POWER September 2020 - 48

COMMENTARY
How COVID-19 Crisis
Response Informs Next
Steps for Climate Mitigation
Dennis W. Elsenbeck
W
hen the pandemic hit New York state, Gov. Andrew
Cuomo began holding daily media briefings to provide
updates and reassurances-and most days, he would
challenge New Yorkers to learn the lessons of this unprecedented
crisis. As a member of the New York State Climate Action
Council, the committee created to achieve the state's clean energy
and emissions targets, I believe it is important we do not
let these lessons pass without fully examining our methods of
crisis response and applying them to our climate situation.
Quite simply, the pandemic response has been focused
on three things: demand, supply, and delivery solutions. To
address demand, we focused on slowing the spread of COVID-19.
To increase supply, we expanded hospital capacity, and
acquired ventilators and protective equipment. To identify delivery
solutions, we built alternative supply chains amid global
disruption. To translate these lessons, we must think about
end-use energy needs, renewable energy development, and
transmission and distribution infrastructure holistically.
Government Incentives Drive Outcomes
At the start of the pandemic, demand for medical care dramatically
outpaced supply. In response, governments focused on lowering
infection rates, worked with hospitals to expand capacity, and offered
incentives to help manufacturers produce essential supplies.
To mitigate climate change, we must adopt a similar market efficiency
model that addresses demand, supply, and delivery in a
way that optimizes our energy systems to achieve desired targets.
In New York state, our climate goals are supported by programs
and incentives that tend to focus on singular elements of the market,
such as increasing supply of renewable energy or reducing
demand through energy-efficiency programs. This singular approach
to incentives-without fully considering other market issues-presents
the possibility of developing system imbalance.
With most incentives targeting renewable development, we
should consider how the shifting needs of industrial, commercial,
and residential ratepayers will impact demand for electricity.
We can't overlook the importance of managing future electrical
demand as we move toward decarbonization. If we reduced demand
for electricity, New York state would need less supply to
achieve its ambitious 70% renewable energy mix.
Lessons Learned
The COVID-19 response emphasized reducing strain on systems
and increasing the speed of supply delivery where the
virus was spreading the fastest. Effective climate mitigation
solutions should also factor in these objectives.
In cities where energy usage is the highest, it's important we
focus on load factor. Minimizing the demand peaks and valleys
will yield a higher load factor. Flattening this ratio through the
use of technology, such as battery storage, will reduce the strain
and the amount of energy generation needed to meet demand.
48
Additionally, we should consider point-of-use, locationbased
solutions that mitigate the strain on transmission infrastructure.
While large-scale solar, wind, and battery farms are
labeled as distributed systems, they continue-much like our
centralized systems-to rely on an inefficient, aged transmission
system. Decentralizing generation and co-locating supply
and demand will minimize the need to invest in transmission
infrastructure and potentially free up resources for further renewable
development.
Amid unprecedented supply chain disruption, the U.S. has
largely relied on other nations to manufacture critical equipment
to achieve the goals of our COVID-19 response and recovery. As
a matter of national security and economic opportunity, we need
to bolster U.S. manufacturing. Similarly, our climate targets will
be achieved through the purchase of components manufactured
outside of the U.S. Of the top 10 solar panel manufacturers and
top 10 wind turbine suppliers, only one is U.S.-based.
As large energy consumers, manufacturers tend to bear significant
costs for energy programs and initiatives because funding
is gathered through rate subsidies and surcharges. New
York state should consider policy to provide manufacturers
with a more direct return on this investment. The state could
require some percentage, such as 50%-75%, of a renewable
energy solution be manufactured or assembled in New York
state, or at least in the U.S., to qualify for incentives.
As we've seen with COVID-19, when manufacturers have
access to appropriate incentives, they can quickly adapt to address
a crisis. The real value proposition is that climate-engaged
manufacturers would have the opportunity to participate in the
green economy-turning utility bills into investments, creating
jobs, and empowering manufacturers to compete globally.
The Risk of Politicization
As the virus spread, COVID-19 became the focus of conversations
from the backyard to the boardroom. With so much attention
on this crisis, people were inspired to act and change
behaviors. If a fraction of this focus were consistently dedicated
to the climate situation, it could spark unprecedented
innovation and foster the level of public-private partnership
necessary to initiate global change.
We have also witnessed the risks of politicizing crisis response.
Many debates about COVID-19 response tactics ignored
data and science. Climate change has already been
similarly politicized, so perhaps there will be another lesson
to gain from whatever comes next in the COVID-19 crisis response.
If politics can be extracted and energies refocused on
shared responsibility, industry innovation, and public-private
partnership, we must revisit this discussion with new learnings
to apply to our climate mitigation efforts. ■
-Dennis W. Elsenbeck (delsenbeck@phillipslytle.com) is the
head of Energy and Sustainability, Energy Consulting Services,
with the law firm Phillips Lytle LLP.
www.powermag.com
POWER | September 2020
http://www.powermag.com
POWER September 2020

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of POWER September 2020
