiations with environmentalists over building cooling towers at Indian Point nuclear plant.
The Village of Cornwall’s Mayor Donahue never stopped advocating for the plant. “They’ve had conservationists all the way from Australia talking about Storm King,” he said in 1973. “They never want to know what the local people think.”
In 1976, he continued: “We – the project supporters – contend that the Cornwall plant is in the public interest. We firmly believe that it would contribute substantially to the economy of this community, that it would enhance the preservation of scenic beauty and that it would enhance the preservation of scenic beauty and that it would not affect conservation of the river’s fishery.”
Mayor Donahue is seated fifth from the left in this photo from a 1976 pro-Storm King Chamber of Commerce event.
According to a Con Ed official, the construction of the plant would have supported a $35M annual payroll and employed 1,500 Orange County employees from eight county labor unions.
A union workman, reacting to one of the endless delays in the project, was blunt:
“We are all bitter as hell. This whole controversy has been ginned up by outsiders. Why should I lose my job because some guy may not be able to catch his limit of striped bass off his pleasure boat?”
But after years of lawfare, the plant was killed in closed door negotiations in 1980 between Con Ed and 10 other organizations, mediated by Russell Train, former head of the EPA and Malthusian head of the World Wildlife Fund.
The cognitive dissonance over energy and the environment that resulted from the Storm King case is almost too much to take in. The added air pollution, asthma hospitalizations, increased energy costs, and now, the desperate crunch for clean energy storage in New York State makes seeing the sordid affair as an “environmental” landmark utterly absurd.
As for the good Mayor Donahue, he served as Cornwall’s beloved mayor for 28 uninterrupted years ending in the late 1970s. The lost promise of the Storm King plant was the great “what if” of his tenure, forever beyond his grasp. After the settlement, Con Ed donated land to the Village of Cornwall which was later dedicated as Donahue Memorial Park, in his memory. Approaching the park, you might only notice one plaque:
If you move to the left, buried behind foliage, you’ll find a second plaque dedicated to the memory of Mayor Donahue. You can see the faded tribute to him below, with Storm King Mountain in the background to the right:
In 2009, the more prominent plaque was added with much controversy. The addition was protested by Donahue’s surviving daughters, as it commemorated the elite environmentalists that Donahue fought against for 15 years.
The plaque faces outward toward Storm King Mountain, gleaming and well-maintained. Behind it, Donahue’s original plaque is nearly hidden—faded, weather-stained, and shrouded by overgrown foliage, like the memory of the future he once fought for. It maybe be obscured—purposefully hidden from the light of day—but Donahue’s plaque still stands, like the truth, waiting to be rediscovered.
In a sharp rebuke to the Jeffersonian-DSA model of 100% renewables under the BPRA, New York signals a return to the Hamiltonian-FDR vision of state-directed infrastructure for industrial growth and prosperity.
This week, Governor Kathy Hochul announced that the New York Power Authority will pursue at least one gigawatt of new nuclear power, marking the first major state-led nuclear development effort in a generation. It’s a small step, but a decisive one. And it confirms what the New York Energy Alliance and our allies have argued all along: true energy policy means production, not restriction. Growth, not rationing. Hamilton, not Jefferson.
For years, energy policy in New York has been dominated by a strain of neo-agrarian technocracy with the veneer of climate activism. It’s a dark mix of Andrew Cuomo’s political ambitions in the mid-2010s, combined with RFK Jr.’s anti-nuclear mysticism, Mark Jacobsen’s fuzzy climate math and Mark Ruffalo’s screams.
The Build Public Renewables Act (BPRA), backed by the DSA and green NGOs constituted in the so-called Public Power Coalition was its latest expression. It claimed to follow in the footsteps of FDR, but it really was an act of eco-sabotage against the grid that he helped build. It is a plan to destroy firm power, starve nuclear energy of public investment, and tie New Yorkers’ public infrastructure to the whims of the weather.
This agenda would have used the power of the state to bully rural communities into trading farmland, forests, and viewsheds for seas of solar panels, while urban activists sneered about “bulldozing landowners.” But with Hochul’s nuclear directive, that premise has been rejected. By empowering NYPA to build nuclear, the state is reembracing what FDR called freedom from want, not through artificial scarcity, but through abundant, sovereign infrastructure.
“Translated into world terms,” FDR wrote, “that means economic understanding which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants, everywhere in the world.”
The order affirms that public investment should be directed toward projects of scale, permanence, and sovereignty, breaking the degrowth priesthood that treated baseload power as blasphemy. New Yorkers understand that you cannot run a civilization, let alone reindustrialize it, on intermittent power.
This pivot is not just a policy shift. It’s a philosophical one.
Jeffersonianism has always viewed man as a liability to be managed. It sees energy as a problem to be solved with behavioral nudges and shrinking footprints.
Hamiltonianism, by contrast, views man as a creative, transformative force made in the image of God. It believes in using science, credit, and statecraft to uplift humanity, not to manage its decline. It builds nuclear plants, hydro dams, and transmission lines. It powers productive industry. It sees energy not as something to be trimmed, but as the lifeblood of independence, culture and prosperity.
FDR was a Hamiltonian. He didn’t see state-directed infrastructure as a utilitarian project, but an American one: to electrify farms, power factories, and erase the line between town and country. He believed in projects that could “transcend mere power development,” “distribute and diversify industry,” and help lead “logically to national planning… involving many states and the future lives and welfare of millions.” He believed in projects that could “touch and give life to all forms of human concerns.”
That spirit didn’t end at the water’s edge. FDR saw the TVA and the St. Lawrence-FDR Power Project in Massena, NY not just as domestic triumphs, but as models for the world, using public credit and state planning to build lasting peace and productive international development. He knew the alternative to such planning was collapse.
In New York Energy Alliance’s public testimony, policy statements, and media appearances, we have called for a real energy agenda, which includes NYPA returning to its roots and leading the nation in building modern infrastructure that serves the general welfare.
Today’s announcement suggests the tide is turning. Hochul’s directive signals that the American System is alive: long-term public investment in high-productivity infrastructure, aimed not at managing decline but expanding the human horizon.
We know one reactor is not enough. The road ahead is long, and the resistance, from the same anti-nuclear mystics who sabotaged Indian Point, will be fierce. And as trendy as it might be, this moment does not call for blind “abundance” utilitarianism, but as FDR put it, an “enlightened administration” that can “adapt existing economic organizations”, like NYPA, to the service of the people.
So yes, this moment matters. Because it proves the dam is cracking. The ideology of managed decline is faltering. The anti-human energy consensus is losing its grip. And in its place, something older and nobler is beginning to stir: It’s time to build.
Utilities, whether investor-owned or publicly controlled, must serve everyone in the community. And the Hudson Valley is far more than just a leftist environmentalist enclave—it’s home to working families, small businesses, and industries that depend on reliable, affordable energy to survive.
In an inauspicious preview of what “energy democracy” will look like, Shrestha has blasted any opposition to her Hudson Valley Power Authority Act agenda as “misinformation.”
But the real misinformation is her refusal to address the actual consequences of her bill: using the crisis of rising energy costs to justify a hostile takeover of Central Hudson, one that could increase costs, disrupt service, and impose a rigid ideological agenda that prioritizes wind and solar over affordability and reliability. Her bill treats 90,000 natural gas households and businesses as an endangered species—not customers whose needs should be met.
While Assemblymember Shrestha invokes Franklin Delano Roosevelt to support her arguments, she ignores a fundamental truth: FDR believed in abundant, affordable energy as a foundation for economic growth. When he advocated for public power in 1932, he was backing the creation of the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)—a model that thrived because it embraced a balanced energy mix, including nuclear, coal, natural gas, and hydro. TVA never pursued energy austerity—Shrestha does.
Shrestha’s rebuttal fails to address the following indisputable truths:
Massena Electric customers still worry about their bills despite Shrestha’s claim in September that “no one worries about their bills anymore.”
The informal evaluation of Central Hudson’s acquisition shared by Shrestha suggests potential shortfalls in servicing debt could be covered by either: a surcharge on ratepayers (i.e. higher energy bills) or state and county budgets (taxpayers). Either way, residents and businesses will foot the bill.
Public officials are being pressured to unconditionally endorse the HVPA without any verified cost-benefit analysis or rate comparison between HVPA or Central Hudson.
The HVPA Board and Observatory are stacked with politicians, activists and academics – not engineers or grid operators.
Before a single meeting of the “democratic” HVPA Board and Observatory can be held, the HVPA bill has already mandated a study to set a timeline for the “phaseout” of natural gas infrastructure.
Public power utilities regularly renegotiate PILOTs; there is nothing binding that says that tax payments will remain equal to what Central Hudson pays now in perpetuity.
The HVPA campaign was crafted before input was sought from the IBEW Local 320, which represents hundreds of Central Hudson workers. Five months after the bill was introduced and publicized, an email blast was sent out asking if any DSA followers knew anyone who worked at Central Hudson.
Hudson Valley Residents Deserve Honest Answers
Hudson Valley residents and businesses don’t need blind ideology masquerading as an energy cure-all. They need representatives who are willing to tackle the underlying causes of high energy prices, shifting away from the destructive course that was set by the climate and energy policies of Andrew Cuomo and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in the 2010s, and toward the truly anti-entropic and abundant vision of FDR. The HVPA remains an experiment that is too risky and costly to be conducted on our dime.
If New York’s climate laws are to be believed, our state must reach net zero emissions by 2050. According to the most absolutely optimistic official estimates, it will cost about $15B a year, or $375B to get there (while the majority of the benefits aren’t expected to directly help New Yorkers). The $375B will come from some combination of higher utility bills, taxes, bond measures, or private investment.
There isn’t a consistent county-by-county accounting of how many emissions are generated where, but three counties in the Mid-Hudson Valley have quantified what their total, community-wide annual emissions are: Dutchess, Orange and Ulster County.
By dividing the regional 10.6 MMT CO₂e figure by the statewide 350 MMT CO₂e figure, we reach the conclusion that the Mid-Hudson Valley is responsible for about 3.04% of New York State’s total emissions.
How much will it cost for the Mid-Hudson Valley to reach net zero?
Assuming a total emissions figure of 10.6 MMT CO₂e, and a total price tag of taxes and consumer costs of $375B, we can deduce that it will cost the residents of the Mid-Hudson Valley $11.4B to decarbonize by 2050.
Indian Point Closure Added CO₂ Equal to the Mid-Hudson Valley’s Entire Annual Emissions
According to various estimates, the premature closure of Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant in 2021 led to an increase in emissions by anywhere from 8 to 15 MMT CO₂e a year, due to the emissionless nuclear energy being replaced by new natural gas plants in Middletown and Dover Plains.
The average estimate is the closure resulted in an increase in emissions of roughly 11.5 MMT CO₂e, which is 0.9 MMT CO₂e more than the entire emissions put out by all of the Mid-Hudson Valley.
What should New York do with this information?
Over the last two years, we have written about many of the consequences of New York’s irrational energy policies, including:
To help foster energy affordability and reliability for New York families and businesses, we at New York Energy Alliance reiterate our call for:
A comprehensive review and reassessment of the CLCPA’s goals and implementation strategies.
Transparent and accurate cost estimates to inform the public and ensure financial accountability.
A realistic plan that explores all viable energy sources, especially the expansion of nuclear and hydro power, to ensure reliable and affordable energy for all New Yorkers.
The New York Power Authority has wrapped up its formal conferral process and has moved to hosting public hearings on its planned implementation of the Build Public Renewables Act (BPRA). The green’s, as always, are pushing public comments to try to make their unrealistic and expensive plan seem more popular than it actually is. We at NYEA would like you join us in counterbalancing this narrative. There are both in-person and online hearings left to attend.
At the online evening session, we will be reiterating what we said in the latest round of the conferral process; that NYPA should focus on building a reliable and affordable grid for all New Yorkers. NYPA cannot make the impossible possible. We will also highlight that true community interest should be at the heart at whatever NYPA decides to do. Our friends at the Stop Energy Sprawl coalition have noted that NYPA has already partnered on unpopular renewable development projects in order to bail them out. This feels only a few steps away from NYPA using eminent domain authority to push projects through (though so far NYPA has insisted it has no interest in using such powers at this time).
We encourage you to make your voice heard. If you are unable to attend any of the sessions please write to NYPA here.
That’s going to mean that natural gas infrastructure and extraction are not tomorrow’s stranded assets, but important investments in our future.
And it’s going to mean what was once unthinkable: that the Promethean fire of nuclear energy development, as dreamt of by presidents like John F. Kennedy and Dwight Eisenhower, will be unshackled from the tight grip of “no-growth” environmentalism, represented by dozens of groups who are, by their own logic, now climate deniers arguing against emissionless energy:
Looks like quite a broad swath of NY’s climate/environmental movement banding together against Hochul’s new nuclear push — 153 groups just sent an open letter, and some of them have been protesting outside her summit today pic.twitter.com/ssaAcKIszZ
Homeowners and businesses are experiencing the first price shocks of the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA), and while utilities like Central Hudson and National Grid are the popular scapegoats for now, it won’t be long before the true underlying policies are identified and re-written.
Our recent analysis of “day-ahead” prices since 2017 found that New York communities that have emphasized intermittent renewables like solar and wind have the most expensive energy in the state, while communities in Western and Central New York that rely on nuclear and hydro have the cheapest energy in the state.
It’s not a question of state ownership vs. private monopoly; it’s a question of production and ideology. Does a prosperous future involve abundant, 24/7 energy, or energy that relies on the weather?
New York Energy Alliance was pleased to join Stop Energy Sprawl, Nuclear New York and New York Energy and Climate Advocates in a join statement calling for sensible energy policies before the conference. We also were featured in a Democrat & Chronicle article by journalist Thomas Zambito in the aftermath:
On the streets outside the Syracuse Marriot Thursday, anti-nuclear groups carrying signs reading “Nuclear No” held a rally to challenge Hochul’s newfound interest in nuclear power.
“Our Governor is wining and dining dirty energy snake oil salesmen when she should be doubling down on clean, renewable energy buildout — New Yorkers are having none of it,” said Laura Shindell, the state director of Food & Water Watch, one of the leaders in the 2014 effort to get the state to ban natural gas fracking. “Our climate future is at a crossroads, and Hochul is perilously close to taking a dangerous step in the wrong direction.”
Joining Shindell was Cornell University professor Robert Howarth. “She (Hochul) does unfortunately have this infatuation with nuclear power, this distant shining object that‘s way off there somehow that she thinks might help as part of the solution,” Howarth told the crowd. “We need to tell her she’s wrong.”
More than 150 groups opposed to nuclear power signed a letter urging Hochul to recommit to deploying wind and solar power to achieve the state’s climate goals.
They were countered by the New York Energy Alliance, which supports an all-of-the-above approach to solving the state’s energy issues, using nuclear power to complement natural gas and hydropower.
“The Governor is soft-launching the inevitable,” said Brian Wilson, a leader in the alliance. “The last 50 years of New York’s energy and environmental policies have been short-sighted and destructive for our state, and drastic changes are needed before she and the Democrats are left holding the bag. We cannot electrify everything and re-industrialize on solar panels and wind turbines. Professors and activists cannot keep the lights on, but nuclear, natural gas, and hydro can.”
Recently, NYS has admitted that its unreachable energy goals are unreachable (see “CES Biennial Review Report” 07/01/2024). This lead to the expected calls from anti nuclear green NGOs for NYPA to speed up its implementation of the BPRA to meet the renewable energy “shortfall.” NYPA seems to be feeling this pressure, as they have reached out to their conferral participants, of which NYEA is one (pg. 19), on feedback on the process thus far. The questions posed, and our response, is listed below.
Please share your thoughts on the State’s progress toward CLCPA goals.
Please share your thoughts on how NYPA can or should support CLCPA.
Please share your thoughts on what NYPA is already doing to support CLCPA.
Do you have anything else you would like to share for the record?
Thank you for reaching out to us for our opinion on this matter. Our answer to the stated questions is informed by the recent interview given by your VP of Renewable Project Development and the recent PSC report that states NY’s CLCPA 2030 renewable goal will not be met. This announcement has spurred many to call on NYPA to use its new authority from the BPRA to fill this gap.
We at NYEA feel that NYPA is moving at a correct pace, and that no pace is possible to reach a goal that was from the beginning unrealistic. NYPA has set a timeline and is working to understand the best way for it to use its unique advantages to produce renewable energy in New York while being mindful of public perception. From our first conversation with NYPA, we feel NYPA does not want to ram rod development through localities that do not want it, and its process thus far is indicative of that. As stated in the above mentioned interview, the BPRA does not force NYPA to step in if the 2030 goals are declared unreachable, as the bills most ardent supports try to characterize. To even attempt to do so will cause the public relations nightmare NYPA has wanted to avoid from day one.
Also, it should be made clear, NYPA does not own any renewable manufacturing capacity. It is affected by the same supply chain delays and cost overruns as any other developer. NYPA cannot magically make a turbine or panel appear, there absence a core reason for the delays.
NYEA maintains the same position that NYPA should look to re-enter nuclear generation, especially looking forward to the CLCPA 2040 goals. NYPA seems very willing to enter public-private partnerships, maybe one avenue could be partnering with NY’s last nuclear operator, Constellation, on a joint project.
With this most recent announcement, we believe the State should re-assess it goals and set ones that are achievable and serve the actual interests of New Yorkers: reliable, cheap, abundant electricity for all New Yorkers. As for NYPA, it should stay the course it is on until such time more sensible heads prevail. NYPA cannot perform miracles, it is too busy delivering electrons.
The New York Energy Alliance (NYEA), a grassroots organization dedicated to advocating for abundant and reliable electricity for New York State families and industries, commends New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli for his recently released audit report, “Improved Planning Needed for New York To Achieve Its Clean Energy Goals.” The report shines a spotlight on the significant shortcomings in the implementation of the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA), corroborating the concerns NYEA has consistently raised regarding rising energy costs and the negligible impact on emissions reduction.
Key Findings of the Comptroller’s Report:
Inadequate Planning and Outdated Data:
The Public Service Commission (PSC) has been found to rely on outdated data and incorrect calculations in its planning efforts, failing to adapt to new laws and directives that influence clean energy demand and supply.
The PSC’s lack of a backup plan highlights a critical gap in strategic planning that undermines the basis of the legislation.
Project Cancellations and Delays:
The audit revealed that the PSC did not adequately plan for the historical project cancellation rate, with only 30% of awarded renewable projects completed as of April 2023.
Renewable Energy Contracts and Cost Estimates:
The PSC failed to account for the financial implications of expiring renewable energy contracts, directly leading to higher costs and financial uncertainty for everyday consumers and industries.
The absence of reasonable cost estimates and verification of other entities’ projections further exacerbates the financial risk, particularly for New Yorkers already struggling with rising utility bills.
Emerging Risks and Challenges:
The audit identifies other significant risks, including severe weather events, supply chain issues, and delayed infrastructure projects like the Champlain Hudson Power Express line, which was once the clean energy panacea for the cruel and unnecessary closure of Indian Point Nuclear Plant.
NYEA’s Perspective:
The Comptroller’s findings echo NYEA’s longstanding concerns about the CLCPA’s implementation. Since its inception, the CLCPA has imposed enormous financial burdens on taxpayers and ratepayers, with estimates ranging anywhere from $44 billion to $3 trillion. Despite these costs, there has been no substantial decrease in emissions, undermining the very purpose of the legislation.
Local communities, particularly in Upstate and Western New York, have been forced to bear the brunt of land-intensive renewable energy projects, often without adequate consideration of their environmental and economic impacts. NYEA has documented resistance from numerous communities against these projects, highlighting the need for a more balanced and community-focused approach.
Senator Peter Harckham and other CLCPA champions have made lofty promises about a “just transition,” but the reality has been far from just. The closure of reliable energy sources like nuclear and natural gas plants, without viable alternatives, has only led to increased energy costs and instability.
Sensible and Realistic Policies
NYEA urges state agencies, particularly the PSC and NYSERDA, to take the Comptroller’s recommendations seriously. We call for:
A comprehensive review and reassessment of the CLCPA’s goals and implementation strategies.
Transparent and accurate cost estimates to inform the public and ensure financial accountability.
A realistic plan that explores all viable energy sources, especially the expansion of nuclear and hydro power, to ensure reliable and affordable energy for all New Yorkers.
The New York Energy Alliance stands ready to work with policymakers, industry stakeholders, and communities to achieve a sustainable and pragmatic energy future for New York State.
When New York’s Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act was signed in 2019, word was that the new mandates would reduce electricity costs for the average person.
“Benefits of New York State’s Climate Leadership: Affordable Energy | Reducing energy consumption and utility bills by increasing access to ever-improving clean, efficient, and reliable energy solutions.”
“Energy affordability is a big issue for all New Yorkers. Nobody wants to spend more of their hard-earned money on energy… relying on fossil fuels to power our homes, businesses and transportation needs exposes New Yorkers to continued volatility and price increases.”
One of the more sober evaluations of the CLCPA in 2019 was written by the the nonpartisan Citizens Budget Commission:
“As additional renewable resources come online, costs can be expected to increase, at least in the short term, and variability among regions may also increase.”
Which prediction was more correct? In our comprehensive analysis of the last seven years of electricity prices, we have found found that costs have skyrocketed statewide alongside the adoption of renewable energy and electric vehicles.
1. Average electricity costs went up anywhere from 29 to 74%
Based on monthly “day-ahead” averages compared from 2017-2020 to 2021-2024, every region saw significant increases in costs The average region’s costs went up by 51% (not weighted for population).
Zone A (West): 29% Zone B (Genesee): 44% Zone C (Central): 43% Zone D (North): 51% Zone E (Mohawk Valley): 46% Zone F (Capital Region): 74% Zone G (Hudson Valley): 59% Zone H (Millwood): 58% Zone I (Dunwoodie): 58% Zone J (NYC): 52% Zone K (Long Island): 52%
2. The Capital Region and Hudson Valley Increased the Most
The Capital Region is where the climate laws like the CLCPA were passed, and the Hudson Valley, the birthplace of the environmental movement, is where the laws were largely drafted and lobbied for. Tragically, ratepayers in their NYISO regions were hit hardest by the changes in New York’s electricity markets.
Capital Region (2017-2020 Average Day-Ahead Electricity Price) vs. (2021-2024)
Hudson Valley (2017-2020 Average Day-Ahead Electricity Price) vs. (2021-2024)
January
$53 —> $74
$49—> $69
February
$29 —> $67
$28 —> $58
March
$29 —> $44
$28 —> $37
April
$26 —> $42
$26 —> $36
May
$22 —> $51
$22 —> $42
June
$23 —> $47
$24 —> $45
July
$28 —> $61
$29 —> $56
August
$26 —> $59
$27 —> $57
September
$24 —> $53
$24 —> $51
October
$24 —> $47
$24 —> $45
November
$30 —> $60
$29 —> $49
December
$39 —> $71
$36 —> $62
Average
$32 —> $48
$32 —> $44
While the entire state was subject to market and geopolitical forces beyond its control, certain attributes of each region’s power grid either inoculated it or made price shocks more extreme. For the Capital Region and Hudson Valley, it was the rapid adoption of rooftop “behind the meter” solar, combined with total reliance on natural gas without hydroelectric production or nuclear power that did them in.
Capital Region Power Production Profile:
76% Natural Gas & Oil 15% “Behind the Meter Solar” (Up 220% since 2017)* 7% Hydro 2% Methane/Refuse
Hudson Valley Region Power Production Profile:
87% Natural Gas & Oil 12% “Behind the Meter Solar” (Up 341% since 2017)* 1% Hydro
* Solar percentages refer to nameplate capacity
3. Western and Central NY’s Nuclear & Hydro Outperformed Upstate’s Gas & Solar
While the Hudson Valley and Albany’s green activists got the headlines and protest footage in the name of building solar panels and shutting down nuclear plants like Indian Point, it was the humble people of Western NY that got to enjoy cheaper power that also happens to be carbonless.
The Moses Niagara hydro plant, as well as three nuclear plants near Oswego and Rochester carried the load to help Zone A (29% increase) and Zone B (44% increase) and Zone C (43% increase) have significantly lower increases than the Capital Region (74% increase) and the Hudson Valley (58% increase). As you can see, Zones A, B and C also were able to affordably accommodate rapid buildouts in intermittent renewables thanks to the baseload provided by hydro and nuclear.
Western Region Power Production Profile:
69% Hydro 15% Gas & Oil 9% “Behind the Meter Solar” (Up 520% since 2017)* 5% Wind
Genesee Region Power Production Profile:
46% Nuclear 37% Solar (Up 652% since 2017)* 11% Gas & Oil 4% Wind
Central Region Power Production Profile:
42% Oil & Gas 36% Nuclear 11% Solar* (Up 737% since 2017)* 10% Wind 1% Hydro
* Solar percentages refer to nameplate capacity
4. Costs Increased Most in the Winter and Summer
When comparing the 2017-2020 period to the 2021-2024 period, the only brief respite in brutal price increases is in March and April, where unusually mild winters have helped ease the burden on New York electricity consumers.
Month
Average Statewide % Increase in Costs from 2017-2020 Period to 2021-2024 Period
January
42%
February
100%
March
22%
April
27%
May
59%
June
89%
July
88%
August
111%
September
109%
October
83%
November
59%
December
73%
Conclusion
The trends in this article are set to continue for the foreseeable future. The roster of upcoming additions to New York’s energy grid are fully saturated with intermittent renewable energy that increases the day-to-day variability of the grid and electricity prices:
Environmentalists and solar energy lobbyists of Albany remain convinced that New York just needs to ignore the massive increases in consumer prices and keep overbuilding solar and wind.
But it’s time for Albany to admit that it has a problem. Only a rational energy policy that considers consumer costs, reliability, land use AND emission reductions in a holistic manner will help New York thrive again.
A perennial topic of New York State’s unjust energy transition is home heating. The way we heat our homes has, since day one, been a vector for how the state plans to meet the CLCPA’s renewables and emissions targets. The primary strategy is to replace “non-renewable” and CO2 emitting natural gas and propane with electric heat pumps supported by a somehow renewable and emission free grid. However, in between these two options is wood, which is CO2 and particulate emitting, but also renewable (so renewable, in fact, the high efficiency units qualify for the same federal tax credit heat pumps get). Many, rightly so, believe New York is on its way to ban wood burning because of its supposed drawbacks. The most recent trigger for this speculation is New York City’s implementation of stricter wood burning regulations on its pizzerias, leading some to ask if this is the beginning of the slippery slope? The answer, thankfully, is no. But the reason reveals yet again that NYS’s energy plans are anything but rational.
The problems with heat pumps are numerous: need for greater home insulation, upfront cost, and dependence on an increasingly unreliable grid (James Hanley’s report Cold Reality elaborates on these problems in depth). The one that matters most here is the fact that in the coldest parts of the state (namely the North Country) current models of heat pumps, combined with older homes, cannot consistently heat homes to a comfortable level. New York’s climate architects themselves (the CAC) admit as much, stating they [cold weather NYers] “may need supplemental heat (wood, home heating oil, propane, or gas).” This shows why New York State won’t ban firewood, not because they don’t want to, but because to openly say a whole swath of New Yorkers will definitely go cold due to policy decisions is political suicide.
This is absurd. Firewood’s renewableness is not its main draw; its ability to work in blackouts, that the fuel is stored at the home, and that it can be harvested by the average person are. If green politicians and their lackeys cared about NYers, they would be pursuing policies that address the issues firewood helps solve; making the grid more reliable, making electricity cheaper, and expanding pipeline infrastructure. Instead, they glom onto the renewables of firewood as a way to smooth out the rough spots in their nonsensical energy goals.
The lesson here isn’t to let our guard down (if they could ban firewood, they would) it is that New York’s energy plan is irrational to its core. New Yorkers across the state, in a wide variety of conditions, need the ability to heat their homes. When the state only allows heating sources that fit its political agenda, this becomes much harder to do. It is long past time for this irrational plan to be scrapped, and one that ensures all homes are heated comfortably and affordably to go in its stead.
