FROM: Ostroff Associates

DATE: November 30, 2021

RE: Climate Action Council Meeting

Co-Chairs

• Doreen Harris, President and CEO, New York State Energy Research and
Development Authority
• Basil Seggos, Commissioner, New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation

State Agencies & Authorities

• Richard Ball, Commissioner, New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets
• Marie Therese Dominguez, Commissioner, New York State Department of
Transportation
• Thomas Falcone, CEO, Long Island Power Authority
• Kevin Hansen, Designee, Empire State Development
• Justin Driscoll, Interim President and Chief Executive Officer, New York Power
Authority
• Roberta Reardon, Commissioner, New York State Department of Labor
• Rory Christian, Chair, New York State Public Service Commission
• Rossana Rosado, Secretary of State, New York State Department of State
• RuthAnne Visnauskas, Commissioner and CEO, New York State Homes and
Community Renewal
• Henry Spliethoff, Designee, New York State Department of Health

Council Appointees

• Donna L. DeCarolis, President, National Fuel Gas Distribution Corporation

• Gavin Donohue, President and CEO, Independent Power Producers of New York
• Dennis Elsenbeck, Head of Energy and Sustainability, Phillips Lytle LLP
• Rose Harvey, Senior Fellow for Parks and Open Space, Regional Plan Association
• Bob Howarth, Professor, Ecology and Environmental Biology at Cornell
• Peter Iwanowicz, Executive Director, Environmental Advocates NY
• Jim Malatras, Chancellor of the State University of New York
• Anne Reynolds, Executive Director, Alliance for Clean Energy New York

1
• Raya Salter, Lead Policy Organizer, NY Renews
• Paul Shepson, Dean, School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences at Stony Brook
University

2
3
4
5
Please note that the first presentation on the Jobs Study was the same presentation
provided to the Just Transition Working Group on November 9th, 2021.

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Bob Howarth – It is really positive to see the significant job growth from now until 2030.
Why does the growth slow after 2030? Additionally, based on recent traveling experiences,
the state needs to do a lot more to build fast charging infrastructure, especially after seeing

20
that much of the future job displacement may come from gas station workers. If there is a
strong build-out of fast chargers across the state, then individuals may still have the
tendencies that they do today with traditional retail gas stations. Before the vote next
month, it would be helpful to see the sensitivity modeling on air-source heat pumps vs.
ground-source heat pumps.
• Carl Mas – The growth is based on the information that was provided to the E3 team
to run the modeling. Factors that dictated the large growth up until 2030 include
solar and offshore wind goals. For example, the 9GW offshore wind goal creates a
large number of jobs in this area to reach the goal by 2030. Also, the modeling
shows that the state is moving at a scale which is faster than what was predicted five
years ago. In the next decade there will be a lot of investment to install heat pumps,
retrofit buildings, and electrify the grid. This large investment will front-load job
creation.

Dennis Elsenbeck – What portion of the jobs are manufacturing jobs? Is there a higher
priority set on attracting these jobs? Also, are the goals aligned to create jobs in
disadvantaged communities instead of investing in other mechanisms to draw workers
outside of disadvantaged communities? Additionally, the state needs to look at how job
creation can help New York become the global leader in clean energy manufacturing. There
should be an increased emphasis on coordination with Empire State Development and the
Regional Economic Development Councils to make New York a global hub in clean energy
manufacturing. Lastly, the growth in the distribution system is misleading, seeing that
much of that growth needed to happen anyways to address an aging grid.
• Mas – There were over 200 slides presented to the Just Transition Working Group
that will be shared to the group so that members can see the modeling of the
manufacturing subsector. The Jobs Study is also intended to look inward at how
New York will support its own internal climate goals. The state will be in a position
to support other state’s needs, but that is outside of the scope of this study and that
will also depend on how fast other states decide to transition. Based on what the
state will have to do to support much of its own transition, New York will be in a
very strong position to pivot and export its clean energy resources as demand from
other states increases.

Gavin Donohue – Why did the modeling show a decrease in nuclear jobs?
• Mas – This is because the baseline year for the study was 2019 and jobs lost in the
nuclear sector are only reflective of the Indian Point closure.

Donohue – What does investment mean in terms of real dollar amount, and where is the
money coming from?
• Mas – The E3 team looked at the goals and calculated how much investment, such as
the number of solar panels or home retrofits, will need to be built by a certain date.
Then that number was multiplied by a price index which estimated how much
would be spent to fund those projects. Lastly, there was a calculation which
estimated how many jobs will be created in-state vs. out-of-state to reach those

21
 goals. As was previously said in other meetings, who will pay for these investments
will have to be decided in future policy decisions like rate cases.

Raya Salter – Is there a way to view this study through a gender lens? For example, women
and girls are much more impacted by climate change. Therefore, it is important to see that
the jobs that will be created in a transition to a clean energy economy does not
disproportionately leave them behind. Will this be represented in the final plan?
• Mas – The Clean Energy Industry Report contains a lot of information on gender
representation. This report looks backwards to see what the trends have been and
the Jobs Study looks forward. However, the Jobs Study is using an employer survey
and this may create issues when describing broad gender classifications. This is
especially true when trying to get accurate data around gender expression in a
broad classification of an existing workforce.

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
Howarth – The most problematic issue with the Gas System Chapter is that it appeared not
to include many of the recommendations from the Housing and Energy Efficiency Panels.

43
There is a strong consensus that the state needs to move to electrify heating systems
quickly with a reduction in natural gas by more than 50% in the next 12-15 years. The
current gas distribution system is aging and would need to be substantially rebuilt over the
coming decades in order to make it reliable and useful. This would have to happen while
making investments in the transmission system. Recent studies show that if the state was
able to capture and store all of the renewable natural gas from manure and sewage, it
would only equate to 2.5-3% of the current level of natural gas that the distribution system
uses. Why should the state continue to make massive upgrades to preserve a system that
would only be able to use a fraction of the natural gas that it currently uses? Additionally,
the gas industry is trying to claim that it can save the system by blending hydrogen, but it
has never been done successfully. No one knows if 10-30% could actually be implemented
on a broad and practicable scale. Hydrogen is not an excuse for upgrades to the current
distribution system. Lastly, it is frustrating to see dual fuel systems be mentioned. Why
should the gas system be carried along only for 2-3 of the coldest weeks of the year?
Advancements in ground-source heat pump technology will address the current issues
with extreme cold weather.

Donohue – Some of this information is good, but there is a lot of detail that is lacking for the
public to make informed decisions when this goes up for public comment next year. In
response to previous comments on green hydrogen, there are more entities than the gas
industry advocating for green hydrogen. The state is currently running a pilot program
through New York Power Authority (NYPA). Additionally, as was mentioned in previous
CAC meetings, the state needs dispatchable energy sources, and hydrogen is a way to
obtain that.

Peter Iwanowicz – The previous comments on hydrogen and renewable natural gas from
Bob Howarth were spot on. There are many issues with using both of these to prop up the
continuation of the gas system.

Donna DeCarolis – It is not pragmatic to jeopardize reliability and resiliency of the gas
system without fully understanding the impacts on consumers. It is very irresponsible to
jump towards decommissioning this infrstructure without understanding what will happen
in extreme weather events and how consumers will be impacted. 60 percent of the state
relies on an underground system to get reliable heat in cold weather and the average
consumer is very disconnected from a lot of what is being proposed today.

Anne Reynolds – The statistics about the use of renewable natural gas is compelling if only
3% could be used. Another study mentioned this number to be upwards of 10-15%. Either
way, it is clear that the gas system will not be needed at its current scale. This should be
clearly stated and emphasized in the draft scoping plan. Additionally, it will be a large
undertaking for the state to transition off the gas system and no one is saying that this will
happen overnight. However, it is also clear that there may be better ways to use future
renewable natural gas rather than in the distribution system. Lastly, Gavin’s comments
about cost were incorrect. The integration analysis did societal cost-benefit analysis which
showed that the state stands to benefit from these changes. It is impossible to know the

44
exact costs of each policy decision at this high-level plan. Who will pay and how much will
be made during rate cases.

Sarah Osgood – Staff did not intend for the impression to be that the entire gas system
would be maintained and that blending would replace natural gas completely. If there is
room for improvement, members should submit comments.

Tom Falcone – On the October 1st and October 14th meetings, it was clearly stated that even
if New York reaches its 70% renewable energy by 2030 goal, the state will still need 20GW
of zero carbon dispatchable resources to meet its energy supply demand. Technology like
green hydrogen produced from excess renewable energy production would be able to meet
this need. This is the best technology that is known as of now. It is impossible to know if
doing this will be the best technology 20 years from now. There may be advancements in
battery storage technology. However, the CAC does not have to decide this right now. The
CAC needs to decide what is the best know technology to date to reach these goals.

Note that Tom Falcone and Peter Iwanowicz wrote the following conversation in the chat
box during the meeting:

Iwanowicz: The question on green hydrogen today is whether the law allows it? If it is
combusted, then the law does not allow it.

Falcone: Green hydrogen through a fuel cell is not combusted.

Iwanowicz: Capturing methane from landfills, waste water treatment plants and farms
makes sense as a hydrogen source for fuel cells. As for excess renewables, storage in
vehicle batteries seems more efficient as a storage option.

Falcone: The presentation from last month shows that the state needs about 20GW of 4-8
hours of storage, but that is not sufficient to make the electric grid. The state also needs
another 20GW of zero carbon dispatchable resource that can meet the needs over 3-5 days.
Storage in vehicle batteries which are 4-8-hour lithium batteries, is unlikely to meet that
for the same reasons because there is no excess generation to recharge those vehicles
during those multi-day periods. But, in the future, if vehicle charging works, that is great.
The technology does not exist today and there will not be enough information by the end of
2022 to reach a conclusion on this. It will have to be resolved in future scoping plans as the
technology evolves.

45
Please note that the Climate Action Council ran out of time to continue their discussion at
this meeting. After a brief discussion, they decided to continue their discussion in the
coming days at a new meeting. Members want to continue the discussion on the gas system,
transportation and the climate justice chapters. A meeting link will be posted in the coming
days and notes on the meeting will be available from your lobbyist.

46