Roger Caiazza
A couple of days ago an article republished here by Robert Bradley described New York Governor Hochul’s retreat from climate activism. On March 20, 2026 Hochul claimed in an exclusive opinion piece in New York Empire Report she outlined her vision. She claimed that climate action and affordability “can and must” go hand in hand. She did not provide substantive evidence to support that claim and her claims do not address other Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act) affordability issues.
Status
The Climate Act established a New York “Net Zero” target (85% reduction in GHG emissions and 15% offset of emissions) by 2050. It includes an interim reduction target of a 40% GHG reduction by 2030. Two targets address the electric sector: 70% of the electricity must come from renewable energy by 2030 and all electricity must be generated by “zero-emissions” resources by 2040.
Progress on the Climate Act is at an inflection point. I recently described two affordability aspects of the implementation process that are causing confusion for almost everyone. Hochul’s administration has recognized two aspects but has covered up a third component. I provide details of these aspects in the Status section of the companion post at my blog.
I believe that the primary reason for Hochul’s announcement is her gubernatorial election this year and her affordability theme. In February the Hochul Administration “leaked” a New York Energy Research & Development Authority (NYSERDA) memo that said that “full compliance” with Climate Act New York Cap-and-Invest (NYCI) regulation could cost upstate households more than $4,000 a year – on top of what they are already paying today”. This NYSERDA memo that Hochul points to as justification includes information that is just now convenient to release. Hochul knew these costs in 2024 when the original analysis was done. To keep prices down then, NYSERDA conjured up policy scenarios meant to keep costs at whatever level they thought they could get away with and not the higher cost the cap-and-dividend theory says will be necessary to meet the 2030 interim mandates.
Recognizing that the even the lower cost projections were politically sensitive, the Hochul Administration stalled implementation of NYCI. However, there was a lawsuit and judge quite rightly said the law is the law even though you now recognize it is impossible to achieve, He said either promulgate the regulations or get the Legislature to change the law. Hochul announcement is advocating changes to the law so that NYCI can be revised and the projected costs for this component of costs do not become an election issue this year.
The second issue is a PSC request for comments related to New York Public Service Law (PSL) § 66-p “renewable energy systems” that includes an indirect affordability mandate and the potential for suspension or modification of obligations if certain conditions are met and a hearing is held to determine if changes are needed. The Commission has finally acknowledged the possible need for a hearing and asked for comments. Hochul did not address this in her announcement. Note that it addresses utility rate costs – a different component of total Climate Act costs.
Hochul’s Administration is trying to deflect attention away from the third affordability aspect of Climate Act – all the other costs not included in NYCI and utility rates. The Climate Act mandates also will require reductions in the building, transportation, industrial sectors, agricultural, forestry, and waste sectors that include aspects beside fuel. Those costs have received very little attention. The recently completed New York State Energy Plan technical analyses buried the fact that when the household costs related to the appliances, electric vehicles, and building shell upgrades necessary to achieve the Climate Act are considered an upstate moderate‑income gas‑heated household will see roughly a 43% increase in levelized monthly energy‑related costs—about $7,000 per year.
Hochul’s Proposal
Governor Hochul’s Empire Report op‑ed included the usual cheerleading – New York is a national leader on climate. As politicians are wont to do it blamed everybody else: the Trump administration for hostility to renewables and tax incentives, to global events like the war in Iran for high fuel prices, and to local NIMBYism and siting barriers for delays in renewable deployment. What it does not do is confront the extent to which the design of the Climate Act itself, and the implementation choices made since 2019, hardwire higher costs and reliability risks into New York’s energy system.
Hochul’s opinion piece outlined potential revisions to NYCI but ignored the other two components described above. The following quotes are the recommendations in her opinion piece. She explains her rationale for the changes:
It’s why, despite supporting the intentions of the Climate Act, I am pushing changes to the law as part of our budget discussions with the Legislature. This is solely out of necessity – to protect New Yorkers’ pocketbooks and economy. Despite all the headwinds and obstacles that could not have been foreseen when the law was enacted in 2019, advocates still took the extreme step of suing the state to force it to issue regulations to meet the Climate Act’s 2030 emission reductions targets.
A judge agreed and ruled that the state must swiftly issue regulations to achieve what now would be costly and unattainable targets, unless the law is changed.
This refers to the NYCI economy-wide lawsuit and lays out the challenge to the Legislature who should change the law. Next ,she lays out the cost of NYCI compliance while ignoring the PSC petition and the State Energy Plan costs for equipment needed to comply with the Climate Act.
I have repeatedly said that utility rates in our state are too high. And while the Climate Act is not the driver of the high energy prices we are experiencing, the undeniable fact is we cannot meet the Climate Act’s 2030 targets without imposing new and additional crushing costs on New York businesses and residents.
Absent changes to the law, the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority found the impact of meeting the Climate Act’s 2030 targets would be staggering—more than $4,000 a year for upstate oil and natural gas households, and $2,300 more for New York City natural gas households. And gas prices at the pump would jump an additional $2.23 per gallon above where it would otherwise be.
In the next paragraphs she piously claims that costs are too high.
As Governor, I can’t let that happen. While I am still committed to working toward our targets, with all the stress our residents are under, New Yorkers expect their elected officials to prioritize affordability. They are suffering from high costs every single day and I for one will not ignore their cries for relief.
This is utter hypocrisy given that she knows about the levelized costs to purchase equipment. In addition, it long past time that NYSERDA admit their analyses compare mitigation scenarios to a Reference Case that already embeds zero‑emission vehicle mandates and other policies, excluding large chunks of Climate Act cost from the “action” side while still counting their benefits. This biases cost low. The public simply does not know how much this will cost. Hochul goes on to discuss schedule problems.
The fact is, we will be dealing with a White House outright hostile toward renewable energy for at least another three years, making it impossible for us to meet our targets without imposing higher costs on homeowners, renters, and businesses.
We need more time, and so I am proposing we amend the law to require regulations to reduce statewide greenhouse gas emissions to be issued at the end of 2030. We are seeking to change what emission limits the regulations are tied to – including a new 2040 target as well as the existing 2050 statewide emission limits. Nothing else in the CLCPA is changing regarding the existing statewide emission limit targets and these new regulations would still require the state to make timely progress, ensuring long-term policy stability.
The schedule targets mentioned must be changed because they cannot be achieved. The politicians who arbitrarily set deadlines must recognize that the energy system is more complicated than they thought in 2019. However, the bigger question is whether extending the deadlines will enable cost-effective implementation at any time.
These recommendations are sure to infuriate the zealots who advocated for the law and demand that there be no changes. The only question is whether the Democratic lawmakers who have supported the Climate Act so far will acknowledge reality or double down on the current law.
Conclusion
The Climate Act has always been about politics. New York has a woeful history of legislative mandates on the energy system, but this has never stopped Albany lawmakers from trying again. Hochul’s proposal hypocritically only address portions of the Climate Act. The NYSERDA memo that Hochul points to as justification for her recommendations includes information that is just now convenient to release. Hochul knew these costs in 2024, and she knows this is just the tip of the iceberg as evidenced by the State Energy Plan results.
It is time for real courage in Albany to admit that the fundamentals of the Climate Act need to be revised because we do not know how much this will cost and there has never been a feasibility analysis that proves that wind and solar provide enough energy to power the electric system. Unless the technological challenges are recognized and solutions proposed we will never know the true costs. I do not believe that net-zero climate action and affordability will ever be compatible.
Roger Caiazza blogs on New York energy and environmental issues at Pragmatic Environmentalist of New York. This represents his opinion and not the opinion of any of his previous employers or any other company with which he has been associated.
