New York Isn’t California: But Same Path, Same Results?
“If California’s wildfires are attributed to climate change, aggressive steps are needed. While forests differ from New York to California, both states are racing to 100% clean energy, but likely making similar mistakes. ”
Wildfires have ravaged the California landscape, which are blamed on climate change by the state’s governor, Gavin Newsom. While a popular rallying cry for environmentalists, the lack of wildfires elsewhere in North America, or anywhere in the world, in fact, raises an interesting question. Does climate change have the power to target individual states like California and Washington, yet skip all the other forests in the nation and North America? Or is there another reason? We were fascinated that more than a dozen people have been arrested and charged with setting wildfires on the West Coast. One arsonist was arrested for using a Molotov cocktail to set a wildfire in Oregon. He was arrested, charged and released on bail. He was later arrested for setting an additional six fires. One arsonist even livestreamed his setting a fire, then claimed he was in the process of notifying authorities when he was arrested. Absent such arsonists, there might not be as much forest land burning, but there are certainly instances when lightning and power lines have sparked fires.
Exhibit 1. Forests Dominate the Eastern U.S. SOURCE: Wikipedia
A map of the United States shows in green those areas where forests are dense. While dense forests extend along much of the West Coast, there are other areas of the West with meaningful clusters of forests, as seen on the map. However, almost the entire East Coast, nearly a third of the nation landmass, is heavily populated with forests. California is only the 41st ranked state (among all U.S. states and territories) with forest coverage of 32.7% of its land mass, compared with #1 Maine with an 89.5% coverage ratio.
If we consider the entire West Coast (California, Oregon and Washington), forests cover 84.8 million of the 203.7 million acres of land mass, or a 41.7% coverage ratio. If we compare all of the New England states, – Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Connecticut – collectively, they have an 80% coverage ratio, with 32.2 million acres of forests out of the region’s 40.1 million acres of land mass. If we listen to those living in and governing the New England states, climate change is ravaging the region and needs to be addressed just as people on the West Coast are demanding. Yet, none of the New England states has experienced a significant wildfire, even though drought conditions exist. The explanation is that it is due to greater moisture in the East and different vegetation.
An examination of forest fire data produces an interesting perspective. In 2019, according to the National Interagency Fire Center, California experienced over 8,000 fires, while Texas had nearly 6,900. However, California was only fourth in the number of acres burned, while Texas was fifth. Alaska led all states that year with nearly 2.5 million acres burned, but it failed to make the top ten states for the number of fires. California’s fires burned only one-tenth of the acres as Alaska, while Texas burned about 8.5%.
Exhibit 2. U.S. State Wildfire Record Of 2019 SOURCE: Insurance Information Institute
When we examine the record of acres burned in wildfires nationally from 1980 to 2019, we see a marked increase in annual totals starting around 2000. According to the Forest History Society, up until around 1970, federal land managers remained obsessed with controlling large fires. During the 1960s, scientific research increasingly demonstrated the positive role fire played in forest ecology. In the early 1970s, Forest Service policy began allowing natural-caused fires to burn in designated wilderness areas. This “let it burn” policy suffered a setback due to the 1988 Yellowstone fires. Since 1990, fire suppression efforts required taking into account suburban sprawl and development of communities within high-risk forest areas. These efforts were challenged by the fire-fighting budget growing until it consumed roughly half the Forest Service’s entire budget, reducing the agency’s funds available for land management activities, such as land restoration and forest thinning. These issues are much more important contributors to the outbreak of wildfires, and certainly to the escalation of the cost of wildfires, than climate change. Fire management philosophy has contributed to fires by leveraging the build-ups of burning material due to the historical fire suppression policy that characterized the Forest Service mandate since its creation in 1905.
Exhibit 3. Annual Wildfire Acreage Burned Record SOURCE: Insurance Information Institute
Data on the number of wildfires and acres burned from a much longer time horizon show a quite different picture than the 1980-2019 span. For most of 1926-1956, the number of fires nationally were twice the rate they are averaging now. The number jumped back up to that high rate in the latter years of the 1970s.
Exhibit 4. Past Fire Counts Twice Current Rate SOURCE: Paul Homewood
When one looks at the number of acres burned, it is an interesting picture. Since about 2000, there has been a noticeable increase in the acres burned compared to the 1960-2000 period (Exhibit 5, next page). This reflected the cooling and wetter climate experienced during those earlier years. In the late 1920s and 1930s, the dry climate that created the infamous Dust Bowl in the middle of the country and led to substantial destruction of our agricultural industry also allowed increased forest fires. That period was also when a large amount of fertile topsoil blew away with the wind and dry conditions, forcing many farm families to migrate, as told in John Steinbeck’s Pulitzer Prize-winning novel, The Grapes of Wrath.
Exhibit 5. Pre-1960 Acreage Burned Much Higher SOURCE: Paul Homewood
Some people would argue that the preservation of forests in California was of such importance that it warranted the change in forest management policies. However, the history of California, as well as other regions of the country, shows that Native Americans used fire to drive animals out of the woods enabling them to be hunted for food. In addition, Native Americans understood that opening up the forests by burning the build-up in underbrush contributed to the forests remaining healthy.
A reality about wildfires that cannot be ignored, but which highlights why better forest management policies and restricted development in forests is required, is the moisture issue in America. The existence of the Rocky Mountains restricts moisture flowing from the Gulf Coast ever reaching the West Coast. The jet stream and prevailing wind patterns take Gulf moisture up through the central portion of the nation and over the Eastern one-third of the nation.
Exhibit 6. How Moisture Flows Throughout The U.S. SOURCE: Earth Science
Nothing is going to change this reality, which is why people like climate economist Bjorn Lomborg argue that adaptation is our best defense against climate change.
Exhibit 7. East Vs. West Difference In Forest Makeup SOURCE: U.S. Forest Service
Nature further helps the East Coast forests as they are populated with hard wood trees versus the West Coast’s soft woods. The latter are more susceptible to drying out from a lack of moisture and hotter temperatures. Data from a 2000 U.S. Forest Service report showing the trends in hard and soft woods by region of the country highlights the forest composition difference between the East and West Coasts. The South shows a much more mixed forest composition.
While New York and California differ in the amount of forest coverage and the composition of their forests, the two states are driving down a similar path to carbon-free economies. In 2018, California’s then governor, Jerry Brown, signed legislation mandating the state achieve 100% clean energy by 2045. In light of the current wildfires, California Governor Gavin Newsom said, “I think 2045 is too late.” He said that his Administration is “currently in the process of putting together new ideas, new strategies to accelerate our efforts, accelerate the application and implementation of commitments we’ve previously made, and to look at these stretch goals 2045 and see if we can pull them closer into the future.” Banning the sale of gasoline-powered cars by 2035, which Gov. Newsom has just done by executive order, is another step on the road to a carbon-free economy. This follows a mandate beginning this year that all new homes install solar panels. In addition, a number of California cities are banning new natural gas hookups, further boosting the clean energy agenda.
New York State is more ambitious, as its Clean Energy Standard was revised in 2019 requiring the state to reach 100% clean energy by 2040. A new 22-member New York State Climate Action Council was established and given three years to develop a “scoping plan” that would include mandates, regulations, incentives and other measures. Expectations are that building codes would be revised to improve housing energy efficiency, while also laying out a path for utilities to get 70% of their electricity from renewable sources by 2030 with the balance over the remaining decade. Mass transit expansions and increased energy efficiency guidelines are anticipated. A New York Times article commenting on the revised goal stated that 26.4% of the state’s 2018 electricity came from renewables, based on data from the New York Independent System Operator (ISO), the nonprofit that runs the state’s power grid.
Exhibit 8. New York State Electricity By Fuel SOURCE: New York ISO
What the data actually shows is that New York got 21% of its 2018 renewable electricity from hydropower, with only 5% coming from wind and solar. By only citing the total renewables’ percentage without giving more detail, the newspaper article leaves readers with the perception that traditional renewables – wind and solar – are responsible for a sizeable amount of New York’s electricity.
The most notable point about New York’s electricity supply, which few people are likely to have known, is that the share of electricity from hydropower was the third largest component behind nuclear and natural gas, each of which provided a 32% share. In fact, in 2018, New York produced the most hydropower of any state east of the Rocky Mountains, and is the third largest hydropower producing state nationally.
We were not surprised that natural gas plays a large role in New York’s electricity. New York, along with New Jersey, is the gateway to New England, through which virtually all the natural gas supply flows. That is a critical juncture as electricity in New England depends heavily on natural gas, a dependency that impacts the region’s carbon emissions battle when winter arrives. New pipelines, and expansions of existing ones, have been fought successfully by the governors of New York and New Jersey. This has led New England residents paying higher power prices than otherwise would have been the case.
The inability to expand gas supply capacity means that winter electricity demands must be met from other fuels. During the winter months, electricity demand peaks at night when the coldest temperatures are recorded. Renewables are not a viable electricity supplier at those times as the sun isn’t shining and wind is usually absent. While electricity demand normally falls at night, in New England, electric heat is important. According to U.S. Census Bureau data for 2018, 13% of New England homes heat with electricity. A Massachusetts analysis suggests that homeowners heating with electricity pay four times the cost of heating with natural gas. This highlights why consumers are highly sensitive to electricity prices. To offset the loss of renewables electricity during the winter and especially at night, utilities must fire up standby coal- and oil-fired power plants to supplement the rest of the suite of dispatchable power sources.
When one examines the 2019 ISO New England (the region’s non-profit manager of the region’s grid) electricity generation by fuel source data, it becomes clear just how dependent the region is on natural gas, as well as nuclear power. The latter is in the process of being shuttered, which will reduce the amount of dispatchable clean energy available during winter months, importantly at a time when people are concerned about carbon emissions.
Exhibit 9. How New England Gets Its Electricity SOURCE: ISO New England, PPHB
New England also depends heavily on imported power from Canada, which is primarily from hydropower. As mentioned earlier, New England consumes coal and oil, especially during winter months when natural gas is diverted from power generation to home heating use, but sometimes even in peak demand periods during the summer.
Exhibit 10. California’s Electricity By Fuel History SOURCE: California Energy Commission, PPHB
California, like both New York and New England, is significantly dependent on natural gas for its electricity generation. In fact, based on 2018 power data from the California Energy Commission, natural gas generated power provided 46.5% of the electricity generated in the state, and 32% of the total power used, an amount equal to what is imported by the state. While California is planning to shut down its nuclear power plants, they only accounted for 9.4% of in-state generated power. While both California and New York are shutting down their nuclear power plants, the major difference in the fate of the states is that New York depends on nuclear for 32% of its power, while California’s dependence is slightly under 10%. In other words, New York faces a greater challenge than California in replacing the loss of its nuclear power.
We know that the last time New England shut down nuclear power plants, it resulted in a sharp increase in natural gas use, as well as an increase in carbon emissions. As shown in the accompanying chart, wind and solar added very little in new power to offset the loss of the nuclear plants. The lost power was totally offset by increased natural gas-generated power. Analysts expect the same phenomenon to occur when California shuts its nuclear plants in 2025.
Exhibit 11. When Nuclear Shuts, Gas Rescues Source: energywatch-inc.com
New York, however, anticipates offsetting the shutdown of its Indian Point Units 2 & 3, in April 2020 and April 2021, with a huge new offshore wind farm. Empire Wind, owned by Norwegian energy company Equinor, and now joined by partner BP plc, is building an 816-megawatt (MW), 60-80 wind turbine farm located 15-30 miles southeast of Long Island. The lease spans 80,000 acres with water depths ranging between 65 and 131 feet. It will require both fixed-bottom and floating wind turbines. Equinor believes the site can provide as much as 2,000 MW of electricity. The 816 MW wind farm with its 60-80 turbines will require $3 billion of investment according to Equinor, and it is targeted to start up in December 2024.
Exhibit 12. Empire Wind Lease Location For N.Y. Source: Equinor
For New York, the Indian Point units accounted for 36% of the nuclear power produced in the state in 2019. Multiple reports examining the decision of New York Governor Andrew Cuomo to shutter Indian Point ahead of its projected retirement date and replace it with renewable power have pointed to logistical challenges. The bill Governor Cuomo signed into law mandating the 2045 clean energy target envisions 9,000 MW of offshore wind capacity by 2035, 6,000 MW of solar capacity by 2025, and 3,000 MW of energy storage capacity by 2030. Given that neither wind nor solar power produces substantial output, the total amount of power these sources will supply will be a fraction of the generating capacity that needs to be built. The impact of the intermittency on power supplied, along with the land-use issue of renewables, is addressed in the accompanying chart.
Exhibit 13. Renewables Need Much More Land Source: energywatch-inc.com
Energy writer Robert Bryce estimates that replacing the power from Indian Point with wind will require 1,300 times the amount of land the nuclear plant sits on. The standard rebuttal is that wind turbines are getting larger and improving their efficiency, thus fewer turbines will be needed in future wind farms to generate the desired output, therefore, less land area will be covered in turbines. Once again, we are told about future trends, but history often shows those forecasts are not realized, or on the timetable predicted.
Ken Girardin, a policy analyst at the Empire Center for Public Policy, calculates the offshore wind buildout will cost more than $48 billion upfront and $1 billion in annual operating cost. He also sees at least 56 square miles of solar panels needed to reach the solar generation goal.
On the other hand, Professor Mark Jacobson of Stanford University, famous for predicting how the entire U.S. energy needs could be met with renewables, led a 2013 study outlining how New York could transition to 100% renewable energy by 2030. The study envisioned 4,020 onshore wind turbines spread across 1.5% of the state’s land area — 818 square miles. And solar farms would cover 463 square miles, substantially more than Mr. Girardin estimates. However, today, Professor Jacobson estimates that about a third less land would be needed due to improved technology. He did acknowledge that the cost and challenges of overcoming local opposition to renewable power projects will be significant. This is all before we even begin to consider the opposition to the miles of new transmission lines that would be needed to tie in to the grid these new wind and solar power projects.
“It’s definitely going to cost ratepayers a lot more for reliable electricity,” said Gavin Donohue, president of the Independent Power Producers of New York, whose members produce three-quarters of the state’s electricity. In his view, the state will continue to need the new efficient and low-emission natural gas plants that have been built in the last 10 years. “To say we’re not going to have any fossil fuel by 2050 is preposterous,” he said. “Are we not going to have airplanes or gas-fueled cars? Is everyone going to have to retrofit their houses?” These are important questions to which those making energy policy today often forget to answer.
Exhibit 14. NY Faces Huge Clean Energy Gap Source: Financial Times
To understand the challenge New York faces in reaching its clean energy goal without nuclear power is highlighted in a chart of 2019 electricity production by month from renewable power and renewables with nuclear power. Superimposed on the chart are lines showing how these amounts compare with the 2030 renewable energy use goal and the 2040 zero-carbon energy production. Renewables alone fall way short of these targets, with barely a decade to the first target.
Shuttering nuclear power may be a dumb move, but one that has been a long-standing goal of Governor Cuomo since his election in 2010. He believes that the Indian Point plants are a risk to the populous Westchester County (his home) and New York City. He has accomplished his goal, but must now manage replacing that power with intermittent renewables at a significant cost. Maybe the cost and availability issues are beginning to be recognized by the public. An article early this year in the Financial Times contained a map showing, by county, how New York adults’ views in 2019 compared against national averages with regards to the actions of the governor on climate change.
Westchester County has the highest rating, calling for more action, followed by the Albany and Ithaca regions, centers of highly progressive clean energy philosophies. Much of the state is calling for less action, with the highest opposition ratio in the western part of the state where oil and gas activity predominate. We would also point to the northern counties of Pennsylvania, where the shale revolution is very important, in opposing increased climate action.
Exhibit 15. How New Yorkers View Climate Action SOURCE: Financial Times
To place the New York and California moves to upend their power generation profiles in pursuit of 100% clean energy futures into perspective, two charts (next page) from the Energy Information Administration (EIA) help. The first shows the history of U.S. electricity generation by major fuel source from 1950-2019, while the other shows the history of the renewable power segment.
Exhibit 16. How U.S. Electricity Is Generated By Fuel SOURCE: EIA
Exhibit 17. U.S. Renewable Electricity By Fuel Source SOURCE: EIA
In 2019, coal represented 23.5% of the nation’s electricity generation, while natural gas was 38.4%, nuclear at 19.7% and renewables at 17.5%. Coal’s share has been, and remains, in decline, just as the shares from natural gas and renewables have increased. Nuclear power’s share has remained flat for the past decade, but with the wave of plant retirements underway that share will shrink. That will be unfortunate as the data (next page) from 2019 shows nine of the ten most productive power plants in the nation were nuclear.
Exhibit 18. Nuclear Plants Are Most Productive SOURCE EIA
When we examine the composition of the renewable energy segment, we see interesting trends. With the rapid build out of wind and solar power, the shares represented by hydropower, biomass and geothermal are shrinking. Again, not a surprise, but a harbinger of the future. The growth of wind and solar output will put increasing pressure on utilities, and power regulators, to improve their management of the grid. The recent California rolling power blackouts due to the heat wave highlighted how huge that challenge is, and that it will likely continue growing. I’m sure New York is hoping that all it needs to do is lay a power cable underwater from Empire Wind to the coast and plug it into the grid. That would eliminate the eyesore debate, but doesn’t mean the grid management issues would be resolved.
California has always been a leader, whether it was social trends, music, dress or blondes. The green movement points to the state as the model of a clean energy future – at least from the policy perspective. The blackouts have even forced clean energy proponents to acknowledge that California doesn’t have a 21st century power grid – a “smart” grid – that can effectively manage itself. Energy experts are already pointing out that the state will have a problem by mandating the elimination of gasoline-powered vehicles. They will have to figure out how to power all those electric vehicles (EV) when they plug in at the same time and want a fast charge.
Several small experiments have been conducted seeking to understand people’ use of EVs and their charging patterns. Not surprisingly, it seems everyone plugs in at dinner time. The experiments highlighted the need for substantial upgrades to neighborhood electricity distribution networks to handle multiple homes possessing EVs. Failure to do this will lead to local blackouts and the potential for fires from overloaded transformers. Correcting these risks will inflate the cost of electrifying the nation.
While California is the leader in the clean energy race, New York is chasing it with hopes of passing it. Politicians are directing the races, but the public will be footing the bills that will come due long after the politicians are out of office. Fortunately, New York doesn’t have the wildfire risk of California, but it seems to be making the same energy policy mistakes. As a result, both states may show the rest of the nation that getting out over the tips of one’s skis when aggressively revamping electricity systems to meet clean energy agendas may lead to serious consequences – not all of which are easily foreseen.