New York’s Bold Climate Plan Approved After Abt Analysis

Climate change is an irrefutable global challenge, but frontline impacts are often most effectively addressed where they occur: at regional, state, and local levels. Another irrefutable challenge? Finding the necessary funding to combat climate change, at any level of government. Recognizing the realities of both politics and climate change, The New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) knew implementation of the state’s ambitious Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA) would depend on both an in-depth cost-benefit analysis and a co-benefit analysis. The Act mandates net zero greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2050 and sets aside approximately $55 billion to meet that goal. NYSERDA hired Abt Global to determine the impact its Scoping Plan—the framework for achieving these goals—could have on public health benefits.

Crunching Numbers

Understanding that finances were both a practical and a political concern, Abt used our Climate HealthCounts(TM) framework to quantify the CLPCA’s anticipated public health benefits. The Act would cost approximately $55 billion, with a significant portion of those funds dedicated to offsetting GHG emissions by:

• Financing 120 large-scale renewable and transmission projects at $35 billion,
• Spending $6.8 billion to reduce of buildings’ emissions, and
• Investing more than $1 billion in clean transportation initiatives, more than $1.6 billion in state “Green Bank” commitments, and more than $1.8 billion in increased use of solar.

The state’s robust strategy required an equally robust analysis, but Abt had the benefit of having a process in place. “Since we’ve conducted this kind of analysis at the regional level for RGGI [the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative] and at the local level for New York City, we’ve already developed an efficient process to translate information from climate plans into tangible health benefits results,” explains Abt Project Director David Cooley.

Looking at the state’s goals, we estimated the extent to which it would result in a reduction of air pollutants—including PM2.5, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, ammonia, and volatile organic compounds. The CLCPA would have other effects, such as improved indoor health due to residential energy efficiency programs, and plans to promote the benefits of walking and biking, so we calculated those impacts, too. We then modeled the extent to which those reductions would actually improve air quality. Next, we took a look at what the resulting health effects would be. Finally—and crucially—we estimated the monetary value of those effects, which included avoided hospitalizations, emergency department visits, work loss days, and even premature deaths.