NYS Hidden Green Energy Surcharges - A public transparency project

July 2026

Our purpose is to provide independent, data‑driven estimates of the clean‑energy surcharges embedded in New York utility bills. These charges are real, mandated, and fragmented across multiple riders that obscure their total cost. We support clean energy pursued responsibly and transparently, and we believe ratepayers deserve clear information about how these policies are funded. This project offers factual, accessible insight into costs that are currently hidden from public view.

Clean energy deserves honest accounting - The Hidden Cost

·       Through July 2026, it is estimated that NYS has collected $548,779,000 in hidden Green Energy Surcharges.

·       Over the course of 2026, the estimated total to be collected is $940,764,000.

·       The total is nearing 1 BILLION DOLLARS.

A Responsible Clean‑Energy Position

This is not an “anti‑green” position. It is an anti‑concealment position — one that supports clean energy when it is implemented responsibly, grounded in science, and free from idealistic assumptions or incentive structures that distort economic reality.

Hidden in your monthly utility statement are a set of charges that:

  • are driven by state energy policy (CLCPA, CES, NYSERDA programs, renewable procurement, efficiency mandates)

  • are not itemized in any single place on the bill

  • are fragmented across multiple riders and adjustments

  • are not disclosed as a unified total to ratepayers

  • are not shown as a single cost in PSC rate case summaries

  • are not presented as a consolidated figure in NYSERDA public‑facing documents

  • are not voted on as a single budget line

  • are not understood by the average customer

These charges do exist. They are real. They are embedded in delivery. They are mandated. They are hidden in the sense that they are not presented as a unified cost.

The Public Is Not Shown the Total

NYSERDA reports spending. PSC rate cases show components. But no public document shows the total cost imposed on ratepayers through these combined surcharges.

The result is a system where New Yorkers fund clean‑energy initiatives without ever seeing the full amount they are collectively paying.

Policy vs. Transparency

New York’s energy policy is ambitious and shaped by climate legislation. The cost of those policies is passed to ratepayers through delivery‑side surcharges that are not disclosed as a unified cost. These charges extract hundreds of millions of dollars from New Yorkers every year, yet they remain fragmented and difficult for the public to identify.

This project does not oppose clean‑energy goals. It opposes the concealment of their costs.

The Bottom Line

If the State chooses to fund clean‑energy initiatives through utility bills, that is a policy choice. Being transparent about how those initiatives are funded is a values choice — one that should reflect honesty and uphold public trust.

THE FULL STORY OF A 2,500‑ACRE FOREST‑TO‑SOLAR PROJECT – 2056 Post Mortem

June 2026

A clear, human narrative from the first tree cut to the last pole pulled.

For seventy‑five years or perhaps more, the 2,500‑acre forest stood quietly doing its work. It held hundreds of thousands of tons of carbon in its trees, roots, and soil. Every year it pulled thousands more tons out of the air. It sheltered wildlife, filtered water, cooled the land, and asked nothing in return. No subsidies. No tax credits. No ratepayer surcharges. Just a functioning ecosystem doing climate work for free.

Then one day the survey stakes went in, and the first chainsaw started.

The moment the clearing began, the forest’s stored carbon—600,000 to 700,000 tons of CO₂—was put on a path back to the atmosphere. Some of it would be released quickly through burning or chipping, the rest slowly as stumps and roots decayed. The forest’s annual carbon removal—3,000 to 5,000 tons per year—stopped instantly. Over the next thirty years, that lost sequestration would add up to another 90,000 to 150,000 tons of CO₂ that would never be absorbed.

The land was scraped, graded, compacted. Roads were cut. Drainage patterns were altered. The living system that took three‑quarters of a century or more to grow was erased in a matter of months.

Then the industrial phase began.

Panels were manufactured overseas, mostly in coal‑powered factories. Steel, aluminum, copper, and concrete were produced, shipped, and trucked in. Heavy equipment ran for months, driving thousands of steel piles deep into the ground. Transformers, inverters, wiring, and fencing were installed. The carbon cost of this phase—manufacturing, shipping, construction—was another 400,000 to 600,000 tons of CO₂.

And here’s the economic truth: The project only existed because of subsidies.

Federal tax credits covered a large share of the cost. Accelerated depreciation gave investors enormous early write‑offs. State renewable credits added more. Ratepayers funded grid upgrades and renewable surcharges. The public paid the bill. Private developers and investors collected the profit. Foreign manufacturers supplied the hardware.

By the time the last panel was bolted down, the people who paid and the people who benefited were already two different groups.

For the next thirty years, the solar farm produced electricity—about 670,000 megawatt‑hours per year. Each year, that avoided roughly 150,000 tons of CO₂ compared to fossil‑fuel electricity. Over three decades, the avoided emissions totaled around 4.5 million tons. This was the climate benefit—the long‑term payoff.

But the economics were not driven by the electricity. They were driven by the subsidies.

The developer and investors made their money in the first five to seven years—through tax credits, depreciation, and guaranteed revenue. After that, the project was sold, resold, refinanced, and eventually held by a special‑purpose LLC with no assets beyond the aging equipment. The forest was gone forever, but the financial players had already moved on.

Then came the end of life.

Panels degraded. Inverters failed. Steel rusted. Output dropped. The site no longer justified its operation.

Decommissioning meant removing hundreds of thousands of panels, pulling thousands of steel piles, breaking up concrete pads, removing wiring and transformers, tearing out fencing, and regrading the land. A real cleanup of a 2,500‑acre site would cost $25 to $50 million.

But the decommissioning bond posted decades earlier was only $500 to $1,000 per acre—a fraction of the real cost. A 10× to 20× shortfall.

And the LLC that owned the project by year thirty? Often hollow. Sometimes dissolved. Rarely capable of paying for a full cleanup.

So the burden fell to the landowner, the county, or the state. In other words: the public.

And even when cleanup was attempted, no one restored the land to its original condition. No one rebuilt the soil structure. No one re‑established the hydrology. No one replanted a 75‑year forest. No one could.

The site was stripped of equipment, but the ecosystem was gone.

When the last pole was pulled and the land was left bare, the full carbon story looked like this:

  • 600,000–700,000 tons of forest carbon released or at risk

  • 90,000–150,000 tons of lost future sequestration

  • 400,000–600,000 tons from the solar farm’s own life cycle

A total carbon impact of 1 to 1.5 million tons of CO₂ added or not absorbed.

Against that, the solar farm avoided ~4.5 million tons of fossil emissions over thirty years.

So yes—the project eventually “won” in carbon terms. But it did so by sacrificing a living forest, taking years to pay back the initial damage, and shifting nearly all economic risk onto the public.

And that is the heart of the matter:

The climate benefit is global. The environmental cost is local. The financial benefit is private. The financial risk is public.

The forest worked for free. The solar farm worked because it was subsidized. The investors profited early. The public paid at the beginning, the middle, and the end.

And the land—once a thriving ecosystem—will take generations to resemble what it was before the first tree fell.

Key Assumptions Used in the Analysis

Solar Project Characteristics

  • Project size: ~450 MW (AC) utility‑scale solar farm

  • Land area: ~2,500 acres

  • Capacity factor: 17% (typical for Northeast U.S.)

  • Annual electricity generation: ~670,000 MWh/year

  • Project lifespan: 30 years of operation

  • Decommissioning period: ~2–3 years

Carbon Accounting Assumptions

Forest Carbon

  • Carbon stored in 75‑year forest: ~240–280 tons CO₂ per acre → 600,000–700,000 tons CO₂ total

  • Annual sequestration rate: ~1.2–2 tons CO₂ per acre per year → 3,000–5,000 tons CO₂/year

  • Lost sequestration over 30 years: 90,000–150,000 tons CO₂

Solar Life‑Cycle Emissions

  • Cradle‑to‑grave solar emissions: 10–36 g CO₂/kWh (NREL range)

  • Applied midpoint for analysis: ~20–30 g CO₂/kWh

  • Total solar life‑cycle emissions over 30 years: 400,000–600,000 tons CO₂

Avoided Fossil Emissions

  • Grid fossil intensity: ~0.20–0.25 tons CO₂ per MWh

  • Annual avoided emissions: ~150,000 tons CO₂

  • 30‑year avoided emissions: ~4.5 million tons CO₂

Economic Assumptions

Subsidies & Incentives

  • Federal Investment Tax Credit (ITC): 30%+

  • Accelerated depreciation (MACRS): 5‑year schedule

  • State renewable energy credits: included

  • Ratepayer surcharges: assumed present

  • Grid upgrade costs: passed to ratepayers

Developer/Investor Behavior

  • Profit realized in first 5–7 years (tax credits + depreciation)

  • Project ownership: special‑purpose LLC

  • LLC likely sold multiple times before end‑of‑life

  • LLC may not exist at decommissioning

Decommissioning Assumptions

  • Realistic cleanup cost: $10,000–$20,000 per acre → $25–50 million total

  • Typical decommissioning bond: $500–$1,000 per acre → $1–2.5 million total

  • Bond shortfall: 10×–20×

  • Restoration expectation:

    • Equipment removed

    • Soil left compacted

    • No reforestation

    • No hydrology restoration

    • No precedent for restoring a site this large

General Environmental Assumptions

  • Forest cannot be restored to original condition within any reasonable timeframe

  • Soil compaction and hydrology changes are long‑lasting

  • Ecosystem services lost permanently or for many decades

  • No large U.S. solar farm of this scale has ever been decommissioned

A Systems‑Based, Evidence‑Driven, Human‑Centered Framework

March 2026

No single paper can capture all there is to know regarding this or any other issue. This is simply one collection of thoughts and data to support my position.

Climate change is real and it is also naturally cyclical. The way we talk about it has drifted far from the complexity of the system itself. Public discourse often reduces climate to a single variable — CO₂ — and a single solution — rapid decarbonization. This narrowing of focus distorts the science, undermines policy, and creates unintended consequences for the people least able to absorb them. A meaningful climate framework must begin with humility, context, and a commitment to human well‑being.

This paper presents a grounded, systems‑based approach to climate and energy — one that respects long‑term scientific patterns, acknowledges economic and agricultural realities, and prioritizes human flourishing as the foundation of environmental progress.

My Perspective

I come at climate and energy the way I’ve come at most things in my life — from the ground up, with a pencil, a ledger, and a sense of what actually works. I have worked at the intersection of land, agriculture, and practical energy systems. I hold Degrees in Agronomy, Soil Science and Ornamental Horticulture from Alfred State College, and Business Operations from the Center for Agricultural Business at Purdue University. My experience in dairy operations, regenerative cropping practices, and small‑scale renewable projects is grounded in over 40 years of business management including profitability, cashflow, and the underlying financial structures needed to operate long term — a perspective that keeps my focus on what is durable, affordable, and workable in the real world. I hold a simple belief: when people have economic stability and agency, they make better decisions for the land — and the environment improves with them.

1. Climate as a System

Climate is not a slogan or a single‑variable equation. It is a dynamic, interdependent system shaped by solar cycles, orbital mechanics, oceanic oscillations, volcanic activity, land use, atmospheric composition, and human activity. Any policy framework that elevates one factor above all others risks misunderstanding the system it seeks to influence.

A systems perspective restores the necessary complexity. It recognizes that climate behavior emerges from interactions across scales — from the tilt of Earth’s axis to the structure of a local watershed. This perspective does not deny human influence; it simply places that influence within the broader context of planetary forces.

2. The Long Arc of Earth’s Climate

To understand today’s climate, we must zoom out. A 65‑million‑year temperature record reveals Earth cycling through four major states: Hothouse, Warmhouse, Coolhouse, and Icehouse. We currently live in an Icehouse — one of the coldest eras in Earth’s history. Against this backdrop, modern warming is modest and consistent with natural variability.

Even the last thousand years show dramatic shifts: the Medieval Warm Period, the Little Ice Age, and the modern warming trend. These transitions occurred without industrial emissions. They remind us that climate is always changing, always dynamic, and always influenced by forces beyond human control.

Climate predictions depend on models that combine multiple factors, and even one misjudged input can lead to a misleading result. My approach is grounded in a practical truth: every model is flawed, but some still offer value. This perspective keeps the conversation anchored in humility and reminds us that forecasts are tools — not certainties — and must be interpreted with an understanding of their limits.

Historical Prediction Failures

For 70 years, major institutions have issued climate predictions that did not materialize:

•             Ice Age warnings (1960s–1970s)

•             Catastrophic warming predictions (1980s–present)

•             Failed sea‑level predictions

•             Failed “no snow” predictions

•             Repeatedly incorrect “ice‑free Arctic” predictions

•             Overstated extinction timelines

 This does not invalidate climate science — but it demands humility.

Natural Variability: The Last 1,000 Years

Recent history alone demonstrates significant natural fluctuation:

•             Medieval Warm Period (950–1250)

•             Little Ice Age (1700–1850)

•             Modern warming consistent with recovery from the Little Ice Age

 These shifts occurred without industrial emissions, and they continue today.

Data Integrity and Measurement Challenges

Scientific conclusions depend on data quality. Key issues include:

•             Short time windows distort trends

•             Surface temperature records are inconsistent

•             Satellite data provides a more complete global picture

•             Climate models overpredict warming by ~2×

•             Volcanic events (e.g., Pinatubo) temporarily cool the planet

•             Selective data use leads to misleading narratives

 Good science requires good data — and honest interpretation.

3. CO₂ in Context

CO₂ is often portrayed as a pollutant, yet it is essential for life. At 0.04% of the atmosphere, CO₂ drives photosynthesis and supports global food production. Higher CO₂ levels have contributed to a 15% increase in global greening over the past several decades. This does not mean CO₂ has no effect on climate — it does — but it is one factor among many, and its role must be understood in context.

A balanced climate framework acknowledges CO₂’s importance without exaggerating its influence or ignoring its biological benefits.

Context, Scale, and Biological Importance -CO₂ is essential for life.

•             CO₂ = 0.04% of the atmosphere

•             Plants thrive at higher CO₂ levels

•             Global greening has increased 15% in the last 15 years

•             CO₂ enhances photosynthesis and biomass production

•             Low CO₂ during cooling cycles would threaten global food security

Misconceptions persist:

•             CO₂ does not destroy the ozone layer

•             Water vapor does not increase CO₂

•             CO₂ is not the sole driver of climate change

CO₂ is part of the system — not the enemy.

4. Energy Reality

The global economy runs on fossil fuels. They supply 84% of total energy and power 97% of transportation. Despite trillions invested in green energy, the world remains deeply dependent on oil, natural gas, and coal — not because of ideology, but because of physics, energy density, and reliability.

Large‑scale wind and solar projects require vast land footprints, heavy mineral extraction, and perpetual subsidies. They also depend on fossil fuels for manufacturing, installation, maintenance, and backup generation. These realities must inform policy.

Energy transitions succeed only when they align with physical constraints, economic structures, and human needs.

4A. Energy Economics, Grid Reality, and the Escalation of Delivery Charges

A climate and energy framework is incomplete unless it accounts for the economic structures that determine how energy actually reaches people. In recent years, many households have noticed a striking pattern: their energy consumption has not increased, yet their bills have risen sharply. The culprit is not the cost of the energy itself, but the delivery charges — the portion of the bill that pays for the grid.

This escalation is not accidental. It is the predictable outcome of policies that mandate large‑scale renewable buildouts without accounting for the physical and economic realities of the electric grid. When energy policy is shaped by ideology rather than engineering, the costs do not disappear; they simply migrate — to the delivery line on the bill.

The Grid Is Being Forced to Expand Even When Demand Is Not

State‑level mandates require utilities to connect remote wind and solar installations, build new transmission corridors, reinforce substations, and add balancing equipment. These projects are not driven by customer demand but by policy directives. Because renewable generation is often located far from population centers, the grid must stretch across long distances — and transmission is the most expensive part of the system. Ratepayers fund this expansion.

Utilities Must Buy Renewable Power Even When It Is Not Needed

“Must‑take” rules force utilities to purchase renewable electricity whenever it is produced, regardless of demand or cost. This requires curtailing other generators, paying balancing penalties, and maintaining backup capacity. These costs are embedded in delivery charges.

Developers Do Not Pay the True Cost of Interconnection

When a new wind or solar project connects to the grid, the utility must upgrade lines, transformers, voltage‑control systems, and distribution networks. Developers pay only a fraction. Ratepayers cover the rest.

The Grid Must Be Built for Peak Renewable Output

A solar farm may produce ten times more power at noon than at dusk. The grid must be sized for the noon spike, even though that energy is available only briefly. Ratepayers fund the capacity, not the energy.

Rooftop Solar Shifts Costs to Non‑Solar Customers

Rooftop solar customers often use the grid as a free battery while avoiding their share of grid maintenance. Utilities recover the shortfall by raising delivery charges on everyone else.

Fossil‑Fuel Plants Must Stay Online as Backup

Wind and solar require 100% backup. These plants must be staffed, maintained, and fueled even when idle. Their costs are recovered through delivery charges.

Political Caps on Supply Rates Push Costs into Delivery Charges

To avoid headlines about rising electricity prices, some states cap or subsidize supply rates. Delivery charges are not capped. Utilities shift costs to the only place they can legally recover them.

Upstate and Downstate Impacts Differ but Share the Same Root Cause

Upstate regions bear the cost of transmission buildouts to connect remote renewable projects. Downstate regions pay for congestion and reliability upgrades. Both experience rising delivery charges — all rooted in policy‑driven grid expansion.

Even with your electric and gas usage down, the bill shows how New York’s delivery structure pushes costs upward regardless of consumption: the utility must recover fixed infrastructure expenses, regulatory obligations, and clean‑energy program surcharges whether you use a lot or a little, so when your usage drops those fixed components are simply spread across fewer kilowatt‑hours and therms. The result is a delivery total that rises even as consumption falls, driven by items like the System Benefits Charge, tariff surcharges, and other policy‑driven adjustments that don’t scale with usage. Your bill becomes a clear example of the system’s internal logic: conservation lowers supply costs, but delivery charges—anchored to mandates and fixed system costs—continue climbing, creating the counterintuitive outcome of a higher delivery bill in a lower‑usage month.

5. Human Impact and Equity

Climate policy is not just an environmental issue — it is a human issue. Poorly designed policies raise energy prices, reduce food security, and disproportionately harm low‑income households and developing nations. Eliminating animal agriculture, for example, removes affordable nutrition while addressing only a modest share of global greenhouse gas emissions.

A humane climate framework protects the vulnerable. It recognizes that people cannot care about long‑term environmental goals if they cannot meet immediate needs. Poverty reduction is the most powerful environmental strategy because prosperity expands time horizons, improves stewardship, and enables cleaner technologies.

At a minimum, a re-commitment to fulfill the United Nations Millenium Goals (originally planned to be completed by 2015) should be done.

Millennium Development Goals

·       Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger

·       Achieve universal primary education

·       Promote gender equality and empower women

·       Reduce child mortality

·       Improve maternal health

·       Combat and prevent significant diseases

·       Ensure environmental sustainability

·       Develop a global partnership for development

Healthy people create and maintain a healthy world.

6. A Balanced, Land‑Respecting Energy Portfolio

A viable energy future requires diversity, resilience, and respect for land. No single energy source can power the world.

Energy Reality: What the World Actually Runs On -Global energy today:

•             84% fossil fuels

•             97% of transportation powered by oil

•             $5 trillion invested in green energy with minimal global impact

•             Green energy requires a 1,000% increase in mining

•             Critical minerals are concentrated in China

•             The U.S. bans mining of minerals it claims to need

•             Green technology is more material‑intensive than fossil fuels

Behavioral drivers matter:

•             80% of air travel is personal

•             Hospitals use 250% more energy per sq. ft.

•             The cloud uses 10× more electricity than all EVs combined

•             E‑commerce doubles freight demand

•             The U.S. has 80 cars per 100 people; global average is 5

Energy policy must reflect reality — not aspiration.

A balanced portfolio includes - Appropriately Scaled Renewables

Small‑scale solar on rooftops, parking structures, and built environments; small‑scale wind where it fits the landscape; and distributed systems that avoid land conversion and reduce transmission losses. This excludes industrial‑scale wind and solar mega‑projects that consume land, disrupt ecosystems, and require heavy material inputs.

Renewables have a role — but only when they are right‑sized and land‑respecting.

Small‑Scale Solar

•             Rooftops

•             Parking structures

•             Brownfields

•             Existing built environments

Small‑Scale Wind

•             Integrated into farm operations

•             Sited where it fits the landscape and community

Renewable Natural Gas (RNG)

Renewable Natural Gas (RNG) is one of the most practical, circular, and land‑respecting energy solutions available. It captures methane from manure and food waste, converts it into pipeline‑ready renewable gas, supports farms and local economies, and integrates seamlessly with existing infrastructure — all without requiring new land.

Regenerative Agriculture

Regenerative agriculture restores soil carbon, improves water retention, reduces erosion, enhances biodiversity, and strengthens crop resilience. It is a climate solution, an energy solution, and a human‑well‑being solution all at once.

A balanced portfolio also includes:

Fossil Fuels

Reliable, energy‑dense, and essential for transportation, manufacturing, and heating. They remain necessary for decades to come.

Nuclear Energy

The most energy‑dense, low‑carbon, land‑efficient source available.

Efficiency and Innovation

Smarter grids, better insulation, improved industrial processes, methane capture, and precision agriculture.

A balanced portfolio is not ideological. It is practical, humane, and grounded in reality.

7. Conclusion

Climate, Energy & Human Flourishing offers a clear, grounded, human‑centered path forward. It rejects fear‑based narratives and embraces a systems‑based understanding of climate, a realistic view of energy, and a compassionate commitment to human well‑being. This is the foundation of durable, equitable, and effective climate policy.

What the 2035 Clean‑Electricity Goal Implies

January 2026

Currently, we are producing 150 GW of electricity from Wind Farms currently and we have to add 70-145 GW/year to meet 2035 goals.

And, we are producing 184 GW of electricity from Solar currently and we need 40-90 GW/year to meet goals.

NREL’s modeling for a 100% clean grid by 2035 requires massive new build‑outs of both wind and solar. The REMPD database confirms that material demand scales directly with deployment.

Required new wind (700–1,450 GW)

•    Steel: ~77–174 million tons

•    Iron ore: ~123–278 million tons

•    Concrete: ~280–580 million tons

•    Copper: ~1.0–2.3 million tons

•    Land: ~30–100 million acres

Required new solar (300–630 GW by 2030; more by 2035)

•    Steel: ~10–28 million tons

•    Aluminum: ~1.5–6 million tons

•    Copper: ~300,000–1.2 million tons

•    Glass: ~12–30 million tons

•    Concrete: ~6–18 million tons

•    Land: ~1.5–6 million acres

(DOE’s updated PV land‑use analysis shows modern plants have improved density. )

What the Comparison Shows at a Glance

Wind

•     Extremely steel‑ and concrete‑intensive

•     Huge land footprint due to turbine spacing

•     Iron ore demand dominates the upstream footprint

•     Copper demand grows sharply with transmission needs

Solar

•     Much lower steel and concrete use

•     Higher aluminum and glass use

•     Land footprint is large but far more compact

•     Copper demand still significant, especially for wiring and inverters

The Big Picture

The U.S. has already embedded tens of millions of tons of industrial materials into today’s wind and solar fleet.

Meeting the 2035 clean‑electricity target would require multiplying that by roughly 4–10×, depending on the mix of technologies.

This is why material supply chains, land availability, and transmission corridors—not just generation technology—become the real constraints.

How would you like to explore this next: comparing these material demands to U.S. mining and manufacturing capacity, or mapping how alternative pathways (nuclear, geothermal, distributed solar) change the material and land burden?