Good campaigns rely on message control. Present your points in simple, understandable, and popular terms, recruit a range of “trusted” messengers, and relentlessly hammer home your message.

We’ve seen just such a campaign directed at undermining the state’s Climate Law. The campaign is underwritten by the oil and gas industries and injected by allies into public debates. The two core messages are that New York’s Climate Law is both unaffordable and its goals unrealistic, even radical.

This effort has been effective. But the claims are false.

First some background. The Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (a.k.a the “Climate Law”) was approved six years ago and sets the state on a path toward “net zero” greenhouse gas emissions by the middle of this Century. The “net zero” goal is consistent with the standard set by the world’s climate scientists who have warned that in order to avoid the worst consequences of global heating, all nations need to adhere to the net zero goal.

Given the anti-science ideology in Washington, there is little hope for meaningful positive action by the U.S. Congress or the current administration. Thus, states must act.

New York has. Its law is anchored by climate science and its policies embrace the goals established by the world’s experts: phasing out by mid-Century the state’s reliance on power generated by fossil fuels.

In doing so, New York set interim goals designed to guide policymakers as benchmark steps to meet the goals advised by the world’s climate experts. While all agreed that these goals were ambitious, policymakers knew that in order to meet the science-based goal of weening the state off fossil fuels by the middle of the Century, they must try.

The opponents’ campaign is centered on the falsehood that the impacts of the Climate Law are already being felt and that it is significantly responsible for rising energy costs.

Which is not only untrue, but failing to meet the Climate Law’s requirements will be, in fact, be far more costly.

It is true that New York’s residential electricity rates are high, however, relative to the nation’s. In 2018 – the year before the state Climate Law was signed – New York’s residential electricity rates were ranked the seventh-highest in the nation; today they are still ranked seventh highest. Still high to be sure, but the impact of the Climate Law’s passage didn’t make a meaningful difference.

Failing to meet the Climate Law’s goals will be more costly too. After the Climate Law was passed, the state then convened a panel of “stakeholders” to develop a detailed blueprint to meet those interim goals. The panel was chosen and their work completed after a public hearing process and other ways to solicit input. That advisory group concluded “the cost of inaction in New York State exceeds the cost of action by more than $115 billion.”

And the argument that the state’s science-based goals are “unrealistic” or “radical” is also false. If New York’s goals were simply too ambitious, then other states would be in the same situation. But that is not the case.

New York ranks 16^th in the nation in its reliance on renewable energy. New York ranks 13^th in the nation in its production of solar power, behind northeast neighbor Massachusetts (ranked 5^th). Of course, differences in geography and climate can drive these rankings, but New York only generates around 5 percent of its electricity from solar, while often-just-as-overcast Germany generates 10 percent of its energy from the sun.

What is true is that implementation of New York’s Climate Law has been lackluster. Since the law was enacted six years ago, it has become clear that the state did not do enough to meet its requirements. Reviews of New York’s efforts, both inside and outside the state government found that far too little was accomplished – largely due to an anemic response by the previous and current Administrations.

Of course, the Covid epidemic didn’t help, but state leaders have not galvanized government to achieve the goals set in the Climate Law.

Like any other goals that are set, adjustments have to be made. But the central goal of the Climate Law – namely that the state, the nation, and the world, must end reliance on the burning of fossil fuels – must animate the Hochul Administration and state lawmakers.

Knuckling under to the pressure of the Law’s opponents and succumbing to their disinformation campaign will do nothing other than lead to higher costs and a dangerously weakened climate.

New York regulators have developed a draft of the state’s next energy plan and a public hearing process has begun. The Energy Law requires key state agencies to develop a plan to assess the state’s energy needs, energy supplies, climate impacts, and related issues and plan for at least the next decade. Not surprisingly, the draft energy plan is controversial: For example, the plan reflects the Hochul Administration’s embrace of the state’s aging nuclear power plants.

In addition to giving New Yorkers a chance to weigh in on the draft plan, the public hearing process is an opportunity for opponents of the state’s Climate Law to rally the troops and urge a weakening of that landmark law.

What is the Climate Law?

In 2019, the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (Climate Law) was signed into law. The Climate Law is among the most ambitious climate laws in the nation and requires New York to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by no less than 85 percent by 2050 from 1990 levels. On the road to the 2050 goal, the Climate Law requires that the state achieve interim goals:

• 70 percent renewable energy by 2030;
• 100 percent zero-emission electricity by 2040; and
• 40 percent reduction in statewide greenhouse gas emissions from 1990 levels by 2030.

Those interim goals were designed to ensure that the state meets the overall goal of net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. Where did that goal come from? It is based on the best climate science available.

The world’s climate experts are members of the United Nations’ International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC has been putting out regular reports on the growing threats caused by a warming planet. Its April 2022 report resulted in a clarion call from the report’s co-chair: “It’s now or never, if we want to limit global warming to 1.5°C (2.7°F); without immediate and deep emissions reductions across all sectors, it will be impossible.” Seven months later, the U.N. Secretary General stated, “Greenhouse gas emissions keep growing. Global temperatures keep rising. And our planet is fast approaching tipping points that will make climate chaos irreversible. We are on a highway to climate hell with our foot on the accelerator.”

Three years later, if anything the situation is worse. Last year was the hottest on record and exceeded the 1.5°C (2.7°F) goal that the climate experts called for in 2022 and that was the basis of the worldwide climate agreement signed in Paris in 2016.

If anything, last year should have jolted policymakers into action. In Washington, the only actions undo recent progress and further accelerate the damage to the climate. Here in New York, the oil industry and its allies’ “affordability” campaign has been forcing state regulators onto their back foot.

Despite the attacks, it is quite clear that the rising costs in electricity rates have little to do with the Climate Law. It is true that New York’s residential electricity rates are high, however, relative to the nation’s. In 2018 – the year before the state Climate Law was signed – New York’s residential electricity rates were ranked the seventh-highest in the nation; today they are still ranked seventh highest. Still high to be sure, but the impact of the Climate Law’s passage didn’t make a meaningful difference.

Moreover, the amount of energy generated by wind and solar continues to be a very small percentage of the electricity generated in the state (around 10%). How could such a small percentage substantially drive increases in electricity costs? It can’t.

Yet that hasn’t stopped opponents of the Climate Law from stating otherwise. Opponents are arguing that it is the Climate Law that is making New York’s electricity rates too high, all in an effort to block – or at least slow down – action in New York. This campaign is just the latest in the decades-long efforts by the fossil fuel industry and its allies to block climate protection policies.

In terms of “affordability,” maintaining the state’s reliance on fossil fuels – or even expanding it – will make the costs of energy much worse. After the Climate Law was passed the state convened a panel of “stakeholders” to develop a detailed blueprint to meet the law’s milestone goals. Among its findings was that unless measures were taken, New Yorkers faced a considerable financial risk from climate-change impacts. The blueprint estimated “the cost of inaction in New York State exceed[s] the cost of action by more than $115 billion.”

There are legitimate criticisms of New York’s efforts to implement the Climate Law, mainly its too slow execution efforts and its growing ratepayer subsidies of nuclear power – both old plants and new ones – that will costs tens of billions of dollars.

But the Climate Law is not a problem. Global warming from the burning of fossil fuels and the resulting – and worsening – climate disaster is the problem. New York needs to take an even more aggressive approach to advancing renewable forms of power.

It is only through aggressive climate action that New York can show the nation and the world how to avert an even more catastrophic environmental disaster. Change is hard, but when it comes to our energy policies, the status quo is literally unsustainable.

September brings the final days of summer and with it the early days of the fall semester. The excitement of attending college is at its peak: Students are glad to see friends, the weather is great, and the work hasn’t started. Not so much for college administrators, who are laboring to keep the roll-out going while dealing with increasing financial pressures.

And there are now new pressures from Washington.

New York colleges and universities have long been dealing with financial stresses that originated from state public policies. For decades, New York offered the neediest public college students assistance that covered full tuition through the Tuition Assistance Program (TAP) at the State University of New York and the City University of New York. While the relationship between the two – SUNY tuition and the maximum TAP award – was unwritten, the promise was there for decades. However, that promise was broken in 2011. In that year, a new state law froze TAP awards and allowed for annual increases in public college tuition. Not surprisingly, raising public college tuition while keeping TAP awards unchanged strained institutional budgets, reducing tuition assistance revenue and deepening financial challenges as colleges struggled to cover the state’s shortfall.

Independent colleges were hit, too. Students attending those institutions also are eligible for TAP. Since TAP awards were frozen, those campuses also had to figure out ways to cover the financial assistance that would normally have come from the state’s TAP.

Adding to that financial hit, New York State was cutting back its direct support of colleges in the independent sector as well.

Aid to certain non-public colleges and universities, popularly known as Bundy Aid, is a program that provides direct unrestricted financial support to independent postsecondary institutions located in New York State. Once a vital component of independent colleges’ finances, the program has been decimated by cuts over the past four decades. The peak state support occurred during the 1989-90 fiscal year, when nearly $114 million was appropriated. During the current fiscal year, that amount has been reduced to around $20 million. If New York had merely kept pace with inflation, the amount of Bundy Aid would be around $260 million – not $20 million.

Now the Trump Administration has added new financial pressures that may push some colleges over the fiscal cliff.

The Trump Administration’s crackdown on immigrants and international students threaten another important funding stream for colleges. International students typically receive little to no financial aid when attending U.S. colleges. Thus, by paying nearly the “full freight” of attending college, they provide an important revenue stream. And one not easily filled.

Large institutions in New York could suffer. For example, New York University has nearly 25,000 international students; Columbia nearly 23,000; Cornell over 10,000; and Syracuse University has over 6,000.

While the media coverage has focused on the larger universities that have been targeted by the Trump Administration, those institutions have large endowments to help stabilize themselves financially.

Smaller colleges simply do not. International students represent at least 20% of enrollment at more than 100 colleges with endowments of less than $250,000 per student.

Of course, the impact is not only on colleges in the private sector; public institutions also face financial threats. For example, in the State University of New York, of its more than “370,000 total students, nearly 18,000 are international students from 180 nations around the globe.” At some SUNY colleges the percentage of international students is particularly large: The University at Buffalo has nearly 9,000 international students and Stony Brook University has over 5,000, for example.

This is particularly worrisome as college closures have been increasing over recent years in New York (to some extent the result of the state’s policy of cutting public assistance). In light of this trend, the new restrictions on international students will only make things worse.

New York needs a vibrant higher education system. Colleges not only educate the civic leaders of the future, but they are also dynamic “economic engines.” These economic engines create jobs that stimulate and anchor local economies. They offer a stimulus to local economies that are virtually guaranteed to succeed. For example, SUNY’s economic impact in New York State is $28.6 billion. For every $1 invested in SUNY, New York State’s economy benefits the equivalent of $8.17 and is responsible for nearly 2% of the gross state product.

The economic benefits are generated by independent colleges, as well. In fiscal year 2022-23 independent colleges and universities in New York State contributed an estimated $97 billion to the state’s economy and supported more than 407,000 jobs.

An important challenge confronting Governor Hochul as she develops her budget plan for the upcoming year is how to stabilize New York’s colleges and universities. Not only is addressing that challenge important to the state’s future workforce and civic leaders, but it is also critical to the state’s economy and jobs now. How the governor tackles that challenge we will soon see.

It’s summertime and New Yorkers are paying more attention to swimming, barbeques, and picnics than they are to New York State policies. Many will soon have a rude awakening. Starting next month, upstate electricity rates will take a big jump. After approval by the state’s utility regulator, the Public Service Commission (PSC), National Grid consumers will see electricity rates go up by 11%, with additional hikes in the following years.

National Grid was not alone, the PSC approved other utility increases for Central Hudson and other utilities have big rate hikes currently under consideration. Con Ed wants a 11% hike, New York State Electric and Gas Company (NYSEG) and Rochester Gas and Electric are seeking increases of at least 20%.

Not only are those increases hurting people’s wallets, for some consumers, rising utility rates is devastating. According to the PSC, as of June of this year over 1.2 million households in New York are 60 days behind on their utility bills, owing close to $2 billion. And over 1,400 households had their service terminated that month. No electricity during the hottest months of the year can be deadly.

Not surprisingly, public officials are criticizing those decisions. Even Governor Hochul – who appoints the members of the PSC – has complained.

Allies of the fossil fuel lobby have been quick to argue that it’s the state’s Climate Law that is a key driver in these hikes.

While a nice talking point, complaining about the state’s Climate Law simply doesn’t hold up.

It is true, however, that New York’s residential electricity rates are high relative to the nation’s. But that has been true for years. For example in 2018 – the year before the state Climate Law was signed – New York’s residential electricity rates were ranked the seventh-highest in the nation. In 2025, New York was ranked seventh highest. Still high to be sure, but the impact of the Climate Law’s passage didn’t make a meaningful difference.

There are reasons why utilities’ costs are going up – and thus the rates we all pay.

A few key reasons: Across the country, utility companies are overhauling the electric grid – often to prepare for the expected increases in demand. In many cases, these projects replace decades-old equipment and fortify infrastructure against extreme weather, which is becoming more frequent and severe.

So, what can be done about New York’s high utility bills?

As mentioned, the problem with high electric bills goes back a long way; the problem is structural. The central player in the rate-setting process is the PSC. When it comes to ratemaking and other utility matters, the PSC is charged with a dual mission: to both ensure the financial stability of utilities as well as set rates for the public that are “just and reasonable.”

As a result of the inherent tension created by the PSC having to both protect ratepayers and keep utilities profitable, consumers don’t have a full-time, well-resourced advocate for their interests at the crucial decision points that affect utility reliability and affordability.  This conflicted process means that utility regulators typically only get to hear fully developed arguments from industry sources.  The average residential consumer voice can get lost in the cacophony of industry lobbyists, engineers, and economists.  

It wasn’t always that way. From 1970 to 2011, New York had a Consumer Protection Board (CPB), a state agency that fielded customer complaints about everything from gas bills to faulty fridges. It had more than 40 staff in the early 1990s and played a role in rate cases like the ratepayer advocacy offices that still exist in more than 40 other states. At its peak in the 1980s and early ‘90s, New York’s CPB estimated that it had saved customers $1 billion.

However, starting during the years of the Pataki Administration, the CPB had its funding slashed until Governor Andrew Cuomo finished it off and moved its responsibilities to a unit with the Department of State (the Utility Intervenor Unit). That office now has fewer than a dozen employees.

What New York has in place to defend the interests of ratepayers is far from the national norm.

Forty-five states are part of the National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates, with offices that were set up by their respective jurisdictions to “represent the interests of utility consumers before state and federal regulators and in the courts.” According to reports, the New Jersey intervenor unit, the Division of Rate Counsel, is an independent agency with a staff of 26, half of whom are attorneys. California’s unit — the Public Advocates Office — has a staff of 179.

Yet in New York, there is nothing of the sort. That could change. The New York Legislature approved a bill to establish the “State Office of the Utility Consumer Advocate” to solely represent the interests of the state’s residential utility customers in energy ratemaking proceedings. This legislation would ensure that consumers have an advocate at the table with only their interests in mind when their interests are at stake.

That Office has long been needed in New York. In order to do something meaningful to protect consumers, Governor Hochul should sign that legislation.

Last week, state Comptroller DiNapoli released his office’s analysis of New York’s finances. His observations were sobering: State government faces a three-year aggregate budget deficit of $34.3 billion. The Comptroller specifically pointed to Washington’s federal budget cuts and a weakening economic outlook as the bases for his assessment.

His findings tracked those issued late last month by the Hochul Administration, which also predicted growing state budget deficits over the next few years.

According to both, the federal cuts that impact the current year’s state finances are manageable, no more than $1 billion out of an overall budget of nearly $255 billion. The current state fiscal year runs through the end of next March, seven months away.

The Comptroller’s report also predicted that the state’s financial picture will get more “problematic” as the phase in of the federal cuts hit, as well as expected future actions that could further deepen those cuts.

One program that was targeted is the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which used to be called food stamps, which is the federal program that helps low-income families with their grocery bills. The federal changes to that program will hurt right away. The federal government has always funded 100 percent of SNAP benefits. Yet the federal actions will shift some of those costs to the state, resulting in as much as $1.9 billion annually in additional costs for the state and local governments.

The impacts to New York don’t stop there. According to estimates, as many as 1.5 million New Yorkers will lose their health coverage. In particular, the cuts to Medicaid and other health insurance programs are deep and there is every reason to believe that state lawmakers will attempt to minimize the number of New Yorkers who lose their government coverage. But in order to do so, they may have to reduce spending on other areas.

This robbing “Peter to pay Paul” approach could impact programs in areas that were untouched by the federal cuts.

One option would be for the state to raise taxes on wealthy New Yorkers to help cover at least some of the upcoming shortfalls. After all, the federal budget plan advanced by President Trump and approved by the Congress enacts massive tax cuts with the benefits flowing overwhelmingly to the wealthiest Americans—thereby increasing the tax burden for the poorest while enhancing the incomes of the richest.

The thinking goes “why not claw back some of those benefits to offset the impact of the cuts to services?”

Governor Hochul has thrown cold water on that idea.

Whether the Legislature ultimately agrees with her, or she changes her mind, only time will tell. There are other options that the state should consider as lawmakers grapple with reducing expenses and generating revenue.

One area to examine is the state’s economic subsidies. A recent report found that New York spends billions of dollars on tax incentives and gets too little in return. In some cases, the subsidies run counter to the state’s established public priorities. For example, through tax expenditures and other economic benefits, the state provides annual subsidies to the climate crisis contributors—the fossil fuel industry. Should the state be providing tax benefits to the enormously profitable oil and gas industry? And aren’t benefits to the industry that causes the world’s climate catastrophe at odds with New York’s Climate Law, which promises to end reliance on that power source?

The clear answer is a resounding “yes.”

Governor Hochul is beginning to develop her plans for next year’s budget. As her plans come together, one important measure should be whether she has thoroughly vetted the state subsidies to the oil and gas industry, as well as the billions more spent on controversial tax and economic development benefits.

Thanks to the President and his Congressional allies, millions of New Yorkers—and tens of millions of Americans—will be poorer, unhealthier, and more at risk.

New York should take steps to do all it can to reduce that unnecessary suffering and to do so by eliminating questionable—or ineffective—tax programs, as well as steps to offset some of the federal benefits going to the well to do in order to reduce some New Yorkers’ misery.