FROM: Ostroff Associates

DATE: December 5, 2022

RE: Climate Action Council Meeting

Co-Chairs
• Doreen Harris, President and CEO, New York State Energy Research and Development
Authority
• Basil Seggos, Commissioner, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

State Agencies & Authorities

• Richard Ball, Commissioner, New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets
• Marie Therese Dominguez, Commissioner, New York State Department of Transportation
• Thomas Falcone, CEO, Long Island Power Authority
• Hope Knight, President and CEO Designate, Empire State Development
• Justin Driscoll, Interim President and Chief Executive Officer, New York Power Authority
• Roberta Reardon, Commissioner, New York State Department of Labor
• Rory Christian, Chair, New York State Public Service Commission
• Robert Rodriguez, Secretary of State, New York State Department of State
• RuthAnne Visnauskas, Commissioner and CEO, New York State Homes and Community
Renewal
• Mary T. Bassett, Commissioner, New York State Department of Health

Council Appointees
• Donna L. DeCarolis, President, National Fuel Gas Distribution Corporation
• Gavin Donohue, President and CEO, Independent Power Producers of New York
• Dennis Elsenbeck, Head of Energy and Sustainability, Phillips Lytle LLP
• Rose Harvey, Senior Fellow for Parks and Open Space, Regional Plan Association
• Bob Howarth, Professor, Ecology and Environmental Biology at Cornell
• Peter Iwanowicz, Executive Director, Environmental Advocates NY
• Anne Reynolds, Executive Director, Alliance for Clean Energy New York
• Raya Salter, Lead Policy Organizer, NY Renews
• Paul Shepson, Dean, School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences at Stony Brook University
• Mario Cilento, President of the New York State AFL-CIO

1
2
3
4
 Basil Seggos
• Definitions for green and low-carbon intensity hydrogen were added.
• Green hydrogen is defined as hydrogen formed though electrolysis powered by renewable
electricity with a preference given to creation when there is a surplus of renewable
generation such as offshore wind at night.
• Low-carbon intensity (LCI) hydrogen is defined as hydrogen produced with carbon-
intensity equal to or less than two kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalent produced at the
site of production per kilogram hydrogen produced, calculated pursuant to the Climate
Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA).

Paul Shepson – Removing the global climate projections undercuts a key motivating factor behind
the entire document which is for New York State to lead on climate and motivate other jurisdictions
to follow.
• Maureen Leddy (Director of the Office of Climate Change, DEC) – There was a desire to keep
the document tailored more toward New York. However, the language can be added back in.

Bob Howarth – The last-minute insertion of LCI hydrogen should be struck from the document. Up
until this point, it was not included and the conversation around hydrogen was limited to green
hydrogen. The point has been made numerous times before that other forms of hydrogen are
inefficient, due to the high electricity need and incompatible with the CLCPA due to the carbon
footprint and associated co-pollutants. In 2017, industry came up with the marketing concept of
blue hydrogen. It was advertised as being low-carbon, but there is no science behind those claims.
Mark Jacobson partnered with me to do the first ever peer-reviewed analysis of blue hydrogen in
August 2021. In response to that, the Hydrogen Institute which is funded by bp, Total, Shell, and
Exxon, switched to the term LCI hydrogen. They specifically defined it how LCI hydrogen is defined
in the new document which means the language is right out of the campaigns of the oil and gas

5
industry. This language is also in the bipartisan infrastructure bill and the Inflation Reduction Act
(IRA), so it does follow the federal definition. However, the federal government does not call for a
full lifecycle analysis to be conducted whereas the CLCPA does. In no way can LCI hydrogen live up
to the requirements of the CLCPA.

Raya Salter – In agreement with Bob’s comments, the new text in the document now includes LCI
hydrogen 80 times. It looks like a simple search-and-replace was done to add it every time green
hydrogen was mentioned. This is right out of the fossil fuel industry playbook. There has been no
mention of blue hydrogen for over two years, but now at the last minute to include this is counter to
all the period work that has been done. There has been overwhelming agreement that hydrogen
was limited to green hydrogen and more so, that green hydrogen was limited to specific uses that
would limit combustion, have detailed lifecycle analysis and be used primarily in fuel cell
applications. The phrase that says LCI hydrogen would possibly be used if it is in the interest of
disadvantaged communities (DACs) is backhanded. The Climate Justice Working Group (CJWG) and
advocates in DACs have communicated that they do not want these technologies, so saying that it
could be in their interest is blatantly ignoring them.

Mario Cilento – The labor movement is in support of the language change to include LCI hydrogen.
In order to address cost increases, reliability concerns, and potential job loss, LCI and pink
hydrogen can be a way to prevent some of the pain that will be felt by workers in the transition.
Especially in energy-intensive and trade-exposed (EITE) industries, the State needs to keep options
on the table that will prevent jobs from moving to other states that have less stringent emission and
labor standards.
• Peter Iwanowicz – Is the assumption that LCI hydrogen would create more jobs than green
hydrogen?
• Cilento – Leaving the door open to the possibility to create more jobs.

Rory Christian – The characterizations of LCI fuel are wrong. At no point in the document is blue
hydrogen mentioned. Part of the reason that the color wheel terminology of hydrogen is not being
used anymore is because there is a recognition that technology is advancing significantly. There are
new ways to produce hydrogen which can provide the State with lower carbon intensity fuels. The
definition does not look like a cut-and-paste word switch. The changes look like a careful attempt to
recognize the concerns of some Councilmembers. The definition specifically says that hydrogen
must be used in accordance with the CLCPA, so that should address all the concerns of those who
have previously spoken. The State is looking at the total emissions of what is produced at the site
which is inclusive of everything from extraction, transportation and final production. Current
practices such as methane steam reform will not meet the requirements in the CLCPA. This is very
clear.

Iwanowicz – The language should be stricken. At the very least, the language that says “uses
calculated pursuant to the CLCPA” is unclear. This means others who use the document after it is
produced will be unclear on the intention of the wording. Another change that should be made is
that the word limited should be added in front of the word tool when referring to green hydrogen.

6
Dennis Elsenbeck – The Council needs to be consistent with other initiatives that the State is
pursuing. If this is consistent with the efforts to create a multi-state Hydrogen Hub, then it should
be included.
• Doreen Harris – This is something that NYSERDA has focused on as it submitted its concept
paper and eventually when it submits the final application that is due in April. It’s difficult
because the hydrogen language may not be the final language used at the federal level. So,
between the uncertain language at the federal level as well as the different accounting
methodology between other states participating in the Hub it has been tricky. The federal
application will focus strongly on electrolysis hydrogen.
• Tom Falcone – The text says that the use of hydrogen must conform to the requirements of
the CLCPA. That’s pretty clear.

Shepson – The issue with the text is not with the definitions. It’s that the terms are lumped together
and future readers of the Scoping Plan will get the wrong impression.

Gavin Donohue – The discussion today could be avoided by the Public Service Commission (PSC)
taking-up the petition to define a zero-emissions resource. Without knowing what complies with
the CLCPA, its impossible to know what should or what should not be in the document.

Harris – The feedback today will be considered and staff will work to resolve the issue.

Howarth – Chapter 3 should reflect the recently signed crypto-mining bill.

• Seggos – That will be added.

7
Howarth – Staff have worked hard to clarify the differences between renewable natural gas (RNG)
and biogas. The issue remaining is that the document starts by saying that these resources can
reduce greenhouse gas emissions, even though there are no peer reviewed studies proving this. The
methane emissions show they actually have a larger emissions footprint than fossil gas. While their
methane emissions can be improved, the document needs to strike this nuance and not simply
convey that their emissions are already reduced compared to fossil gas. Another note that should
be made is that it is difficult to separate methane from carbon dioxide when creating RNG. The
technologies for doing so are energy intensive, which is a penalty for emissions accounting, and
methane slips through when processing. The technologies can be improved, but that is not a
guarantee, so the document needs to account for these nuances. Lastly, the Scoping Plan says that
that biogas and RNG can reduce or eliminate these emissions sources. The emissions may be
reduced but the emissions will never be eliminated completely.

Elsenbeck – It’s good to see the references made to economic development in rustbelt communities.
The State needs to provide clear data on how these investments are being made, what type of jobs
are being created and where they are being created. It’s still concerning that there is no definition of
a benefit or investment when referring to DACs.
• Adriana Espinoza (Deputy Commissioner for Equity and Justice, DEC) – The CJWG is working
the tracking methodology for both investments and benefits related to DACs. At the next
CJWG meeting this will be reviewed in more detail.

8
Shepson – The language saying “good, family-sustaining job, union jobs” is odd. It’s unclear what a
family-sustaining job is and to say that all the jobs in the Plan will be union jobs is incorrect. Does
the State not want non-union jobs too?
• Cilento – The document is aspirational in nature and should reflect the policy of the State. If
the State wants to support unions and strive to increase the percentage of union jobs then it
should be included. Family-sustaining means that union jobs on average in the energy
industry pay $10,000 more a year than non-union jobs. This means that the jobs created, if
they are union jobs, will allow someone to support themselves and a family with better pay,
benefits and working conditions.

Donohue – In the last 20 years, the State has closed over 14,000 MW of power generation. Power
generation owners have done a good job in how they treat and handle displaced workers. Owners
do what they can for workers whenever possible. The language in the document suggests that it
should be an obligation for facility owners to burden the additional cost to pay for worker
retraining. It’s not the fault of the owners that they are going out of business due to the CLCPA, so to
put this extra cost upon them does not make sense. The document could encourage owners to do
what they can, but to specifically cite a cost-share for workers retraining is over the top.

9
10
Howarth – There might be a preference among a majority of Councilmembers for some scenarios
over others. It would be good to directly make a preference for scenario number three over
scenario number two. Scenario three is more consistent with the overall discussions we’ve had on
alternative fuels.
• Salter – There is absolutely a preference for scenario three.
• Donna L. DeCarolis – One scenario should not be supported over another.
• Elsenbeck – One scenario should not be supported over another.
• Iwanowicz – Bob is correct. Scenario number three is the pathway forward because it moves
most rapidly into full electrification with limited use of alternative fuels in those strategic,
hard to electrify areas. It also assures the greatest economic growth potential and the
greatest public health benefits. Scenario three should be endorsed because it really leans in
and goes after what New York wants to achieve as soon as possible, we are all in this global
race and scenario three is hands-down the best way to do it.
• Shepson – In agreement with Peter, the document needed to come down on the side of
favoring one of these scenarios or otherwise it just feels like an analysis. Scenario three
provides the greatest net-return as a result of health benefits so that particular scenario
should be stressed.
• Harris – The recommendations of the Council are not likely to change on the basis of any
particular scenario, in large part they are the same.

11
Howarth – On page 151, in the second paragraph, there is new language responding to CJWG. The
paragraph is largely okay, but the last sentence states “while renewable fuels still omit air
pollutants some renewable fuels have lower pm emissions than current petroleum-based fuels.”
That sentence is not necessary and it is inconsistent with the Health Chapter which goes into much
more detail. Specifically, on pages 87 and 88 of the report there is text that says renewables may
increase NOx emissions. It explicitly says they do not reduce particulate matter so that is factually
wrong and unnecessary and it should be deleted. On page 153, there is a call for how we should
take further information on this and it refers specifically to getting objective information in through
public comments. While public comments are great, peer-reviewed literature should be the gold
standard and it is not even mentioned. Peer-reviewed literature should be added and prioritized
alongside public comments.

Salter – The search and replace is an issue with regard to green and LCI hydrogen, but also to
broader issues. It is important to read out what the sentence now says; “In New York, a clean

12
transportation fuel standard would support transportation electrification as petroleum fuel
provides finance providers financial use of electricity for transportation use.” That is what it used to
say. Now it all adds; “and at least in the early years of the program it would also support the use of
alternative fuels such as bio fuels and green and LCI hydrogen that can demonstrate reductions in
GHG and co-pollutant emissions.” This is another instance where we have to revert back to the
language before we had LCI hydrogen. It is not about fixing that word; it is about removing it
because it is causing problems throughout the document. This is not addressing the CJWG, this is an
endorsement of biofuels and it is contrary to the ways the alternative fuels subgroup looked to
screen these types of technologies. That sentence should be struck.
• Iwanowicz – That language should be taken out. On page 135 it talks about DEC adopting
the clean vehicle standards from California. That should say “pursuant to statute or DEC
must adopt the ACC II” because that is technically and legally accurate. On page 128, it
discusses what will happen to retail gasoline stations and workers at convenience stores. It
is a false assumption that there will not be job losses in the gasoline convenience sector.
Most gasoline stations and convenience stores associated with them will be
decommissioned at some point down the road. We should understand that those workers
will be displaced. The language should be modified to recognize that there will be
significant shutdown of these gas stations and job losses as a result.
▪ Harris – That was a major finding in the jobs study. In fact, the greatest
source of job loss was in that sector.

Howarth –The Plan should explicitly say that the building sector is the largest greenhouse gas
emitter and if we are going to meet the goals of the CLCPA we need to do it in this sector. In the
same paragraph, it says that by 2040 we will have a carbon-free electric system and that is great,
but it could be read as implying that we should hold off on heat pumps until electricity is fully
carbon-free. It needs to be explicitly stated that we do not need to wait for the electric sector to
catch up in order to move ahead with heat pumps. On page 166, we should revert to the draft plan
we had from a year ago that called for implementing these changes more aggressively. If we are

13
going to take climate change seriously and implement the CLCPA we do not have the time to
postpone on that.

Iwanowicz – There are changes in text about thermal energy systems and on the bottom of page 168
it says “clean energy or clean thermal energy systems.” Rather than clean we should be using the
term zero-emissions thermal energy systems. On page 169, there is a bullet that says DEC should
adopt zero-emissions standards that prohibit fossil fuel use. Isn’t that captured by the requirement
that if DEC is establishing emission standards that those regulations have to be done by the end of
2023? We should consider that and get counsels opinion on that. On page 176, we should be clear
that the 100-foot rule needs to go elsewhere in the chapter on buildings. On page 182, we should go
beyond what the statute says, it is a great piece of law but it falls a little bit short. Can we change
this and make sure we are saying that thermal energy networks are supported by zero-emission
energy sources?
• Anne Reynolds – To emphasize the previous statement, there needs to be some clarification
on the 100-foot rule. On page 165, it states “as applicable these requirements would apply
to construction of buildings that file for a building permit in 2025.” What does “as
applicable” mean?
o Vanessa Ulmer (NYSERDA)– The reason for as applicable was to point out that these
codes apply to new construction but also buildings that are also going under
considerable renovation. It is confusing and we can delete the words “as applicable”
in those final sentences.

14
Elsenbeck –On page 220, it states that the Regional Economic Development Councils (REDCs)
should be involved. That should be a requirement for REDC to be involved, not a recommendation.
On page 222, the TND investment strategy needs to be much more integrated. It needs to look at if
today’s regulatory models and business models are working for us.

Iwanowicz – On page 205 and 206, there needs to be language in the alternative fuels section that
includes screens under both Section 7.2 and 7.3. We have included it elsewhere in the chapter and it
needs to be included in this amended language as well.

Reynolds – On page 200, it was great to include the latest information about job growth. The net job
creation by 2030 is projected to be 177,00 new jobs building off-shore wind, land-based wind, solar
and transmission. It is the foundation of the whole plan; these are really good family-sustaining
union jobs that will be created by building these projects, but they do have to reach construction to
reap the benefits.

15
Iwanowicz – On page 273, there is language in response to the CJWG which suggested that the State
should assess the benefits and costs of adopting a fee on fertilizer. There is no data or citation to
back up the assertation that farmers could be hurt due to this fee. This may be a situation where a
benefits and costs analysis will have to be conducted rather than just making the statement without
any data, it appears almost as an opinion.

16
17
18
19
20
21