Across New York, utilities and energy developers are preparing for a more electricity-dependent future, one shaped by electric vehicles, heat pumps, industrial growth, data centers and the transition away from fossil fuels. But adding more sources of electricity will not, by itself, solve the problem. The power also has to travel from where it is generated to where people use it. Local equipment must be able to handle the load, and the entire system needs to remain reliable when demand spikes or severe weather strikes.
Neely Kelley, senior manager at AES, a company involved in renewable energy generation and storage, says New York needs to address these challenges together. “Meeting the state’s growing electricity demand will require new clean energy generation, expanded transmission, stronger local distribution systems, and increased storage capacity,” Kelley told me. “These components work together, and no single solution can meet Rochester’s future energy needs on its own.”
It is a straightforward argument for a complicated undertaking. New York needs cleaner sources of electricity, but it also needs the infrastructure to deliver that power. For customers, the question is whether the resulting system will be reliable and affordable, and how the costs will be divided.
Getting the power where it needs to go
New York faces a geographic problem. Some of its strongest renewable energy resources are located upstate, while major concentrations of electricity demand lie downstate and in other growing load centers. Transmission lines connect those places. Without enough capacity, renewable projects can struggle to deliver their electricity, and some of the power they produce may go unused. When clean energy cannot reach customers, existing fossil-fuel plants may remain necessary during periods of high demand.
Kelley argues that the answer is to accelerate transmission improvements rather than slow the development of renewable energy. There is a case for that approach. Building wind and solar facilities without planning for the infrastructure that connects them can limit their usefulness. Generation and transmission have to develop in tandem. But the issue looks different from the perspective of a community hosting a project. Residents may live near the facility, landowners may lease property to the developer, and local governments may negotiate payments through agreements designed to compensate the community. The electricity, meanwhile, may be used somewhere else.
Kelley said renewable projects can bring lease income to landowners and farmers, payments in lieu of taxes (PILOT), host community agreement revenue, construction jobs and other economic activity. Those benefits are significant, particularly in communities looking for new sources of revenue.
Still, they do not settle every question about a project’s local impact or the fairness of its financial arrangements. Communities need to understand what they stand to gain and what burdens they may carry and how long the benefits will last.
The same scrutiny should apply to transmission projects. New infrastructure can make renewable energy more useful and improve the system’s capacity to serve growing demand. But its costs and benefits deserve public examination.
Kelley also pointed to the age of New York’s transmission infrastructure, much of which was built decades ago. Modernization is needed to accommodate changing patterns of electricity use and improve the grid’s ability to move power where it is required. The difficult part is determining which investments are necessary, who benefits from them and who should pay.
Who picks up the bill?
For households already struggling with utility costs, the long-term promise of cleaner energy can be difficult to reconcile with the immediate expense of keeping the lights on.
Kelley draws a distinction between renewable energy developers and the companies responsible for delivering electricity. AES develops energy projects; it is not a transmission provider. Developers generally pay the costs of connecting their projects to the grid, while utilities and transmission providers undertake other infrastructure investments under separate arrangements. That helps clarify where some costs originate. It does not answer the larger question of how the overall transition will affect ratepayers. Utilities need to maintain existing equipment while preparing for new demand. Transmission systems require upgrades, and local distribution networks may need improvements of their own. Those investments can serve several purposes at once, making it important to understand how costs are allocated and whether customers are paying for improvements that provide them a clear benefit.
“The goal should be an energy system that delivers reliable, affordable, and resilient power that meets growing demand,” Kelley said.
AES argues that renewable generation can help by adding electricity without the ongoing fuel costs associated with conventional fossil-fuel generation. Renewable generators participate in wholesale electricity markets, where additional supply can put downward pressure on prices and reduce exposure to volatile fuel costs.
That is a potential benefit, not a guarantee that household bills will fall. Wholesale electricity prices are only one part of a customer’s bill. Delivery charges, infrastructure investments and other costs also factor in. A project may produce competitively priced electricity while customers continue to face higher bills because of the expense of maintaining and upgrading the grid. Whether the overall transition saves consumers money depends on how the different pieces fit together.
Kelley said thoughtful policy should include transparent cost allocation and targeted support for low- and moderate-income households. That is a reasonable standard to apply to the transition. Customers should be able to see what infrastructure investments are intended to accomplish, how their costs are distributed and what protections exist for households least able to absorb increases. The benefits of a cleaner grid should not be measured solely by how much new generating capacity comes online. They should also be measured by whether the system becomes more dependable and whether the costs are distributed fairly.
Can batteries keep costs down?
One way to limit the need for additional infrastructure is to make better use of the grid that already exists. Battery storage can hold electricity when supply is plentiful and release it when demand rises. That can help balance the fluctuations of wind and solar generation, reduce pressure during peak hours and provide electricity when it is more valuable to the system. Demand management offers another option. If businesses and other large users can shift some of their electricity consumption away from the busiest hours, utilities may be able to postpone certain upgrades. Energy efficiency can reduce demand in the first place.
- US Dept. of Justice sues NYS over climate change superfund law
- New York launches $1 billion climate plan in 2025
- New York establishes landmark climate superfund, shifting pollution costs to fossil fuel companies
- Snow crab season canceled in Alaska for the first time ever- billions of snow crabs have gone missing from the waters around the state
Kelley said these approaches can reduce the amount of traditional infrastructure New York needs, although they cannot eliminate the need for major investment.
“The most effective approach is to use these solutions strategically, building a smarter grid, not simply a larger one,” Kelley said.
The idea is appealing because new transmission lines and distribution equipment can be costly and time-consuming to build. If storage or changes in electricity use can meet some needs, those alternatives deserve serious consideration before utilities commit to more construction. But there are limits. Batteries can supply electricity only for as long as their stored energy lasts, and they cannot replace every transmission line, substation or local distribution upgrade. A neighborhood experiencing growing demand may still need physical improvements even if storage is available elsewhere.
New York will have to determine where flexible technologies can defer expensive construction and where new infrastructure is unavoidable. That requires coordinated planning rather than treating each investment as a separate decision. As more vehicles and industrial processes rely on electricity, getting that balance right will become increasingly important.
What does success look like for Rochester?
The energy transition is often discussed in terms of emissions targets and statewide policy. Those measures can feel remote to someone opening a utility bill or dealing with a power outage. For Rochester-area residents, success will be easier to recognize: dependable service, manageable costs and an electric system capable of meeting future demand without unnecessary spending.
Kelley and others make the case for investing across the system, from generation and transmission to local distribution and storage. AES has a direct interest in the policies and infrastructure that allow renewable projects to connect to the grid, so its perspective is an important part of the discussion, rather than the final word on it. RG&E, state regulators, consumer advocates and independent energy analysts also have a role in explaining what the region needs and how those investments will affect customers.
The questions are practical. Which upgrades are necessary now? Which can wait? Could storage or demand management reduce the expense? How will costs be allocated? And what safeguards will prevent low- and moderate-income households from carrying an unfair share of the burden? These are questions that deserve specific answers, supported by project details and public accounting.
New York cannot build a cleaner energy system on generation alone. It needs a grid capable of carrying that electricity and adapting to changing demand. But the scale of the work should not excuse a lack of transparency about its costs. Rochester’s energy future will depend on whether residents can afford the system taking shape around them.
George Cassidy Payne is a Rochester-based nonprofit leader, educator, and advocate for sustainable economic development. With a philosophy and social work background, George has spent over two decades addressing issues of equity, public policy, and crisis intervention. His community development and environmental sustainability expertise informs his commitment to strengthening Rochester’s regional economy.