New York agencies revealed updated modeling Tuesday indicating the state in 2050 could have a roughly 2 GW higher peak load but 4 TWh lower annual load than previously predicted (20-E-0197).

The Energy Policy Planning Advisory Council, which represents every energy sector and acts as an advisory board to the Public Service Commission, held its first stakeholder meeting to discuss the Joint Utilities’ updated Coordinated Grid Planning Process and begin to implement the state’s net-zero Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act.

The CGPP seeks to align New York’s transmission system development with its emissions reduction goals, while attempting to control costs and speed up processes as the state ramps up its energy production and consumption. The PSC kicked off this two-year, six-stage planning process after approving the CGPP in August. (See NY Creates Coordinated Grid Planning Process.)

While the PSC will finalize the CGPP’s framework, the EPPAC plays a key role in shaping the direction of the state’s grid planning by providing recommendations.

The Department of Public Service and the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority staff presented updated results from the integration analysis, showing 2050 peak load would increase roughly 55% and annual load increase 90% over 2020 levels.

NYSERDA’s IA is an economywide assessment supporting CLCPA implementation by modeling proposed emissions reduction and mitigation strategies and since has been modified to include updated reports from the Department of Environmental Conservation, as well as new sensitivity assumptions.

The updated outcomes show no significant impact on key topline cost and benefit metrics, but they do show some notable differences in predicted outcomes, including that New York’s economywide electrification is driving higher peak loads but that these are offset by efforts to decarbonize the building and transportation sectors.

These offsets are seen in the modeling through greater representation of building heating upgrades, increased electric vehicle infrastructure and better accounting of the effective load carrying capacity provided by certain renewables.

The IA has modeled only Scenario 2 of NYISO’s System and Resource Outlook, but staff emphasized this work is ongoing and they would return with more results from other modeled scenarios to help bound their assessments.

The CGPP has six stages, and the EPPAC is aligning multiple scenario forecasts and climate policy objectives, with the assumptions necessary to effectively develop its predictive modeling.

Elizabeth Grisaru of the DPS noted that the EPPAC operates on a tight timetable, with final CGPP recommendations due to the PSC for review July 1, 2025.

Therefore, the EPPAC is poised to meet twice a month with stakeholders to continue discussions.

Q&A

Stakeholders at the meeting had questions about both the updated CGPP modeling and staff’s presentation.

A common theme centered on how resources like hydrogen, dispatchable emission-free resources and energy storage were treated in the CGPP’s modeling and whether assumptions for these technologies were CLCPA-compliant.

Raya Salter, executive director of Energy Justice Law and Policy Center, said she worried staff were getting ahead of the PSC in determining “what should and shouldn’t be considered zero emissions” and wondered if the modeled level of hydrogen penetration is consistent with the CLCPA. The PSC is debating what resources can assist the state in achieving its net-zero goals. (See Contentious Commentary on Zero-Emissions Path in NY.)

The IA models hydrogen as green hydrogen, meaning produced cleanly through electrolysis, but some attendees said they worried about whether the role of hydrogen was being overvalued in the modeling, in lieu of other renewables.

Nick Patane, senior project manager at NYSERDA, responded to this and similar hydrogen questions by clarifying that the model assumes 50% of hydrogen production occurs in-state and the other half is imported. He added that the IA models hydrogen as green hydrogen, meaning it is produced only cleanly through electrolysis.

Erin Hogan of the state’s Utility Intervention Unit and William Acker, executive director of the New York Battery and Energy Storage Technology Consortium, had questions about DEFRs, and its related technologies, and whether these resources are being modeled correctly.

Hogan asked whether the IA accurately predicts the expected lifetime of certain intermittents, such as batteries, and if they are modeled in the state’s future transmission system according to their expected lifetime. “We need to find a Goldilocks solution: We don’t want to build too much, but we don’t want to build too little, and we want to build it in the right place,” she said.

Following this theme of nuanced transmission planning, Acker noted it’s critical to accurately model DEFRs, since certain classes of these resources have different effects on the transmission and distribution system that must be accounted for when deciding where to install new resources or make system upgrades.

Kevin Steinberger, director of E3, which developed the modeling, responded that its model was built to be flexible to account for those resources, but added that his team has been comparing notes with NYISO to ensure compatibility.

Other stakeholders asked about the CGPP’s modeling itself: how it was built, what its long-term implications for the state’s climate goals are and whether more inputs would be added.

Hogan asked about the continuation of transmission costs and benefits beyond the model’s study period.

Jason Frasier, senior manager of transmission planning at NYISO, responded that the ISO’s Outlook, which is where the CGPP’s modeling scenarios are pulled from, does not explicitly model beyond its study period but does have a perpetual setting that assumes the metrics from the final year are carried onward.

Hogan and others also asked if more scenarios would be added to IA, which staff confirmed was the case and that two more scenarios would be included in the CGPP’s modeling, as well as other market sensitivities.

One final concern expressed throughout the discussion was the need for transparency and stakeholder collaboration.

Stakeholders sought to ensure they would be contributing meaningfully to the final CGPP product, and staff promised to ensure transparency where possible, though they did cite some instances where issues related to confidentiality may make this difficult, particularly as it relates to generator retirements.

Staff added that a dedicated EPPAC website would be created to make locating relevant materials easier.