Kathy Hochul, the governor of New York, has proposed a delay to the state’s landmark 2019 climate law, saying its goals would be too costly and could worsen already-expensive utility bills.
But a coalition of climate, labor, and community groups counters that there are serious costs to not meeting the law’s climate goals—like more expensive energy bills, lost jobs, and health impacts caused by pollution.
Delaying the law would cost New Yorkers nearly $9,000 on their energy bills per household over five years, due to the loss of billions of dollars in energy credits or rebates, according to an analysis from NY Renews.
The proposed rollbacks would mean roughly 150,000 jobs lost statewide, as well as 5,000 premature deaths and 4,000 asthma hospitalizations over the next five years.
Hochul’s proposed Climate Law changes
In 2019, New York state passed the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act, known colloquially as the Climate Law. It was signed into law by Hochul’s predecessor Andrew Cuomo.
It was a landmark policy, making New York “one of the first states to put in law enforceable mandates that the state decarbonize and take steps to meet its climate goals,” says Stephan Edel, executive director of NY Renews.
The law requires cutting greenhouse gas emissions 40% by 2030 (as compared to 1990 levels) and 85% by 2050.
In a recent op-ed, Hochul proposed pushing that 2030 goal to 2040, and also changing the way the state measures methane emissions, which experts say means much of this pollution could go undetected.
While the Climate Law sets emissions reduction targets, it doesn’t specify how the state should meet those goals.
Hochul was supposed to release the regulations for mandating these reductions by January 2024; she did not, and is now being sued by environmental groups for missing that deadline.
In her op-ed, Hochul proposed issuing those regulations for how the state reduces emissions by the end of 2030, pushing back the entire enforcement of the Climate Law.
The law will save households money
In making her proposals, Hochul has said the effort to meet the Climate Law’s 2030 targets would actually make utility bills spike, and even cause gas prices at the pump to surge more than $2 a gallon.
Those figures reportedly come from a memo from the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (which the governor controls). But multiple environmental groups dispute those estimates.
The high costs represent a “worst-case scenario” calculation, Edel says, that doesn’t reflect the actual policy that would take place. NY Renews’s own research says these programs help save money for households, particularly for low-income and disadvantaged communities.
Another group, Earthjustice, also disputed the costs, telling The New York Times that the figures should include rebates and subsidies for energy customers, and that the state used an “exaggerated figure for penalizing polluters.”
Edel adds that the governor’s office hasn’t been “transparent” in how it put that memo about costs together. (Fast Company has not viewed the NYSERD memo, and has reached out to Hochul’s office for comment.)
Climate crisis is too urgent to kick down the road
Concerns about rising utility costs and gas prices are valid. But those concerns are being driven by fossil fuels. That’s been clear with the conflict in Iran; New York gas prices have spiked 21% since the unrest began.
“What we could do best to sustainably stabilize and lower bills is actually get people off fossil fuels, make their homes more energy efficient, and in doing that [make their homes] healthier and safer,” Edel says.
The NY Renews analysis looks at the state’s own research on the impact of climate programs to quantify what New Yorkers would lose out on if the law is delayed and altered.
Along with causing New Yorkers to miss out on $9,000 in household energy bill savings over five years, and 150,000 jobs statewide, the analysis finds that the state will lose between $15 and $60 billion in local revenue.
That’s money that would have been invested in communities for things like rooftop and community solar, electric buses, weatherization for affordable housing, and infrastructure and resiliency projects.
Hochul has framed the Climate Law as something at odds with affordability efforts—claiming that its delay would protect residents from future costs. NY Renews says that’s not supported by the research.
Delaying the law also conflicts with the urgency climate experts say is needed to address these issues.
“If we give the governor the power to kick the can down the road,” Edel says, “it fundamentally undermines the rationale of having . . . legally mandated climate goals, [and] the idea that this is an urgent problem that needs to be addressed.”
“The governor should not have the discretion to just be like, ‘Yeah, I don’t feel like dealing with climate change,’” he adds, “because it’s really here.”
