From the MANHATTAN CONTRARIAN

Francis Menton

In June 2019, when New York passed its Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA), it all seemed so easy. Back then, everyone knew that “renewables” were cheaper than fossil fuels for making electricity; it was only the nefarious machinations of evil oil and gas companies that stood in the way of an effortless energy transition. New York would assume the mantle of climate leadership to show everyone the way. And even as recently as December 2022, New York’s path to energy utopia still seemed clear. That’s when the state issued what it called the Final Scoping Plan under the CLCPA, laying out the simple steps to achieve the goal. Just keep putting one foot in front of the other, and by 2030 we would have 70% of our electricity from renewables.

In the just over two years since then, things have fallen apart with remarkable speed. Yesterday, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum ordered a halt to all construction work on a project called Empire Wind, an offshore wind project located about 20 miles South of Long Island and just East of New York City. This is close to a final stake through the heart of the energy transition program outlined in the Scoping Plan. We have gone from what seemed a clear path to energy transition to being nowhere and with no plan forward. It’s fair to say that New York’s leaders have no idea what their next move is — other than the usual “Sue Trump!”

For some perspective, I’ll summarize the history up to yesterday’s development.

The linchpin of the Scoping Plan was the planned construction of some 9000 MW of off-shore wind capacity, said to be sufficient to supplant most of the existing fossil fuel electricity generation in the state. According to the Scoping Plan, as of 2022 some 4300 MW of that was already under “active development.”

Of the various off-shore wind projects constituting the 4300 MW in active development in 2022, three were the farthest advanced: the 816 MW first phase of a project called Empire Wind, and a second 924 MW capacity facility called Sunrise Wind, and a third much smaller (130 MW) project off Eastern Long Island called South Fork Wind. An agency called New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) is responsible for developing all of the projects except South Fork Wind (which got off the ground under a different agency, Long Island Power Authority, before the CLCPA process got going). According to the website of NYSERDA, in October 2019 a contract to develop Empire Wind 1 had been finalized with Norway’s Equinor, and another one for Sunrise Wind had been finalized with Denmark’s Ørsted. The NYSERDA announcement of the contracts touted the projects’ “cost-effectiveness”:

The Empire Wind and Sunrise Wind projects have an average all-in development cost of $83.36 per megawatt hour (2018 dollars) . . . . The average bill impact for residential customers will be less than a dollar per month per customer – approximately $0.73.

One could quibble about exactly how “cost-effective” that $83.36/MWh was — after all, it was a wholesale cost at the generation facility, and for intermittent power, when a modern natural gas plant can probably achieve a wholesale cost of around $50/MWh, and for dispatchable power. But anyway it was all a fantasy. As I reported in a post on October 5, 2023, in September of that year essentially all the developers of off-shore wind projects for New York had canceled their contracts and demanded huge price increases. These cancelations included not just Empire Wind 1, but also Empire Wind 2, Sunrise Wind, and several other projects aggregating to the 4300 MW of “active development.” For Empire Wind 1, the new demanded price was $159.64, and for the project’s second phase, Empire Wind 2, the new demanded price was $177.84.

As was then inevitable, the state put the contracts out for bid again. The bidding process resulted in new contracts involving a minor reduction in the previously demanded increases. Here is NYSERDA’s announcement from February 29, 2024, stating that with the new contracts “Empire Wind 1 and Sunrise Wind are now on a path to project completion,” and that the “weighted average all-in development cost of the awarded offshore wind projects over the life of the contracts is $150.15 per megawatt-hour.” The price increase had been in excess of 80%.

These two projects are both situated in federal off-shore waters, and therefore required permits from the federal government to proceed. The Biden Administration was fully committed to getting the maximum amount of off-shore wind capacity built as quickly as possible, and during 2024 quickly granted permits for both Empire Wind 1 and Sunrise Wind. The developer of Sunrise Wind was apparently eager to proceed. According to a July 17 release from NYSERDA here, Sunrise Wind got its federal permit from the Interior Department’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management on June 21 and started construction on July 17. At Empire Wind 1, things did not proceed quite as quickly.

And then, on January 20, 2025, came the Trump administration tsunami. One of Trump’s first Executive Orders, on January 20 itself, had the title “Temporary Withdrawal of All Areas on the Outer Continental Shelf from Offshore Wind Leasing and Review of the Federal Government’s Leasing and Permitting Practices for Wind Projects.” Suddenly, all the offshore wind projects that did not already have final permits were thrown into limbo — probably never to leave that state again, at least until a Democrat gets elected President.

And then yesterday came Interior Secretary Doug Burgum’s memo to the Acting Director of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management respecting the Empire Wind project. The Washington Free Beacon has a full story here, complete with a copy of the Burgum memo. Key text from the Burgum memo:

The matters identified thus far suggest that approval for the [Empire Wind] project was rushed through by the prior Administration without sufficient analysis or consultation among the relevant agencies as relates to the potential effects from the Project. In light of these revelations and consistent with the President’s instructions, I am directing you to exercise your authority to order Empire Wind to cease all construction activities. . . .

Today, New York Governor Kathy Hochul reacted as you would expect. A source called Marine Log has a report:

“As Governor, I will not allow this federal overreach to stand,” said New York State Gov. Kathy Hochul . ‘’I will fight this every step of the way to protect union jobs, affordable energy and New York’s economic future. . . . Empire Wind 1 is already employing hundreds of New Yorkers, including 1,000 good-paying union jobs as part of a growing sector that has already spurred significant economic development and private investment throughout the state and beyond. This fully federally permitted project has already put shovels in the ground before the President’s executive orders—it’s exactly the type of bipartisan energy solution we should be working on.”

Hochul used the phrase “shovels in the ground,” but it’s not clear if she is talking literally or only figuratively. Equinor has not proceeded as eagerly as its compatriot Ørsted over at Sunrise, and has apparently only begun preparing the seabed for the turbines (by unloading some tons of rocks from ships) within the past few days. The link goes to an April 13 Tweet from something called SaveLBI (Long Beach Island) saying:

HAPPENING NOW: The Netherlands-flagged Nordnes is dropping rocks 19 miles off Monmouth County, NJ—prepping the seabed for 54 massive wind turbines at the 80,000-acre Empire Wind site.

Hochul has a small problem that the turbines she is hoping to get built are in federal waters and so the federal government is going to have the main say.

The bottom line is that of New York’s grandiose plans for 9000 MW of off-shore wind projects, only South Fork Wind (130 MW) is actually finished, and only Sunrise Wind (924 MW) is actually legitimately under construction. Empire Wind and all the rest have gone into limbo, probably never to come out.

So how is New York supposed to get to the goal of 70% of electricity from renewables by 2030? It has no remaining plan for that. Somehow, Governor Hochul left that issue out of today’s remarks.

Essay by Eric Worrall

“Freedom to choose” is bad?

Appliance efficiency standards save consumers billions, reduce pollution and fight climate change

Published: April 17, 2025 10.41pm AEST
David J. Vogel
Professor Emeritus of Business Ethics and Political Science, University of California, Berkeley

President Donald Trump has said he wants to reverse decades of regulations about energy efficiency in American household appliances, claiming doing so will provide Americans with “freedom to choose” products that meet their needs.

In an April 9, 2025, statement, Trump claimed he could alter government regulations on his own, without the legally required process of public notice and comment.

But as a scholar of environmental regulations, I know those regulations were created to save energy and lower utility bills for consumers. I also know that many companies and consumers have supported federal regulation to strengthen energy efficiency standards and generally have opposed weakening them.

…

These appliance standards have reduced American energy use, including electricity. The existing national standards are projected to reduce overall national energy consumption by 10% between 2025 and 2035.

…

Making appliances more energy efficient has proved popular. A national survey released by the Consumer Federation of America in 2018 found that 71% of Americans “support the idea that the government should set and update energy efficiency standards for appliances.” Significantly, 72% of those surveyed named lowering electrical bills and 57% stated that avoiding construction of new power plants to keep electricity rates from rising were important reasons to increase appliance efficiency. 

…

Read more: https://theconversation.com/appliance-efficiency-standards-save-consumers-billions-reduce-pollution-and-fight-climate-change-253673

I don’t understand why greens like David Vogel have such a problem with freedom.

If 71% of Americans prefer more efficient appliances, there is no need for a law to enforce appliance efficiency – most people will choose energy efficient appliances of their own free will.

The 29% who have other priorities likely have good reasons. Sometimes the low energy choice is a problem.

For example, in 2021 California introduced laws banning stationary generators and gasoline powered fire pumps, everything has to be solar and batteries.

Some Californians might be fine with battery power for when the grid fails – I fully support their right to choose batteries if they prefer. But people in remote areas, where power outages are measured in weeks or months rather than hours, perhaps not so much.

Whatever is or has happened in the USA on the energy efficiency front, Britain, Europe and Australia have it far worse.

When Britain first introduced compliance efficiency standards, the only lightbulbs on sale for a while were compact fluorescent lightbulbs which contain mercury. At the time my kid was just a baby, and on one occasion I accidentally broke two fluorescent bulbs in one day in our bathroom. Appliance efficiency standards exposed my baby to mercury pollution.

I would not of my own free will have chosen mercury containing appliances, especially when my kid was so young – young children are particularly vulnerable to mercury exposure. But the British State took away my right to choose.

EU appliance efficiency standards also robbed Brits of decent lawnmowers – the only lawnmowers available to ordinary consumers are underpowered, and made mowing my lawn an ordeal of restarting the mower every time it got stuck. My Aussie lawnmower is far more powerful, it hardly ever gets stuck even when the grass is wet. There are energy appliance standards in Australia, but they were applied with a lighter touch, at least when it comes to lawn mowers.

Gasoline automobiles are where the real madness manifests:

Australia is also threatening to phase out gasoline, but with Australia’s vast empty spaces and poor road and electricity infrastructure, that isn’t going to happen, regardless of what ignorant city based politicians think they can force people to accept.

My point is, I’m happy to choose energy efficient appliances when they make sense – I love my energy efficient refrigerator, it is quiet, keeps the food cold, and costs very little to run. My LED lightbulbs last forever and cost nothing to run. But nobody should have to tolerate bureaucrats dictating what they can and cannot choose when it comes to home appliances, automobiles, and how to live their lives.

California’s refining capacity is collapsing—not because demand has disappeared, but because it is being deliberately dismantled by regulatory fiat. The recent announcement that Valero Energy will idle or shutter its Benicia refinery by 2026 isn’t just a business decision. It’s the calculated result of a hostile policy environment designed to punish traditional energy producers until they either leave the state or fall into government hands.

Welcome to Newsom’s California, where economic sabotage is spun as environmental justice—and where, quietly but unmistakably, a roadmap is being laid for state-controlled oil infrastructure.

The Valero Withdrawal: Death by a Thousand Regulations

The Benicia refinery, a cornerstone of Northern California’s fuel supply, processes 145,000 barrels of crude oil per day. It’s taken a direct financial hit from California’s mounting anti-oil regulations, including:

• A $1.1 billion impairment charge—a warning siren about future profitability.
• An $82 million air-quality fine, despite the facility operating under existing permits.
• New laws like SBX 1-2, which micromanage fuel inventory, pricing, and even resupply logistics.

These policies are not regulatory oversight—they are operational quicksand. The message is clear: if you’re not making biofuel, you’re not welcome.

Not Just a Shutdown—A Strategic Vacuum

Valero’s exit will eliminate 9% of the state’s refining capacity, triggering ripple effects that Californians will feel directly at the pump. More importantly, the loss of this capacity reduces supply security, amplifies price volatility, and cements California’s growing dependency on foreign imports of refined fuels—a logistical and geopolitical disaster in the making.

Yet Governor Newsom appears unbothered. That’s because this isn’t about fuel security or emissions. It’s about control.

The Smoking Gun: California’s Blueprint for State-Owned Refineries

Buried in the California Energy Commission’s May 2024 Draft Transportation Fuels Assessment is an eye-popping section outlining “highly complex implementation policies” for managing gasoline supply. Among these is a plan for state-owned refineries, described in detail as a fallback option in the event of market “failures.”

Let that sink in.

The state that has spent years making it economically impossible to operate a private refinery now wants to create its own. The very same report recognizes that refineries are shutting down not because demand has disappeared—it hasn’t—but because state policy has made it uneconomical to continue operations.

The report openly discusses how “as demand for gasoline shrinks, refineries may close or convert to processing clean transportation fuels.” But here’s the kicker: the decline in demand is slow and uneven, while supply shocks—thanks to abrupt closures—are “lumpy,” causing instability and risk. The document then lists state takeover scenarios as a solution to this instability.

In other words: destabilize the industry, then nationalize it.

Fewer Choices, Higher Prices, and One Owner

This isn’t a conspiracy theory. It’s policy, in writing, from the California Energy Commission. State officials are laying the groundwork to replace a functioning, competitive fuel market with a government-run enterprise. Think DMV meets gas pump.

And what about the consequences?

• Soaring fuel prices.
• Massive job losses in refining, transport, and supply chains.
• Crippling tax revenue loss for local communities like Benicia.
• Increased emissions from imported fuels and marine transport.
• Higher risks of supply shortages due to bureaucratic mismanagement.

All justified in the name of climate “equity.”

A Power Grab Disguised as Progress

This is not about climate. It’s not even about cleaner air—California’s emissions from transportation fuels are already among the lowest in the nation thanks to past technological improvements. This is about power—concentrated, centralized, and entirely unaccountable.

Gavin Newsom and his allies want to run California’s fuel infrastructure from Sacramento. They want a state monopoly on the means of energy production. If private operators won’t dance to the state’s tune, they’ll be fined, sued, and regulated into oblivion.

And then—when the last private operator gives up—Newsom will declare a crisis and “reluctantly” take over to “protect the public.”

Valero’s Exit Isn’t the End—It’s the Beginning

What’s happening in Benicia is a case study in economic expropriation by regulatory warfare. The goal is not to clean the air—it’s to seize the refinery. Newsom and his bureaucrats have written the playbook, and they’re not hiding it.

The only thing standing between Californians and $10 gasoline—rational policy, free enterprise, and informed resistance—is rapidly disappearing.

This isn’t just bad governance. It’s ideological colonization under the banner of sustainability.

H/T @houmanhemmati