Grifters Gotta Grift and Kathy Hochul's New York Is Just One Huge Opportunity to Do the Big Green Grift
Guest Post by Roger Caiazza of Pragmatic Environmentalist of New York.
A recent letter to the editor of the Syracuse Post Standard Focus on economic benefits of NY’s renewable energy projects is the subject of this post. I am very frustrated with the New York Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act) net zero transition because claims made by the supporters are so misleading that it beggars my mind that editors publish the letters.
The reality is this: there are so many issues coming up with the schedule and ambition of the Climate Act, it has become obvious we need to pause implementation and figure out how best to proceed from there.
Letter to the Editor
The following letter was written by Marguerite Wells from Ithaca, NY.
Keeping an open mind is one of the hardest things to do. With a constant stream of social media, information and communication, we can develop opinions and stances that are very hard to change.
When I first entered New York’s renewable energy conversation as a farmer in Central New York, my focus was on protecting air and water quality and not relying on foreign sources for our energy. While these goals are admirable, it was harder to answer the more personal questions, “How does this help me, my farm, and my family?” I wasn’t the only one asking that question.
When you hear of a solar or wind farm being proposed near you, it’s fair to ask, “How will this help me?”
While these projects will contribute to our statewide energy transition, those who most stand to benefit are the towns and landowners who host these projects.
It isn’t just about climate goals. It is about the deli down the street getting more customers during and after construction. It is about towns receiving funds to fix the roads, or build a new park. It is about our children’s public school receiving millions from tax agreements from these private companies. Projects such as Morris Ridge Solar, New York’s largest solar farm, will pay $1.6 million in direct community payments each year, according to public data. This is an example of how these types of investments bring real, tangible benefits to local communities.
As a farmer, I was also drawn to the fact that these projects help preserve agricultural land. Rather than being permanently lost to real estate development, developing wind and solar can offer a lifeline to our family farms, providing them with new revenue, and helping keep farmland in the family for future generations.
Skepticism is good. Questions are good. Preconceived notions that don’t allow you to hear the facts are not.
Whether you’re a farmer, a town official, an everyday citizen or a skeptic, I invite you to continue this conversation. Join us at the 21st Annual Symposium on Energy on April 4 at the SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry in Syracuse. Learn more at energy21symposium.org.
Marguerite Wells
Ithaca
Comments
Faced with incessant media messaging that the green energy transition is necessary and will save the planet keeping an open mind is indeed difficult. Here is one aspect of the issue not pursued by the mass media. Robert Bryce describes the IRA lobbying frenzy currently underway in Washington:
The late economist Milton Friedman famously declared that “nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program.”
Friedman’s line comes to mind because a lobbying frenzy is underway in Washington, DC. Some of the city’s most powerful special interests are working to prevent a repeal or reduction of the lavish energy-related tax credits in the Inflation Reduction Act. No lobby group is working harder than the American Clean Power Association.
Why is the ACPA pushing so hard? The answer is simple: Its members have collected tens of billions of dollars in federal subsidies, loans, and loan guarantees over the past few years to install solar energy, wind energy, batteries, and other forms of alt-energy, and they don’t want that geyser of federal money to stop.
In the face of mounting evidence that the Climate Act net-zero transition is not going according to plan and should be paused for a re-assessment, New York’s green energy special interests are also pushing hard. This letter is an example.
When I read the letter, my impression was that the author was a farmer who was only interested in the renewable energy conversation. Her name was somewhat familiar, but it was not until I read an announcement for the New Yorkers for Clean Power April Renewables Supporters Speaker Series agenda for “Insights on Onshore Wind” that I made the connection.
The announcement said that Marguerite Wells was an expert in onshore wind energy development and policy and she is the Executive Director at the Alliance for Clean Energy New York (ACE NY). The ACE NY mission is to:
“Promote the use of clean, renewable electricity technologies and energy efficiency in New York state, in order to increase energy diversity and security, boost economic development, improve public health, and reduce air pollution.”
My first observation is that readers deserve to know Wells is not just a farmer but has more than a passing personal interest in the renewable energy transition.
Her association with ACE NY biases the letter contents. Advocates like Wells invariably repeat the talking point that green energy will protect air and water quality while decreasing reliance on foreign sources for our energy.
Russ Schussler compiled a document that addresses many green energy talking points. He explains that claiming that green energy is environmentally neutral ignores the adverse impacts of renewable energy development. New York has not updated the environmental assessment of the cumulative impacts for the projected onshore wind, offshore wind, solar, and energy storage resources projected by the State in the Scoping Plan completed at the end of 2022.
The Final Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement (SGEIS) on the proposed Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act was accepted in September 2020. Since then, the projections for renewable resources have increased. The Scoping Plan projects 830 additional 3 MW onshore wind turbines, 439 additional 18 MW offshore wind turbines, and over 100 million 350-watt solar panels compared to the SGEIS.
There also were no projections for energy storage or Dispatchable Emissions-Free Resources that the Scoping Plan has determined are necessary for a zero-emissions electric generating system. The Scoping Plan considered life-cycle impacts of fossil fuels but ignored the adverse impacts related to their operation and disposal of wind and solar components. Recycling is challenging to impossible for the large structural components and also the scarce resources needed for energy conversion.
Another point that this letter ignores is the magnitude of the resources necessary and the resulting sprawl across New York. The New York State Office of Renewable Energy Siting and Electric Transmission (ORES) and the Department of Public Service (DPS) have a new interactive map of solar and wind project siting status. Here are the total capacity and the land covered by existing renewable energy sprawl.
The Scoping Plan’s Integration Analysis (IA) included three scenarios that projected future resources necessary (Strategic Use of Low-Carbon Fuels, Accelerated Transition from Combustion, and Beyond 85% Reduction) and the New York Independent System Operator made two projections too. The number of acres required for those resources shown below is staggering.
According to Wells the development of wind and solar resources “bring real, tangible benefits to local communities” and help preserve agricultural land. Wells mentions that the Morris Ridge Solar will pay $1.6 million in direct community payments each year and notes that rental payments “can offer a lifeline to our family farms, providing them with new revenue.”
One of the unintended consequences of extensive solar development is that it affects the viability of farmers that must rent land for their operations. An agronomist and environmental planner in western New York explained that the problem is that farmers are now competing with solar developers who are paid direct and indirect subsidies that enable them to offer land owners up to ten times the current agricultural annual lease rates.
This raises the concern that farmers will not have enough available farmland to support the investment they have made in facilities, livestock, or equipment. Furthermore, claims these projects will support the agricultural economy overall is simply wrong. It will reduce farm jobs when farmers rent their land rather than farm so economic activity may be improved during construction but once the facility is operational there are very few economic benefits to essential local businesses.
Wells claims that wind and solar development will “help preserve agricultural land”. She does not mention that the New York state utility-scale solar siting program does not ensure responsible solar siting that protects agricultural land.
I have documented some of the issues with solar siting. For example, the Department of Agriculture and Markets (“Department”) has a solar project siting goal “to limit the conversion of agricultural areas within the Project Areas, to no more than 10% of soils classified by the Department’s NYS Agricultural Land Classification soil groups 1-4, generally Prime Farmland soils, which represent the State’s most productive farmland.”
Undoubtedly due to lobbying pressure, the Department has submitted comments raising the issue when solar projects apply for permits but no application has been modified when the limit is exceeded. The Morris Ridge Solar project is the biggest project in the state, and they did not convert any prime farmland so it can be done. The Prime Farmland Scorecard at my solar issues page lists 35 solar projects and only 12 meet the Department goal and the average over all projects is 18%. The total prime farmland converted to solar factories is 10,952 acres.
In her closing arguments she says skepticism and questions are good, but “preconceived notions that don’t allow you to hear the facts are not.” This leads up to an invitation to “continue this conversation at the 21st Annual Symposium on Energy in the 21st Century on April 4 at the SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry in Syracuse.
This annual gathering of the grifters of the green energy scam is an example of the many ways that green energy can pay out. I am familiar with examples of symposiums on issues of the day that provided the organizer with enough money to forgo full-time work. I have little doubts that this symposium is any different.
Worse, these purveyors of doom and gloom who claim it can be solved with their green energy solutions are a real danger to society. Bryce provides two relevant reasons related to the Federal programs that are also applicable to New York:
First and foremost, the ITC and PTC are, to use the title of Meredith Angwin’s excellent 2020 book, shorting the grid. The massive subsidies for weather-dependent forms of generation are distorting electricity markets and contributing to the premature closure of the thermal plants needed to assure the affordability, reliability, and resilience of our electric grid.
Second, these subsidies are fueling the landscape-wrecking, bird-and-bat killing, property-value-destroying energy sprawl that comes with the expansion of Big Solar and Big Wind. They are also fueling the insane expansion of offshore wind energy into the known habitat of the critically endangered North Atlantic Right Whale and other marine mammals.
Conclusion
The Climate Act Scoping Plan and all the proposed green energy programs are crimes against physics. The energy density of wind and solar energy is too low and the resource intermittency too variable so that no electric system relying on those resources for most of its energy can ever hope to provide reliable electricity. If this reality is not acknowledged soon and these policies paused, then the enormous costs of this futile gesture to control the climate will bankrupt the state.
Despite all the evidence that this can never work, the Hochul Administration continues to push the Climate Act, supporters like Wells continue to get misleading opinions published, and people flock to meetings to congratulate each other on their virtuous plans. I believe that ultimately the reason for the continuing support is the money. For every advocate motivated to save the planet for selfless reasons, there is someone whose primary motivation is cashing in on the scam.
#Caiazza #Climate #EnergyDensity #Hochul #NewYork #ClimateAct #Grifters
Roger Caiazza blogs on New York energy and environmental issues at Pragmatic Environmentalist of New York. This post represents his opinion alone and not the opinion of his previous employers or any other company with which he has been associated. Roger has followed the Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act) since it was first proposed, submitted comments on the Climate Act implementation plan, and has written over 500 articles about New York’s net-zero transition.
