Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Just Energy Transition Testimony topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Industry witness tells Senate energy committee the clean‑energy transition needs detailed modeling, suggests combined‑cycle retooling and carbon capture
Summary
An energy-industry witness told the Senate Standing Committee on Energy and Telecommunications that New York’s current planning for rapid electrification and storage is under‑modelled and could be very costly; he urged the committee to study combined‑cycle retooling and carbon capture alongside renewables and storage.
State Senator Kevin Parker opened the committee hearing by introducing guest witness Rich Allen Logan, who described himself as an electrical engineer with a Cornell bachelor’s and master’s degree and as a business owner who has built and operated highly energy‑efficient industrial and residential facilities.
Logan told the committee that New York’s push to electrify buildings and transportation and to replace fossil generators with intermittent wind and solar requires more detailed technical and logistical modeling. He said concerns include limits in workforce availability, transformer and materials supply chains, the short life span of current lithium‑ion battery systems and the high capital expense of grid‑scale storage.
“This is not a partisan issue to me. This is an issue purely an issue of science and physics,” Logan said, adding that some academic papers and models he reviewed rely on assumptions he considers flawed.
Why it matters: Committee members debating the Just Energy Transition Act asked the witness whether the bill’s planning timeline and statutory direction give NYSERDA sufficient flexibility to avoid reliability problems and undue rate pressure. The witness urged the committee to include retooling existing combined‑cycle generation, targeted carbon capture and a realistic assessment of storage needs as part of the state’s transition planning.
Key points from testimony and committee exchanges
- Reliability and storage scale: Logan said that without sufficient energy storage the system “breaks down,” and that NYSERDA’s storage estimates translate into very large capital needs. He quoted an estimate for battery capacity capital needs of about $3.4 trillion and a broader transition cost estimate of about $4.2 trillion; he said those figures came from analyses he had reviewed and asked the committee to request the underlying calculations.
- Combined‑cycle retooling and carbon capture: Logan said converting existing fossil plants to combined‑cycle operation can reduce fuel use and CO2 emissions by roughly 30–40% immediately, and that pairing combined‑cycle retrofit with carbon capture could yield larger reductions while maintaining high capacity factors. “When you go to a combined cycle plant, you’re reducing the carbon emissions by 30 to 40% because they’re so much more efficient,” he told the committee.
- Technology, supply chains and fire risk: Logan highlighted workforce shortages (electricians), transformer and materials bottlenecks, and fire risks associated with lithium‑ion battery storage, pointing to the Moss Landing incidents as an example. He suggested alternative storage approaches such as iron‑based batteries or electrostatic storage (supercapacitors) could reduce some risks and that first‑responder protocols need development.
- Microgrids and on‑site generation: Logan said he had built a microgrid at his facility and recommended greater attention to on‑site and distributed generation that reduces distribution costs.
Committee reaction and next steps
Members probed Logan on his cost estimates and asked for the underlying models. Senator Welch and others asked whether the committee should withdraw or pause bills until the committee heard testimony; Parker declined and proceeded with committee votes. Several members requested that NYSERDA and the Public Service Commission provide comparative modeling — including scenarios that incorporate combined‑cycle retooling, carbon capture, renewables plus storage and demand‑side measures — so the committee can compare costs and reliability outcomes before advancing final policy decisions.
Logan offered to supply his calculations and papers to committee staff for technical review. The committee did not adopt any immediate policy changes at the hearing; multiple bills were sent to either third reading or the Finance Committee for fiscal review.
Ending: Committee members said they will seek additional modeling and fiscal analyses from NYSERDA, NYISO and staff before final floor action on major transition legislation.
