Energy Policy

Weakening NY’s Climate Law Is the Wrong Move

/ Peter Bardaglio / Leave a comment
Gov. Hochul is signaling that she wants to revise or delay parts of New York’s landmark 2019 Climate Law. Her justification for doing so involve  concerns about energy affordability and implementation challenges. To put it bluntly, weakening the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA) would be a mistake. Doing so would undermine climate progress, create policy uncertainty, and ultimately cost New Yorkers more in the long run.
Gov. Kathy Hochul

When the CLCPA passed, it placed the state at the forefront of national and global leadership in climate policy. The law was designed not just to cut emissions but also to drive innovation, investment, and job creation in clean energy industries. By setting ambitious targets, the state signaled to businesses, utilities, and communities that the future would be built on renewable power and electrification.

 If the state retreats from those commitments now, it will send the opposite message, declaring that climate goals are negotiable when political pressure rises. This kind of backtracking could discourage clean-energy investment and slow the development of industries such as offshore wind, energy storage, and green infrastructure.

Critics argue that New York’s climate targets are unrealistic or too expensive. But in many cases the state’s challenges stem from delays in implementation rather than flaws in the law itself. Reports have found that state agencies have fallen behind in issuing regulations and coordinating policies required to meet the law’s mandates.

Changing the targets now would reward bureaucratic delay instead of addressing the underlying issue: the state has not moved quickly enough to build the renewable energy projects, transmission lines, and electrification programs needed to meet its goals.

Rather than weakening the law, the Hochul administration should accelerate permitting, invest in grid infrastructure, and coordinate state agencies to deliver the clean-energy transition that lawmakers already promised.

The governor has pointed to rising energy costs as a reason to reconsider aspects of the climate law. A state analysis suggested that compliance could increase household energy costs in some scenarios. But focusing only on short-term costs misses the larger economic picture.

Climate change already imposes enormous costs on New York through extreme weather, flooding, heat waves, and infrastructure damage. Investing in renewable energy, electrification, and resilience now is far cheaper than dealing with the escalating consequences of a runaway climate crisis.

Moreover, renewable energy technologies continue to decline in price. Solar, wind, and battery storage are becoming increasingly competitive with fossil fuels. Delaying the transition could lock New York into expensive fossil infrastructure that will eventually have to be replaced anyway.

The legislation was designed not only to reduce emissions but also to address environmental inequities. It requires that at least 35 percent of clean-energy investments benefit disadvantaged communities that have historically suffered from pollution and industrial activity.

Rolling back climate commitments risks prolonging the harmful effects of fossil fuel infrastructure in those same communities, especially urban neighborhoods near highways, power plants, and industrial facilities. Weakening the law would mean delaying the health benefits of cleaner air, lower asthma rates, and reduced exposure to pollution.

Major infrastructure transitions do not happen overnight. Transforming an energy system takes decades of planning, investment, and policy stability. Businesses, utilities, and local governments make decisions based on the expectation that climate policies will remain in place.

If New York begins rewriting its climate law just a few years after passing it, that stability disappears. Investors may hesitate to finance renewable projects, and communities may question whether the state will follow through on its promises.

The CLCPA was never meant to be easy. It was designed to meet the scale of the climate challenge facing New York and the world. Instead of weakening the law, state leaders should focus on implementing it effectively, addressing affordability concerns through smart policy, and ensuring that the transition to clean energy benefits all New Yorkers.

In the face of a global climate crisis, the worst possible response would be to retreat from the bold commitments that once made New York a leader.

Endangerment at Home and Abroad

/ Peter Bardaglio / Leave a comment

At first glance, climate policy rollbacks and a military strike on Iran may seem unrelated: one deals with environmental regulation at home, the other with foreign policy and conflict abroad. But in 2026, they share deep connections in how the current administration frames U.S. national priorities.

Repealing the Endangerment Finding

Let’s start with the rescinding of the endangerment finding by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Earlier this month the EPA under President Trump finalized the repeal of the 2009 endangerment finding, the scientific and legal determination that greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane endanger public health and welfare. The 2009 ruling gave the EPA its authority to regulate these emissions under the Clean Air Act.

The endangerment finding became the foundation of virtually all U.S. federal climate policy. It empowered the EPA to establish vehicle emissions standards, regulate powerful industrial polluters, and curtail greenhouse gas emissions from power plants and oil and gas facilities.

By rescinding that finding, the Trump EPA has unraveled that legal foundation, effectively eliminating federal greenhouse gas regulation and significantly weakening the agency’s ability to enforce climate policy. The final rule also eliminates reporting and measurement requirements for vehicle emissions.

This move represents one of the most consequential environmental policy rollbacks in U.S. history, undermining protections for air quality and climate health while rejecting a long-standing scientific consensus.

Without the authority of the 2009 finding, the EPA loses its central statutory basis for most climate regulations, opening the door to increased emissions, less federal oversight, and deeper disparities between state and federal policies. It also signals a clear ideological position against federal climate engagement and in favor of oil and gas companies.

The Attack on Iran

Both the repeal of the endangerment finding and the Iran conflict reflect a broader political agenda emphasizing the central influence of the U.S. fossil fuel industry. The EPA rollback is justified politically as removing what the Trump administration and its supporters call “overreach,” presenting less federal control as central to economic freedom and growth. On the other hand, the unprovoked military assault on Iran strengthens the power of the White House to act unilaterally in carrying out its foreign policy.

What unites the two is the unprecedented influence of big oil and gas corporations. Iran has the world’s second-largest reserves of natural gas and the third-biggest oil reserves. U.S. oil producers see Iran as a much better prospect than Venezuela and offered last month to be a “stabilizing force” in Iran if the regime there falls.

“You can imagine our industry going back there — we would get a lot more oil, a lot sooner than we will out of Venezuela,” a U.S. energy and geopolitics consultant observed, practically licking his chops. “That’s more conventional oil right near infrastructure, and gas as well.”

The Interplay of Domestic Politics and Foreign Policy

Climate policy and military strategy both shape global perceptions of U.S. leadership. The rollback of climate regulation obviously weakens U.S. influence in international climate cooperation. At the same time, war with Iran will undoubtedly further strain alliances and diplomatic partnerships important to tackling climate change collectively. In both cases, the U.S. is continuing to isolate itself globally.

Rescinding the EPA’s endangerment finding and launching a war against Iran are deeply related actions on the part of the Trump administration. Each represents a pivotal shift, one in how the U.S. engages with the science and policy of climate change at home, and the other in how it projects power abroad.

While different in substance, both illustrate how the fossil fuel industry exerts unchecked environmental and foreign policy influence in ways that endanger the long-term interests of the U.S. In a world increasingly interconnected by climate risk and geopolitical instability, these recent domestic and foreign policy decisions carry profound significance for the U.S and the world.

NY State Energy and Climate Policy in 2025

/ Peter Bardaglio / Leave a comment

It’s an understatement to say that 2025 was not a good year for renewable energy and climate change policy in New York. The state experienced significant policy uncertainty this past year in these two areas, to put it kindly.

Certainly, New York continued to invest in renewable energy infrastructure and climate adaptation strategies. The execution in May of 26 large-scale land-based renewable energy contracts that will generate more than 2.5 GW of clean capacity, underscored the Hochul administration’s ongoing commitment to renewable energy deployment.

Photo by Tom Fisk on Pexels.com

In addition, the state has backed major green initiatives such as a broader Sustainable Future Program that allocates $1 billion to expand energy efficiency, decarbonization of buildings, and thermal energy networks, investments intended to reduce emissions while making the energy transition more affordable.

Yet these achievements were overshadowed in 2025 by growing concerns about policy direction and ambition.

The Hochul Administration Pullback

The Hochul administration faced strong criticism in 2025 from climate advocates for its pullback in the implementing climate policy. The state’s contentious handling of the proposed Cap-and-Invest program — an economywide carbon pricing system designed to generate revenue for climate initiatives while creating enforceable emissions caps — attracted much of this criticism. Although the program was expected to be finalized in 2025, Gov. Hochul spent much of the year putting in roadblocks that hindered its implementation.

Delays and administrative resistance in rolling out greenhouse gas emission regulations required by the CLCPA, including sections of the cap-and-invest framework, has generated much consternation. State agency decisions such as allowing previously denied permits for natural gas infrastructure have signaled a shift toward accommodating traditional energy interests at the expense of stricter climate enforcement. This will undoubtedly slow progress toward legally mandated emissions targets.

The administration has justified such a cautious approach as necessary to balance climate ambition with affordability, a framing that weighs public concerns over energy costs against the urgency of decarbonization. Nonetheless, environmental groups argue that these pullbacks risk New York falling short of statutory reductions and undermine the leadership role the state had positioned for itself. Critics also contend that reduced emphasis on building public renewables may forgo lower-cost clean energy and job opportunities.

Trump’s Energy and Climate Actions

Federal policy further complicated New York’s energy and climate trajectory in 2025. During President Trump’s second term, there has been a pronounced rollback of federal climate policies and a rush toward fossil fuel development. Key actions include withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, deregulatory measures at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to dismantle numerous environmental protections, and administrative opposition to renewable energy projects.

Most consequential for New York has been federal interference with offshore wind development. Earlier this month, the Trump administration paused leases for multiple East Coast offshore wind farms, including Empire Wind and Sunrise Wind, citing national security concerns, a move that directly threatened New York’s offshore wind ambitions.

Other federal actions such as the elimination of clean energy tax incentives and cancellation of billions in funding for clean energy projects undermined the economic viability of deploying renewables at scale, particularly in states like New York that count on these incentives to attract investment. Alongside rollbacks of vehicle emission standards and other emissions safeguards, these federal shifts have seriously constrained the state’s ability to achieve its climate goals, creating regulatory conflict between state and federal priorities.

Repercussions for the City of Ithaca

All of these developments in 2025 have had significant repercussions for the City of Ithaca and its pursuit of ambitious climate objectives, including transitioning municipal operations to carbon neutrality, promoting electrification of buildings, and expanding local renewable generation.

State-level uncertainties have had tangible consequences for Ithaca’s energy planning. Delays or weakening of statewide carbon pricing mechanisms and the cap-and-invest program have reduced predictable funding streams that cities could use to support local renewable projects, efficiency upgrades, and climate resilience measures. Furthermore, the state’s delay in the implementation of the All-Electric Buildings Act has led to a delay in the city’s implementation of its net-zero building code.

Federal setbacks in wind and clean energy incentives also make capitalizing on larger-scale renewables more challenging, potentially delaying projects that could benefit local businesses and residents.

The combined effect of state policy reticence and federal rollbacks necessitates that Ithaca double down on local planning, community engagement, and the tapping of non-federal funding sources to meet its climate objectives. As a result, to say the least, this coming year will be challenging.

A Victory (for now) on the NYS Climate Action Front

/ Peter Bardaglio / Leave a comment

There is so little good news in the world these days, especially regarding the climate crisis, that it’s worth paying attention when some comes along. Not just happy, greeting card talk, but substantive, positive developments.

Well, there was good news last Friday (October 24) and it’s worth focusing on. A state supreme court judge ruled that New York is violating its own 2019 climate law, the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA).

CLCPA Mandates

How can this possibly be good news?

Here’s why: it’s been clear for months now that Governor Hochul and her administration have been working hard at slow-walking the effort to to implement the CLCPA. This law mandated – not suggested, recommended, or advised, but legally stipulated – the following climate and clean energy targets: a 40% reduction in greenhouse gases by 2030; an 85% reduction in greenhouse gases by 2050; and 70% renewable electricity by 2030; and 100% carbon-free electricity by 2040.

Cap and Trade Rules

Under the law, the State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) had until the start of 2024 to issue regulations that would “ensure” New York met its binding greenhouse gas emissions targets. A year and a half later, no such regulations had been issued.

Behind the scenes, the DEC and NYSERDA had apparently completed draft rules at the beginning of this year for cap and invest, the emissions program that is critical to theimplementation of the climate law. But the governor, instead of releasing these rules for public comment, pulled the plug on them.

In response, Citizen Action of New York, PUSH Buffalo, Sierra Club, and WE ACT for Environmental Justice filed suit in March. In his decision Judge Julian Schreibman gave the DEC until February 6 to issue the cap and trade regulations. “While DEC notes that it has taken other, commendable regulatory steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions,” the judge said, “it candidly concedes that the impact of those regulations would fall far short” of the targets set out in the climate law.

Echoing Governor Hochul’s concerns about cap and trade, the DEC argued in court that issuing the regulations was “infeasible” because it “would require imposing extraordinary and damaging costs upon New Yorkers.”Judge Schreibman, to his credit, dismissed that argument. “It is undoubtedly true that the task placed before the DEC is very complicated indeed,” he observed. “But as a legal argument, this is unavailing.”

Two Paths

The judge said there were two paths ahead: the DEC can release regulations to meet the requirements of the law or the legislature can change the law. Of course, the DEC could also appeal the decision, which would lead the case to drag on for months longer, if not more. The DEC would only say that it was reviewing the decision.

Governor Hochul took a less ambiguous position on the decision, indicating that she was considering the possibility of pushing the state legislature to change the CLCPA.

NY Renews, a statewide climate justice coalition, spoke out in strong opposition to this possibility. In its words, “changing the climate law would be a massive step in the wrong direction, allowing polluters across New York to proceed with business as usual, unfettered and unchecked, and condemning us to an ever-worsening climate crisis.”

As if on cue, Hurricane Melissa roared through the Caribbean, leaving a trail of death and massive destruction in its wake. One of the strongest hurricanes on record, Melissa slammed into Jamaica on October 28 with winds of 185 mph. Closer to home, New York City suffered extensive flooding and at least two deaths on October 30 as rainfall broke 100-year records and submerged streets and subways.

The message couldn’t be clearer: the climate crisis isn’t going away and, in fact, will only get worse. Those of us who recognize this likelihood must hold the governor and state legislators accountable during the next session beginning in January, making sure that any efforts to weaken the climate law are defeated.

The New York Draft Energy Plan Falls Woefully Short

/ Peter Bardaglio / Leave a comment

It wasn’t that long ago New York achieved national prominence for its ambitious renewable energy push. But with NYSERDA’s recent release of its draft energy plan state officials are openly acknowledging that New York will fail to meet the clean energy targets mandated by the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act of 2018. The state climate law stipulates that 70% of the energy produced in New York should be zero-emissions by 2030.

The plan recognizes the need for more renewable energy and greenhouse gas emissions reductions. To say the least, however, it sends a disappointing message by calling for continued reliance on fossil fuels as well as new investments in new natural gas pipelines and the repowering of fossil fuel plants.

The plan also concludes that New York’s goal of reaching a 40% reduction in emissions from 1990s levels by 2030 is probably not achievable. So far the state has only reduced its emissions by 10% with just five years to go.

Not surprisingly, the plan blames some of the state’s failures on the increasingly aggressive opposition to renewable energy by the Trump administration, but as environmental activists point out, the state was already behind before these attacks.

To its credit, the plan calls for accelerating the deployment of energy efficiency measures such as home weatherization and power-saving appliances. According to its projections, up to 25% of homes by 2040 will have heat pumps and over half the cars could be zero-emission vehicles.

The plan also seeks to increase solar power and battery storage, and notes that New York could increase its renewable electricity generation by 80% over the next 10 years. Of course, the Trump administration’s irrational effort to pull the plug on offshore wind casts a shadow over this possibility.

With the right kind of strong, visionary leadership, New York could accelerate its adoption of solar energy, battery storage, and geothermal energy while retiring its fossil fuel system and electrifying transportation and buildings. The key problem clearly lies with Gov. Kathy Hochul’s reluctance to meet the moment and provide such leadership.

Thousands of comments have been submitted by the public focusing on the flaws in the draft energy plan and its lack of commitment to the CLCPA. Later this year, the state will publish a final plan. Let’s hope it responds to these comments, keeping New York on the path to a renewable energy future.

Why are NY Taxpayers Subsidizing Big Oil & Gas in this Day & Age?

/ Peter Bardaglio / Leave a comment

New York State currently subsidizes the fossil fuel industry by exempting it from paying $1.6 billion of Sales & Use Taxes and Petroleum Business Taxes every year. When I first learned of these subsidies, I was astonished. How could New York, which established some of the most aggressive targets in the nation for reducing greenhouse emissions in its climate law of 2019, still be handing out taxpayer dollars to businesses that continue to pump more of these emissions into the atmosphere?

Besides this obvious reason for taking a good, hard look at the subsidies, there are at least two more reasons why they no longer make any sense. First, the fossil fuel industry has been making enormous profits in recent years. In 2023, the global oil and gas industry earned a record income of more than $2.7 trillion, while they invested just 4% of capital expenditure on clean energy. Clearly, big oil and gas no longer need to be supported by these tax breaks, especially when they are turning around and investing so little in clean energy.

Second, New York passed the Climate Change Superfund Act last year in an effort to hold the fossil fuel industry accountable for the damage that its reckless business practices inflicted on the state. In other words, we are handing out subsidies to the same industry that we have just decided to impose stiff penalties on for its destructive behavior.

The Stop Climate Polluter Handouts Act (S3389/A7949), currently being considered by the state legislature, seeks to pull back on the incentives that benefit the most highly polluting fuels and their most unreasonable uses, including high-emission commercial airline fuel and low-grade shipping “bunker” fuel, the operation of fracked gas infrastructure, industry research and development, and more.

The bill targets fossil fuel corporations’ most egregious actions and protects ordinary New Yorkers by preserving some tax breaks that benefit the public such as the home heating credit for low and middle-income households and an agricultural exemption that helps small- to mid-sized farmers. In total, the legislation would end over $330 million in fossil fuel subsidies. At a time when Washington is taking steps to make huge cuts in the federal budget, cuts that would be extremely damaging to New York, the bill would also help to close the state’s budget deficit.

In short, the Stop Climate Polluter Handouts Act is a commonsense bill, raising revenue for the state while aligning state spending with New York’s 2018 climate law targets and holding fossil fuel companies accountable to pay the taxes from which they have been exempted for decades. There are only a few days left in this year’s legislative session, so time is running out. The legislature needs to move quickly to approve this measure and send it on to Gov. Hochul for her signature.

Let’s Keep the Inflation Reduction Act Powering Upstate New York

/ Peter Bardaglio / Leave a comment

The following was originally published in the Ithaca Times on April 20, 2025.

Upstate New York has always been a place where hard work and innovation go hand in hand, going back to the building of the Erie Canal. Now, thanks to the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), our region is seeing a surge in clean energy investments that are creating jobs, lowering energy costs, and strengthening local economies.

The IRA Drives Economic Benefits

We can see firsthand how federal policies like the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) are driving tangible benefits for our communities.Ithaca’s groundbreaking plan to decarbonize the city’s buildings, for example, is tapping into federal incentives to make the transition affordable and sustainable.

Meanwhile, the IRA’s Rural Energy for America program is helping farms and small businesses across the Southern Tier invest in energy efficiency upgrades and clean energy projects for affordable energy they can generate on their own land.

Key to Private Investment Growth

Throughout our region and the nation, clean energy projects are delivering economic growth and hundreds of new jobs. Since the passage of the IRA, the U.S. has added more than 400,000 new clean energy jobs and seen over $422 billion in private investment. And in New York alone, federal clean energy tax credits have driven $115.47 billion in investments and created nearly 29,000 jobs since they were passed. Here in our region, the impact is clear: new, good-paying jobs in manufacturing, more reliable, locally-produced clean energy, and strengthened economic opportunities in both urban and rural communities. Despite this momentum, some in Washington want to roll back these critical investments. Repealing clean energy tax credits would mean turning away billions in future investment, increasing energy costs for businesses and families, and slowing the progress we have worked so hard to achieve.

That’s why we need Rep. Josh Riley, Rep. Nick Langworthy, and Rep. Claudia Tenney to stand up for Upstate New York and protect the Inflation Reduction Act. Our region is already seeing the benefits, and by maintaining this momentum, we can build a future that is both economically and environmentally resilient. Now is the time to double down on our progress, like the early canal builders, not turn back.

NYS Moves Closer to Banning Gas in New Buildings

/ Peter Bardaglio / Leave a comment

To say the least, there’s not a lot of good news these days regarding efforts in the U.S. to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. So we should make a point of highlighting what positive news there is to avoid falling into despair.

On Feb. 28, New York state took an important step to ban fossil fuels in new buildings when the State Fire Prevention and Building Code Council voted to recommend major updates to the state’s building code, including rules requiring most new buildings to be all electric starting in 2026, as mandated by a law passed two years ago.The law bans fossil fuel combustion in most new buildings under seven stories starting in 2026, with larger buildings covered starting in 2029.

Environmentalists and climate activists breathed a sign of relief following the state council’s approval given that the state council had cancelled meetings twice in recent months, leaving some supporters concerned that the state might be backing away from the gas ban. With the rules now released for public comment, New York looks to be the first state to implement such a ban.

Buildings are New York’s largest source of emissions, amounting to nearly one-third of all climate pollution. In fact, according to the national clean energy nonprofit RMI, New York’s buildings burn more fossil fuels for heat and hot water than any other state, contributing not only to global warming but also to local air pollution that poses serious public health problems.

Although the proposed new codes do not delay the ban on fossil fuels, they fail to include mandates to require EV charging infrastructure, energy storage, and solar at new buildings. The state’s 2022 climate plan listed these three provisions as “key strategies” to achieve New York’s legally binding emissions targets.

Not surprisingly, the fossil fuel industry fought at every level against these changes in the buildings codes. Industry trade groups, in particular, led a major campaign to keep provisions such as the EV-charging requirement out of the national building code that provides a model for states, including New York.

Despite these shortcomings, the key development is that the NYS Building Council has backed the ban on fossil fuels in new construction. That’s a victory worth celebrating.

Two Steps Forward, One Step Back

/ Peter Bardaglio / Leave a comment

With the Trump administration taking office on January 20, it’s become clear that efforts to stave off runaway climate change will have to focus on state and local policy.

Trump has promised to halt federal support for clean energy technology and electric vehicles, and he has pledged to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris climate accord, reverse a key regulation aimed at reducing emissions from power plants, and roll back other rules aimed at curbing climate change and air and water pollution.

Offshore wind is a crucial component of New York’s attempt to achieve 70 percent of its electricity from renewable energy by 2030. Photo by David Dixon/Walney Offshore Windfarm licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0.

Clean Energy’s Rapid Growth Continues

One bright light, though, is the fact that Trump can slow down progress, but he can’t stop the transformation of the domestic and global economies sparked by the clean energy revolution.

More than 40 percent of all global power in 2023 came from renewable sources, and investments in renewable energy are accelerating because prices have dropped dramatically. In fact, more than 80 percent of new electricity capacity around the world comes from carbon-free sources.

NY’s Leadership Role

Nonetheless, action at the state and local levels will be imperative going forward. With Gov. Kathy Hochul’s signing of the Climate Change Superfund Act, New York has taken on a leadership role that will give the state an opportunity to defy the president-elect’s attempt to reverse climate action. This new law, as explained above, will require the biggest oil and gas companies to contribute to a fund that will be used for infrastructure projects meant to protect New York residents from increasingly dangerous climate disasters like storms and sea level rise.

Another major step in the state’s climate fight took place when Hochul, at the same time, signed into law a prohibition on using carbon dioxide for fracking, closing a loophole in New York’s existing hydraulic fracturing ban (also reported above). This legislation, introduced by Assemblymember Anna Kelles in March, signals a determination to keep the fracking industry out of the state.

These two steps forward should be applauded, while at the same time recognizing the importance of continuing the push on climate action and clean energy in Albany when the state legislature opens its new session on January 8. Efforts to ensure that New York obtains 70 percent of its electricity from renewable energy by 2030, as called for by the 2019 Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA) are especially critical.

Expanding offshore wind, implementing congestion pricing in New York City, eliminating subsidies for new gas hookups as well as the Public Service Commission’s obligation to provide gas service, reducing state tax breaks provided to the fossil fuel industry, putting in place a true cap-and-invest program with guardrails to keep it from devolving into cap-and-trade, increasing the kinds of containers covered by the state’s bottle law, and addressing the issue of plastic packaging are just some of the ways New York can continue to strengthen its leadership role on the climate and clean energy fronts.

At the local level, we’ve seen a disappointing step backward with the continued attempt by Cornell University to install synthetic turf fields on campus. Given the recent finding that 2024 is set to become the hottest year on record, the massive rollout of plastic undertaken by Cornell at its athletic facilities is a bad look, to say the least.

Equally dismaying is the apparently superficial investigation by the city planning board as part of the approval process. The board’s negative declaration of environmental significance, precluding the need for the kind of thorough environmental impact statement (EIS) called for by Zero Waste Ithaca, is hard to fathom in light of existing scientific research outlining the harmful public health and environmental effects of synthetic turf. We can only hope that the lawsuit launched by this activist organization will result in greater transparency regarding the risks involved.

Time for New Leadership on Climate and Energy

/ Peter Bardaglio / Leave a comment
With the coming change in administration in Washington, it’s safe to say we’ll be seeing some dramatic shifts in climate and energy policy, none of which is likely to result in lower greenhouse gas emissions. Consequently, it is critical that local communities and states step in to lead the way on climate resiliency and adaptation, as well as the clean energy transition. Given the huge transformation of the political landscape at the national level, New York must move forward decisively. The biggest indication that it will do so would be if Governor Hochul signs the Climate Change Superfund Act passed at the end of the last session. This act adopts the “polluter must pay” principle. The fossil fuel industry has known for decades that its product is responsible for the climate damage we’ve experienced, and through its campaign of misinformation and outright deception it has avoided accountability. It is time for this to stop. The bill doesn’t ask Big Oil to pick up the entire tab, just a fair share of it. Taxpayers should not have to cover the entire cost of destruction caused by the fossil fuel industry. Besides the Climate Change Superfund Act, unfinished business from the last session includes the NY HEAT Act, which seeks to eliminate subsidies for new gas hookups, eliminate the “obligation to serve” gas to neighborhoods, and ensure that no low-income household would pay more than 6% of its income for energy. The NY HEAT Act passed in the Senate this year by a wide margin, but never came to a vote in the Assembly due to the controversy over congestion pricing that erupted in the final days of the session. Another big piece that needs to be put in place is the Cap and Invest Program. By applying a price to the amount of pollution, the Cap and Invest Program incentivizes consumers, businesses, and other entities to transition to lower-carbon alternatives. Assemblymember Anna Kelles (D -125th District) is the lead sponsor on a version of this program that would put in place guardrails to keep it from devolving into a vehicle for cap and trade, and would also ensure that an appropriate share of the revenue raised by the program goes to projects in frontline communities. As Kelles points out, the Climate Change Superfund Act and the Cap and Invest Program work together, with the former addressing past damage and the latter looking forward to future destruction incurred as a result of carbon pollution. Together with the NY HEAT Act, adoption of this legislation would send a strong message to Washington and the other states that progress on the climate and clean energy transition cannot be stopped.