New York Gas Stove Ban – Beginning of the End or End of the Beginning?

Roger Caiazza

New York State recently banned the use of natural gas from most new buildings that was described as: “a major win for climate advocates, but a move that could spark pushback from fossil fuel interests”.   I have been following New York’s net-zero transition plan for years and there are some interesting aspects associated with the “major win for climate advocates”.

Climate Act Background

The Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act) established a New York “Net Zero” target (85% reduction and 15% offset of emissions) by 2050 and an interim 2030 target of a 40% reduction by 2030. The Climate Action Council is responsible for preparing the Scoping Plan that outlines how to “achieve the State’s bold clean energy and climate agenda.”  In brief, that plan is to electrify everything possible and power the electric gride with zero-emissions generating resources by 2040.  The Integration Analysis prepared by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) and its consultants quantifies the impact of the electrification strategies.  That material was used to write a Draft Scoping Plan.  After a year-long review the Scoping Plan recommendations were finalized at the end of 2022.  In 2023 the Scoping Plan recommendations are supposed to be implemented through regulation and legislation

New York’s official website for the Climate Act promotes the strategies in the Scoping Plan including a fact sheet describing the plans to decarbonize New York’s buildings.  It includes the following:

Adopt Zero-Emission Codes and Standards: More efficient, zero-emissions equipment for heating and cooking is increasingly available. That makes replacing existing equipment and appliances with cleaner and healthier alternatives an easy choice for New Yorkers. New construction projects will be required to install zero-emissions equipment in 2025 for single-family and low-rise buildings and in 2028 for high-rise and commercial buildings.

The Scoping Plan includes specific recommended strategies for the buildings sector.  The relevant theme, “Adopt Zero-Emission Codes and Standards and Require Energy Benchmarking for Buildings”, included three strategies:

B1. Adopt Advanced Codes for Highly Efficient, Zero-Emission, and Resilient New Construction

B2. Adopt Standards for Zero-Emission Equipment and the Energy Performance of Existing Buildings

B3. Require Energy Benchmarking and Disclosure

The text states:

In existing buildings, the best opportunity for energy improvements is during routine home and capital improvements and when HVAC equipment is retired from service. Since the useful life of HVAC equipment ranges from 15 to 30 years, seizing the opportunities to electrify

buildings by 2050 requires near-term action.

Electrification and efficiency improvements in existing buildings present a larger challenge of sheer scale.  The New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA), DEC, and New York State Department of State (DOS) should work together to adopt regulatory requirements that will bring about the end of fossil fuel combustion in buildings by prohibiting replacement of fossil fuel equipment at end of useful life, coordinated with action taken by the PSC and New York State Department of Public Service (DPS) to regulate gas utilities and with New York State Department of Labor (DOL) and the Office of Just Transition to promote workforce development. Building performance standards also will compel efficient operation of buildings and capital investments in high-performance building envelopes and efficient HVAC systems.

New York Legislation

As noted previously the plan for 2023 is to promulgate new regulations and pass new legislation to implement the Scoping Plan recommendations.  New York’s strange political process includes an annual legislative self-made crisis in which legislation is held hostage to the annual budget.  On May 2, over a month past the April 1 due date, the Legislature and Administration finally passed the budget bill that included the gas stove ban that got so much attention.  The point of this article is that there were interesting aspects of the budget discussions this year that have bigger implications than the passage of the ban.

In my opinion, and certainly the belief of the climate activists, the Scoping Plan is pretty clear that fossil-fueled equipment is to be banned outright.  Indeed, the legislation prohibits installation of “fossil-fuel equipment and building systems” in newly constructed buildings seven stories or less, except new commercial or industrial buildings over 100,000 ft2 on or after 12/31/25, and for all other buildings on or after 12/31/28”.  However, the prohibition does not apply to     

  • The repair, alteration, addition, relocation, or other changes to pre-existing buildings
  • The fossil-fuel prohibition shall exempt equipment and systems used for emergency back-up power and standby power; manufactured homes, and building used as a manufacturing facility, commercial food establishment, laboratory, car wash, laundromat, hospital, other medical facility,  critical  infrastructure, agricultural building, fuel cell system, or crematorium.
  • To the “fullest extent feasible”, fossil-fuel equipment and building systems in such buildings are to be limited to areas where a prohibition is infeasible, and such areas must be “electrification ready”, except for those serving manufacturing or industrial processes.  Emissions from allowed use must be minimized.  “Financial considerations shall not be sufficient basis to determine physical or technical infeasibility.”
  • The Energy Code shall exempt new building construction that requires new or expanded electric service, pursuant to §31.1 of the Public Service Law, when electric service cannot be reasonably provided by the grid.

When the ban on natural gas in new construction was first announced there was intense pushbackApologists and the Governor were quick to point out that the ban only affected new construction and that nobody was coming to take away existing natural gas appliances.  However, the Scoping Plan recommendations make it clear that the plan is to eventually ban the replacement of most existing fossil-fired infrastructure. Furthermore, the original language did not include all the caveats that ended up in the final bill described above.  I interpret that to mean that the reality is that accommodations have to be made to pass Climate Act implementing legislation.

Emissions Accounting

The New York political theater starts with the Governor’s State of the State address in early January that outlines her legislative agenda for the year.  This is followed by specific legislative proposals from the Administration, Senate, and Assembly.  This year the initial budget bills from the Governor, Senate and Assembly included significant policy aspects related to the Climate Act that did not get included in the final budget bill but the debates are instructive.

For example, sometime during this process there was a revelation that prompted a specific legislative proposal to modify the emissions accounting because of excessive costs.  Climate Action Council co-chairs Doreen Harris and Basil Seggos explained that::

“First and foremost, the governor is trying to maintain New York’s leadership on climate. It’s a core principle that she brought into office and we have been carrying that out for several years,” said Seggos.

But Gov. Hochul instructed both the DEC and NYSERDA to look at the affordability of Cap & Invest.

“We began running the numbers on that, based on some of the metrics being used by Washington state and some of our own, and revealed some…potentially extraordinary costs affiliated with the program,” Seggos explained. “So that’s really what this is.  It isn’t a focus necessarily on methane itself, or any particular pollutant. It is how do we implement the CLCPA in a way that doesn’t put extraordinary costs on the pockets of New Yorkers.”

It seems astounding to me but it does appear that someone in the Administration finally started really looking at the potential costs of the Climate Act.  When the first auction of allowances for the Washington state program produced costs higher than expected, DEC and NYSERDA ran the numbers and the results were a reality slap to the Administration.  The response was to propose a change to the unique emissions accounting scheme used in the Climate Act.

In order to maximize the purported harm of natural gas use the Climate Act specified the use of global warming potential over 20 years rather than over 100 years as used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United States government, and every other jurisdiction (since its implementation the state of Maryland has also begun to specify GWP-20).  The result is that the number of tons of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions are increased and when that emission total was  multiplied by the closing price of the Washington state auction the result was “extraordinary costs”.

In one word the response by climate activists to this legislation was  “meltdown”.  For example, NY Renews, a coalition of over 300 environmental, justice, faith, labor, and community groups that bills itself as the “force behind the nation’s most progressive climate law” had this to say:

S6030/A6039 is part of a larger pattern of attacks by the fossil fuel industry that threaten to sabotage New York’s nation-leading climate law, the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act, and roll back hard-won standards for accurately accounting for the impacts of greenhouse gas emissions, particularly methane. If passed, the bill would change how the state measures methane and carbon dioxide emissions, pave the way for polluting corporations to emit without consequence, and harm the health and well-being of frontline community members who live, work, play, and pray in neighborhoods across NYS. 

NY Renews unequivocally opposes the inclusion of this bill in the state budget and any deal that would include it. We’re calling on the state legislature to uphold the Climate Act as written into law and reject amendments that would threaten its power to protect and prepare New Yorkers facing the worst effects of the climate crisis.

In response to the outcry the Administration backed down from the proposal.  They claimed that it distracted from the importance of passing the budget bill.  Nonetheless, Seggos said “The fundamental takeaway is it’s full steam ahead for cap and invest with the climate action rebate and any other elements we’ll take up as soon as we can.”


The reason that I am encouraged rather than discouraged by the enacted gas appliance ban on new construction is that a couple of issues came up that will have to be addressed.  The political approach to punt difficult problems down the road can only work so long.

The initial blowback to the gas stove ban prompted the Administration to propose legislation that gradually eliminates fossil fuel-burning heating equipment from nearly all New York buildings, consistent with the Climate Action Council plan, but takes less aggressive steps to reduce the use of gas stoves.  The proposed changes:

  • Dec. 31, 2025: Prohibit all equipment (including stoves) that burn fossil fuels in new construction of single-family homes or apartment buildings of three stories or less.
  • Dec. 31, 2028: Prohibit all fossil fuel-burning equipment (including stoves) in new construction of commercial buildings and multifamily structures of four stories or more.
  • Jan. 1, 2030: Prohibit installation of heating or hot water equipment (but not stoves) in any single-family home or apartment building of three stories or less.
  • Jan. 1, 2035: Prohibit installation of fossil fuel heating or hot water systems (but not stoves) in any commercial building or larger multifamily structure.

The final legislation only addressed the first two components.  The Administration apparently hopes that the Scoping Plan recommendation to mandate electrification when existing fossil-fired appliances reach their end of life can be made palatable if gas stoves are exempted.  I think that is naïve because so many people appreciate the resiliency and capabilities of fossil-fueled furnaces and hot water heaters too.  When the legislation to implement a prohibit in-kind replacement of existing appliances comes up, I believe there will be intense blowback.

The final budget bill also included legislation for distribution of the proceeds from a cap and invest auction.  I don’t see an easy path for the Administration to walk back their statements that the auction will result in extraordinary costs.  They are on record saying the costs are unacceptable so how do they reconcile that?


At the start of the year the idea that the government is coming for your gas stove was dismissed as a right wing conspiracy:

  • NYT: “No One Is Coming for Your Gas Stove Anytime Soon” 
  • Time: “How Gas Stoves Became the Latest Right-Wing Cause in the Culture Wars”
  • Salon: “Rumors of a gas stove ban ignite a right-wing culture war”
  • MSNBC: “No, the woke mob is not coming for your gas stove.”
  • AP News: “FACT FOCUS: Biden administration isn’t banning gas stoves”
  • The Washington Post: ​​“GOP thrusts gas stoves, Biden’s green agenda into the culture wars”

However, New York’s Climate Act implementation demonstrates that a net-zero transition requires such a ban.  It is not going to be possible to put off a debate about personal choice options and the advantages of fossil fuel for residential use because the New Yorkers who are blissfully unaware of this aspect of the Climate Act will demand to be heard.

The other aspect of this relates to the cap and invest program and the costs of the program.  The Hochul Administration narrative is that the costs of inaction for the net zero Climate Act transition outweigh the costs of action but that statement is misleading unless they issue a caveat that the costs in the Scoping Plan do not include the costs of “already implemented” programs. My analyses of costs have found that there are other  significant “already implemented” program costs (for example the costs of transportation electrification) and that means that the Administration claim does not include all the costs to transition to net-zero.  It gets worse because as far as I can tell the Integration Analysis does include the benefits of already implemented programs while it excludes the costs.  In order to get the desired result, the State analyses have a thumb pressing down on one side of the scale and the other thumb is pushing up the other side of the scale.  I don’t see how the Administration can avoid a meaningful discussion of the costs that they admit are extraordinary.

CNN described the New York State ban on the use of natural gas from most new buildings as “a major win for climate advocates, but a move that could spark pushback from fossil fuel interests”.   Advocates refuse to acknowledge the possibility that fossil fuel interests could align with the interests of the majority of New Yorkers who appreciate and value the resiliency and affordability of our existing fossil-fueled infrastructure.  The proposed wholesale shift to unwanted technology without proper accounting of costs will be under intense scrutiny this year.  I do not see how the Hochul Administration can avoid an open debate about the implications of the Climate Act for all New Yorkers.


Roger Caiazza blogs on New York energy and environmental issues at Pragmatic Environmentalist of New York.  More details on the Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act are available here. He has written over 300 articles about New York’s net-zero transition because he believes the ambitions for a zero-emissions economy embodied in the Climate Act outstrip available renewable technology such that the net-zero transition will do more harm than good. This represents his opinion and not the opinion of any of his previous employers or any other company with which he has been associated.

4.9 14 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
May 6, 2023 6:11 am

I’m looking to put in a gas stove now.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Scissor
May 6, 2023 7:26 am

Oklahoma Natural Gas Company is paying customers to install new natural gas appliances.

There won’t be any natural gas bans around here any time soon.

New York’s politicians are insane. But, I guess no more insane than the national leadership.

They are insane over CO2, a harmless gas that is essential for life, and there is no evidence CO2 is doing anything detrimetal to the Earth’s climate or weather, yet these politicians have been told differently and go insane trying to rein in CO2.

We have a huge CO2-based Mass Delusion, fed by corrupt scientists, going on among our leadership at all levels, and among millions of ordinary people. This is the result of a concerted propaganda campaign by Climate Alarmists over the last few decades. A very effective propaganda campaign.

But the bottom line is there is no evidence that CO2 is doing what climate alarmists claim it is doing. No evidence whatsoever.

So our leadership and a large portion of our population is living in a False Reality. A little cool weather may be the only thing that will snap them out of it.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
May 6, 2023 7:44 am

I’m in Colorado, which in some respects is becoming an Eastern satellite of California.

It’s finally beginning to look like summer is approaching on the Front Range.

I went skiing yesterday at Winter Park’s Mary Jane, where the snow coverage is still plentiful. The most hazardous part of the trip was dodging all of the potholes on U.S. 40. The area plans to close next weekend, more from a lack of skiers than snow.

Arapahoe Basin will likely remain open into June, possibly July.

Reply to  Scissor
May 6, 2023 10:24 am

The snow bowl in Arizona intends to remain open through May. They received almost 400 inches of snow which is only second to the record downfall.

Reply to  Dena
May 6, 2023 12:42 pm

I would like to visit Snow Bowl sometime.

I tried to visit Snow Bird in Utah twice this season but was prevented from getting there due to avalanches. They received 835 inches of snow, so far, setting a record for that resort. Their base is 130″ still.

Michael S. Kelly
Reply to  Scissor
May 7, 2023 9:39 pm

Snow Bowl is worth visiting any time of year. My Arizona family and I hiked it in August 2020, when there was no snow. It was amazing.

Reply to  Scissor
May 6, 2023 1:24 pm

A candidate for city council in Denver wants to tax “white led” businesses in order to pay for reparations to people who were never held in slavery.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  MarkW
May 7, 2023 5:10 am

She wants to take revenge on innocent people who had nothing to do with her grievances.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
May 7, 2023 8:03 pm

Including immigrants from countries AFTER there was slavery?

Reply to  Tom Abbott
May 6, 2023 12:38 pm

There won’t be any natural gas bans around here any time soon.

Ask Biden. The Interstate Commerce Commission has been imposing regulations and restrictions on what businesses and individuals in States can do for more than a century,

Tom Abbott
Reply to  AndyHce
May 7, 2023 5:13 am

I would like to see Biden try to impose restrictions on natural gas use within Oklahoma.

States have rights. it’s one of the beauties of our form of government. An individual can be protected from an overbearing federal government, by a friendly State government.

Geoffrey Williams
Reply to  Tom Abbott
May 6, 2023 3:28 pm

Good luck Tom. Situation reminds me of uk where they are ripping out perfectly good gas boilers for heat pumps ! !

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Geoffrey Williams
May 7, 2023 5:15 am

Yes, the climate change/CO2 craziness knows no bounds.

Tom Halla
May 6, 2023 6:24 am

All too many “right wing conspiracy theories” come true.

Reply to  Tom Halla
May 6, 2023 6:50 am

90+ % so most of them.

Reply to  Robertvd
May 6, 2023 1:25 pm


Reply to  MarkW
May 6, 2023 3:02 pm

No. There are no conspiracy theories. Call them spoiler alerts! Besides, we are running out of them!

Reply to  Tom Halla
May 6, 2023 9:40 am

In France saying the hygienic COVID passport would be a vaccine passport was a silly conspiration theory and then it because OFFICIALLY a vaccine passport and everybody was quite. There is no real opposition media in France on TV, there is one pretextual opposition news channel and the French NGO for freedom of the press, RSF, wants to shut down.

May 6, 2023 6:24 am

I’ve got a gas stove, a gas BBQ, an outdoor gas bottle oven, and a gas camp stove.

Why? Because I still want to eat hot food when the renewables push and coal plant closures put the lights out.

Coach Springer
Reply to  Eric Worrall
May 6, 2023 6:29 am

Yeah … Pretty sure they thought of that when they started this incremental approach to taking your gas away altogether.

Reply to  Eric Worrall
May 6, 2023 6:56 am

buy a super cheap electric hot plate to go with your solar array

Reply to  heme212
May 6, 2023 12:47 pm

Perfect for a midnight feast !!

Reply to  Eric Worrall
May 6, 2023 9:28 am

Sadly as a lot of the turbines that move the gas through the distribution system are converted to electric. I do not know the extent of backup. But many no longer rely on the gas in the pipelines for power to move the gas along. So, electricity off means good possibility of no gas deliveries for some also.

Reply to  rms
May 6, 2023 10:43 am

Switching from gas powered pipeline compressors to electrically powered compressors was an Obama initiative, implemented steadily over the years without much thought. The consequences were demonstrated amply in February 2021 in Texas when blackouts caused pipeline shutdowns which led to more blackouts. About 200 people died from the cold. There is a lot of not-thinking going on in the climate game. For example, a modern gas furnace will recover up to 95% of the heat of combustion and deliver it to your house. Without any credible means to power a grid with wind and solar, a proven impossibility, that gas must be used to generate electricity. This process converts only about 40% or less of the heat of combustion to electricity not counting power conversion and transmission losses. Thus to heat houses with electricity instead of gas will require roughly twice the amount of gas. The politics of this nonsense are dumb and getting rapidly dumber. Buy a generator- but don’t power it with gas.

Reply to  Eric Worrall
May 6, 2023 10:19 am

Along the same reason, I have put up several bags of Charcoal. I can smother it and get several burns out to the same batch, it taste better and I can start it with a couple of sheets of news paper. It’s also safer to store as if it leaks out of the bag, a broom will solve the problem.

Coach Springer
May 6, 2023 6:25 am

It’s most likely the “end of the beginning” if we’re going to argue on their terms about the accuracy of their imagination. As for my imagination, I can’t imagine that the tide turns until we are confronted with a tangible, urgent existential fear that will displace the attention of nearly everyone. I’ve seen our schools, our media, our politicians, our crony capitalists – and the votes.

May 6, 2023 6:25 am

This is simply epic. The hypocrisy is astounding. Link

Reply to  CO2isLife
May 6, 2023 6:32 am

It would be nice to know the point source for these media feeds.

May 6, 2023 6:27 am

This is so interesting. Just 2 years ago Con Edison upgraded the gas mains running next to my house from 3 inch to 12 inch diameter. This is a capacity increase of 16 times. Goes right along with Coumo added 1 gigawatts of gas generated electricity to replace Indian Point. Gas is here to stay. All we need now in NYS is fracking for all the gas we have. Sarc

David Dibbell
May 6, 2023 6:35 am

Great summary of the situation. Thank you, Roger Caiazza. Your posts are “must read” for me.

Meanwhile, NY is pushing incentive money out the back door for natural gas service for new industrial projects. Micron Technologies, for example. Their project is to build huge new chip fab facilities just north of Syracuse.

Some background and calculations for those interested in such things:
The “Term Sheet” with Empire State Development says the Excelsior Jobs Program gas delivery charge savings could be $35,000 per month or $400,000 per year.

EJP rate for Service class 8 is $0.04338 per therm.

The National Grid delivery charge for Service Class 8 beyond 500,000 therms is $0.07182 per therm.

So about how much gas per month?
$35,000/($0.07182-$0.04338) = 1,230,000 therms per month. Or 123,000 MCF per month.
(This is approximate and perhaps a bit overstated because of the price step at 500,000 therms.)


So there. We’re on a path to tell New Yorkers “you can’t do that anymore with fossil fuels” on the one hand while paying good money for large new supply piping and incentivized rates for massive natural gas usage when favored by the State.

Push. Back.

Bob Johnston
May 6, 2023 6:45 am

I will only be happy when everyone understands how beneficial fossil fuels are and how stupid trying to use solar and wind to power the grid is. This will only happen if a large state such as New York or California completely hit rock bottom with astronomical power bills and rationing so I say let the environmentalists get their way and get this race to the bottom over with.

Reply to  Bob Johnston
May 6, 2023 10:48 am

But Bob, it’s not rationing, it’s “demand response.” Aren’t you feeling better now?

May 6, 2023 6:48 am

And we will all eat cake too.

May 6, 2023 6:52 am

the ultimate goal is undoubtedly energy rationing. serfdom here we come.

May 6, 2023 7:03 am

All this, for a non-issue. Leftists disgust me.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  cosmicwxdude
May 6, 2023 7:32 am

“All this, for a non-issue.”


Rud Istvan
May 6, 2023 8:19 am

Hastening the New York/New England grid electricity shortage as the nucs shut down.

May 6, 2023 8:21 am

Every time zealots set out to herd us into a “better” way of doing things, somebody should bring up compact fluorescent light bulbs. What a frustrating, wasteful, and polluting detour that was!

Kevin Kilty
May 6, 2023 8:27 am

Office of Just Transition 

That’s not an office. That’s a euphemism.

A person doesn’t have to wonder for very long why New York spends twice as much on government as Florida when the two have the same population size and Florida’s is maybe significantly older.

Reply to  Kevin Kilty
May 6, 2023 4:14 pm

I have a feeling that Office of Thrust Position would be more apropos.

Beta Blocker
May 6, 2023 8:30 am

I recommend this Roger Caiazza article from April 30th.

Climate Act and the Gold Book

Looking at the various graphics in the Gold Book, and at how much of the Net Zero goals rely on energy conservation, it is painfully obvious that New Yorkers must shortly learn to live with half as much energy as they consume today.

Kevin Kilty
May 6, 2023 8:36 am

There aren’t many comments on this thread yet, but a number of people seem to believe the ditch-fossil-fuels craziness will stop when New York or California hit rock bottom.


With expanding regional energy markets, ISOs and extended day ahead markets as examples, the effects of poor critical thinking skills will reach us all.

Mark BLR
May 6, 2023 8:51 am

I do not see how the Hochul Administration can avoid an open debate about the implications of the Climate Act for all New Yorkers.

As the (very) old saying goes : “Oh ye of little imagination …”

We’re talking about career politicians here !

May 6, 2023 9:32 am

Do we want to take wagers ,start a pool or something on “will our society’s see the light on net zero craziness ( and the rest of it ie loss of civil liberties etc etc) and bring us in for a soft landing? “ And when. My father who recently passed away would see that these things upset me and say “ don’t worry we have been through this before, don’t let it upset you it always swings back to the center. But this situation seems somehow different .

He was doing quite well for 97 he was persuaded to take two COVID shots and suffered severe T I A with in 10 days of each. And declined rapidly. Probably just coincidence. But the power of government to propagandize these days is down right NAZI like. What will it take to turn the tide?

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  John Oliver
May 6, 2023 1:13 pm

what’s T I A ??

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
May 6, 2023 1:34 pm

transient ischemic attack 

A temporary blockage of blood vessel in the brain.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  John Oliver
May 7, 2023 5:20 am

Sorry to hear about your father’s passing.

Lee Riffee
May 6, 2023 10:24 am

I hate to say it, but I think that the end of all this will come when enough of the little people actually run headlong into the brick wall of these laws that were passed and roundly ignored by not only the media but most everyone else.
When people who own property in NY go to build their dream home and are told “sorry – no gas, no LP, and no oil”. When the family car finally is on its last legs, and buyers are told when they visit a dealership “sorry, we having nothing but EVs for sale”. When the dependable gas or oil furnace/boiler goes up, and the HVAC installer says “sorry, I can only replace that with a heat pump” – and then gives the customer the wallet-busting quote. This is when the rage will begin. People will be like frogs in a boiling pot, leaping all over the place.
Politicians’ phone lines will be blowing up, lawsuits will be filed and perhaps, if we are lucky, there will be protests in the streets.

It’s just too bad that it will have to come to that, that the frogs didn’t realize (or care, or believe what they were warned about – “ignore those right wing frogs!”) this has been happening and the water is getting hotter and hotter. That they would have had the power to turn off the heat before it got to a crisis situation.

It just blows my mind that so many people can ignore (or not believe) what is going on. That would be like ignoring a massive enemy army gathering outside the city gates. You ignore it at your own (and everyone else’s) peril.

May 6, 2023 11:54 am

It’s good to see that someone making decisions is finally looking at the numbers. I respect all the heavy lifting Roger had done. This net zero program is a really bad idea, I am glad to see that our views are finally seeing some light.

My view is that it would be better to allow complete failure of the plan even if it is painful so that the whole plan can be scrapped once and for all. It would be ugly but better.

I fear what will happen is that it will bandaged, plugged, propped up and otherwise amended so that people will settle for it, unwillingly but settle for it. We lose, the utilities lose, their customers lose, even those pushing this madness lose. Everybody loses.

The sorry part is that the other side is so shameless that they will declare victory in their defeat and campaign against us, telling everyone that we were wrong and they were right and no one should believe the likes of us ever again.

God these people are disgusting.

May 6, 2023 12:08 pm

New York resident here. Please send this sucker $. I’ll need it.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  clougho
May 7, 2023 5:24 am

Florida is calling you. 🙂

Or any other Red State, for that matter.

May 6, 2023 12:46 pm

For California and New York, will there ever be a quick drop and a sudden stop for their entire state economy? There’s got to be a point at which all of this non-sense brings about the end of these states.

Reply to  leowaj
May 7, 2023 2:57 am

It will accelerate the productive people leaving along with the rising crime and general malaise and just snowball. On the bright side with people leaving there will be less need for new construction or more electricity. Bet you thought Hochul was a moron but she has it all figured out. (other than just having consumers of tax revenue left, ha).

Joseph Zorzin
May 6, 2023 1:04 pm

““a major win for climate advocates, but a move that could spark pushback from fossil fuel interests””

So, anyone who doesn’t like this idea and complains is automatically part of a fossil fuel interest?

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
May 6, 2023 1:36 pm

Leftists are convinced that there are no legitimate reasons to oppose their plans.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  MarkW
May 7, 2023 5:29 am

Leftists think you are conspiring against them if you don’t go along with them.

Leftists are prone to paranoia.

May 6, 2023 1:16 pm

The Ninth Circuit court recently stopped the City of Berkeley’s gas ban. Likely it’s headed to appeal, and possibly the Supreme Court.

May 6, 2023 3:00 pm

Ok, gas is bad! There seems to be a similar move here in the state of Victoria. No more gas appliances in new dwellings. However, have you noticed what they are using to backup the erratic renewable energy supply? Oh! That’s right! Gas peaker plants!

Geoffrey Williams
May 6, 2023 3:24 pm

Yes green left wing ideology is the greatest problem of our age . .

Paul Hurley
May 6, 2023 4:31 pm

It seems just a few short years ago, they were promoting natural gas as a clean-burning alternative to gasoline/diesel power cars, trucks and buses. Ah well, the political winds do shift.

Reply to  Paul Hurley
May 6, 2023 8:18 pm

C,mon. You’ve got to keep up with the “Calvin ball” program!

May 6, 2023 8:39 pm

Ask a very simple question ala Senator Kennedy, “By implementing this plan to ban natural gas, by how much will global temperatures be reduced?” Hint: Not one bit.

Verified by MonsterInsights