NYSERDA Electric Vehicle Propaganda

Roger Caiazza

Here is another example of a jurisdiction desperately trying to put a positive spin on their floundering net-zero transition efforts.

The New York State Energy Research & Development Authority (NYSERDA) has an important role in the Climate Act implementation.  They publish “featured stories” that “take you inside the work to build a clean energy future in New York.” The term “propaganda” implies the dissemination of information, often biased or misleading, to promote a particular agenda.  That description perfectly describes the February 11 Clean Energy Growth story “EVs hit record numbers in NY and the US”.

New York’s Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act) established a New York “Net Zero” target (85% reduction in GHG emissions and 15% offset of emissions) by 2050.  It includes two 2030 targets: an interim emissions reduction target of a 40% GHG reduction by 2030 and a mandate that 70% of the electricity must come from renewable energy by 2030. The Climate Action Council (CAC) was responsible for preparing the Scoping Plan that outlined how to “achieve the State’s bold clean energy and climate agenda.”  After a year-long review, the Scoping Plan was finalized at the end of 2022.  Since then, the State has been trying to implement the Scoping Plan recommendations through regulations, proceedings, and legislation. 

This article compares the numbers in the “EVs hit record numbers in NY and the US” story and the numbers in the Scoping Plan.

EVs Numbers in NY

NYSERDA gave the following numbers for New York based on this reference:

In 2024, New York saw 90,221 new EV registrations, bringing the total number of EV drivers to more than 271,000 at the start of 2025. EV registration in 2023 totaled 78,950, meaning that 2024 saw a 14.3% jump in electric vehicle adoption across New York State.

Of the new EVs registered in New York State, 54,664 were battery-electric models and 35,557 were plug-in hybrid electric vehicles[2]. Battery-electric EVs run completely on electricity, whereas plug-in hybrids have an all-electric range of around 20 to 50 miles and an internal combustion engine fueled by gasoline that kicks in once the battery power is exhausted.

Scoping Plan EV Numbers

The Scoping Plan is New York’s blueprint for meeting the Climate Act mandates.  NYSERDA hired a contractor who developed a list of control strategies,  estimated costs and emission reductions, turned a crank and conjured up  three decarbonizing scenario “plans”  for New York to meet the aspirational Climate Act schedule.  Feasibility, accountability, and transparency are not valid descriptors of the results produced. 

After no little effort I found the projected EV data.  Table 1 lists the projected 2024 EV sales for the three scenarios compared to the observed sales. Scenario 1 (Strategic Use of Low-Carbon Fuels) was the most realistic projection, the other two (Accelerated Transition Away from Combustion and Beyond 85% Reductions) were based on fantasies from the beginning.  For our purposes, note that battery electric vehicle sales were 10% lower than projected and plug in hybrid vehicle sales were 34% lower than Scenario 1 last year.

 Table 1: 2024 NY EV Sales Comparison Scoping Plan Scenarios vs. Observed Sales

Comparing the Strategic Use of Low-Carbon Fuels scenario projections over time shows that 2023 was te only year when the observed Battery Electric sales exceeded the projections.  The Plugin Hybrid vehicle sales exceeded projections only in the first year. 

Table 2: EV Sales Comparison Strategic Use of Low-Carbon Fuels Projection vs. Observed Sales

The trends are shown in Figure 1.  The Scoping Plan modeling projects that Battery Electric sales will increase sharply in the future.  The modeling also projects that Plugin Hybrid sales will peak in 2026 and then tail off. 

Figure 1: EV Sales Comparison Strategic Use of Low-Carbon Fuels Projection vs. Observed Sales

Discussion

Trying to estimate how every sector will be affected by changes in energy use and fuels in the NYSERDA sponsored modeling for the Climate Act implementation is a massive effort.  The additional effort required to completely document the reduction strategies, emissions changes expected, and costs for each strategy undoubtedly led to the decision to not provide sufficient information for meaningful stakeholder review.  Conveniently, the lack of transparency means that stakeholders have difficulty asking embarrassing questions.  However, New York State is proposing a complete transformation of all facets of the energy system of the state at a likely cost of over a trillion dollars so in my opinion, the lack of comprehensive documentation is unacceptable.

Attempting to verify the Scoping Plan projections to observations is difficult.  Given these results, the obfuscation is likely deliberate.  In 2024 the Battery Electric vehicle sales were 10% less than projected.  This is not a good result given that the projection was made three years ago.  The model projects that sales will rapidly increase in 2026 and beyond. Note that Plugin Hybrids are not good enough for New York’s zero-emissions aspiration so the modeling projects that sales will peak and tail off.  

My problem with the modeling results is that they are too convenient.  I am convinced that the projections just interpolated between the Climate Act goals and current conditions to quantify vehicle sales.  The rationale driving the sales is not documented.  Why does the state expect that electric vehicle sales will increase as projected?

Up until Trump paused the program there was a Federal mandate that said all vehicles sold at a certain date will be electric.  All the mandates and incentives for the manufacturers are fruitless if the public says no thanks.  In this case there is no evidence that there is pent up demand for electric vehicles as shown by the result that Ford lost $5.1 billion in 2024 and $4.7 billion in its electric vehicle business.  Common sense says the projected sales trajectory is wishful thinking.

Conclusion

New York electric vehicle sales are not meeting the projections necessary to meet the Climate Act mandates.  NYSERDA’s reports describing “record sales” don’t bother to mention that fact.  The lack of evidence that the electric vehicle transportation sector emission reduction plan will work is one more reason that New York State needs to pause the process and determine if the plans are feasible before more money is squandered.   I suspect that this is a universal problem for all similar initiatives.  No number of cheerful claims of record sales will be able to hide the facts much longer.


Roger Caiazza blogs on New York energy and environmental issues at Pragmatic Environmentalist of New York.  This represents his opinion and not the opinion of any of his previous employers or any other company with which he has been associated.


Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

via Watts Up With That?

https://ift.tt/4qgXwQB

February 14, 2025 at 08:01AM

Nottingham:Watnall WMO 03354 – Doublespeak in action.

53.00560 -1.25124 Met Office CIMO Assessed Class 4 Archived temperature records from 1/1/1957

This is an update on Tim Channon’s original 2012 review of this site with some important additional revelations. There are three other reviews that need to be taken into consideration with this site, my recent Pembrey Sands and Winterbourne ones, and more importantly Tim’s excellent appraisal of Met Office enclosures, paving and their relevant effects. The latter is a long technical read but very worthwhile.

Nottingham:Watnall is an important manned Met office site with a full range of instrumentation including Radiosonde launch and tracking facilities. Originally just a rain gauge site installed in 1941 the full facilities were added from 1957 onwards.

Watnall lies to the north west of the very substantial Urban Heat island of Nottingham – population 340,000. Any gentle south easterlies emanating from north or even Saharan Africa will often have tracked over mainland Europe with an almost negligible sea crossing of the English Channel, pass over London and via Nottingham itself onto the site. A good location to record naturally hotter air streams subsequently picking up artificially warmed factors. Readings will no doubt be accurate but unrepresentative of the wider surroundings.

The area immediately under Met Office control has also been physically altered by the Met Office itself with additional structures hemming the screen in. This image below from 2001 predates the Radiosonde portacabins with launch facilities on their roofs installed by the road way to the north east. The entire site is now bordered by buildings and hedges further forming a distinct micro-climate.

With all these compromises the site only meets the quoted “Class 4 (additional estimated uncertainty added by siting up to 2 °C)”. So what is the relevance of Pembrey Sands, Winterbourne and Tim’s work on enclosures to Watnall?

Firstly, the Pembrey screen was shown to be unacceptably located over a fully concreted enclosure. Now consider these recent archived notes for Watnall.

The Met Office do not give any consideration to screen’s proximity to electricity sub stations but agonise over the waste heat from low voltage junction boxes and duly removed some in Watnall in the interests of removing “the number of heat sources” and to improve data integrity! And possibly after having taken note of Tim’s astute calculations decided to lift and remove all the enclosure paving and (it would appear) even the immediate enclosure screening itself. It should be applauded that the Met Office is taking such steps in improving the immediate screen locality. The problem I have is their unwillingness to recognise all the other major detrimental influences – removing a few paving slabs at Watnall whilst simultaneously taking readings over 144 square metres of concrete at Pembrey seems doublespeak to me. They are also seemingly ignoring all the other detrimental factors. I confidently expect the Met Office will shortly reassess this as a Class 3 site quoting the reason as these improvements. So one final look in close up.

The screen is the one to the right in pre-slab removal days…….just don’t ask what the screen on the left in front of the Radiosonde portacabin is – surely not?! It is probably quite innocent but worth noting it is a relatively recent addition – one to keep an eye on.

via Tallbloke’s Talkshop

https://ift.tt/61cydCD

February 14, 2025 at 04:19AM

New York To Drown Soon

“On January 13, 2024, the day that the photographs above were taken, it measured water levels three feet higher than predicted.”

“the team predicts that in the next decade, water levels at the coastline of the Battery could rise nearly as much as they did in the previous 100 years, increasing seven to 11 inches by the 2030s.”

Flood Pressure

Since the date of that photograph, sea level has fallen about one foot at a rate of 21 meters per century.

https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/data/8518750_meantrend.csv

About Tony Heller

Just having fun

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

via Real Climate Science

https://ift.tt/WuhsSOA

February 14, 2025 at 04:04AM

Tree rings and fire scars show fewer forest fires burn in North America today than in the past


The message is clear: more managed burns are needed to prevent worse wildfires due to lack of them. Blaming the climate and all the baggage attached to that is beside the point.
– – –
Fewer wildfires burn in North American forests today than in previous centuries, increasing the risk of more severe wildfires, according to research published in Nature Communications.

The findings may seem counterintuitive, but frequent low-lying surface fires often maintain balance in forests by reducing fuel sources across large areas, says Phys.org.

The new study led by the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES) at the University of Colorado Boulder and the U.S. Forest Service’s Rocky Mountain Research Station compared wildfire frequency between two time periods: 1984 to 2022 and 1600 to 1880.

Scientists analyzed 1,850 tree-ring records in historically burned areas and compared them to maps documenting the perimeters of modern fires across Canada and the United States.

The findings show modern-day fires are much less frequent than they were in past centuries, despite recent record-breaking fire years, such as 2020. The results also reveal that much of the continent is in a substantial “fire deficit,” experiencing about 20% as much fire as in the past.

On average, larger areas of land burned from fires each year before 1880 compared to 1984–2022. This deficit allows fuel to build up over time, creating conditions for more severe fires.

“It’s a harbinger for far more bad fires to come unless we can get more beneficial management fires on the landscape,” said Chris Guiterman, a CIRES research scientist and member of NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) paleoclimate team.

Even though a much larger portion of the forest burned in fires in the 18th and 19th centuries, those fires were less devastating: the trees that recorded those fires survived and continued to grow. Modern fires, in contrast, are so severe they often leave forests barren and speckled with dead trees.
. . .
Previous research shows that activities such as mechanical fuel treatments and prescribed burning are effective ways to reduce fire impacts, and are in line with both Indigenous management practices and long-term ecological processes.

Full article here.
– – –
Image: US forest fire [credit: Wikipedia]

via Tallbloke’s Talkshop

https://ift.tt/YONK8Hq

February 14, 2025 at 04:02AM