As Interim President Kotlikoff pointed out in a recent op-ed in The Sun, we need to take action on climate change. However, how he proposes Cornell does so is troublingly flawed. He suggests that the University should not begin decarbonizing campus heat in the near term because, on Cornell’s incorrect analysis, switching to electrified heat will backfire by increasing greenhouse gas emissions relative to continued use of Cornell’s gas-fired plant for heating. Cornell’s argument is well-intentioned but wrong and sets a dangerous precedent that severely undermines climate action here and everywhere.
Unwittingly, the Cornell president platformed a talking point for the American Gas Association (henceforth referred to as Big Oil), which is based on the wrong conclusion from the wrong choice of method: a short-run instead of a long-run emission rate analysis. Decisions about building electrification need to be based on a long-run perspective, not a short-run snapshot. The crux of the matter is: Should we adopt a long-run view and build now for the renewable energy transition we need, or adopt a short-run perspective and delay action until the grid has already largely transitioned?
Cornell and Big Oil appear united in their approach: We should make decarbonization decisions based on a short-run analysis.As Big Oil knows well, this incorrect methodology dramatically underestimates the benefits of decarbonization and would cripple progressive electrification laws in both the short and long term, in Ithaca and most of the U.S.
Cornell is leveraging this misplaced argument to change Ithaca’s progressive energy law (the Ithaca Energy Code Supplement, or IECS). Starting in 2026, the IECS holds that fossil fuels cannot be used to heat any new buildings or major renovations in Ithaca. Cornell believes their district energy system should be exempt from the fossil-fuel phaseout, arguing that this would save emissions. Except that is wrong.
To put it in technical terms: When making long-term decisions about campus infrastructure, Cornell should use emissions estimates that account for the long-run evolution of the power grid (“long-run marginal emission rates”), not short-run emissions estimates that exclude grid evolution (“short-run marginal emission rates”). In making its case against near-term heat decarbonization, Cornell rejects the widespread consensus in the academic and industry literature that long-run emission rates are appropriate and instead aligns with Big Oil’s deployment of methodologically inappropriate short-run emission rates.
To be sure, Cornell’s intended messaging diverges from Big Oil’s: Namely, Cornell still thinks everyone else should decarbonize. But the methodology that Cornell uses to exempt themselves from Ithaca’s fossil-fuel phaseout would necessarily exempt everyone else. If we were to adopt Cornell’s logic of using short-run emission rates for building electrification decisions, we would find that the IECS is ineffective or even self-defeating, and so are other building electrification mandates across much of the US.
Here’s the twist: While Big Oil continues to present misleading public-facingclaims that gas heating saves emissions, they have quietly updated their narrative elsewhere. Between 2022 and 2023, the American Gas Association updated its attack on Denver’s decarbonization law to use long-run (instead of short-run) emission rates. That forced them to radically change their tune: They went from incorrectly arguing in 2022 that Denver’s law would scarcely reduce emissions, to correctly acknowledging in 2023 that it would reduce emissions by more than 50 percent. Now, Cornell is asking Ithaca to change its progressive energy code on the basis of an inaccurate methodology that even Big Oil has been forced to disavow.
To correct this methodological error, we co-authored a white paper called “Estimating the Operational Emissions of Cornell University Heat Decarbonization Pathways.” We find that Cornell will reduce emissions by decarbonizing new construction projects now, as mandated by the IECS. We presented our findings to the larger community including Cornell.
Cornell is skeptical that long-run emission rates are too optimistic given challenges to the New York energy transition. We accounted for that pessimism by modeling delayed- and no-decarbonization scenarios to see how emissions are affected if climate goals are delayed or weakened. We still find significant benefits for near-term decarbonization — even in the pessimistic case of a grid that is dirtier than ours and has a weak decarbonization policy.
If Cornell maintains that our pessimistic scenarios are not pessimistic enough, then we must ask: What climate leader bets thousands of tons of carbon pollution on the fatalistic wager that New York’s energy transition will fail — not just a little, but miserably? This is a high-stakes bet. More to the point: Cornell could make it more likely that the energy transition will fail. Cornell’s choices about building electrification actively affect the evolution of the grid and send signals to investors about the decline (or not) of fossil fuel demand in the near future.
Bottom line: We do not find it reasonable for Cornell to reject all published estimates of long-run emissions and instead revert to a methodologically incorrect short-run emission rate known to downplay the benefits of decarbonization. This is bad strategy for the BIG RED Energy Transition, bad policy for Ithaca and lends unwarranted credibility to Big Oil’s false public narrative about America’s energy transition.
We could not agree more with Kotlikoff that Cornell’s energy transition requires a holistic approach focused on equitable solutions. Yes, Cornell needs to decarbonize their buildings, but it also needs to decarbonize and degrow the entire university system and lifestyle while foregrounding perspectives from frontline communities. We are concerned that Cornell’s climate action does not match the scale or urgency of the crisis, and there are gaps between Cornell’s climate rhetoric and action. If Cornell is so concerned about the emissions consequences of adding new load to the grid, then why are they expanding campus at such a great rate?
Cornell’s arguments for delayed decarbonization are well-intentioned. But good intentions do not make good climate policy. And good intentions exist in context. At Cornell, that context includes a University-owned Combined Heat and Power Plant that creates an economic incentive to remain on gas, and a Board of Trustees that answersto and empowers key players in the oil and gas industry. Cornell must ensure its climate actions are clear, collective and commensurate with the crisis. With allies in academic and activist circles, Cornell can and — will do — better.
bethany ojalehto mays is a Cornell alum '08 and former assistant professor turned activist. She submitted this letter on behalf of Cornell on Fire. You can reach her at bethany.o.mays@gmail.com.
Robert Howarth is the Atkinson Professor of Ecology and Environmental Biology and a member of the New York State Climate Action Council. You can reach him at howarth@cornell.edu.
Anthony Ingraffea is the Dwight C. Baum Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Emeritus, and Founding President and Senior Fellow at PSE Healthy Energy Inc. You can reach him at ari1@cornell.edu.
The Cornell Daily Sun is interested in publishing a broad and diverse set of content from the Cornell and greater Ithaca community. We want to hear what you have to say about this topic or any of our pieces. Here are some guidelines on how to submit. And here’s our email: associate-editor@cornellsun.com.
