New York's failing climate goals

[waterfell]

New York state has two major environmental goals coming due in 2030, and the state is woefully behind in reaching those targets. This has macroeconomic implications, since it will require major funding by the state, the state’s utilities, and the citizens and ratepayers in order to make an effective effort to meet the greenhouse gas reductions and investments in clean energy.

According to the 2019 New York Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act, the state is required to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 40% below the 1990 baseline level by the year 2030. As of the latest progress report issued last December, as of 2023, the state is 14.8% below the 1990 baseline. Since the peak in 2005, they have reduced emissions about 115 MMt CO2eq in 18 years. They need to reduce emissions another 104 MMt CO2eq in 7 years from 2023. It doesn’t look good for success. Below is a graph from last year’s report.

The graph is a little misleading, as the years 2024 through 2029 are not shown on the timeline. However, it can be seen that the recent trend from 2020 through 2023 is not going in the right direction. This will be explored further in the details below.

Another goal in the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA) is to have 70% of the state’s electricity generated by renewables by 2030. According to electricity data from the EIA, New York is currently at about 33% renewables. This assumes hydropower is included as renewable. This comes from the 2025 full year electricity generation data. There are only 5 years left for New York to go from 33% to 70% renewables. Based on the recent trend, they are nowhere near adding enough renewable energy to the state’s electricity system, as required by the CLCPA.

The best proof of how these climate goals are failing is to look at the CO2 emissions from the state’s electric power sector. As a reminder, the climate law was passed in 2019. So how are CO2 emissions trending?

NY electricity CO2 emissions, million metric tons
2019: 24.8 million tons
2020: 26.8
2021: 28.4
2022: 30.8
2023: 29.4
2024: 31.5

Data from here. You can click on other years, as needed.

Based on the known consumption of natural gas and petroleum used to generate electricity, the electricity CO2 emissions for 2025 were around 30.5 million tonnes. This is my own calculation, but I am confident it is fairly accurate, using actual generation data..

24.8 million tons of CO2 in 2019, compared to 30.5 million tons in 2025. This is an increase of 23%, when they are supposed to be reducing CO2 emissions!

In 2019, New York generated 50,231 GWh from fossil fuels. In 2025, this had gone up to 63,498 GWh from fossil fuels. How are they going to meet the commitments of the CLCPA, if they keep burning more and more fossil fuels?

No wonder Governor Hochul is trying to delay meeting these environmental goals.

New York needs more time to meet climate goals, Gov. Hochul says

One final point: No, it isn’t Trump’s fault. The trends were going in the wrong direction during the Biden administration.

_ Pete

[jaagu]

@waterfell

This comes from the 2025 full year electricity generation data. There are only 5 years left for New York to go from 33% to 70% renewables. Based on the recent trend, they are nowhere near adding enough renewable energy to the state’s electricity system, as required by the CLCPA.

Trump has been interfering and disrupting NY’s wind and solar plans. Trump has been advocating coal and gas fired power plants instead of cheaper wind and solar.

[jaagu]

@waterfell

According to the 2019 New York Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act, the state is required to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 40% below the 1990 baseline level by the year 2030.

Total CO2 emissions in NY are mainly from the following:

Electric Power 7%
Residential 10%
Commercial 6%
Industrial 2%
Transportation 21%

summaryreportnysghgemissionsreport.pdf

The transportation sector is the biggest emitter of CO2 because it burns lot of fossil fuels (gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, natural gas). NY had plans to reduce these emissions with EVs, Hybrids, and other electrification of transportation. But Trump has eliminated tax breaks for EVs and Hybrids and clawed back monies already allocated by Congress for EV, Hybrids, charging stations, rail, ships, aircraft and mass transit.

[jaagu]

@waterfell

One final point: No, it isn’t Trump’s fault. The trends were going in the wrong direction during the Biden administration.

_ Pete

You have jumped to false conclusions. It does not matter what the trends were before Trump 1 term and Trump 2 term. What matters is the improvement trends were halted by Trump administration. Solar, wind, batteries and electrification that were started in Biden administration were going strong. This can be seen from the investments in 2015 to 2025 for: Clean fuels, Renewables, Nuclear, Electricity, Energy efficiency, Electrification:

WorldEnergyInvestment2025.pdf

[DrBob2]

@jaagu

NY had plans to reduce these emissions with EVs, Hybrids, and other electrification of transportation. But Trump has eliminated tax breaks for EVs and Hybrids…

If New York were serious they could do what China did by limiting the number of license plates issued for ICE vehicles. The state already has an EV credit in place which could be increased. New York could double its tax on gasoline and still be lower than neighboring Pennsylvania (not to mention California, almost a triple).

DB2

[jaagu]

@DrBob2

If New York were serious they could do what China did by limiting the number of license plates issued for ICE vehicles. The state already has an EV credit in place which could be increased. New York could double its tax on gasoline and still be lower than neighboring Pennsylvania (not to mention California, almost a triple).

DB2

Blame Trump’s energy and emissions failures on NY state. Why don’t you admit that NY is not the problem - Trump is the problem. Trump is responsible for the coal burning revival which have caused US green house gases and pollutants to massively increase in 2025 for the first time in 20 years.

[jaagu]

Trump got over $1,000,000,000 from the fossil fuel industry for his election. What Trump was supposed to do for this one billon dollar tainted gift was to destroy the following efforts in this country: Solar, wind, hydrogen, batteries, electrification, energy efficiency, and in all sectors where renewable energy was being used and developed.

Fossil Fuel Industry Donors See Major Returns in Trump’s Policies

Fossil fuel interests donated heavily to President Trump’s 2024 reelection bid. Months after his victory, oil and gas moguls have continued to pump money into his political coffers. Now, as promised by Trump during the campaign, his administration is embracing their policy agenda and governing in a way that is netting the industry billions.

Influence of Big Money

Trump asked oil and gas executives in 2024 to raise $1 billion for his campaign and told them he’d grant their policy wish list if he won. The investment, he said, would be a “deal” given the taxes and regulation they would avoid under his presidency. He also offered to help fast-track fossil fuel industry mergers and acquisitions if he won.

The industry responded by spending lavishly to elect Trump, giving at least $75 million to his campaign and affiliated PACs, thereby making them a top corporate backer of his reelection bid and a crucial source of funding. Several oil tycoons gave millions on their own and hosted fundraisers with Trump and his associates. Some oil and gas executives who hadn’t given Trump money during previous cycles made major donations after attending fundraisers where he pledged to start acting on the industry’s policy priorities as soon as he retook the White House.

That’s just the spending we know about. The 2024 election saw record levels of “dark money” spending, where wealthy interests keep their role secret by funneling money through groups that do not disclose their donors. The fossil fuel industry has a history of deploying dark money tactics, and any such spending in 2024 would inherently be obscured.

Even after Trump’s victory in 2024, oil and gas interests have continued to pour money into his political operation. They gave $11.8 million to his inauguration fund, and even though Trump cannot run for a third term, his main super PAC has raked in millions more from the industry since he took office — including $25 million from oil producer Energy Transfer Partners and its CEO, Kelcy Warren.

Jaak

[DrBob2]

@jaagu

Blame Trump’s energy and emissions failures on NY state.

The plan is not and never was feasible, but don’t ignore problems during the previous administration, such as those with offshore wind (a large component of New York’s plans).

In addition, the Feds were not responsible for the state not issuing regulations for their climate programs (which is why several environmental groups sued the state).

Earthjustice attorney discusses judge’s ruling in N.Y. climate law case

Last week, in response to a lawsuit filed by multiple environmental groups arguing the state is violating its nation-leading climate law, a state Supreme Court judge ruled that the New York state Department of Environmental Conservation has until Feb. 6, 2026, to issue regulations that comply with the 2019 Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA).

According to Gov. Kathy Hochul, the ruling runs counter to her efforts to keep the state affordable.

DB2

[jaagu]

@DrBob2

The plan is not and never was feasible, but don’t ignore problems during the previous administration, such as those with offshore wind (a large component of New York’s plans).

The NY problems with offshore wind was in a big part due to Trump and fossil fuel industry roadblocks. The primary problems for offshore wind were the regulatory complexities and lengthy permitting processes which hinder project timelines and result in economic problems with the delays.

Other issues were as follows:

• Environmental concerns and opposition from local communities create resistance.
• High costs associated with infrastructure and technology limit investment.
• Competition for ocean space with other industries, such as fishing and shipping.
• Insufficient grid capacity and transmission infrastructure to support new projects.
• Lack of a cohesive state strategy or clear policy direction for offshore wind initiatives.

[DrBob2]

@jaagu

The NY problems with offshore wind was in a big part due to Trump and fossil fuel industry roadblocks.

You seem to be blocking the problems encountered with offshore wind over the years. As an example, here is a thread about offshore wind (103 posts) that began in early 2023:

Headwinds continue

What are the issues with Siemens Gamesa’s wind turbines? https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/factbox-what-are-the-issues-with-siemens-gamesa-s-wind-turbines/ar-AA1cXdXd It [Siemens Gamesa] said the problems could affect as many as 15-30% of its turbine fleet… Governments across the world are setting even more ambitious climate targets which require the rapid development of renewables, including wind power, which might be difficult to attain within the prescribed timelines. Many wind po…

DB2

[jaagu]

@DrBob2

You seem to be blocking the problems encountered with offshore wind over the years. As an example, here is a thread about offshore wind (103 posts) that began in early 2023:

What are the issues with Siemens Gamesa’s wind turbines? MSN It [Siemens Gamesa] said the problems could affect as many as 15-30% of its turbine fleet… Governments across the world are setting even more ambitious climate targets which require the rapid development of renewables, including wind power, which might be difficult to attain within the prescribed timelines. Many wind po…

DB2

Your MSN link gives this message: “This story is unavailable”
I guess this story was fake news and was deleted. So you need a new story!

[jaagu]

@DrBob2

Siemens Energy had a third of its market value wiped out on Friday after warning that the impact of quality problems at its Siemens Gamesa wind turbine business could cost more than 1 billion euros ($1.09 billion) and take years to fix.

LOL! Your story is almost 3 years ago. Siemens fixed their wind turbine problems. Currently Siemens stock is doing very well. https://www.reuters.com/markets/companies/ENR1n.DE/

[DrBob2]

@jaagu

Your story is almost 3 years ago.

That was the point, silly. As I noted above, offshore wind problems predate January 2025.

DB2

[bjurasz]

@waterfell

As of the latest progress report issued last December, as of 2023, the state is 14.8% below the 1990 baseline. Since the peak in 2005, they have reduced emissions about 115 MMt CO2eq in 18 years.

That feels like a win to me.

[jaagu]

@DrBob2

That was the point, silly. As I noted above, offshore wind problems predate January 2025.

Not much of PROBLEM as it was fixed in 2024.
How come you don’t ding French nuclear reactors that were shutdown over a period of years?
Corrosion Problem Shutters Half of France’s Nuclear Reactors

How come you don’t ding Vogtle 3&4 nuclear units which were 3X over budget and 2X over schedule?

How come you don’t ding Trump for ordering old inefficient coal fired power plants against the wishes of utilities that are forced to waste money on these orders?

[DrBob2]

@jaagu

How come you don’t ding French nuclear reactors that were shutdown over a period of years?

IIRC, New York did shut down one of its nuclear power plants and is thinking of building a new one. Probably necessary to get anywhere near their goals.

The reason we are discussing offshore wind is that New York’s problems with their climate goals predated January 2025.

In addition, the administration(s) in Washington DC had nothing to do with the state’s failure to issue regulations to reach their climate goals (which is why the environmental groups took New York to the courts). Would you care to address that complete failure by the state?

DB2

[jaagu]

@DrBob2

IIRC, New York did shut down one of its nuclear power plants and is thinking of building a new one. Probably necessary to get anywhere near their goals.

Where did to find the silly statement that NY can build a nuclear plant in 4 years to meet their 2030 goals?

[DrBob2]

@jaagu

Where did to find the silly statement that NY can build a nuclear plant in 4 years to meet their 2030 goals?

I didn’t, and they can’t meet their goals (a point I’ve made a number of times). Last month in a thread titled “It has flat failed” I wrote about the governor’s current approach:

Those pesky enforcement regulations would be postposed from 2024 to 2030. This would essentially nullify any legal requirement for the state to reach its 2030 emission reduction milestones.

Near-term targets are shifted from 2030 to 2040 [or 2050] which puts them over the political horizon.

And in a nice technical adjustment, she wants the impact of methane emissions to be calculated over 100 years rather than 25 years. This increases the progress the state has made.

Client Challenge

DB2

[DrBob2]

Hochul proposes weakening New York’s climate law
https://www.politico.com/news/2026/03/20/hochul-new-york-climate-law-proposal-00837394
Gov. Kathy Hochul is backing measures that would weaken the strict deadlines for implementing New York’s landmark climate law and make the targets easier to meet…

“The undeniable fact is we cannot meet the Climate Act’s 2030 targets without imposing new and additional crushing costs on New York businesses and residents,” Hochul wrote in an opinion piece outlining her proposal in the Empire Report.

DB2