Category: Uncategorized

ALBANY, N.Y. — Changing New York’s unique accounting method for greenhouse gas emissions has become an unexpected issue in state budget talks — sparking concern among environmental groups.

The proposal has support from the fossil fuel industry and would likely enable more combustion of natural gas and other fuels for longer than currently envisioned under New York’s climate law in a plan approved in December.

Gov. Kathy Hochul is supportive of the change, which was also proposed in a bill sponsored by Energy Committee Chair Sen. Kevin Parker on Monday, and it has come up in budget negotiations. Some other Senate Democrats are not supportive of the proposal.

“The 20-year methane accounting reflects the reality of the climate impact of burning natural gas,” said Sen. Liz Krueger (D-Manhattan), who chairs the powerful Senate Finance Committee, in a statement. “It is one of the strongest parts of the [state’s climate law]. Giving in to the polluter lobby by weakening our methane accounting will kneecap all our efforts going forward.”

New York is the one of only two jurisdictions to use a 20-year time horizon to account for the damaging effects of planet-warming gasses instead of 100 years. Maryland’s 2022 climate law also uses the 20-year metric.

This important distinction was a key provision pushed by supporters of the state’s Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act passed in 2019. It makes methane, the main component of natural gas, more potent than under the longer accounting timeline. Backers say this more accurately reflects the short-term warming impact of greenhouse gasses and the urgency around reducing emissions.

Hochul’s administration has been examining the issue of accounting for greenhouse gasses for the past few months.

The governor indicated in her State of the State address in January that she wants to link a proposed cap-and-trade policy for emissions in New York with other states. She directed state agencies to analyze the cost of using international accounting methods compared to the state’s law for cap-and-trade. California and other markets all use the 100-year timeline and incorporate the benefits of capturing emissions from biofuels before they’re burned.

“We’re getting closer to the time when these costs would begin to show up for New Yorkers,” said a person in the governor’s office who requested anonymity to candidly discuss negotiations. “New York has an outlier greenhouse gas emissions accounting methodology, and that emissions accounting methodology will drive additional costs to consumers as compared to the accounting methodology utilized by the rest of the world.”

The cost of using the CLCPA accounting metrics has not been fully analyzed, according to the governor’s office, and they’re focused on affordability as a key component in budget negotiations around cap-and-invest and climate policies.

The state’s most recent greenhouse gas inventory for 2022 shows emissions are about 170 million tons higher under the state’s accounting framework than the international standard used by the federal government and other states. That includes “upstream” emissions that occur outside New York.

“To achieve the CLCPA statewide emissions targets, New Yorkers would be financially responsible for eliminating those inflated emissions and out of state emissions,” the person in the governor’s office said.

Hochul’s top energy officials have publicly defended the estimated costs, which in the climate plan approved in December use New York’s accounting rules, as being a small fraction of the state’s economic output. They’ve repeatedly said that the net health and climate benefits outweigh those costs.

The CLCPA mandates that New York reduces emissions 40 percent from 1990 levels by 2030 and 85 percent by 2050, with the remainder offset to hit net zero. Under the current accounting, those reductions will require an aggressive electrification of buildings that currently rely on natural gas. There’s also little incentive under the current framework to use low-carbon fuels like renewable natural gas or biodiesel.

“At the end of the day, we just have to get to net zero, not absolute zero, and we have until 2050,” Parker said. “Part of what we have from the ecoterrorists is an attempt to move the goalposts.”

Environmentalists rally opposition

At least a dozen environmental groups have sent memos opposing Parker’s bill, S6030, since it was introduced on Monday including Sierra Club, Earthjustice, NY Renews, New York Lawyers for the Public Interest, Food and Water Watch and Environmental Advocates NY.

“Governor Hochul would side with the fossil fuel industry to torpedo New York’s landmark climate law, along with her own budget proposals to address the climate crisis, should she move forward with a proposal to weaken the state’s accounting for methane emissions,” said Earthjustice’s New York policy advocate Liz Moran. “The Governor and the Legislature still have the opportunity to make this a winning budget for the climate, but that is thrown to the wind if they cave to fossil fuel interests to gut New York’s climate law.”

Parker said the 20-year timeline makes achieving the state’s climate goals more expensive, as utilities pass costs along to ratepayers. He also said New York using its own accounting method ignores the need for a global solution to reduce emissions.

“It creates an easier time horizon and cost horizon for companies to use as they go into this process,” he added. “At the end of the day, something that works is better than something that’s fast.”

Proposals to give rebates to New York residents from climate funds raised under a cap on pollution would address concerns about cost for residents, said New York City Environmental Justice Alliance executive director Eddie Bautista.

“That would make sure that costs are not regressive,” he said. “The senator’s bill endangers the emissions goal that environmental justice communities have fought for for decades.”

Accessing federal money

National Grid, one of the state’s largest gas and electric utilities, and National Fuel, the largest gas-only utility, have previously pushed to change the accounting framework.

The forestry industry, the Clean Fuels Alliance that represents producers of alternative fuels and airlines are all supportive of Parker’s proposed measure. One argument they’re making is that New York needs to align its accounting with federal standards for companies to easily access incentives from the Inflation Reduction Act.

“If we don’t have this accounting we could lose billions of dollars of new investment,” said John Bartow, executive director of the Empire State Forest Products Association. “It’s more expensive to accomplish our emissions reductions using a 20 year” accounting method.

Bartow cited a report prepared by Tristan Brown, an associate professor at SUNY ESF, that seeks to calculate benefits of the state supporting use of low-carbon fuels.

These groups have also been supportive of a low-carbon fuel standard for transportation, which would incentivize displacing fossil fuels with biodiesel and other alternatives. Detractors are wary this would simply prolong the use of combustion engines that still emit co-pollutants rather than accelerate electrification.

Another change in the bill that’s drawn support from groups pushing for broader use of low-carbon fuels is requiring Department of Environmental Conservation to change the way it accounts for burning renewable natural gas produced from sources like crops or cow manure. Right now, DEC calculates those as very similar to burning fossil fuels.

“You’re severely discouraging investments in New York from low carbon fuel providers who might otherwise come to the state,” said Floyd Vergara, the director of state governmental affairs for the Clean Fuels Alliance of America. He said the group is not involved with the push to change the time horizon for greenhouse gas accounting.

Assemblymember Deborah Glick (D-Manhattan), who chairs the Environmental Conservation Committee, is not persuaded. She said federal officials have indicated that funding from the IRA will be based on individual projects, not the state’s plans.

“It clearly is the fossil fuel industry that is trying to stir up that there’s a big problem,” Glick said. “It’s a complete red herring.”

Glick said she would not support the Hochul administration’s pitch to change the accounting under the cap-and-trade proposal.

“It’s all very preliminary, but not good,” she said. “We’re not interested in doing things that erode the goals of the CLCPA. You set aggressive goals. You understand that you work as hard as you can to reach a goal, sometimes you don’t, but you don’t undermine your goal at the outset.”

With the Build Public Renewables Act (the BPRA) going into the NYS Assembly yet again, and its anti-worker NGO coalition pushing for its final passage, it is worth revisiting its major flaws. For those unaware, the BPRA nominally would allow the New York Power Authority (NYPA), who historically built and operated nuclear, hydro, hydrocarbon, and transmission resources for the benefit of all New Yorkers, to get into the game of building and operating renewable energy projects. However, as many other articles across the political spectrum have pointed out, the bill would bar NYPA from ever building another nuclear plant ever again, force the premature closure of its modern NYC peaker plants (actually making the grid dirtier), reduce NYPA’s flexibility, is undemocratic with its empowering of unaccountable NGOs, depends on wonky means testing in an attempt to reduce energy prices, and would bar municipalities and state buildings from purchasing power from local, non-renewable, sources (unless a bunch of wonky criteria is met). Many of these problems were addressed in a much improved version of this bill included in Governor Hochul’s budget proposal. However, this is not enough for the NGOs behind this bill who are still pushing for the original bill’s passage. This shows they are more ideologically committed to their preferred energy source than providing cheap and reliable electricity for working people of this great state and the industries that fuel its economy.

It is worth going into more detail for the last issue raised above, as many of the deep dives into the BPRA have not looked closely at the municipal power procurement provision (it was a late addition to the bill). The specific language for this part of this bill, condensed down, is as follows (section 34 of the BPRA):

“…the authority shall be the sole provider of electricity to all state owned, leased, controlled, or operated buildings and … the authority shall be the sole provider of electricity to all municipal owned, leased, controlled, or operated buildings that use electricity.” (Note the only way out of this is if NYPA’s power is more expensive or if the municipality can get 100% renewable power elsewhere).

This is a nonsensical addition to the BPRA that would allow even greater overreach by NYS in pursuing its irrational energy policy. Not only have municipalities lost their constitutional right to oppose renewable projects and may be forced to subsidize renewable projects, they will now be forced to, somehow, guarantee the power they buy is renewable too. How does this make sense for the cities and towns of Syracuse, Rochester, Oswego, Ontario, Scriba, Fulton, Pulaski, Pultneyville, Lyons and many others to not get there electricity form the abundant and cheap nuclear power that is right next door; or for Downstate municipalities not to be able to have all options on the table as reliability margins grow thinner? What is more likely to happen is a shell game of renewable energy credits (RECs) where towns now have to buy pieces of paper saying their buildings are “green” while still getting their actual power from whatever grid they are on. Our courthouses, city halls, and DMV offices are not powered by paper, but by electrons, and this will just lead to further costs to overburdened municipalities.

New York State’s climate policies are hurting the working people of this state and is being pushed to pursue even more irrational ones. We do not need a gun to our head forcing us to build and buy unreliable electricity; we need cheap reliable power that treats local governments and people as a partner and not as an obstacle. If you found yourself in agreement with what was said here, this Sunday (March 26^th 2-4:30 PM) at the Columbia Greene Community College Theater many speakers who are experts on this topic are gathering to talk about the wider NYS Climate Law and the damage it is doing to New Yorkers. The NYEA will be sending a representative to attend, and we hope to see you there.

On March 1, the Otsego County Board of Representatives stood up for their constituents by voting unanimously to oppose a key provision of Gov. Kathy Hochul’s executive budget. Under Hochul’s proposed change to Real Property Tax Law, local municipalities would lose the right to assess solar and wind projects at full value, in effect forcing local taxpayers to subsidize corporate development in their communities. With artificially low appraisal values, communities would be deprived of important tax revenue needed to sustain public services.

New York state energy policy has run into significant opposition in upstate New York. Although this resistance might be characterized as NIMBY behavior, much of the activism is motivated by the gradual obliteration of communities’ rights to home rule, as defined in Article IX of the state constitution. Communities are increasingly deprived of the means to protect their resources and to share in the benefits of needed development.

New York has been undermining home rule for a long time. Earlier deregulation of the power industry divided up the energy pie between private (inevitably nonlocal, out-of-state or even global) corporations and large state-run agencies (the New York Power Authority). The option of municipal ownership and control over power generation and transmission, previously established by nearly 50 New York communities, has been effectively shut down. Today large corporations, many of them foreign-owned, have moved into the upstate energy business. New York State Electric and Gas, which has long served much of central New York, is now owned by a Spanish company. The developer of a large proposed solar project in nearby Herkimer county is a French corporation.

More recently, to implement its goal of 100 percent clean, carbon-free electricity by 2040, the state in 2020 created the Office of Renewable Energy Siting, which stripped local communities of the right to evaluate and permit large renewable-energy projects (over 25 megawatts). As a result, local governments have been bypassed on the most important energy policy decisions of the day. The right of our communities to manage their own energy needs – perhaps the best long-term solution to the energy problem — has been lost, and it needs to be restored.

Without local control, clean energy needed to fight climate change will be extracted from our communities and exported elsewhere. Otsego County will become an energy colony run by distant government agencies and global corporations. Our resources will be taken without our approval and without compensation. The industrialization of our rural landscape will be a net loss to us. The profits generated will leave the community.

Solar and wind projects may well be necessary, but currently they are not an economic benefit for upstate communities. Quite the opposite: They industrialize large tracts of land and in return offer few jobs and token benefits to residents, who must bear the externalized costs of the environmental impacts on their communities.

If renewable energy is to be exported from upstate counties to other communities, the playing field needs to be leveled. That can only be done on terms acceptable to municipalities. Impacts would have to be mitigated to their satisfaction, and significant financial benefits would have to be retained locally.

Some communities would choose to accept renewable-energy projects in return for the financial benefits, if those benefits were legally guaranteed. Others would choose to forgo energy projects to protect other assets more important to them. In the end, projects would be vetted by a democratic community decision-making process. They would end up located where they are most wanted and needed, and where they would have to share their profits. The question is who decides: corporations and state agencies, or the people? If home rule is restored, the people will decide.

Adrian Kuzminski is a member of Sustainable Otsego, a nonpartisan political action committee in central New York focused on sustainable living, economic independence and home rule.

Clean hydrogen production is underway at the Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station in Oswego, New York. The facility is the first-of-its-kind in the United States to generate clean hydrogen using nuclear power. 

This nuclear milestone is part of a $14.5 million cost shared project between the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and Constellation to demonstrate how nuclear power plants can help lower the cost and scale-up the production of clean hydrogen.

Constellation will use the hydrogen generated on-site to help cool the power plant.

Demonstrating Clean Hydrogen Production

DOE supported the construction and installation of a low-temperature electrolysis system at the Nine Mile Point nuclear power plant that leverages the facility’s existing hydrogen storage system.

Constellation’s new Hydrogen Generation System produces hydrogen without emissions by using electricity generated at the plant to split water into hydrogen and oxygen.

The system started producing clean hydrogen in February to supply hydrogen for plant operations—a process that was previously dependent on trucked-in deliveries of hydrogen made from fossil fuels. 

“This accomplishment tangibly demonstrates that our nation’s existing reactor fleet can produce clean hydrogen today,” said Dr. Kathryn Huff, Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy. “DOE is proud to support cost-shared projects like this to deliver affordable clean hydrogen. The investments we’re starting to make now through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and Inflation Reduction Act will further expand the clean hydrogen market to create new economic and environmental benefits for nuclear energy.”

“Hydrogen will be an indispensable tool in solving the climate crisis, and Nine Mile Point is going to show the world that nuclear power is the most efficient and cost-effective way to make it from a carbon-free resource,” said Joe Dominguez, president and CEO of Constellation. “In partnership with DOE and others, we see this technology creating a pathway to decarbonizing industries that remain heavily reliant on fossil fuels, while creating clean-energy jobs and strengthening domestic energy security.”

Scaling-Up Clean Hydrogen Infrastructure

Roughly 95 percent of the hydrogen produced in the United States is currently sourced from fossil fuels—opening up new market opportunities for nuclear energy.

The Hydrogen Generation System at Nine Mile Point is one of four projects supported by DOE to demonstrate clean hydrogen production at commercial nuclear power plants.

In addition to these demonstrations, DOE is investing billions through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and Inflation Reduction Act to develop and mature clean hydrogen production in the United States to help lower emissions and create new job opportunities for American workers.

It also supports the Department’s Hydrogen Shot goal of reducing the cost of hydrogen by 80 percent to $1 per 1 kilogram in 1 decade. 

Constellation plans to monitor the performance of the new system as it considers the possible deployment of other hydrogen systems at additional sites.

A county dairy farm says it may be forced to downgrade or even close due to good farmland potentially being sold to solar project developers.

John and Laura Knight, along with Travis and Julia Olmstead, penned a letter on behalf of Mid-Knight Dairy LLC to the Chautauqua County Agricultural Farmland Protection Board. The farm is located at 3232 Fluvanna Townline Road in the town of Ellicott.

In their letter, they said they stand to lose well-drained, valuable ground that borders their farm that they’ve rented for 35 years. The landowners are apparently looking to lease the property for a solar farm.

“There is no land that even comes close to the caliper of ground that we would lose to a potential project,” they wrote.

The authors said they financially cannot compete with this type of development.

“We cannot place the blame entirely on our neighbor. Who would not jump at the opportunity to receive the amount of money that solar companies can pay? Their offer far exceeds anything in rent or even if we were to make an offer to buy the land ourselves,” they wrote.

Mid-Knight Dairy members added that should this land no longer be available, their costs to farm are going to go up and they’re going to be using more gas and oil. “If we lose this land we will have to pick up more land miles away.

We will spend far more money on fuel, tractor tires and labor. Again, more fossil fuel used all in the name of ‘clean energy,’” they wrote

And if they cannot find alternative land, other drastic measures may be taken. “If we cannot find suitable land we may be forced to sell cows or the farm due to a shortage of forages to feed our animals. A loss of a local farm like ours means more food will need to be transported from further away,” they wrote.

The dairy farm started in 1836 and has grown from 30 to 150 cows. “Good, close farmland is a crucial part of our family business. For many farms like ours losing prime cropland can be catastrophic,” they wrote.

Representatives with Mid-Knight Dairy said politicians must look at the big picture.

“We are not against renewable energy but we think that placing solar farms on prime farmland is shortsighted. How will we feed the rising human population if we destroy good farmland? We must protect our most valuable resource: land used for food production. We can live without many things in life, food is NOT one of them,” they wrote.

Steve Kimball, chairman of the county Agricultural Farmland Protection Board forwarded their letter to the county legislature. He said this is not the first time their board has received such comments.

“The potential negative effects of solar projects will be significantly felt by farmers as productive farmland is converted from agricultural uses,” he said.