Author: rogercaiazza

I am a meteorologist (BS and MS degrees), was certified as a consulting meteorologist and have worked in the air quality industry for over 40 years. I author two blogs. Environmental staff in any industry have to be pragmatic balancing risks and benefits and (https://pragmaticenvironmentalistofnewyork.blog/) reflects that outlook. The second blog addresses the New York State Reforming the Energy Vision initiative (https://reformingtheenergyvisioninconvenienttruths.wordpress.com). Any of my comments on the web or posts on my blogs are my opinion only. In no way do they reflect the position of any of my past employers or any company I was associated with.

How Much Will REV Affect Global Warming

Reforming the Energy Vision (REV) is Governor Cuomo’s plan to “rebuild, strengthen and modernize New York’s energy system. The ultimate goal of REV is to change the energy system of New York to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions 80% from 1990 levels by 2050 (“80 by 50”). The over-riding rationale for the need to do this is to mitigate the impacts of global warming. Inconveniently, the State has never quantified just how much the proposed plan will affect global warming.

In the absence of any official quantitative estimate of the impact on global warming from REV or any other New York State initiative related to climate change I did my own calculation. I simply adapted data for this emission reduction from the calculations in Analysis of US and State-By-State Carbon Dioxide Emissions and Potential “Savings” In Future Global Temperature and Global Sea Level Rise. This analysis of U.S. and state by state carbon dioxide 2010 emissions relative to global emissions quantifies the relative numbers and the potential “savings” in future global temperature and global sea level rise. These estimates are based on the MAGICC: Model for the Assessment of Greenhouse-gas Induced Climate Change) so they represent projected changes based on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimates. All I did in my calculation was to pro-rate the United States impacts by the ratio of New York emissions divided by United States emissions to determine the effects of a complete cessation of all CO2 emissions in New York State as well as the REV plan for the 167.1 million metric ton reduction.

The first step is to quantify NY emissions. The New York State Energy Research and Development Authority Patterns and Trends document provides CO2 emissions data. In 1990 the NY total was 235.8 million metric tons so the reduction to the REV goal of 80% is 188.7 million metric tons. The New York impacts were calculated by the ratio of the NY emissions reductions to the US reductions in the report. For example, the NY % of global total emissions equals the % of US global total (17.88%) times the REV reduction emissions goal (188.7) divided by the US emissions (5,631.3). Table 1 Analysis of Carbon Dioxide Emissions and Temperature Savings lists the results.

These calculations show current growth rate in CO2 emissions from other countries of the world will quickly subsume New York total emissions much less any reductions in New York CO2 emissions. According to data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) and based on trends in CO2 emissions growth in 86 days. Furthermore, using assumptions based on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Assessment Reports we can estimate the actual impact to global warming for REV. The ultimate impact of the REV 80% reduction of 188.7 million metric tons on projected global temperature rise would be a reduction, or a “savings,” of approximately 0.0028°C by the year 2050 and 0.0058°C by the year 2100.

These small numbers have to be put in context. First consider temperature measuring guidance. The National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration’s Requirements and Standards for NWS Climate Observations states that: “The observer will round the entered data to whole units Fahrenheit”. The nearest whole degree Fahrenheit (0.55°C) is over two hundred times greater than the projected change in temperature in 2050.

Although this change is too small to measure I am sure some will argue that there will nonetheless be some effect on the purported impacts. However if these numbers are put into perspective of temperatures we routinely feel then that argument seems hollow. For example, in Syracuse NY the record high temperature is 102°F and the record low temperature is -26°F so the difference is 128 °F which is nearly 29,000 times greater than the predicted change in temperature in 2050. The annual seasonal difference ranges from the highest daily average of 71.6°F to the lowest daily average of 23.2°F, or a difference of 48.4°F which is over 11,000 times greater than the predicted change in temperature in 2050. The average difference between the average daily high and average daily low temperature is 18.7°F or over 4,000 times greater than the predicted change in temperature in 2050. In order to give you an idea of how small this temperature change consider changes with elevation and latitude. Generally, temperature decreases three (3) degrees Fahrenheit for every 1,000 foot increase in elevation above sea level. The projected temperature difference is the same as going down 18 inches. The general rule is that temperature changes three (3) degrees Fahrenheit for every 300 mile change in latitude at an elevation of sea level. The projected temperature change is the same as going south 0.4 miles.

Conclusion

I do not think that there is any question why the State has not provided a quantitative estimate of the impact on global warming from REV or any other New York State initiative related to climate change. Clearly we can expect no discernable impact. The calculated values provided in this post are based on the “consensus” estimates of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change which I personally believe over-estimate the impact of temperature changes caused by greenhouse gas emissions but do represent the justification for the 80 by 50 goal. As shown claiming any observable impacts for the projected small change in temperature due to these emissions reductions is a stretch at best.

Commentary on State Agency Support of REV

Reforming the Energy Vision (REV) is Governor Cuomo’s plan to “rebuild, strengthen and modernize New York’s energy system. Three state agencies are primarily involved in REV are the New York Public Service Commission (PSC), New York State Energy Research & Development Authority (NYSERDA), and New York Power Authority (NYPA). This post presents my impression of how those agencies are dealing with REV.

Disclaimer: I am writing this series of posts on REV because I am convinced that this whole thing is going to end as an expensive boondoggle and drive electricity prices in particular and energy prices in general significantly higher. Before retirement from the electric generating industry, I was actively analyzing energy and air quality regulations that could affect company operations. The opinions expressed in this post do not reflect the position of any of my previous employers or any other company I have been associated with, these comments are mine alone.

First, keep in mind that REV has been invoked by executive decision without legislative involvement. Coupled with the Cuomo Administration’s unprecedented involvement in these agencies it is clear that there has been no independent review of the program. Moreover, I fear that the interests of the public have been subsumed by the Governor’s agenda.

The PSC is the public utilities commission of the New York state government that regulates and oversees the electric, gas, water, and telecommunication industries in New York as part of the Department of Public Service. Oversight of the Commission is provided by a Board of appointees which is supposed to be nominally bipartisan but Cuomo has filled it mostly with allies who rarely if ever defy his wishes on energy policy. According to an article in Politico: “It’s an agency that carries out the governor’s orders regardless of the impact on the ratepayers,” Earthjustice attorney Chris Amato said of the utility regulator. “The public process is a charade, it’s a play act.” I could not agree more.

NYSERDA is supposed to develop and implement new energy technologies for the good of New York State. Under the Cuomo administration the description of the history of the organization has changed. On October 4, 2011 the NYSERDA website said: “NYSERDA’s earliest efforts focused solely on research and development with the goal of reducing the State’s petroleum consumption.” Today the NYSERDA website’s history description states: “During the energy crisis of the 1970s, oil embargoes made the United States acutely aware that the world’s petroleum supplies were finite. NYSERDA’s earliest efforts focused solely on research and development of renewable energy technologies with the goal of reducing New York State’s petroleum consumption.” However, in New York Law for Public Authorities, Article 8, Title 9, §1854 Purposes and specific powers of the authority there is no suggestion that the focus should be solely on renewable energy:

The purposes of the authority shall be to develop and implement new energy technologies consistent with economic, social and environmental objectives, to develop and encourage energy conservation technologies, to promote, develop, encourage and assist in the acquiring, constructing, improving, maintaining, equipping and furnishing of industrial, manufacturing, warehousing, commercial, research and industrial pollution control facilities at the Saratoga Research and Development Center, and to promote, develop, encourage and assist special energy projects and thereby advance job opportunities, health, general prosperity and economic welfare of the people of the state of New York.

The New York Power Authority (NYPA) is the largest state public power organization in the United States. NYPA provides some of the lowest-cost electricity in the nation, operating 16 generating facilities and more than 1,400 circuit-miles of transmission lines. According to the website history: NYPA was originally founded by Franklin Roosevelt as a public power provider for “cheaper electricity in 1931 it was not until St Lawrence power project was developed in 1952 that the first major hydro project was developed. That was followed soon thereafter by the Niagara Power project. The website history’s timeline makes for interesting reading because it makes apparent the use of NYPA for politically convenient intervention. Not surprisingly this trend has continued under the Cuomo Administration. As one of the three main components of REV, “NYPA will also ‘lead by example’ in developing innovative and transparent solutions to reduce energy demand, for which it will hold itself accountable as a model for the rest of the State.” My impression is that this is license to do whatever the Administration wants vis-à-vis REV.

Ultimately, my impression is that New York State ratepayers are on their own with regards to the impacts of REV.

REV Program: Renewable Heat New York

According the Renewable Heat NY website this program provides incentives toward the installed costs of high-efficiency, low-emission wood heating systems for homeowners and businesses without access to natural gas. The program was announced by Governor Cuomo in his 2014 State of the State address as “a long-term commitment to help the high-efficiency and low-emission biomass heating industry reach scale.”

Description

It appears that this program is primarily funded by auction proceeds from the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. The recent update to the RGGI Operating Plan describes the expected benefits: “reduced GHG emissions relative to oil heat alternatives, increased energy bill savings, and the creation or retention of jobs in New York. The description goes on to state:

The program will reduce New Yorkers’ energy bills while providing significant environmental benefits. Included among these benefits are GHG reductions that stem from the replacement of fossil-fuel heating devices, and public health benefits related to the replacement and recycling of outdoor and indoor wood boilers with advanced technology cord wood boilers and pellet boilers. Renewable Heat NY will also create and retain jobs in New York State’s biomass industry by supporting New York State manufacturers of high-efficiency, low-emission wood heat technologies, and by providing needed training in hydronic biomass heating to qualify contractors and installers for the program.

Benefits

The update also summarizes the financial commitments and the expected benefits of the program. The total incentive costs are $7.2 million. The net energy benefits are 4,755 mmBtu per year and 95,907 mmBtu over the lifetime of the program. The net greenhouse gas emission reductions are expected to be 413 tons of CO₂e annually and 8,263 tons of CO₂e over the lifetime of the program. The cost benefit ratio of the emission reductions is 19,301 $ per ton of CO₂e.

Commentary

Clearly this is not an effective GHG emission reduction program. If the REV 80 by 50 goal was dependent upon this program it would fail but it also shows that proponents of the program necessarily have to implement as many programs as possible.