Hochul unveils plan to amend New York's 2019 Climate Act

 ALBANY — Gov. Kathy Hochul on Friday unveiled proposed changes to New York’s Climate Act that would preserve the transition of the state’s economy to low-carbon energy sources while eliminating requirements to comply with the short-term mandates of the law.

 

​The 2019 Climate Act requires the state to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 40% from 1990 levels by 2030. By 2050, those levels are supposed to be reduced by 85%.

Supporters of the law claim the mandates will positively impact the planet’s climate and reduce pollution. Hochul acknowledged those goals as worthwhile but said the statute’s timeline would result in higher utility costs that would be too much for many people to handle in a state already grappling with a housing crisis and the high cost of living.

 

“We will not walk away from our climate goals, but make sure that the path we’re on is realistic and fair to the people we serve, because a climate policy that leaves working families behind is not a sustainable path forward,” Hochul said Monday.

 

​The governor’s proposal, unveiled in an op-ed published in Empire Report, focuses on the 2050 target. If it is enacted, the state would not have to issue regulations to meet the law’s 2030 emissions-reduction mandate, but the target would still have to be considered in permitting processes at state agencies like the Department of Environmental Conservation.

 

Under her plan, Hochul’s administration would be tasked with issuing amended rules by 2030 to meet the longer-term goal. The rules moving toward an 85% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 would have to show progress by 2040, according to her plan.

 

​The plan also aligns how greenhouse gas emissions are calculated in New York with global norms. The law’s more rigorous accounting method emphasizes greenhouse gas sources like methane — produced from natural gas — that are potent but remain in the atmosphere for a short time. 

 

​If the state Legislature agrees to align its calculation methodology with those used by Europe, Canada and California, New York can — on paper — reduce emissions on a faster timeline.

 

Hochul cast part of the blame for needing to retool the statute’s mandates on the COVID-19 pandemic, which roiled the world’s economy, disrupted supply chains and slowed construction of renewable energy sources.

 

​In the midst of the health crisis, levels of inflation and interest rates not seen in decades led to the cancellation of several offshore wind projects — a key zero-emission energy source needed to meet the mandates of the Climate Act. 

 

​The two remaining offshore wind projects under construction in New York have faced numerous stop-work orders from the Trump administration, which contends the turbines interfere with radar systems and are an intermittent energy source. 

 

​“Without a federal partner, there is only so much states can do on their own,” Hochul wrote in the op-ed. “It is impossible to push new offshore wind projects and the clean energy they would produce when we have a president who prefers a ‘drill baby drill’ mantra that focuses on oil and coal.” (None of this really about oil or coal.)

 

​The 2030 requirement of the Climate Act — which New York isn’t on track to meet — has become a thorny issue for Hochul, especially since environmental advocates successfully sued the state for failing to enact policies to meet its deadlines. 

 

​That lawsuit stemmed from Hochul’s decision not to move forward with a “cap and invest” program that requires polluters to pay for the carbon they emit. Funding from the plan would go toward rebates for New Yorkers and zero-emission technologies. 

 

​“It is undisputed that (the Department of Environmental Conservation) has not issued regulations that comply with the foregoing terms of the Climate Act,” state Supreme Court Justice Julian Schreibman wrote in an October ruling. He gave the department until February to issue regulations to comply with the law, but that order has been stayed while the state appeals the decision. 

 

​Hochul wrote that the judge “ruled that the state must swiftly issue regulations to achieve what now would be costly and unattainable targets, unless the law is changed.”

 

The governor has frequently cited a memo released by Doreen Harris, president and CEO of the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, that estimated energy costs will rise more than $4,000 annually for some households if the state is forced to meet the law’s 2030 deadline.

 

​With more time to issue regulations and no rapidly approaching emission-reduction deadlines, the state would be able to put in place more measured policies, Hochul said. 

 

​Rachel Spector, an attorney at Earthjustice, said the coalition has “repeatedly reached out” to the state attorney general’s office to try and settle the case. Their goal, according to Spector, is to get the state to take action on the Climate Act, not to impose “draconian” policies that would be costly for New Yorkers. 

 

​Hochul’s initiative to change the Climate Act’s mandates has gained support from influential groups outside of state government. 

 

​“Substantial short-term investment combined with reasonable, measured amendments to the (Climate Act) will accelerate decarbonization,” New York State AFL-CIO President Mario Cilento and New York State Building and Construction Trades Council President Gary LaBarbera said in a joint statement. 

 

​“The alternative is failure where energy costs rise, jobs are lost, and the public turns against decarbonization, setting us back generations,” the labor leaders added.

The dire predictions about the economic fallout of meeting the Climate Act’s mandates are not new.

 

Business and energy sector leaders have for years warned that the mandates are unattainable. They and others have long called for the state to conduct a cost analysis of the mandates.

 

In January 2021, two members of the state’s Climate Action Council — Donna L. DeCarolis, president of the National Fuel Gas Distribution Corp., and Gavin J. Donohue, president of the Independent Power Producers of NY — sent a letter to the panel's co-chairs urging them to authorize a study to determine the short- and long-term costs of the alternative ways being pursued to reduce emissions under the Climate Act.

 

That letter was also signed by more than 70 business, labor and power industry leaders across New York, but it received no response at the time from the council’s co-chairs or other state leaders.

 

The state also has not formulated a detailed plan for pulling away from a power grid that’s more than 70 years old, and as more than 85 percent of electricity being supplied to New York City and Long Island is generated from gas and oil. 

 

For Hochul, gaining the approval of Democrats in the state Legislature — especially the Senate — will be a challenge.

 

​Senate Finance Chair Liz Krueger, a Manhattan Democrat, and 28 of her colleagues sent a letter to Hochul recently saying the group will “categorically oppose any effort to roll back New York’s nation-leading climate law.”

 

Instead, Senate Democrats want to pass measures to boost solar energy development and increase funding for energy efficiency programs. 

 

​Some are open to working with the governor, though: ​“I’ve been clear that we have to champion both affordability and environmental protections,” said state Sen. Christopher J. Ryan, a Syracuse-area Democrat.

 

“I’m proud to consistently vote for policies that achieve both, and remain open to conversations that will further these goals,” Ryan added. (Better start talking up emissions free nuclear power, Senator.)

 

Assemblyman Al Stirpe, a Syracuse-area Democrat, said he wasn’t briefed on the governor’s proposal before it was released Friday morning.  “If (the governor) wants to move some of the targets off, I don’t know that that would be the hill everybody’s willing to die on,” Stirpe said.

 

The “more troubling piece,” he continued, is Hochul’s push to change the way emissions are calculated. 

 

Hochul unveils plan to revise Climate Act, setting up fight with leg