The New York Climate Action Council’s Power Generation Advisory Panel on Thursday decided to take on the issue of methane gas leakage as part of an effort to scope out by next fall a statutorily mandated path to reduce the state’s greenhouse gas emissions 40% by 2030 and no less than 85% by 2050.

“After good discussion about the narrower methane leaks and associated emissions and safety consequences on the natural gas system, we’re going to turn this analysis into statements that reflect collective thinking,” said John B. Rhodes, chairman of both the panel and the state’s Public Service Commission. The panel is one of six, each sector-specific, advising the CAC.

The panel also discussed the broader issue of developing and integrating renewable energy resources onto the New York grid.

The Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA) directs the state’s Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) to include upstream emissions in its statewide emission calculations. New York on Oct. 27 concluded its hearings and public comment process on statewide emissions limits for 2030 and 2050 proposed by the DEC — 60% and 15%, respectively — of estimated 1990 GHG emissions. (See New York Holds Final CLCPA Emissions Hearings.)

The Future of Gas

Kit Kennedy, director of energy and transportation for the Natural Resources Defense Council, said that addressing methane leakage is a natural part of dealing with GHG emissions, but that it should be done in a way that doesn’t extend the life of the natural gas system.

“We do know we are going to have to get off gas to meet the CLCPA goals, at least fossil gas,” Kennedy said. She said she was concerned about language indicating a continued need for natural gas in the near to medium term. “I don’t know what that means, [as well as] needing gas to ensure reliability. I prefer that we keep those issues as distinct as possible.”

New York’s GHG emissions in 2015 were virtually unchanged from 1990 levels, according to a recent study that highlights upstream impacts and the role of methane under the state’s revised reporting rules. (See NY Study Highlights Rising Methane Emissions.)

The issue of methane leakage is inexorably tied with a solution for the missing 25% of emissions reductions in 2040, said John Reese, senior vice president of Eastern Generation, which controls approximately 5,000 MW of generation in the state, including some peaker units.

“We need to look at what it takes to mitigate the leakage, and [if we are] going to use the natural gas system infrastructure system going forward to meet some of the other needs that currently are unfilled in 2040,” Reese said. “Looking at this in a stovepipe or isolated manner will be problematic. The impact piece of this is the first step before we can look at how we go about dealing with this larger issue.”

Macy Testani, assistant project manager at the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA), said that consumers, not utilities, pay for leaks from points beyond the main natural gas pipelines and that there is little incentive to fix the aging pipes that run to many residences and businesses. She referred to a 2019 study that breaks down the leakage in-state in terms of upstream, midstream and downstream sides, the latter contributing significantly to overall emissions attributed to gas infrastructure.

Rhodes interrupted to say that, “It is certainly the case that the state regulatory apparatus and the utilities are prioritizing repair to the riskiest stretches of leak-prone pipe, in this case being a safety concern of explosion.”

William Acker, executive director of the New York Battery and Energy Storage Consortium (NY-BEST), said that methane is more impactful but also more reactive, meaning a lot of the methane in the atmosphere is naturally consumed each year.

“You can stop the leaks, or you can react the methane and get rid of it,” Acker said. “It might be that there’s an economically viable path that stops the major leaks and reacts some of the methane to get rid of it. … Has there been any research on that, or is that an area being considered at all? … It may be a crazy idea.”

Testani said that NYSERDA and the DEC have not looked at the reactivity of methane in the current mitigation project, but “we’re at the point where we need all crazy ideas to consider.”

The CLCPA also requires that methane emissions be compared with CO2 over a 20-year period rather than the 100-year time frame still used by virtually all other governments in the world. Testani said NYSERDA expects to issue the draft 20-year time frame analysis in January.

Bring on the Renewables

The CLCPA requires that 40% of the benefits of state investments in clean energy reaches disadvantaged communities, which are often located near the dirtiest oil- and gas-fired peaker plants. The state is taking “an accelerated approach” to meeting those investment goals, said John Williams, vice president for policy and regulatory affairs at NYSERDA.

A big challenge in retiring those peakers “is not just a peaking issue; it’s also an overall energy production issue,” NYISO Executive Vice President Emilie Nelson said.

Many studies show that, especially in light of climate change, sustained periods of weather patterns, such as lulls in the wind or less sunshine in winter, are not conducive to high renewable output, she said.

“That could happen on a seasonal basis for quite a long duration, so it’s a daily cycle; it’s a seasonal cycle; so, that’s not just a peak issue,” Nelson said.

NRDC’s Kennedy brought up possible barriers to developing renewables, such as the buyer-side mitigation policies from NYISO that were partly rejected by FERC. (See FERC Rejects NYISO Bid to Aid Public Policy Resources.)

“Despite the new siting law in New York, siting and community concerns and opposition are still a big issue … as is access to all for renewables, which ties into equity and environmental justice concerns,” Kennedy said. “I’d also like us to dig a little deeper into some of the assumptions … like lack of suitable space for large-scale renewables downstate.” S

he urged panel members to “make sure we are not locking ourselves into traditional thinking.”

Lisa Dix, New York representative for the Sierra Club Beyond Coal Campaign, brought up barriers in NYISO to dispatching storage and said she wanted to “amplify the question mark” on the lack of space issue, suggesting that NYSERDA officials assessing build-ready sites look in New York City and Long Island.

“In the process of getting rid of dirty peaker plants, how will those sites be reused?” Dix said.

In response to Dix, Nelson said that in August, “NYISO did implement a full complement of storage rules that allow participation of storage directly in our energy markets. … So, there is an option for participation and dispatchability by storage resources within the wholesale markets.” (See NYISO’s 2nd Storage Compliance Almost Hits Mark.)