Can Anyone Save New York From Its Coming Self-Inflicted Climate and Energy Disaster?

New York State has officially ordained the destruction of its electricity system and its economy with a mad dash to energy utopia, as prescribed by a 2019 statute called the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (Climate Act). The Climate Act mandates a completely unachievable 70% of electricity generation from “renewables” by 2030, with even more draconian mandates following in quick succession thereafter. New York City has piled on with its own fantasy energy statute called Local Law 97, mandating, among other things, forced conversion to electric heat by 2030 of most residential buildings over 25,000 square feet. A so-called “Scoping Plan” on how to do all this, issued by the State in 2022, contains no bona fide feasibility analysis, and equally no bona fide cost analysis. Everybody with over a sixth-grade education who has taken any time to look at this knows that it can’t possibly work. The only question is how much destruction will befall us before the whole thing crashes to the ground.

Can anyone save New York from the coming self-inflicted climate and energy disaster?

In the category of people making futile efforts to try to save New York from its own folly, or at least from some portion of it, we have none other than yours truly, the Manhattan Contrarian. As reported here back on February 23, I had just filed, along with co-counsel Cameron Macdonald, an amicus curiae brief at the New York Court of Appeals in support of the plaintiffs in a case called Glen Oaks Village Owners, Inc. v. City of New York. In this case, owners of a large group of co-op buildings in Queens had sued seeking to have the City’s Local Law 97 declared invalid as pre-empted by the State’s Climate Act. Note that victory by these plaintiffs would not have ended the folly of the State’s Climate Act and its associated destruction of our electricity system; but their victory would have eliminated the mandate to convert to electric heat without sufficient electricity, and therefore would at least have made it possible for residents of large buildings to avoid freezing in the winter when they have converted to electric heat and there is no electricity.

In the Glen Oaks case, the trial court had dismissed the plaintiffs’ complaint, finding that it had no basis in law. But an interim appellate court, known as the Appellate Division, had reversed, and said the the plaintiffs should have a chance to prove their case. New York City appealed that ruling to the state’s highest court, the Court of Appeals, asking to have the trial court’s dismissal re-instated.

In my February 23 post, I noted that the plaintiffs were giving the Court of Appeals the chance to save the New Yorkers from their own folly — an opportunity which the Court might or might not take:

The Court of Appeals has a chance here to save New York City and its residents from their own folly. It may or may not take advantage of the opportunity. If it takes a pass, and reinstates the dismissal of the case, Local Law 97 will still fail within a few years at most. It’s just that, in that scenario, a lot of people stand to get hurt.

Perhaps to no one’s surprise, the Court of Appeals took a pass, and re-instated the dismissal. Here is the decision (from May 22). It’s mostly mumbo jumbo about legal standards for deciding if one statute has pre-empted another. But the bottom line is clear: the Court of Appeals is not going to be the one to save New York from its coming climate and energy disaster.

As another candidate for the role of New York’s savior from climate and energy disaster, how about President Trump? Immediately upon entering office back in January, Trump went to work knocking the supports out from under the green energy subsidies and favoritism that form the underpinnings of New York’s Climate Act plans. The biggest item in the Climate Act’s strategy for transitioning New York’s electricity system to renewables is plan for some 9000 MW of offshore wind developments in the Atlantic Ocean off Long Island. But by this January 20 Executive Order, Trump withdrew all of the Outer Continental Shelf for leasing for potential off-shore wind energy projects. A separate January 20 Executive Order then directed a halt to all disbursements of green energy subsidies under Biden-era statutes.

So did these moves completely flummox New York’s plans for electricity from “renewables”? In the succeeding months, New York’s governments have soldiered on as if nothing is amiss. And then last week came news that Trump has somewhat changed direction. The new direction can be summarized as letting New York proceed with at least part of its wind energy fantasies as long as it backs off on suppressing at least some fossil fuel projects.

Here is a New York Times article from May 29, headline “N.Y. Natural Gas Pipelines Get a Second Chance Under Trump.” The gist is that the Trump administration and Governor Hochul have entered into discussion about a deal whereby two natural gas pipelines long blocked by New York would be allowed to move forward, and in return the feds would allow one of the off-shore wind projects to proceed. Excerpt:

A pipeline company is reviving plans to build two natural gas pipelines into New York State, a major reversal that amounts to a bet that the Trump administration will be able to strong-arm states into signing off on energy projects. New York had blocked both pipelines, called Constitution and Northeast Supply Enhancement, over environmental concerns. But the Trump administration has made clear that it wants more oil and gas infrastructure, including in the Northeast, where pipelines had become so hard to build that companies had all but given up on them.

According to the Times, this is all so far in the discussion stage, with no final commitments on either side. Even if finalized, the proposed deal would be far from an end to New York’s energy follies. Like the Glen Oaks lawsuit, if successful the Trump administration gambit would have the effect of keeping natural gas available as a back-up for when the electricity system transition inevitably fails.

I’m thankful for every bit of help we can get. But ultimately, our salvation will have to come from New York’s own voters. The question is, rather than getting saved by outside forces, would this benighted State and City actually be better off to go through an energy disaster and, perhaps, have its voters learn a little something from the experience?