NEW YORK'S AGGRESSIVE PUSH FOR CLEAN ENERGY TO MEET THE STATE'S RENEWABLE ENERGY STANDARD, IN LESS THAN A DECADE WE'LL NEED TO GET 70% OF OUR ELECTRICITY FROM RENEWABLES.

IS THAT TOO MUCH, TOO FAST, OR AN ESSENTIAL STEP TO CONFRONT THE CLIMATE CRISIS?

WE'LL TAKE UP THOSE QUESTIONS NEXT, ON CONNECT NEW YORK.

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ WELCOME TO CONNECT NEW YORK.

I'M DAVID CHANATRY, FROM UTICA COLLEGE.

THE MOST RECENT UNITED NATIONS REPORT ON CLIMATE SAID NEARED TO AVOID THE WORST IMPACTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE, WORLDWIDE NET CARBON EMISSIONS MUST BE CUT NEARLY IN HALF BY 2030, JUST NINE YEARS FROM NOW.

THAT'S A TALL ORDER, TO PUT IT MILDLY.

NEW YORK STATE HAS PLEDGED TO DO ITS PART BY REDUCING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS BY 40%, AND TO DO THAT WITH A HUGE INCREASE IN RENEWABLE ENERGY.

CAN WE BUILD OUT A RENEWABLE SECTOR THAT QUICKLY?

HOW CAN WE REACH OUR GOAL WITHOUT DISRUPTING THE ECONOMY?

AND WHAT OTHER POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS-IN ENERGY, TECHNOLOGY, CONSERVATION-- CAN HELP ADDRESS THE CHALLENGE OF OUR TIME.

WE'LL TAKE UP THOSE QUESTIONS AND MORE WITH OUR GUESTS •.

ANNE REYNOLDS, THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR THE ALLIANCE FOR CLEAN ENERGY NEW YORK.

DENNIS EISENBECK, HEAD OF ENERGY AND SUSTAINABILITY FOR ENERGY CONSULTING SERVICES.

RAYA SALTER, AN ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY CONSULTANT.

ALL THREE ARE MEMBERS OF THE CLIMATE ACTION COUNCIL, ESTABLISHED BY THE STATE.

WE'RE ALSO JOINED BY MARIE FRENCH, A REPORTER FOR POLITICO NEW YORK COVERING ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT.

AND HOLLY BUCK, PROFESSOR OF ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABILITY AT THE UNIVERSITY OF BUFFALO.

TWO YEARS AGO THE NEW YORK LEGISLATURE PASSED AND GOVERNOR CUOMO SIGNED THE CLIMATE LEADERSHIP AND COMMUNITY PROTECTION ACT.

THAT LAW LAYS OUT SOME PRETTY AGGRESSIVE GOALS FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY.

AT THE TIME CUOMO CALLED IT THE MOST AGGRESSIVE CLIMATE CHANGE PROGRAM IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PERIOD."

ANNE, CAN YOU GIVE US THE OVERVIEW •LAY OUT WHAT THE LAW AIMS TO DO?

>> WELL, TUP.

IT'S GOOD TO BE HERE.

THANK YOU.

THE LAW IS SWEEPING.

IT'S ECONOMY WIDE, BUT ONE OF THE CORNERSTONES OF IT, AS YOU MENTIONED, IS TO GET TO 70% RENEWABLE ENERGY BY 2030.

AND THEN 100 PERCY MISSIONS FREE ELECTRICITY BY 2050.

ELECTRIC TRICHT IS A BIG FOCUS AND BUILD-- ELECTRICITY IS A BIG FOCUS AND BUILDING RENEWABLE PROJECTS TO PROVIDE ELECTRICITY IS SOMETHING WE THEY'D TO DO TO GET THERE BUT THE LAW ALSO ADDRESSES ECONOMY WIDE EMISSIONS, MEANING REDUCING EMISSIONS FROM TRANSPORTATION AND FROM BUILDINGS.

THOSE ARE THE OTHER TWO BIG SECTORS, BUT ALSO FARMS, INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES, WASTE GENERATION.

SO IT ALSO ESTABLISHES A REALLY ROBUST PROCESS FOR GETTING THERE, ESTABLISHING THE CLIMATE ACTION COUNCIL THAT YOU MENTIONED AND HAS A LOT OF PUBLIC INPUT ALONG THE WAY TO DEVELOP A SCOPING PLAN TO REACH THESE GOALS BY THE END OF THIS CALENDAR YEAR AND THAT'S WHAT WE ARE WORKING ON NOW.

>> AND-- >> I'D LIKE TO-- >> WHEN YOU SAY SCOPING PLAN, I MEAN THAT'S THE PLAN TO DO ALL THIS, THE PROCESS BY WHICH TO GET THERE, RIGHT?

>> EXACTLY.

>> THIS IS SUCH A HUGE-- THIS IS A BIG LIFT.

IS IT MORE ASPIRATIONAL AT THAT POINT IF WE DON'T EVEN HAVE THAT PLAN JUST YET?

>> IT'S ASPIRATIONAL AND AMBITIOUS BUT IT IS POSSIBLE.

I THINK ONE OF THE IMPORTANT THINGS TO NOTE IS THAT NEW YORK IS NOT STARTING FROM THE VERY BEGINNING.

WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON BUILDING RENEWABLE ENERGY FOR OVER 10 YEARS.

AND THERE IS A LOT OF WORK THAT'S ALREADY BEEN DONE.

THERE IS A LOT OF CONTRACTS THAT HAVE BEEN ISSUED FOR PROJECTS.

BUT YOU ARE RIGHT.

THIS IS AMBITIOUS.

AND GETTING ALL THE WAY TO THOSE EMISSIONS REDUCTION GOALS IS GOING TO BE A CHALLENGE AND SOMETHING THAT REQUIRES ALL DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE ECONOMY AND THE STATE MOVING IN THE SAME DIRECTION.

>> NOW, RAYA SALTER, THE DEVIL IS IN THE DETAILS, RIGHT?

AND THE LAW CREATED THE CLIMATE ACTION COUNCIL.

YOU ARE A REMEMBER MEMBER AS ARE DENNIS AND ANNE, TO TRY TO MAKE THE PLAN THE SCOPING AGREEMENT.

SO WHAT CAN YOU TELL US ABOUT THE DETAILS OF HOW WE ARE GOING TO DO IT?

I MEAN ANNE JUST SORT OF LAID OUT SOME OF THE PLAN.

WHAT'S THERE?

WHAT CAN WE LOOK FORWARD TO?

>> WELL, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I ALSO WANTED TO SAY THAT, YES, WE'VE GOT THIS INCREDIBLY AMBITIOUS CLIMATE REGIME BUT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT MAKES IT SO UNIQUE AND THE MOST AGGRESSIVE IN THE COUNTRY IS THAT BECAUSE OF THIS ACTIVIST ROOTS, IT HAS THE MOST UNIQUE AND ROBUST JUSTICE, ENERGY ENVIRONMENTAL AND CLIMATE JUSTICE PROVISIONS OF ANY LAW IN THE COUNTRY THAT HAS HAS ALSO BEEN EXTREMELY INFLUENTIAL.

SO I WANT TO SAY THAT IS AN IMPORTANT CONTEXT.

AND ALSO VERY MUCH A PART OF THE DETAILS THAT YOU MENTIONED IN TERMS OF WHEN WE LOOK AT WHAT DOES IT MEAN AS WE ROLL OUT OUR RENEWABLE ENERGY PROGRAM TO BE TAKING EARLY ACTION ON REDUCING EMISSIONS AND CO-POLLUTANTS IN DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES AND OTHER SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL CLIMATE JUSTICE MANDATES.

HOW ARE WE GOING TO MAKE SURE THAT THOSE CHANGES HAPPEN ON THE GROUND AS THE RENEWABLE ENERGY PROGRAM MOVES FORWARD IN JUST ONE INSTANCE.

>> YOU MENTIONED MANDATES.

AND I DO WONDER, WHAT ABOUT COMPLIANCE?

IS THERE A COMPLIANCE PART OF THE PLAN?

BECAUSE WE CAN HAVE THE GOALS AND SAY WE ARE GOING TO BE 70% REDUCED CARBON EMISSIONS BY 70% AT LEAST IN THE ELECTRICITY SECTOR BUT WHAT HAPPENS IF WE DON'T GET THERE?

>> SHORT ANSWER, I KNOW THIS IS A BIG QUESTION.

BUT ONE FEATURE OF THE STATUTE IS THAT PLAN ITSELF THAT IS DEVELOPED BY THE CLIMATE ACTION COUNCIL IN CONSULTATION WITH THE WORKING GROUPS AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ADVOCATES WILL GO THROUGH A PROCESS TO BECOME REGULATION BY THE D.E.C.

SO THAT IS JUST ONE PIECE OF COMPLIANCE.

THAT'S THE LARGER QUESTION.

>> SO IT WILL BE-- IT WILL BECOME REGULATION BY THE D.E.C.

SO.

>> PART OF THIS PLANNING PROCESS IS A LOT-- A HOST OF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CODE CHANGES, RULE CHANGES AND STATUTORY CHANGES.

AND THAT WE DO ANTICIPATE THIS IS ALMOST QUASI LEGISLATIVE IN ITS PROCESS AND THAT MANY OF THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS WILL RESULTS IN CODE CHANGES AND LEGAL CHANGES.

>> SO ICE NOT BACKED THROUGH THE LEGISLATURE, IT'S NOT TO THE AGENCY AND THROUGH RULES THEY CAN ESTABLISH WHAT THAT WILL BE?

>> AT LEAST ONE MECHANISM TO GET TO NET ZERO MEANS BASICALLY MASSIVE ELECTRIFICATION OF PRETTY MUCH EVERYTHING.

DECORB AN SITUATION IN THE GRID AND EVENTUALLY THE ENTIRE ECONOMY AS ANNE POINTED OUT.

HOW FAST CAN WE PUSH TO SLASH CARBON EMISSIONS WITHOUT UNDERMINING THE POWER SECTOR AND SIMULTANEOUSLY RAISING THE RISK OF BLACKOUTS OR SKYROCKETING ELECTRIC BILLS PART OF WHAT WE NEED TO BE DISCUSSING IS REDEFINING ISSUES LIKE RESILIENCY AND HOW DO WE LOOK AT THAT AND WE HAVE TO START THINKING ABOUT RESILIENCY FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE ENERGY CONSUMER.

SO WITH WE DO A MAJOR FOCUS ON THE SUPPLY SIDE, WHICH IS BY DESIGN, THAT'S THE GOALS AND PRIORITIES OF THE GOALS TO LOOK AT THE ELECTRIC SYSTEM PREDOMINANTLY OUT OF THE GATE FROM A SUPPLY POINT OF VIEW.

ANY TIME YOU LOOK AT SERVICES FROM ONE ELEMENT OF AN EFFICIENT SYSTEM WHICH HAS TO INCLUDE SUPPLY AND DEMAND AND DELIVERY, YOU HAVE A CHANCE OF PUTTING THAT SYSTEM OUT OF BALANCE.

IT WILL COST YOU MORE THAN IT WOULD HAVE IF YOU KEPT EVERYTHING SEQUENTIALLY IN BALANCE.

BECAUSE OF OUR FOCUS ON THIS SUPPLY SIDE AND BUILDING RENEWABLE ENERGY WIND FARMS AND SOLAR FARMS, THESE ARE BUILT, THEY TEND TO BE BUILT NO LOCATED NEAR LOAD CENTERS.

AND TO THINK ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THEIR TRANSMISSION SYSTEM IS GEARED UP ENOUGH TO MAKE SURE WE ARE EFFICIENTLY CONNECTING TO THOSE SUPPLY SOURCES AND PUTTING IT INTO THE SYSTEM ITSELF THE COST IS $17 BILLION.

SO IN ORDER TO THINK ABOUT DECARBONIZATION, WE HAVE TO THINK OF IT ON A MUCH MORE HOLISTIC PERSPECTIVE.

GREENHOUSE ON ELECTRIC GENERATION IS UP TO 15% BUT IT'S OUR MAJOR PRIORITY.

THE OTHER 85% IS ON THE DEMAND SIDE AND SO MORE OF A FOCUS ON OUR DEMAND SIDE AS WE GO THROUGH THE SCOPING DOCUMENT, IS GOING TO BE KEY IN THAT BECAUSE DECARBONIZING ON THE DEMAND SIDE INITIAL ESTIMATES BY CONSULTANTS TO THE CLIMATE ACTION COUNCIL SAYS THAT ELECTRIC DEMAND WILL INCREASE.

EXISTING DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS CANNOT WITH STAND THAT SO WE NEED A MUCH MORE BALANCED VIEW SUPPLY DEMAND AND DELIVERY AS WE GO FORWARD IN ORDER TO ACCOMPLISH WHAT YOU ASK.

>> AND I DO WANT TO GET-- EXPLORE THAT POINT MORE.

I WANT TO BRING OUR OTHER GUESTS IN BUT WE WILL GET BACK TO THIS IDEA OF TRANSMISSION.

I RECALL THE NEW YORK REGIONAL INTERCONNECT MAYBE 15 YEARS AGO DID NOT FLY BECAUSE THERE WAS OBJECTION TO THE TRANSMISSION LINES.

MARIE WITH POLITICO NEW YORK.

THIS LAW HAS ONLY-- IT'S NOT THE ONLY PIECE OF CLIMATE LEGISLATION TO COME UP BEFORE THE LEGISLATION.

THE CLIMATE AND COMMUNITY INVESTMENT ACT IS ALSO IN PLACE.

WHAT DOES THAT LAW ENTAIL?

WHAT DOES THAT DO?

>> SO THE CLIMATE COMMUNITY INVESTMENT ACT HAS NOT BEEN PASSED BY THE LEGISLATURE AND INDEED WASN'T-- DIDN'T QUITE GET OVER THE FINISH LINE IN EITHER HOUSE THIS PAST SESSION.

BUT IT SEEMED LIKE ADVOCATES AND RYAN CAN SPEAK ABOUT THIS IN MORE DETAIL FROM THE ADVOCATE PERSPECTIVE, IT IS SEEN AS A WAY TO SPONGE THE TRANSITION OFF OF FOSSIL FUELS BECAUSE RIGHT NOW THE CLIMATE LEADERSHIP AND COMMUNITY PROTECTION ACT DOESN'T REALLY HAVE A MECHANISM TO FUND, YOU KNOW, ELECTRIFICATION OF TRANSPORTATION, ELECTRIFICATION OF BUILDINGS.

IT'S PRETTY EASY FOR THE STATE TO FUND BUILDING RENEWABLES BECAUSE THEY CAN JUST ADD A CHARGE ON YOUR ELECTRIC BILL TO DO THAT.

BUT TO REALLY MAKE THE TRANSITION, ADVOCATES SEE A GREAT NEED FOR SOME TYPE OF FUNDING SOURCE TO HELP ESPECIALLY DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES MOVE FORWARD WITH GETTING ACCESS TO ELECTRIC TRANSPORTATION AND TO RETRO FIT THEIR HOMES AND THEIR BUILDINGS TO BE ABLE TO ACHIEVE THE STATE'S CLIMATE GOALS.

AND THAT'S-- THE CLIMATE COMMUNITY INVESTMENT ACT WOULD PLACE A FEE ON CARBON AND OTHER POLLUTANTS.

THOSE COSTS WOULD LIKELY BE PASSED ON TO CONSUMERS AND SO THE PROPOSED LAW WOULD SEEK TO ACCOUNT FOR THAT WITH SOME REBATES FOR LOW AND MODERATE INCOME CONSUMERS.

>> SO A FEE, ANOTHER WORD FOR FEE IS A TAX.

SO BASICALLY WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A CARBON TAX.

>> I THINK YOU CAN CALL IT A CARBON TAX, YES.

I WAS GOING TO SAY NO, WE DON'T CALL IT A CARBON TAX... >> WHY IS IT NOT A TAX?

>> IT ESSENTIALLY IS A FEE.

IT'S-- IT IS A POLLUTER PAYS PRINCIPLE.

THE IDEA THAT THOSE WHO HAVE CAUSED THE POLLUTION NEED TO BE THE ONES WHO PAY FOR THAT, YOU KNOW, AND PAY FOR THE REMEDIATION AND THE JUST TRANSITION.

>> SO WHY DON'T WE CALL IT A TAX OR FEE, THE IDEA OF PUTTING A PRICE ON CARBON HAS SORT OF BEEN A THIRD RAIL UP TO THIS POINT.

HAS THE SITUATION QING CHANGED ENOUGH THAT IT IS MORE ACCEPTABLE NOW, POLITICALLY ACCEPTABLE?

IT HASN'T PASSED THROUGH THE LEGISLATURE YET.

RAIA?

>> YOU KNOW, THAT'S A POLITICAL QUESTION.

WE CAN HAVE THE POLITICOS TALK ABOUT THAT.

BUT IT IS CLEAR THAT THE COST OF INACTION FAR OUTWEIGH, YOU KNOW, THE COSTS THAT ARE ON THE TABLE.

I THINK WE ALL KNOW THAT.

AND SO WE DO NEED TO GET SERIOUS ABOUT, YOU KNOW, WILL THIS CLIMATE ACTION PLAN THAT WE ARE CREATING, WILL IT BE SOMETHING THAT IS JUST ANOTHER PLAN THAT SITS ON A SHELF AND COLLECTS DUST OR IS IT SOMETHING THAT WE WILL BE ABLE TO ACTUALLY MANIFES T. >> WE HAVE HAD OTHER PLANS AS YOU POINT OUT.

NOW LET'S TURN TO PROFESSOR HOLLY BUCK.

IN ORDER TO KEEP THE WORLDWIDE TEMPERATURE TO 1.5° CELSIUS, WE HAVE TO CUT EMISSIONS IN HALF WORLDWIDE, AGAIN, IN THIS DECADE.

AND NOT THAT EVERYTHING GOES CRAZY IN 231, BUT CARBON DIOXIDE IN PARTICULAR LINGERS FOR DECADES OR MORE IN THE ATMOSPHERE.

ONE MIGHT BE FORGIVEN IN THINKING THAT, YOU KNOW, THE BATTLE IS ALREADY LOST AND CAN YOU TELL US THAT THAT IS NOT THE CASE?

I MEAN THAT WE ARE NOT JUST WHISTLING INTO THE WIND; THAT THERE ARE POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS?

>> I THINK WE KNOW WHAT THE SOLUTIONS ARE.

WE JUST HAVE TO FIND THE POLITICAL WILL TO IMPLEMENT THEM.

I THINK MOST OF THE TECHNOLOGIES WE NEED ARE DEVELOPED, BUT MANY OF THEM ARE NOT YET AVAILABLE AT SCALE.

AND SO ONE THING THAT MY RESEARCH LOOKS INTO IS NOT TO REMOVE CARBON FROM THE ATMOSPHERE.

SO NET ZERO, ESSENTIALLY MEANS THAT THERE IS SOME AMOUNT OF POSITIVE RESIDUAL EMISSIONS BALANCED BY NEGATIVE EMISSIONS AND NEW YORK IS REALLY INTERESTING IN THAT IT SETS AN AMOUNT FOR THAT.

IT SAYS WE ARE GOING TO REDUCE 85% BY 2050 AND THEN THERE COULD BE THIS 15% OF LEFTOVER EMISSIONS BALANCED OUT BY REMOVING CARBON.

>> OKAY.

SO LET'S EXPLORE THAT A LITTLE BIT THEN.

IF WE ARE GOING TO REMOVE CARBON, I MEAN I THINK EVERYONE THINKS, YOU CAN PLANT A TREE.

BUT IT'S A LITTLE MORE SOPHISTICATED THAN THAT, ISN'T IT?

>> WELL, NEW YORK IS SPECIAL IN ANOTHER WAY IN THAT IT SAYS THAT, YOU KNOW, WE WANT TO DO OUR CARBON SEQUESTRATION IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK.

AND SO THAT REALLY RELIES IN SMFLT CARBON MODELS.

THEY CALCULATED THAT MOST OF THAT CARBON REMOVAL COULD COME FROM OUR NATURAL AND WORKING LANDS.

WE HAVE 20 MILLION ACRES OF FORESTS.

WE ARE TALKING ABOUT FORESTS, FARMS AND WETLANDS MAINLY.

SO FARMING IN WAYS THAT STORE MORE CARBON BACK INTO THE SOIL, RESTORING WETLANDS, PLANTING NEW FORESTS ON ABANDONED OR UNDERUTILIZED FARM LAPPED.

THAT'S ONE WAY TO REMOVE CARBON THROUGH THESE METHODS.

ANOTHER THING THAT CAN BE DONE THAT THEY HAVE LOOKED AT AND IT REPORTS BIOENERGY WITH CARBON CAPTION STORAGE.

SO GOING BIOMASS, COMBUSTING IT AT A POUR PLANT AND SEPARATING OUT THE CARBON DIOXIDE TO BE INJECTED UNDERGROUND INTO ROCK FORMATIONS WHERE IT WOULD STAY, THE OTHER MAIN IDEA WITH THIS GEOLOGIC STORAGE CONCEPT IS SOMETHING CALLED DIRECT AIR CAPTURE SO BUILDING MACHINES THAT SUCK CARBON FROM THE AIR HAS TO BE TRANSPORTED AND STORED UNDERGROUND AND THERE MAY BE THAT IN NEW YORK STATE AS WELL.

>> THE SEQUESTRATION THROUGH, I'LL CIRCLE BACK TO THE DIRECT AIR CAPTURE, BUT CARBON CAPTURE AND SEQUESTRATION IN A GEOLOGIC FORMATION, I KNOW THERE HAVE BEEN PILOT PROJECTS FOR THAT.

IS THAT SOMETHING THAT IS ACTUALLY TO THE POINT WHERE IT IS ECONOMICALLILY FEASIBLE AND SCIENTIFICALLY FEASIBLE JUST YET?

ARE WE REALLY ABLE TO DO THAT?

RIGHT NOW THERE IS ABOUT, IN THE WORLD AT A LARGE SCALE, IT HAS BEEN DONE FOR DECADES THE ECONOMICS OF IT ARE CHANGING AND THERE HAS BEEN A LOT MORE PROJECTS ANNOUNCED IN THE PAST FEW YEARS IN EUROPE BUT ALSO IN THE U.S. WE HAVE A FEW INCENTIVES ALREADY AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL THAT ARE TAX CREDITS FOR CARBON CAPTURING STORAGE.

IT IS SOMETHING THAT CLIMATE POLICY EXPERTS HAVE BEEN CALLING OUT AS PART OF THE SOLUTION FOR A VERY LONG TIME AND NOW WE ARE STARTING TO SEE SOME MOMENTUM AROUND IT.

>> NOW ANNE, LET'S GO BACK TO YOU HERE.

ONE BIG PUSH HAS BEEN FOR OFFSHORE WIND.

IT'S A MAJOR POWER SOURCE IN NORTHERN EUROPE, AND WE HAVE ONE SMALL DEVELOPMENT HERE IN NEW YORK OFF BLOCK ISLAND, EXCUSE ME BLOCK ISLAND IN LONG ISLAND SOUND BUT THE STATE HAS ISSUED PERMITS FOR FOUR LARGER PROJECTS.

HOW BIG A PART OF THE SOLUTION CAN THESE BE?

AND REALLY NOT JUST HERE IN NEW YORK BUT I WONDER, YOU KNOW, NATIONWIDE.

>> THEY HAVE TO BE A BIG PART OF THE SOLUTION IN NEW YORK AND ESPECIALLY ALL ALONG THE EAST COAST SO WE ARE BLESSED THOUGH THAT WE HAVE A LOT OF STEADY WINDS OFFSHORE IN SHALLOW WATERS, CLOSE TO PEOPLE USING A LOT OF ELECTRICITY AND WOULD I SUGGEST THAT WE CAN'T GET TO OUR 70% BY 2030 OUT OFFSHORE WIND.

THE GOOD NEWS AS YOU SAY, THE STATE HAS ISSUED FOUR CONTRACTS, FIVE CONTRACTS ACTUALLY FOR OFFSHORE WIND PROJECTS THAT WOULD FEED INTO NEW YORK STATE.

THE PERMITS WILL COME FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BECAUSE THEY'RE ALL GOING TO BE IN FEDERAL WATERS.

RELYING ON OFFSHORE WIND FOR 20 YEARS, WE WANT TO REALLY BUILD UP THIS INDUSTRY ON OUR SIDE OF THE OCEAN YOU SAID THE STATE ISSUED THE CONTRACTS.

CAN IT BE DONE FAST ENOUGH I MEAN THE FIRST TWO PROJECTS I THINK ARE SCHEDULED TO GO ONLINE NOT UNTIL 2024, BUT THIS PRELIMINARY, ACCORDING TO NYSERDA WEBSITE, THE PERMITTING IS STILL IN THE PRELIMINARY STAGE.

SO I MEAN, AGAIN, I GUESS BACK TO THAT EARLIER QUESTION ABOUT ASPIRATIONAL OR, YOU KNOW, CONCRETE AT THIS POINT.

CAN WE REALLY GET THERE THIS FAST?

>> I HOPE SO AND I THINK SO, BUT AS I SAY, IT'S A LOT OF MOVING PARTS AND SO THERE HAS TO BE GOOD COOPERATION BETWEEN STATE GOVERNMENT BETWEEN STATES AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WE ARE TRYING TO GET 6,000 MEGAWATTS ONLINE BY 2030 TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE GOAL.

SO WE'VE GOT NINE YEARS AND THE PERMITTING PROCESSES WILL BE LENGTHY.

LIT PROBABLY TAKE ABOUT FOUR YEARS.

BUT I DO THINK THAT IT WILL HAPPEN.

SOME OF THE CHALLENGES ARE HOW TO INTERCONNECT THAT IN A VERY DENSE SYSTEM IN NEW YORK CITY AND LONG ISLAND AND SO WE ARE STILL EXPLORING SHOULD THERE BE AN OFFSHORE GRID AND OFFSHORE MESH SYSTEM FOR THE PROJECTS TO CONNECT INTO.

THE GOOD NEWS IS THOUGH THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION HAS HIT THE GROUND RUNNING WITH OFFSHORE WIND AND HAS ALREADY ANNOUNCED A NEW LEASE SALE FOR THE NEW YORK AREA BETWEEN NEW JERSEY AND ISLAND TO LEASE NEW LAND FOR OFFSHORE WIND DEVELOPMENT AND WE ARE HOPING THAT HAPPENS BEFORE THE END OF THIS YEAR.

>> WHAT ABOUT THE GREAT LAKES?

I MEAN CAN WE HAVE-- CAN THOSE TURBINES BE OFF THE SHORES OF, YOU KNOW, BUFFALO AND ROCHESTER?

AND WE HAVE TWO GREAT LAKES.

I MEAN CAN WE USE THEM?

>> WE DO.

THE MOST RECENT ORDER ON THE CLEAN ENERGY STANDARD HERE IN NEW YORK, THOSE ORDERS COME FROM THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, DIRECTED NYSERDA TO DO A STUDY OF GREAT LAKES OFFSHORE WIND POTENTIAL.

IT'S ABSOLUTELY TECHNICALLY POSSIBLE.

BUT THEY'RE GOING TO DO THIS FEASIBILITY STUDY TO FIND OUT MORE ABOUT IF IT'S ECONOMIC COMPARED TO LAND-BASED WIND AND SOLAR, IF IT'S ECONOMIC COMPARED TO OFFSHORE WIND, YOU KNOW, IN THE ATLANTIC, AND IF THERE WOULD BE ANY TECHNICAL PROBLEMS.

SO IT'S AT AN EARLIER STAGE BUT THEY'RE DOING THE STUDY RIGHT NO YOU.

>> AND JUST SO WE ARE CLEAR, WE ARE TALKING, WITH THE OFFSHORE WIND THAT HAS BEEN PROPOSED FOR NEW YORK STATE, THE NEW YORK BITE I BELIEVE YOU CALLED IT.

WE ARE TALKING ABOUT FIXED PLATFORMS.

LIKE OFF THE PACIFIC COAST.

THEY WILL MOST LIKELY HAVE TO USE FLOATING PLATFORM.

I RECALL SEVERAL YEARS AGO FLYING INTO MUNICH AND OF COURSE IT'S NOT NEAR THE MOTION BUT SEEING SOLAR PANELS ALL OVER THE PLACE FROM THE HEIGHT.

IT IS DIFFERENT HOW STRIKING IT WAS FROM HERE TO THERE AND OF COURSE GERMANY HAS BEEN OUT IN FRONT YOU ARE THE HELTED OF OF A BATTERY COMPANY.

25% OF EMISSIONS COME FROM HOMES AND COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS AND THEY USE GAS OR OIL FOR HEAT.

HOW DO WE RETRO FIT THOUSANDS OF BUILDINGS STATEWIDE AND IMPORTANTLY WHO IS GOING TO PAY FOR THAT?

>> IT'S ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL THAT WE START ADDRESSING BUILDINGS IN THE PROCESS.

GREENHOUSE GAS TRIBUTED TO BUILDINGS.

WATER HEATING TO SOME FORM OF AN ELECTRIC OPTION.

SO IF WE DO THIS CONVERSION STRAIGHTFORWARD, I THINK YOU ARE GOING TO DRIVE UP LOCAL ENERGY COSTS AND THAT SHOULD BE A CONCERN WHEN WE THINK ABOUT OUR DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES SIMPLY BECAUSE YOU ARE GOING FROM A VERY LOW COST FUEL TO A HIGHER COST FUEL REGARDLESS OF THE COEFFICIENT OF THE SYSTEM ITSELF WE NEED TO THINK HOLISTICALLY TRADITIONALLY WE LEVEL PROGRAMS AND INCENTIVES.

WE HAVE TO LOOK AT THE EVOLUTION TO BE SYSTEMATIC.

INSTEAD OF PLACING SOMEONE ON AN ELECTRIC OPTION, LET'S THINK ABOUT DEVELOPING A PROGRAM THAT LOOKS AT A HEAT PUMP, ALIGNED WITH A CONSUMER-BASED BATTERY STORAGE SYSTEM AND THEN SIGNING UP TO THE UTILITIES.

THIS WAY WE SHIFT THE ACTUAL NEED FOR THE COMMODITY OFF PEAK WHEN PRICES ARE AT THEIR HIGHEST.

AND THEN IT'S JUST DISCHARGED DURING THE DAYTIME WHEN PRICING IS AT ITS LOWEST.

WE JUST CONVERT AND WE ADD 65 TO 80%.

THAT'S GOING TO INCREASE THE NEED TO EXPEDITE DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM UPGRADES SIMILAR TO THE TRANSMISSION SITE.

SO BUSINESS MODELS NEED TO BE DEVELOPED THAT INSTEAD OF THE RATE PAYER PAYING FOR UPGRADING THE DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS, LET'S LOOK FOR LOWER COST ALTERNATIVES AND THAT IS TO COMBINE TECHNOLOGIES TOGETHER, CREATE A NEW BUSINESS MODEL AND THIS BENEFITS THE ELECTRIC RATE PAYER OVERALL BECAUSE WE'LL SPEND LESS THAN THE DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM UPRIGHT.

THIS HAS TO BE LOOKED AT IN TERMS OF HOW THE REGULATOR WOULD LOOK AT THE UTILITY IMPACT ON THAT, WHAT THE UTILITY INVOLVEMENT WOULD BE AND HOW WE WOULD PROCEED AT A PACE THAT DOES NOT PUSH US INTO UPGRADING DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS.

WE NEED TO CONSIDER THE ALIGNMENT OF ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY GOING FORWARD.

IF WE ARE NOT QUITE READY, THE WHOLE THING CLAPSES, THE PLAN COLLAPSES.

AND IT COULD SET BACK THE ENTIRE EFFORT.

WHAT ABOUT BATTERIES.

THE PRESENCE OF A BATTERY STORAGE COMPANY, SO YOU'VE GOT SOME SCIFN IN THE GAME HERE.

BATTERY STORAGE, WE TALK ABOUT WIND AND SOLAR AND THEY PRODUCE POWER WHEN THE WIND IS BLOWING AND THE SUN IS SHINING.

HOW DO WE STORE IT I GUESS THE QUESTION IS WHAT IS THE STATE OF BATTERY TECHNOLOGY NOW SO THAT WE CAN STORE THIS FOR USE AT OFF SHOWERS?

R-- OFF SHOWERS?

>> THE VAST MAJORITY OF BATTERY STORAGE IN NEW YORK, AGAIN VERY GOAL ORIENTED BECAUSE WE HAVE A 3,000 MEG WATT BATTERY STORAGE.

GRID LEVEL STORAGE REFERS TO ALIGNING BATTERY STORAGE WITH SOLAR FARMS OR WIND FARMS TO ENSURE THAT WE REMOVE SOME OF THE INTERMITTENCY ISSUES OF RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCE.

WHAT WE REALLY HAVE TO START SHIFTING IS LOCATION BASE POINT OF VIEWS OR TIED DETECTIVELY TO THE CONSUMER.

WE HAVE TO LOOK AT BEING ABLE TO PROVIDE RESILIENCY TO THE CONSUMER.

SO NOT ONLY WILL THE BATTERY STORAGE SYSTEM ALLOW US TO MOVE TOWARDS DECASH ANIZATION-- DECARBONIZATION DISCHARGING IN THE DAYTIME BUT IT WILL ALSO LOWER THE PEAK DEMAND WHICH ALLOWS US TO PUT US ON A DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM UPGRADES AND BE ABLE TO CONTROL COSTS OF THE CONSUMER.

NOT JUST THE CONSUMER WHO IS DEPLOYING THE BATTERY SYSTEM STORAGE AT THEIR LOCATION BUT BECAUSE WE ARE MITIGATING THE NEED FOR UPGRADES OF OUR DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM OUT OF THE GATE.

LET'S TURN TO LARGE SCALE SOLAR POWER.

A BIG COMPONENT.

AND THE NEW YORK PLAN CALLS FOR 6,000 MEGAWATTS BY 2025.

NOW RIGHT HERE IN ONONDAGA COUNTY WHERE I'M SITTING AT THE MOMENT, THE SYRACUSE POST STANDARD REPORTS THERE ARE AT LEAST 29 SOLAR PROJECTS ON THE DRAWING BOARD TOTALING ABOUT 19.

THERE ARE LARGER PROJECTS IN NEARBY CAYUGA COUNTY AND GENESEE COUNTY AND ROCHESTER HAS A 500 MEG WATT PROJECT PLANNED.

THAT'S THE BIGGEST IN THE STATE.

BUT ON THE DRAWING BOARD, AND PRODUCING ELECTRONS, MARIE, ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.

AND SO WHAT ARE THE HOLDUPS?

THESE ARE NOT YET PERMITTED.

IT'S TAKING QUITE A WHILE TO GET THESE UP AND RUNNING, YOU KNOW WHAT CAN BE DONE TO MAKE THAT GO FASTER OR WHY IS IT GOING SO SLOWLY?

>> SO, YES, SITING IS DEFINITELY A HUGE PART OF THE STORY IN NEW YORK ABOUT RENEWABLE ENERGY.

IT'S DEFINITELY BEEN A FACTOR IN , LACK PROVE DEGREES IN ACHIEVING THE STATE'S GOALS.

I MEAN YOU WANT TO DRAW A DISTINCTION, 6,000 MEG WATT BOWL DISTRIBUTED FOR NOT NECESSARILY FOR UTILITY SCALE SOLAR PROJECTS WHICH ARE SOME OF THE HUGE, YOU KNOW, 200 MEG MEGAWATTS PROJECTS YOU MIGHT BE SEEING IN THE REGION.

SMALLER AND HAVE A DIFFERENT SITING PROCESS THAN LARGE SCALE SOLAR.

>> SO THE 6,000 MEGAWATTS IS FOR COMMUNITY SOLAR DISTRIBUTED, NOT UTILITY?

>> ANNE WILL CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, I'M SURE.

>> ANNE, JUMP IN OR RAYA, ANYBODY.

I MEAN SO THAT'S A GREAT POINT.

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TWO DIFFERENT KINDS OF SOLAR POWER WE ARE TALKING ABOUT, RIGHT?

SO-- >> IT'S ALL THE SAME POWER.

>> ALL THE SAME SUN.

>> ALL THE SAME SUN.

JUST DIFFERENT SCALES, DIFFERENT SIZES, YOU KNOW, A DISTRIBUTING SOLAR PROJECT COULD BE AS SMALL AS SOMEBODY'S ROOF HAVING SOLAR POWERS OR AS LARGE AS MAYBE 20 OR 25 MEGAWATTS FOR COMMUNITY SOLAR.

>> I IF COULD JUMP IN, DISTRIBUTING SOLAR TRADITIONALLY WAS SEEN AS ROOF TOP SOLAR ON HOMES AND BUSINESSES.

AND THEY HAVE GROWN TO INCLUDE COMMUNITY SOLAR BUT IN NEW YORK STATE, IT'S UP TO FIVE MEGAWATTS AND THAT'S ALSO REFERRED TO AS BEHIND THE METER.

IT'S LOCATED CLOSE TO WHERE PEOPLE ARE USING THE POWER WHERE THE UTILITY SCALE SOLAR WORKS LIKE A POWER PLANT, IT SELLS THE POWER TO THE GRID THROUGH THE WHOLESALE MARKET.

THE LAW REQUIRES 6,000 MEGAWATTS OF DISTRIBUTED SOLAR AND BELIEVE IT OR NOT, NEW YORK IS WELL ON ITS WAY TO ACHIEVING THAT BY THE DEADLINE.

AND NYSERDA IS PREDICTING THEY ARE GOING TO BE THERE BASED ON THE PROJECTS OPERATING AND WHAT IS IN THE QUEUE.

THERE WILL BE MORE SOLAR AS UTILITY SCALE BECAUSE THAT'S ALSO WHAT WE NEED TO GET TO THAT 70%.

>> RIGHT.

I'M SORRY GO AHEAD.

>> IF I COULD JUMP IN ON THE BARRIERS, THE CONTRACTS THAT THE LONG-TERM PROJECTS GET WITH NYSERDA ARE ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL IN THE FIRST STEP.

THEY WOULD NEED TO GET A TAX AGREEMENT WITH THE COMMUNITY, GET A PERMIT AND INTERCONNECTION WITH THE GRID.

THOSE ARE THE THREE PUZZLE PIECES THAT THEY'RE WORKING ON AND IT HAS TAKEN A LONG TIME IN NEW YORK.

WE HAVE VERY COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEWS THAT RELIABILITY REVIEWS, WHICH IS A GOOD THING BUT WE DID NEED TO SPEED IT UP SOME AND I THINK WE ARE MAKING PROGRESS THERE AND WE ESTIMATE THAT THERE IS GOING TO BE ABOUT 25 PROJECTS UNDER CONSTRUCTION THIS SUMMER.

MAYBE WE HAVE GOTTEN OVER THE HUMP AND WILL SEE SOME PROJECTS COME INTO SERVICE.

>> I JUST WANTED TO ADD JUST ONE THING THAT THE STATUTE ALSO DOES ENCOURAGE AND REQUIRES THE STUDY TO MORE COMMUNITY OWNED SOLAR AND JUST EMPHASIZING THE ISSUE OF PARTICIPATION AND INCLUSIVE OWNERSHIP OF THE SYSTEMS.

I WAS ABOUT TO GO TO YOU NEXT.

THESE EFFORTS BY THE GOVERNMENT ARE LAUDABLE, IS IT ENOUGH.

IS IT ENOUGH TO CATALYZE THE CHANGE THAT IS NEEDED TO DECARBONIZE.

>> I LOVE THIS QUESTION.

THAT'S WHY YOU ARE THE PERSON I ASKED.

>> I LOVE THE QUESTION BECAUSE IT'S, YOU KNOW, JUST SORT OF-- EXISTENTIAL MATTER, ABSOLUTELY NOT.

WE HAVE TO BE ABLE TO ENGAGE EVERYONE, BE THAT POPULAR EDUCATION, DEEPLY INVESTING IN OUR EDUCATION AND TRAINING INSTITUTIONS, IN OUR EDUCATIONAL SYSTEMS IN TERMS OF TEACHING, YOU KNOW, TEACHING ABOUT THESE ISSUES.

I DON'T SEE ANY WAY FOR US TO HAVE THE TRANSFORMATION THAT WE NEED IF WE DON'T HAVE A PEOPLE FOCUS.

WE NEED TO EXTO UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS GOING TO CHANGE THEIR LIVES AND OUR ENVIRONMENT IN A POSITIVE WAY AND WITHOUT THAT, IT'S HARD TO SEE HOW WE ARE GOING TO GET THE BEHAVIOR CHANGE THAT WE NEED IN ADDITION TO THE POLICY CHANGE.

>> CALLING FOR ALL ELECTRICITY TO BE CARBON FREE BY 2040 AND THE STATE INCLUDES NUCLEAR WEAPON ON THE CLEAN SIDE OF THAT LEDGER.

IN APRIL, INDIAN POINT NUCLEAR POWER STATION WAS SHUT DOWN FOR GOOD AND WAS LAUDED BY ENVIRONMENTALISTS AND POLITICIANS WHO CALLED IT A THREAT TO THE HUDSON RIVER AND TO THE MILLIONS OF PEOPLE LIVING IN THE NEW YORK METROPOLITAN AREA.

OPPONENTS OF THE CLOSURE SAY IN A POST-INDIAN POINT WORLD, THE STATE WILL NOW HAVE TO RELY MUCH MORE HEAVILY ON FOSSIL FUELS.

>> THE INDIAN POINT IS LOCATED IN THE MOST DENSELY POPULATED AREA OF OUR STATE AND IN THE MOST DENSELY POPULATED AREA ON THE GLOBE.

I PERSONALLY HAVE BEEN TRYING TO CLOSE IT DOWN FOR 15 YEARS.

FINALLY THIS YEAR I'M PROUD TO ANNOUNCE THAT WE HAVE AN AGREEMENT.

INDIANIAN POINT WILL CLOSE IN FOUR YEARS, 14 YEARS AHEAD OF SCHEDULE.

[ APPLAUSE ] >> MY NAME IS PAUL.

I'M THE PRESIDENT AT RIVERKEEPER, NEW YORK'S CLEAN WATER ADVOCATE.

RIVERKEEPER HAS BEEN INVOLVED IN ISSUES AROUND THE INDIAN POINT NUCLEAR PLANT SINCE THE 70s.

AND AT FIRST IT WAS SIMPLY A QUESTION OF PROTECTING THE FISH.

INDIAN POINT HAS CONTRIBUTED TO THAT BECAUSE THEY USED WELL OVER TWO BILLION GALLONS OF WATER A DAY TO COOL THE REACTORS; WHICH REDUCED THE NUMBER OF FISH WELL INTO THE MILLIONS AND HELPED CONTRIBUTE TO A GENERAL DECLINE IN BIODIVERSITY.

AS THE PLANT AGED, AND AS WE SAW THE TERRORISTS ATTACKS ON NINE 11 9WSYR-- THE TERRORIST ATTACKS ON NINE 11, THERE IS A PROBLEM FOR PEOPLE'S SAFETY.

>> NEW YORKERS CAN SLEEP A LITTLE BETTER.

>> THE INDIAN POINT POWER PLANT WAS OUR LARGEST EMPLOYER.

WE HAD APPROXIMATELY A THOUSAND PEOPLE.

THERE WERE NOT A THOUSAND BUCHANAN RESIDENTS THAT WORKED THERE BUT WE HAD A HANDFUL OF PEOPLE THAT DID WORK THERE.

THIS HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR YEARS.

THERE WAS A GROUP THAT WANTED TO CLOSE INDIAN POINT AND THEN THERE WERE THE LOCAL PEOPLE THAT DIDN'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH INDIAN POINT.

SO I WAS ON THE BOARD IN THE 90s.

AND, YOU KNOW, YOU WOULD GO TO THE NRC MEETINGS AND I WOULD FOLLOW UP ON THAT.

WHEN THIS TIME CAME FOR IT TO CLOSE, NO BUN KNEW ABOUT IT.

-- NO ONE KNEW ABOUT IT.

I FOUND OUT ON A FRIDAY AFTERNOON, A FRIEND OF MINE HAD SEEN SOMETHING IN THE NEW YORK TIMES.

THE ANNOUNCEMENT.

AND I WAS LIKE WHAT?

SO WITH THAT CLOSURE, THERE WAS THREE PEOPLE, THREE MEN IN THE ROOM WE CALL IT.

IT WAS THE GOVERNOR, IT WAS RIVERKEEPER AND OF COURSE IT WAS ENTERGY, THE PEOPLE WHO OWNED THE PLANT.

WE HAD NO INPUT INTO THE CLOSURE.

>> BY THE TIME THE FIRST REACTOR CLOSED UNDER THE AGREEMENT SIGNED IN 2017, AND THEN THE MOST RECENT ONE AND THE FINAL ONE CLOSED IN 2021, THEY WERE EXPORTING A LOT OF THEIR POWER TO NEW ENGLAND.

NEW YORK HAD BECOME MUCH LESS DEPENDENT ON INDIAN POINT.

ITS ENTIRE OUTPUT WAS REPLACED BY REDUCED DEMAND, INCREASED RENEWABLES IN LARGE SCALE AND THE LOCAL RENEWABLES THAT THE PEOPLE HAD PUT UP ON THEIR HOUSES.

SOME PEOPLE ARGUE KNOWING INDIAN POINT DID NOT PRODUCE ELECTRICITY TO THE DOESN'T REGION.

IT SOLD IT ELSEWHERE.

EVERY SO OFTEN THESE ENERGY PURCHASE AGREEMENTS WERE BEING SIGNED AND INDIAN POINT DID SOMETIMES SELL ELECTRICITY TO OTHER STATES.

AND THAT IS KIND OF IRRELEVANT BECAUSE IT DOESN'T CHANGE THE PHYSICAL MOVEMENT OF THE ELECTRICITY WITHIN THE GRID.

AND THE NEED TO REPLACE SOMETHING, A NEW VOICE CREATED WITH SOMETHING ELSE.

THE OUTPUT OF THE TWO REACTORS CAN BE COMPARED TO TWO AND A HALF TIMES THE ELECTRICITY OUTPUT OF ALL THE WIND AND ALL THE SOLAR OUTPUT OF EVERYTHING THAT WE HAVE IN NEW YORK STATE.

SO WHEN YOU LOOK AT DOWNSTATE, INDIAN POINT PRODUCED 81% OF DOWNSTATE'S CLEAN ELECTRICITY AND ABOUT 25% OF ELECTRICITY TOTAL.

EVERYTHING ELSE PRETTY MUCH IS FOSSIL GENERATION.

SO WHEN INDIAN POINT SHUT DOWN, THE STATE MADE SURE THAT WE WOULD HAVE, IN TIME, REPLACEMENT STATIONS.

>> WHAT I FIND FASCINATING IS THAT WE CLOSE THE NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, ZERO CARBON EMISSIONS BUT WHAT I FIND EVEN MORE IS IF NATEING,-- FASCINATING TO REPLACE THE PLANTS, YOU HAVE TWO GAS FIRED PLANTS THAT HAVE TAKEN OVER FOR THAT.

FOSSIL FUELS ARE NOT SUBSTITUTING FOR INDIAN POINT.

THERE HAS BEEN ENOUGH OF A SAVINGS IN ENERGY DEMAND AND THE CREATION OF NEW RENEWABLE ENERGY TO COMPLETELY REPLACE INDIAN POINT AND FOR THE NEXT THREE TO FIVE YEARS, THE AMOUNT OF ENERGY SAVED AND RENEWABLE ENERGY CREATED IS PROBABLY GOING TO BE TRIPLED SO WE ARE CLOSING INDIANIAN POINT FOUR TIMES OVER.

>> IN 2019, 33% OF NEW YORK'S ELECTRICITY CAME FROM NUCLEAR GENERATION.

NOW INDIAN POINT HAS SHUT DOWN AND WE ARE LOOKING AT A MERE 20% SO 30% OF ALL THE ELECTRICITY GENERATION IN NEW YORK STATE SUDDENLY MOVED FROM NUCLEAR WITHOUT ANY POLLUTION, TO FOSSIL WHICH IS MOSTLY GAS.

HUGE DISASTER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT.

>> I SERVE ON THE INDIAN POINT DECOMMISSIONING OVERSIGHT BOARD AS THE ENVIRONMENTAL POSITION THERE.

YOU HAVE TO CLEAN UP THE SITE.

THE SITE MOSTLY INDIAN POINT HAS BEEN CONTOM NATEED BY SPENT FUEL LEAKS AND NON-RADIO ACTIVE CONTAMINANT.

WE NEED TO DEAL WITH THE FUEL.

INITIALLY WHEN IT CLOSES, THE FUEL MOVES FROM THE REACTOR TO THE POOL AND THEN OVER TIME THE FUEL IS TAKEN OUT OF THE FUEL POOL AND PUT INTO TRY STORAGE.

OBVIOUSLY YOU CAN'T DEMOLISH THE SPENT FUEL POOL UNTIL YOU HAVE ALL THE FUEL OUT OF IT.

IT IS PROJECTED FOR 15 YEARS.

>> THE SALE FROM ENTERGY TO, THEY FELT WE NEEDED A SEAT AT THE TABLE.

WE WERE ABLE TO GET IN THE SETTLEMENT $1.2 MILLION, WHICH GIVES US FINANCIAL CERTAINTY FOR THE NEXT YEAR'S BUDGET YOU THE ALSO WE WERE ABLE TO GO IT AN AGREEMENT THAT IF THERE IS ANY DAMAGES DONE TO OUR ROADS BECAUSE OF THE HEAVY EQUIPMENT OR WHATEVER COMING THROUGH THE VILLAGE, THAT WOULD BE REPLACED.

PROBABLY THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IS THE EXPEDITED RELEASE OF THE PROPERTY THAT CAN BE RELEASED; THAT THEY DON'T NEED FOR DECOMMISSIONING BECAUSE WE ARE LOSING HALF OF OUR REVENUE SO WE NEED TO INCREASE OUR TAX BASE.

SO WE HAVE NOTHING TO SAY WHEN IT WAS CLOSED.

BUT WE MADE SURE WE WERE GOING TO HAVE A SEAT AT THE TABLE AND BECOME AN INTERVENER.

>> THE TYPICAL EXCA EXCAVATION GROUPS LIKE NUCLEAR NEW YORK IS OH YOU'RE A NUCLEAR LOBBYIST.

THAT'S WRONG.

WE ARE ENVIRONMENTALISTS.

WE SEE THAT NUCLEAR ENERGY PROMISES TO DO WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE.

AND THE ALTERNATIVES HAVE REAL ENVIRONMENTAL DOWNSIDES.

THEY USE UP LAND.

JUST LOOKING AT INDEPENDENTIAN-- LOOKING AT INDIAN POINT ENERGY CENTER, THAT USE ELECTRICITY DAY AND NIGHT AND DOES THAT IS ON 240 ACRES.

>> FROM THE MOMENT THE PLANNING FOR INDIAN POINT'S CLOSURE BEGAN A DECADE AGO, WE ALL GOT BUSY.

THE STATE GOT BUSY.

RENEWABLE ENERGY COMPANIES GOT BUSY.

INDIAN POINT WAS 2,000 MEG WATSZ.

31,000 MEGAWATTS WILL GET YOU AT LEAST TWO IF NOT INDIAN POINTS, EVEN AFTER YOU HAVE THE WIND AND SOLAR CAPACITY FACTORED IN.

>> THE INDIAN POINT ENERGY CENTER HAS BEEN WITH US SINCE 1962.

AND WE HAVE BEEN KNOWN AS ONE OF THE SMALLEST COMMUNITIES WITH A NUCLEAR POWER PLANT.

NOW WE HAVE TO REINVENT OURSELVES.

>> OKAY, SO INDIAN POINT IS CLOSED.

THAT ENERGY NUCLEAR ENERGY IS OFF THE GRID FROM INDIAN POINT.

IT'S CONSIDERED BY THE STATE PART OF THE RENEWABLE ENERGY AND PUSHES TOWARD THAT STANDARD THAT WE WANT TO MEET: SHOULD IT BE PART OF OUR FUTURE, ANNE?

>> WELL, I WILL SAY IT IS GOING TO BE PART OF OUR FUTURE BECAUSE WE STILL HAVE A LOT OF UPSTATE NUCLEAR WEAPON-- UPSTATE NUCLEAR PLANTS.

IT MIGHT BE THAT SOME NEW NUCLEAR PLANTS ARE PROPOSED IN NEW YORK IN THE FUTURE BUT IT'S IMPORTANT TO KNOW THAT NO ONE HAS PROPOSED ANY AND IS SUGGESTING ANY NUCLEAR PLANTS NOW.

HERE OR ACROSS THE COUNTRY.

AT THE MOMENT.

SO I DON'T THINK THAT NUCLEAR IS GOING TO BE THE MAJOR PART OF OUR FUTURE.

I THINK THAT'S GOING TO BE WIND, SOLAR, HYDRO ELECTRIC AND STORAGE.

BUT IT MAY PLAY A PART IN THE FUTURE IF THERE IS NEW TECHNOLOGIES FOR SMALL NUCLEAR FACILITIES, WHICH IS WHAT THERE IS A GOOD AMOUNT OF RESEARCH ON.

>> THERE IS A GOOD AMOUNT OF RESEARCH ON THAT AND WE DO HAVE SOME EXISTING PLANTS, WHICH ARE NOT SMALL, BUT THE LICENSE PERHAPS COULD BE EXTENDED TO KEEP THEM ONLINE OR EVEN SINCE THERE IS ALREADY PLANTS THERE, EVEN IF A LARGER PLANT REACTOR WERE BUILT, IT COULD BE BUILT PERHAPS ON THAT SAME SITE BECAUSE I THINK NATIONWIDE, I'M NOT SURE THE NUMBER OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD BUT IT'S ROUGHLY 20% OF OUR ELECTRICITY COMES FROM NUCLEAR AND THAT'S A BIG CHUNK TO TAKE AWAY.

SO SHOULD WE BE LOOKING TO EXPAND NUCLEAR.

>> I THINK IT MAKES SENSE FOR THE UNITED STATES TO BE RESEARCHING THOSE NEW NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGIES AND THEY ARE, THE LAST STIMULUS INCLUDED A GOOD AMOUNT OF RESEARCH MONEY FOR THOSE TECHNOLOGIES.

RIGHT NOW IN NEW YORK WE HAVE THESE PROVEN TECHNOLOGIES WITH PROPOSED PROJECTS WITH CONTRACTS WE NEED TO GET BUILT, WHICH IS OFFSHORE WIND, LAND-BASED WIND SOLAR POWER AND STORAGE.

AND I THINK THAT CAN GET US MOST OF THE WAY THERE.

THE GRID OPERATOR DOES-- HAS DONE A LOT OF ANALYSIS OF THE 2050 GOALS.

100 PERCY MISSIONS FREE.

AND ACCORDING TO THEM, IT SAYS THAT WE NEED AT THAT POINT, 10% DISPATCHABLE EMISSIONS FREE POWER.

AND WE DON'T KNOW, AS WE SIT HERE TODAY IF THAT'S GOING TO NUCLEAR, GREEN HYDROGEN OR SOMETHING WE HAVEN'T THOUGHT OF YET.

I DO ACKNOWLEDGE THERE IS AN OPEN QUESTION YOU TALK ABOUT NET ZERO AND CIRCLE BACK TO PROFESSOR BUCK, WHO EARLIER WAS SPEAKING ABOUT SEQUESTRATION AND THE NEW YORK PLANS IN TERMS OF WETLANDS AND FORESTS BECAUSE IT NEEDS TO BE NEAR THE SOURCE OF THE EMISSIONS.

WHAT ELSE-- I WANT TO CIRCLE BACK TO THAT IDEA OF SEQUESTRATION.

WHAT ELSE IS OUT THERE PERHAPS THAT CAN BE DONE TO REMOVE SOME CARBON FROM THE ATMOSPHERE BECAUSE WE ARE BAKING PRETTY GOOD AS IT IS RIGHT NOW.

ALL HAVE YOU TO DO IS LOOK AT THE HEADLINES.

>> THE MAIN CATEGORIES ARE THESE TECHNOLOGICAL METHODS WITH GEOLOGIC SEQUESTRATION.

IS SOME KIND KIND OF FRONTIER IDEAS OF OCEAN CARBON REMOVAL AND AT WHICH ROCKS, THOSE ARE MORE THE RESEARCH STAGE.

NOW LESS RELEVANT TO NEW YORK STATE'S PLANS.

BUT I GUESS I WOULD WANT TO HIGHLIGHT THAT THE LOWER WE CAN GET DOWNY MISSIONS, THE LESS NEED WE HAVE FOR THE CARBON REMOVAL.

IT'S DEFINITELY A PRIORITY TO REDUCE AS MUCH AS WE CAN BUT THERE ARE A FEW THINGS LIKE FROM ELECTRICITY, PROBABLY THE MAIN LEFTOVER PIECES ARE GOING TO BE IN AVIATION OR INDUSTRY THAT WE DON'T KNOW HOW TO REDUCE QUITE YET.

>> AND WHAT ABOUT AGRICULTURE?

I MEAN YOU MENTIONED WETLANDS AND FORESTS BUT EVEN AGRICULTURE, PLANT PLANTING CROPS AS FOOD SOURCES BUT THEY CAN BE USED IN SOME WAYS AS WELL, CAN'T THEY BECAUSE WE CAN GET TO-- WE CAN REDUCE EMISSIONS BUT WE'VE ALREADY GOT-- IT'S OVER 400 PARTS PER MILLION IN THE ATMOSPHERE NOW AND IT'S STILL GOING TO RISE FOR SOMETIME.

SO TO AVOID THE WORST IMPACTS WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO PULL SOME OUT, RIGHT?

>> YESTERDAY THE GROWING CLIMATE SOLUTIONS ACT PASSES THE SENATE SO THAT'S A PIECE OF LEGISLATION THAT CREATES A CERTIFICATION PROGRAM AT THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE THAT WOULD HELP FARMERS FARM IN WAYS THAT THE REMOVE CARBON FROM THE ATMOSPHERE, PUT INTO THE SOIL AND GET CREDITS FOR THAT.

SO THERE IS SOME PLANNING AROUND THAT GOING ON NOW.

ONE CHALLENGE WITH SOIL CARBON AND WITH FORESTS IS THAT THOSE ARE THINGS THAT WILL HOLD CARBON FOR SOME DECADES BUT HAVE YOU TO MAINTAIN THE CARBON THERE.

SO IF YOU CHANGE HOW YOU FARM OR IF A WILDFIRE COMES, THEN YOU LOSE THE CARBON... (INAUDIBLE) AND THE GEOLOGICAL SEQUESTRATION IS AN IMPORTANT PART, TOO.

>> YOU MENTIONED CREDITS.

AND I WANT TO GO BACK TO MARIE FRENCH NOW BECAUSE WE TALKED EARLIER ABOUT CARBON TAX OR CARBON FEE.

THERE IS ALSO ONE OF THE TERMS WE HEAR A LOT OF CAP AND TRADE AND NEW YORK IS PART OF A CAP AND TRADE SYSTEM, RIGHT?

THE REGIONAL COMPACT?

HOW HAS THAT BEEN WORKING?

AND YOU KNOW, HOW DOES THAT WORK AND ALSO ARE THESE CARBON CREDITS YOU CAN GET, DOES THAT SORT OF DEFEAT THE PURPOSE?

>> INTERESTING QUESTION THE REGIONAL GREENHOUSE INITIATIVES THAT HAVE BEEN IN PLACE FOR A LITTLE MORE THAN A DECADE NOW, AND THAT'S NEW YORK AND SEVERAL OTHER STATES IN THE REGION, THAT HAVE AGREED TO CAP THE AMOUNT OF EMISSIONS FROM POWER PLANTS, SPECIFICALLY, SO IT ONLY APPLIES TO POWER PLANTS AND IT SORT OF DRAWS DOWN THE AMOUNT OF CARBON CREDITS AVAILABLE OVER TIME.

AND I WOULD SAY A LOT OF THE RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS OF THAT PROGRAM HAS BEEN POSITIVE IN THAT IT DOES SEEM TO HAVE PLAYED A ROLE IN REDUCING CARBON EMISSIONS FROM THE POWER SECTOR.

ALSO HAD THE ADVENT OF MORE NATURAL GAS THAT'S REDUCED CARBON EMISSIONS IN THAT SECTOR SO IT'S, YOU KNOW, ONE PIECE OF THE PUZZLE THERE.

IN TERMS OF, YOU KNOW, WHETHER THAT, YOU KNOW, DEFEATS THE PURPOSE, I THINK THERE IS A PROGRAM DEFINITELY SEE IT AS JUST ONE TOOL IN THE TOOL BOX.

I DON'T THINK IT'S THE ONLY THING.

THERE IS SOME CONCERN THAT IT DOESN'T TARGET, YOU KNOW, COMMUNITIES WHERE POWER PLANTS ARE LOCATED, RIGHT?

SO YOU AREN'T GETTING REDUCTIONS NECESSARILY IN COMMUNITIES OF COLOR AND DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES THAT HAVE SUFFERED THE BURDEN OF THOSE POWER PLANTS EMITTING NOT JUST CARBON BUT VERY HARMFUL POLLUTANTS THAT THE CONTRIBUTE TO ASTHMA AND OTHER ILLNESSES.

>> IF WE DO LIMIT IT JUST TO CARBON, IT DOESN'T MATTER, RIGHT?

IT'S IN THE ATMOSPHERE AND I MEAN IT DOESN'T OBEY THE STATE BOUNDARIES?

IT'S EVERYWHERE.

>> YEAH, I MEAN NEW YORK PRODUCING ITS CASH OBJECT EMISSIONS-- CARBON EMISSIONS IF OTHER PLACES DON'T REDUCE THEIR CARBON EMISSIONS OR IT LEAKS OUT, WE CALL IT LEAKAGE WHERE IF A MANUFACTURER SAYS, YOU KNOW, NEW YORK HAS THESE RULES AND WE DON'T THINK IT IS AN AFFORDABLE OPTION FOR US, WE THINK ELECTRICITY COSTS ARE GOING TO BE HIGHER SO WE ARE GOING TO LEAVE THE STATE AND GO TO A STATE THAT HAS A HIGHER CARBON PROFILE FOR THEIR ELECTRICITY GENERATION, THAT'S NOT A WIN FOR THE CLIMATE FOR SURE.

>> NOW FOR ALL THIS DISCUSSION SO FAR, WE'VE NOT ADDRESSED TRANSPORTATION.

AND ABOUT A THIRD OF NEW YORK'S GREENHOUSE EMISSIONS COME FROM TRANSPORTATION, ELECTRIC VEHICLES ARE ONLY A TINY FRACTION OF CARS AND TRUCKS ON THE ROAD.

FORD JUST ANNOUNCED IT IS GOING TO COME OUT WITH AN ELECTRIC PICKUP TRUCK.

FORD LIGHTNING.

BUT ARE THERE ANY LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS TO TAKE ON THIS ISSUE?

YOU KNOW, ANYTHING-- I GUESS HOW THE HECK DO WE GET THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR DOWN?

WE CAN BARELY, IF YOU HAVE A TESLA, OR A VOLT, YOU CAN BARELY FIND A PLACE TO CHARGE IT.

DENNIS?

>> YEAH, THERE IS A LOT OF INITIATIVES BY THE UTILITIES AND BY NYSERDA TODAY TO FUND ANY NUMBER OF ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING STATIONS TO REMOVE THAT AS A CONCERN.

EVEN THE UTILITIES ARE LOOKING FOR COMMERCIAL PORTS.

SO IF THERE IS COMMERCIAL OPERATIONS, THEY'RE LOOKING FOR COMPANIES THAT EITHER HAVE THEIR OWN SUBSTATION OR HAVE AVAILABLE CAPACITY TO CROW EIGHT THESE COMMERCIAL CHARGING AREAS-- TO CREATE COMMERCIAL CHARGING AREAS.

SO WE ARE ACTIVELY LOOKING AT THAT.

I THINK THE KEY POINT IN ALL OF THIS IS WHETHER IT'S ELECTRIC VEHICLES OR DISTRIBUTED SOLAR OR HEAT PUMPS, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT DEMAND.

AND THAT DEMAND IS GETTING FORCED INTO THE SAME AREA, WHICH IS THE DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS.

SO MY ONLY CAUTION-- AND YOU KNOW, I'M JUST AN ENGINEER.

SO I LOOK AT THE WORLD A LITTLE DIFFERENT IN TERMS OF WHAT ARE WE SOLVING FOR.

I GET RUINED WITH AN MBA BECAUSE HAVE YOU TO JUSTIFY WHAT YOU COME UP WITH.

SO WE ARE LOOKING AT THE TECHNOLOGIES THAT ARE OUT THERE, BUT WE HAVE TO REALLY THINK ABOUT MORE ABOUT BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, BUSINESS MODELS ALONG WITH THESE ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY ISSUES AND I DO UNDERSTAND THEM.

WE TALKED ABOUT BLOCK ISLAND EARLIER.

THAT WAS ACTUALLY $300 MILLION TO GENERATE CAPACITY OF 30 PEG WATTS.

THAT'S $10 MILLION A MEG MEGAWATT AND WITH SCALE, SCOPE AND GREAT DESIGN, IF WE DO THAT THAT 50% OF THE COST AND OUR GOAL OF 9,000 MEGAWATTS, THAT'S $45 BILLION.

AND WE ARE STILL NOT ADDRESSING THE BIGGEST IMPACT ON CARBON AND THAT IS THE DEMAND SIDE OF THE ELECTRIC METER, WHICH NOW WE ARE ADDING ELECTRIC VEHICLES, HEAT PUMPS, LOCATION-BASED SOLAR OR OTHER SOURCES.

SO THE REAL CHALLENGE FOR ALL OF US IS REALLY THIS ALIGNMENT SUSTAINABILITY CONVERSATION THAT SAYS WE HAVE AN ECONOMIC ISSUE THAT CAN ALIGN WITH THE ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES, SO WE REALLY NEED TO SHIFT OUR FOCUS NOT JUST ON CARBON, BUT WHAT IS THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ASPECT OF THIS?

ARE WHAT WE ARE DOING TODAY, IS THAT HELPING THE LOCAL AREAS HAVE CAPACITY, HAVE INFRASTRUCTURE IN PLACE SO THAT THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPERS ARE OUT THERE ATTRACTING PEOPLE TO NEW YORK ACTUALLY HAVE ELECTRIC CAPACITY OR INFRASTRUCTURE.

DO WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO CREATE THE TYPE OF GREEN ENERGY PRODUCTS IN NEW YORK AS OPPOSED TO JUST COLLECTING THE FEES, SUBSIDIES OR TAXES.

>> SO THIS ALL HAS TO MAKE SENSE ECONOMICALLY.

AND I KNOW YOU WANTED TO GET IN THERE, WE ONLY HAVE ABOUT 30 SECONDS LEFT ANNE SO I'LL GIVE YOU THE LAST WORD.

>> I WANTED TO JUMP IN ON THE TRANSPORTATION BILL.

THE ALLIANCE FOR CLEAN ENERGY OF NEW YORK SUPPORTED FIVE BILLS IN THE LEGISLATURE DESIGNED TO INCREASE ELECTRIC VEHICLE DEPLOYMENT IN NEW YORK AND TWO OF THEM HAVE BEEN PASSED AND WE ARE HOPING THE GOVERNOR SIGNS THOSE AND WE WILL BE BACK NEXT YEAR WORKING ON THE OTHER THREE.

ONE WOULD ALLOW FOR TESLA AND CAR COMPANIES TO OPEN UP STORES AND THE OTHER ONE WOULD PROMOTE ELECTRIC SCHOOL BUSES.

>> AND COULD I JUST ADD-- >> I'M SORRY, WE ARE OUT OF TIME.

WE HAVE TO HOLD THAT THOUGHT FOR THE NEXT TIME.

THAT WILL DO IT FOR TONIGHT'S PROGRAM.

AND IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO WEIGH IN ON TONIGHT'S DISCUSSION, YOU CAN WRITE TO THE ADDRESS ON YOUR SCREEN.

YOU CAN ALSO FOLLOW US ON FACEBOOK AND TWITTER.

YOU CAN VISIT OUR WEBSITE AT WCNY.ORG/CONNECTNEW YORK AND ON BEHALF OF OUR PANEL AND THE CONNECT NEW YORK TEAM, I'M DAVID CHANATRY.

THANKS FOR WATCHING AND HAVE A GOOD NIGHT.