We’re now more than three weeks past the mandatory April 1 deadline for New York’s annual state budget. So far, few details have emerged about the reasons for the delay. Negotiations are supposedly taking place among the Governor and the leaders of the two houses of the State Legislature. But what are the sticking points?
It is likely that by far the biggest, if not the only significant sticking point is what to do about the impending deadlines of the troublesome Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act of 2019, or CLCPA. This Act sets required “renewable” energy and emissions reductions targets, with the earliest deadlines for those things in 2030. The Act also set a separate deadline in 2024 for issuing certain regulations. The latter deadline has been completely blown off. Emissions reduction deadlines and related regulations may seem non-germane to the budget, but then this is New York. The budget process gives the politicians a way to conclude a must-pass deal behind closed doors without having to hold annoying public hearings that would be flooded by angry activists.
With the regulations long overdue, and an impossibly short four years to go to meet the first emissions reduction targets, one might think we are at a dead end. Over the past couple of years, knowledgeable bureaucracies like the Public Service Commission and the NY Independent System Operator have begun issuing veiled but unmistakable warnings that the Climate Act targets cannot be met at any remotely reasonable cost while also maintaining system reliability. And the Governor has gotten the message. About a month ago (March 20), Governor Hochul published a piece in something called Empire Report publicly disclosing that she intended to use the budget process to try to implement extensions of the most immediate CLCPA deadlines:
[D]espite 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. . . . 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.
But up to now there has been little disclosure of the extent, if any, of push-back coming from the Legislature. That changed with this piece published on Tuesday (April 21) in an outlet called City & State, headline and sub-headline: “Hochul’s non-compromise on climate rollbacks; Gov. Kathy Hochul gave little ground in her latest meeting with legislative leaders. Members aren’t biting.” City & State seems to have found a few sources in the Legislature willing to disclose some of the resistance coming from that direction, which is heavily controlled by the left-wing of the Democratic Party.
As you can tell from the headline, the gist of the C&S piece is that the Legislature, and particularly its leaders, are so far holding firm on sticking with the CLCPA as written.
According to City & State, Hochul had originally proposed extending the 2024 deadline for certain regulations to 2030, and then replacing specific required 2030 and 2040 emissions reduction deadlines with “a new, largely nonbinding 2040 emissions benchmark – absent a specific reduction goal.” In the latest round of discussions, C&S reports, Hochul has offered to move the revised deadline for the regulations up to 2029 (rather than 2030). Here’s how C&S reports the reaction of members of the State Assembly:
The latest proposals did not seem to leave Assembly members terribly pleased, according to two sources. One Assembly member said the proposals “fell flat” and were far too general without key specifics. The same member also suggested a shift from 2030 to 2029 for regulations is hardly a change, and too late regardless.
Over in the State Senate, Majority Leader Andrea Stewart-Cousins appeared to show more flexibility:
Stewart-Cousins said negotiations have centered around finding the right “balance” between current realities and committing to the state’s ambitious climate goals. She added that she “always” believes there’s room for more compromise. . . .
But most entertaining were the reactions from some of the local climate activists. For example, there was this from Justin Balik of Evergreen Action:
“If accurate, the proposals are deeply concerning. . . . If the Governor’s proposals move forward as is, it would be a disastrous outcome for people’s wallets and the air they breathe.”
Or this from Liz Moran of EarthJustice:
“It’s embarrassing that the Governor of NY’s climate agenda amounts to ‘no we can’t!’ when the Governors of TX, VA, IL, and CA – who also live in Trump’s America – continue to build out renewables and lower costs for struggling Americans. . . . The Legislature shouldn’t stand for anything less.”
Also on Tuesday, a crowd of climate activists gathered to protest at Governor Hochul’s office in Albany. ABC News 10 — the local ABC affiliate in Albany — reports the story here. Excerpt:
Protesters warned that softening the CLCPA would trap New York in the expensive fossil fuel market, pointing to soaring gas prices driven by international conflicts. They chanted and held signs reading “Trump <3 Hochul” and “Hormuz Hochul”—referencing the Strait of Hormuz, the major global oil shipping chokepoint at issue as President Donald Trump wars with Iran.
Eighteen protesters were arrested. One was Michael Greenberg of a group called Climate Defiance. Here’s what he had to say:
“We are in a climate emergency, and we don’t have time to wait,” Greenberg said moments before his arrest. “We are going to shut down the whole governor’s office until we get what we need, which is air we can breathe, water we can drink, and a climate that is habitable to human beings. That is not asking too much.”
This whole crowd — Hochul, the legislative leaders and the climate activists — are united in two fundamental assertions: (1) blaming President Trump for wrecking their ability to meet the Climate Act mandates because he withdrew federal subsidies via the One Big Beautiful Act or otherwise, and (2) claiming that wind and solar electricity generators are somehow cheaper than the existing hydrocarbon (fossil fuel) alternatives and would bring down consumer costs if only they could be built. Those simultaneous assertions can’t possible both be true. If wind and solar electricity were actually cheaper, then there would be no need for federal subsidies, and Trump’s withdrawal of subsidies would have no effect in slowing down a rapid build-out. But never underestimate the ignorance of the New York voter in failing to recognize such an obvious contradiction.
I am rooting for the legislators to hold firm and keep the Climate Act deadlines as near as possible to where they are now. A few years of extensions will not solve the problem, and will only prolong the agony. We need to force the activists to admit that their proposals don’t work, and the only way to do it is to run right up to the Green Energy Wall.
