Energy Affordability: An IQ Test For New Yorkers That They Will Very Likely Fail

From THE MANHATTAN CONTRARIAN

Francis Menton

Here in New York, our very-light-weight Governor Kathy Hochul is running for re-election. To her slight credit, she has noticed that New York is a high cost state, not the least for cost of energy, and that New Yorkers are upset about that.

New Yorkers are right to be upset about the cost of energy. According to this chart from the federal EIA containing most recent data for July 2026, the average price of electricity to the ultimate consumer in New York for that month was 29.9¢/kWh, compared to a national average of 18.31¢/kWh; and New York’s cost had increased more than 14% from 26.22¢/kWh in July 2025, versus a 4.9% increase in the national average over last year’s 17.45¢/kWh. New Yorkers are also right to be upset because the premium they pay for electricity is mostly to entirely the consequence of intentional government policies that drive up the cost.

What’s crazy is that Governor Hochul has decided to make “energy affordability” a theme of her campaign. The reason that is crazy is that at the same time that Hochul claims she favors more “affordability,” she also brags about maintaining and expanding the very policies that have caused the excess costs. The person most responsible for New York’s high energy cost is Kathy Hochul. But hey, this “energy affordability” theme seems to have worked in somewhat comparable circumstances for Abigail Spanberger and Mikie Sherrill, running respectively in Virginia and New Jersey last year. If the Virginia and New Jersey voters fell for it, maybe the New York voters will too.

On September 15, Hochul launched her latest “energy affordability” initiative with a big press release and a press conference. This latest initiative seeks to mask a portion of New York’s higher costs by distributing checks and discounts to the populace. From Hochul’s press release:

“As Washington Republicans keep driving up the cost of energy, gas and groceries, I’ll never stop working to help New Yorkers keep more money in their pockets,” Governor Hochul said. “That’s why I expanded access to our Energy Affordability Program – a move that will save residents across the state up to $500 annually on their energy bills. Right now, 2.5 million eligible New Yorkers are leaving money on the table and I’m on a mission to help keep the lights on and costs down by launching an all-of-government push to get them enrolled in this money saving program.”

As is usual for New York politicians, the playbook only extends as far as trying to bribe the people with some portion of their own money. So this becomes an IQ test for New Yorkers: Can we calculate whether ratepayers come out ahead or behind under Hochul’s proposal?

Again from the EIA, the average New York household uses about 8000 kWh of electricity per year. There is a difference of 11.59¢/kWh between the average New York electricity rate and the average rate in the rest of the country. That means the average New York household pays more than $900 per year for electricity in excess of what it would pay if our rates were equal to the national average. Now our very generous Governor comes along offering a discount of “up to” $500, to 2.5 million households (out of about 8 million households). Let’s see, have we come out ahead or behind? (Which is larger, $900 for each of 8 million households, or “up to” $500 for each of 2.5 million households?)

And then there is the issue of how New York’s rates came to be so much higher than the rates in other states. It can’t be geography — as an example, bordering Pennsylvania’s average rate for July was 21.72¢/kWh, fully 27% lower than our average rate. If you look at the EIA’s chart of average electricity rates by state, there is a remarkable (although not perfect) correlation between Republican-led states on the one hand (low rates) and Democrat-led states on the other (high rates).

And then consider some of the major New York energy policies that drive up rates. First there is the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act of 2019 (CLCPA). Provisions of this statute drive up consumer costs in multiple ways. First, the statute imposes a mandate that by 2030 70% of electricity must come from renewable sources. That provision makes it impossible to build new and more efficient natural gas power plants, or to re-power existing inefficient natural gas plants to use far less fuel to produce the same amount of electricity. Second, substantial amounts of new wind and solar generation have been built to try to comply with the 70% mandate, but since those only operate intermittently, all of the old natural gas plants must be retained, and we end up paying for two redundant generation systems instead of one. Third, the new wind and solar generators are also sited in remote locations, requiring substantial additional and expensive transmission, all of which gets paid for in electricity rates.

And then there’s the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, or “RGGI.” RGGI is a compact among eleven Northeastern states to force greenhouse gas emitters (i.e., electric power plants) to purchase allowances for every ton of CO2 that they emit. The quantity of allowances shrinks every year, thus forcing the auction price to increase. The auction clearing price has gone from $2.53/ton in 2017 to $37.65/ton in the most recent auction this month. And the cost of the allowances ultimately gets added into the electricity rates. In short, this is a program whose main purpose is intentionally to drive up electricity rates.

The number of these “allowances” for FY 2026-27 is set at 25,356,513. At $37.65 each, that means that the State adds close to $1 billion per year to end-user electricity bills. Divide by the number of households, and it’s about $120/year each, which represents about 5% of the aggregate of consumer electric bills. And, unless the RGGI structure gets changed, this figure is almost certain to rise.

On August 5, two New York State agencies, the Department of Environmental Conservation and the Energy Research & Development Authority, finalized regulations relating to implementation of the RGGI compact in New York. In a press release of that date, the agencies claimed that New York had received $2 billion cumulatively from the auction receipts built into RGGI program to that time, but they said they were using the money to make “investments” that would return $12 billion, or six times as much:

The updated cap trajectory is designed to achieve affordable emissions reductions more quickly, while ensuring long-term availability of allowances under the program.  Net savings are expected to reach nearly $12 billion (PDF) over the lifetime of the investments, providing a nearly 6-to-1 benefit based on investment of about $2 billion to date.

Note that the $2 billion of receipts and $12 billion of “benefits” are only as to receipts to date. Receipts going forward are projected to increase dramatically, to a cumulative total of $4.7 billion by FY 28/29.

So where do they come up with this $12 billion of supposed “benefits,” not now, but supposedly over the lifetime of the programs funded by the $2 billion spent so far. There is no real information available on that. In a document called the “New York’s Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative Operating Plan Amendment for 2026,” the agencies have provided a long list of entities and programs that either have or will be getting large cash handouts from the program. (To access that document, go to my colleague Roger Caiazza’s blog here, and follow the link for “Operating Plan Amendment” in the first line of that post.) There are dozens of recipients and programs listed, many getting funding of tens to hundreds of millions of dollars cumulatively over multi-year periods. Here are some examples of larger items listed: “Green Jobs Green New York (Fund)” — $517 million; “Clean Transportation” — $450 million; “UPA Efficiency and RE” — $389 million; “Retrofit Challenges” — $464 million; “Clean Energy Communities” — $144 million. And these are just a few examples of some of the larger allocations. So what exact entities are getting these vast sums, and what exactly are they going to do with the money to provide the claimed benefits? There are no details offered beyond the brief descriptions quoted.

In other words, these have the total appearance of being enormous slush funds passed out to friendly but unnamed NGOs. The idea that there will be $12 billion of benefits to the ratepayers from the $2 billion disbursed so far is pure speculation with no backup of any kind. Are there any actual “green jobs” emerging from the $500+ million handed out to the “green jobs fund”? Go ahead and try to find any of them. What is the “clean transportation” that we are supposedly getting for $450 million? If anyone knows they are not saying.

Do New Yorkers have sufficient IQ to figure out that they are getting scammed with this “energy affordability” mantra from Governor Hochul. I guess we will find out in the upcoming election. But let’s face it — New York voters are very likely to fail this test.

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
4.9 19 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
45 Comments
Sweet Old Bob
September 27, 2026 6:22 am

iT’S JUST “POLY TICKS”

MANY BLOODSUCKERS ….

MarkW
September 27, 2026 6:56 am

Most New Yorkers believe that if government pays for something, it is free and unlimited.

rah
September 27, 2026 6:59 am

Those that would pass the IQ test are gone or are leaving. What remains are those that pass but can’t afford to move away and those that will fail. And when the real crash comes the leaders will do exactly what Carney and the Liberals in Canada are doing. Blame Trump! And the low IQ types will react the same as the liberal masses in Canada are doing. It is all so predictable.

Reply to  rah
September 27, 2026 8:29 am

And accurate

rah
Reply to  Warren Beeton
September 27, 2026 10:05 am

How so? Trump is not Canada’s problem. Canada’s government is Canada’s problem. If Canada had a decent government it would, with its vast natural resources and relatively small population, be very much like Norway which has a great GPD per capita. TDS really is a mental illness.

Kpar
Reply to  rah
September 27, 2026 2:35 pm

Well, yes, Canada’s government IS its main problem, but Carney has set things up to blame Trump when Canada’s economy goes under, which he now has realized is pretty much inevitable (and not Trump’s fault, it’s all Canada’s).

Once Alberta and the rest of the Western provinces declare independence (and maybe petition the USA for entrance), Canada will be largely gone.

Ex-KaliforniaKook
Reply to  Kpar
September 27, 2026 3:27 pm

While Alberta and the rest of the Western provinces may declare independence, I hope they don’t want to become part of the US. They may be more conservative than the rest of Canada, but they are still too liberal. They would vote with Democrats to destroy the US. We can make a defense pact (like we have with Greenland), but no citizenship and no right to vote in US elections.

rah
Reply to  Kpar
September 28, 2026 1:23 am

From what I have read it does not appear the coming referendum that decides if they will start the long process of succession will pass despite the recent teary address by their Premier. About 2/3rds of the Alberta electorate wants to stay Canadian and the vote is less than 3 weeks away. My bet is it ain’t gonna happen and Alberta’s revenue will continue to be siphoned off by the National government for their own enrichment and for buying votes in the east where the vast majority of voters are located.

Meanwhile that same national government will continue to stifle development of projects to tap those natural resources in the name of their Net Zero policy.

Even if the Conservative party took power it wouldn’t change much in that way. It never has. The Canadian Conservative Party and it’s predecessors have been more like the Liberal lite party when one looks at their actual actions when they did have power.

Bruce Cobb
September 27, 2026 7:05 am

“Affordability” and cost are two different things. They are hoping people won’t notice that, or won’t care.

Kpar
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
September 27, 2026 2:38 pm

They are counting on the public schools to miseducate the public, so they won’t know any better.

The best thing for the USA is to ban teachers’ unions. They completely control the City of Chicago, and you can see what they’ve done with the place.

And it ain’t pretty.

September 27, 2026 7:07 am

“The person most responsible for New York’s high energy cost is Kathy Hochul.”
Presently, this is correct.
But her predecessor Andrew Cuomo directed his Department of Health to issue an adverse report on drilling and fracking in 2010 to stop natural gas development. We are still sitting on huge deposits in the Marcellus and Utica formations. Nuts. 
Then he signed the CLCPA into law in 2019. Also nuts.

Either way, NY needs to make the smart move back to common sense. I have to agree here with Francis Menton that it seems unlikely. But we’ll see what happens in November.

cgh
Reply to  David Dibbell
September 27, 2026 9:41 am

Agreed. But that’s only the beginning of Cuomo’s stupidity. He organized the forced shutdown of Indian Point. As fully amortized nuclear power plants, they were the lowest cost source of electricity in New York State. Cuomo teamed up with a gang of ENGOs to force a closure for no good reason.

In short, Cuomo proved to be as stupid for purely political and selfish reasons as the dismal Angela Merkel in Germany a decade ago. Like Merkel, Cuomo could not have done a more effective job at wrecking his own economy.

Kpar
Reply to  cgh
September 27, 2026 2:42 pm

You mentioned Merkel. I always thought that she, growing up in Communist East Germany, that she would know well the dangers of Socialism, but that turned out not to be the case.

She was pure disaster for Germany, and she did nothing to stop the influx of Muslims, which has pretty much dissolved German culture.

Reply to  cgh
September 27, 2026 4:16 pm

You’re right about Indian Point!!

Kpar
Reply to  David Dibbell
September 27, 2026 2:39 pm

You mean Incubation Andy?

mleskovarsocalrrcom
September 27, 2026 7:15 am

“As is usual for New York politicians, the playbook only extends as far as trying to bribe the people with some portion of their own money.” Right out of California’s playbook. Every now and then I get a “credit” on my electricity bill along with a letter explaining how it’s paid out of funds saved with renewable energy, low use, etc, etc.

Reply to  mleskovarsocalrrcom
September 27, 2026 12:46 pm

When my cable goes out, I usually get a “credit” on my bill. (If I ask for it.)
I’d rather my cable just stayed on.

September 27, 2026 7:24 am

Gov. Healey of Wokeachusetts “thinks” the same as Hochul.

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
September 27, 2026 8:32 am

And yet Massachusetts enjoys high literacy, best educational system, outstanding medical care, productivity higher than any red state, high per capita income, good quality of life. Maybe ‘woke’ beats ‘MAGA’.

Reply to  Warren Beeton
September 27, 2026 9:36 am

I suggest that’s all a bit exaggerated. Some very rich bring up the average. The population isn’t much larger now that when I was a kid in the ’50s, so many have left for better opportunities. It might be nice if you’re a doctor or computer scientist- or plumber but many people here are just getting by- and they bought their homes decades ago. If you’re a young adult, trying buying a house now when starter homes are half a million bucks. Here, there’s a MAGA center in the center of the state, where ALL the industries left. Not everyone has a high IQ and advanced education. If you do, this state is fine, if not, you move to other states, mostly the sun belt. The state has let in a great number of illegal aliens- it’s a sanctuary state. The state spends billions supporting them every year. The governor wants it to be Net Zero. But there’s no place to put vast numbers of solar panels. Even if you put them on every building, it wouldn’t be enough and it would be very expensive. Same for wind turbines- super expensive and a bit risky due to terrible weather. The state is very top heavy with bureaucracy- and most hiring by the state is nepotism and cronyism- there is NO functioning civil service system.

cgh
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
September 27, 2026 1:25 pm

Agreed. These numbers support what you state regarding migration.
List of U.S. states and territories by net migration – Wikipedia

Kpar
Reply to  cgh
September 27, 2026 2:45 pm

That’s pretty cool to see it all in one place. And it was from WIKIPEDIA?

gezza1298
Reply to  Kpar
September 28, 2026 8:26 am

Thikipedia does let a few facts get through….

oeman50
Reply to  Warren Beeton
September 28, 2026 4:19 am

Correlation does not equal causation.

September 27, 2026 7:28 am

Regarding the above article’s title:
“Energy Affordability: An IQ Test For New Yorkers That They Will Very Likely Fail”,
I just gotta ask this:

What is the minimum IQ level required to take (and presumably pass) an IQ test?

Mr.
Reply to  ToldYouSo
September 27, 2026 8:11 am

Below 70 is classed as very low IQ.
Applies to ~ 2% of the population, apparently.

https://themindcompany.com/blog/IQ-ranges

Fran
Reply to  Mr.
September 27, 2026 10:25 am

Having taught in a university, I am amazed at how little 110 IQ points gets you,

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Fran
September 27, 2026 10:50 am

The Real University is a state of mind incorporating rational thought, commitment to Quality, and lifelong learning. The brick and mortar university, not so much.

Sweet Old Bob
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
September 27, 2026 11:49 am

SHK Uni.

School of Hard Knocks .

Kpar
Reply to  ToldYouSo
September 27, 2026 2:48 pm

The US Military has a rule that it cannot induct anyone with an IQ lower than 83.

They cannot be properly trained to do a job reliably.

strativarius
September 27, 2026 7:34 am

not now, but supposedly over the lifetime of the programs

Jam tomorrow…

conservativeeducator
September 27, 2026 7:47 am

“Do New Yorkers have sufficient IQ to figure out that they are getting scammed with this “energy affordability” mantra from Governor Hochul.”

Rhetorical, right?

oeman50
Reply to  conservativeeducator
September 28, 2026 4:30 am

You could ask the same about Virginia. Spamberger (D) ran for governor on “affordability,” yet one of the first things she did after her election was have Virginia rejoin RGGI. The theory behind RGGI is to have electric companies pay more for electric generation that releases CO2, giving them an incentive for not using those sources. But oops, in Virginia those costs are included in the rates, which doesn’t incentivize anything. But it creates a big slush fund for the government to dole out as they please. That’s a win for everyone!

John Hultquist
September 27, 2026 7:59 am

 “According to this chart from the federal EIA containing most recent data for July 2026 …”
Okay, but …
I don’t pay that. In the Great Left Coast State of Washington localities differ. That EIA chart suggests I pay 14.71¢/kW while my actual “energy delivered” rate is 10.89¢ and in the county east of me the rate is 4.9¢. But wait – there’s more.
We have a basic rate (facility charge). Mine is about $28/month while the neighbor’s is shown as $0.59 per day. That is about $10.00 less per month than me. What about the other states. Do the averages shown make sense?
In Washington State, these differences result from large dams and who owns them; hint, not the State.

September 27, 2026 8:52 am

Wow 29 cents per KWH to consumers. Interesting….they can buy from Hydro Quebec for 6 or 7 cents…looks like the system is set up to be a big money-maker for investors rather than a good deal for the average guy…

Reply to  DMacKenzie
September 27, 2026 7:59 pm

A quick look at the NY-ISO site (as of 10:52 pm) indicates a wholesale marginal energy price (LMP) of about 4 cents / kWh. (Wind is contributing less than 5% of supply). While energy prices vary, I would presume that most of the quoted 29 cents / kWh to consumers consists of ‘wire’ charges in addition to whatever charges the Left deems necessary to achieve energy dystopia.

Reply to  Frank from NoVA
September 28, 2026 8:31 am

Yup, $6 for electricity and $100 transmission, administration, standby, half-a-dozen more…is my summer cabin’s norm…had to pay for poles, wire, install too long ago and give free right of way that they use for others…

D Sandberg
September 27, 2026 9:20 am

Cost penalty = annual household electricity use × (state rate − national rate)
For California, recent EIA-based figures show:

Walter Sobchak
September 27, 2026 9:56 am

“we end up paying for two redundant generation systems instead of one.”

2 redundant systems is 4 systems.

Kpar
Reply to  Walter Sobchak
September 27, 2026 2:50 pm

COULD be three.

September 27, 2026 10:17 am

Once again, (except for comments) a [Ctrl-F] search for “nuclear” comes up 0/0.

NotChickenLittle
September 27, 2026 10:54 am

New Yorkers already failed the IQ test by voting for Hochul…I don’t expect they’ll magically wise up anytime soon…

spetzer86
September 27, 2026 12:01 pm

There’s no indication that Ds will ever learn any data that conflicts with their world view. As that view includes the necessity of Green Energy and the infallibility of Democratic Socialist actions, there’s no reason to believe that they will accept reality until it rises up and whacks them upside their collective heads. Even then, it’ll be Trump’s fault.

ResourceGuy
September 27, 2026 3:24 pm

New Yorkers will flunk the open book test in order to get their various payoffs from ward captains and union leaders.

Bob
September 27, 2026 4:05 pm

I am not a big fan of more regulation but every gas and electric bill should be forced to itemize the bill. How much of your payment is going to the power company with delivery and production separated. How much is going to state and federal government itemized by tax, fee and buying carbon credits and whatnot. Every tax bill should declare what percentage of your tax bill is going to subsidies including energy vouchers or whatever they call them, subsidies for wind and solar, for the cost to extend transmissions lines and so on. Between the rate payer and the tax payer we are really taking it in the backside. Time for all that to end. The government has wasted enough of our money.