Last week, the big policy announcement was one made by Governor Hochul. The governor directed the New York Power Authority to develop one or more nuclear power plants with enough capacity to supply electricity to roughly 1 million households.  

The rationale for this action is that New York needs more electricity-generating capacity to meet growing demands and to comply with the state’s climate laws.

But going all in on “new” nuclear raises its own concerns.

The historical reality of nuclear power has been that it is polluting, dangerous, a security risk, and enormously expensive, both as a complicated technology that requires significant safety features, as well as one plagued by construction cost overruns. Supporters of the use of nuclear power acknowledge the risks but argue that those risks are worth it due to the worsening climate catastrophe.

A review of the experiences in New York underscores the concerns about a headlong rush into the nuclear industry’s embrace.

New York, and the nation, was first sold on nuclear power as a new way to generate electricity that was said to be “too cheap to meter.”  Former New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller was a champion at that time.  But his speedy, all-in embrace ignored one key problem – where will the wastes go?  Rockefeller’s response was to push for storage in West Valley New York. That decision led to an environmental disaster – the inadequate disposal resulted in “spreading radioactivity into Cattaraugus Creek … from which the [City] of Buffalo obtains its drinking water.”

More recently New Yorkers were asked to foot the bill to keep ancient nuclear power plants running. That idea was advanced by another New York Governor, Andrew Cuomo.  The former governor proposed that ratepayers underwrite a multi-billion-dollar bail-out of nuclear power plants that were so old that they were constructed during the Vietnam War era.

At that time, the public was told by the Cuomo Administration that the costs would be around $3 billion over the course of a dozen years.  Outside reviewers estimated that by the time the bailout was complete in 2029, the costs would be around $7.6 billion.

According to state documents, the bailout has cost over $4 billion as of April of this year and there are still four years to go!  All of that money comes from ratepayers’ pockets. 

Now the pitch is from current New York Governor Kathy Hochul.  

This time New Yorkers deserve answers before the first shovel digs into the ground. It was the failure to involve the public that led to unnecessary costs and debate over the former Cuomo Administration’s bailout of the existing nuclear power plants located in upstate New York. Indeed, that approach should be viewed as the opposite of how the Hochul Administration should go about things this time.

The public should expect that Governor Hochul will deliver a full independent public vetting of her latest nuclear power plan.  That also means allowing the entire state to be part of the discussion, examining the expected costs (including the industry’s history of cost overruns), examining the waste storage requirements (on-site forever?), and examining the full cost impacts both directly and indirectly, such as what New York Power Authority projects will be scrapped in order to fund the building of a new nuclear power facility.  The fact that the governor is eyeing new, untested approaches to nuclear power underscores the need for a full, transparent process.

In the 1960s, New Yorkers were told all would be well.  It ended in an environmental disaster.  In the early 2000s, New Yorkers were all told all would be well.  It ended in multi-billion-dollar add-ons to our electric bills.

New Yorkers are now being told, all will be well.  Let’s not get fooled a third time.

In the wee hours of Wednesday morning, the state Assembly wrapped up its 2025 legislative session, a week after the state Senate finished. In many ways the legislative session was a typical one: The budget was late (the latest in 15 years), lawmakers held campaign fundraising events in the capital district (at least 176 for the 42 nights that state elected officials planned to be in Albany) or were held by leadership, and hundreds of bills were approved in a flurry of activity in both houses.

All in all, since January 856 bills passed both houses and will, eventually, be sent to the governor for her approval. That amount was an uptick over last year, just over 800 identical bills were approved by both houses in 2024.

Yet, there was a large gap in the number of bills passed by each house. The state Senate, continuing the trend of recent years, approved far more bills than the state Assembly. The Senate approved 1,743 bills, while the Assembly approved just under 1,000 (995). This gap is consistent with previous sessions of the past decade. However, the gap is surprising since the Assembly has a lot more members (there are 150 members of the Assembly compared to 63 in the Senate) and that the Assembly met longer than the Senate.

Since only 856 bills passed both houses, essentially the state Assembly blocked hundreds of bills that had been approved by the Senate, which is also surprising. Both houses are dominated by Democrats so there should be no partisan differences and it is unlikely that there are ideological ones. Why did the Assembly block so many bills? It’s hard to say, but some of them were ones that stirred little controversy.

Take for example, legislation designed to plug a loophole in the state’s lobbying disclosure law. Current law requires the reporting of lobbying to influence laws, executive actions, agency decisions, and efforts to influence local governments but not for efforts to influence the governor’s appointments to agencies or the courts. Legislation to require disclosure of that lobbying was approved in the Senate, but the Assembly version never came up for a vote.

Plugging that loophole should be a legislative “no-brainer.” The key regulator in setting utility rates is the Public Service Commission. Under New York law, spending to get a rate hike approved or denied is considered “lobbying.”

However, due to the existing loophole, advocacy to influence the governor’s choices to be on the Public Service Commission is not considered lobbying. So, trying to influence utility rates is lobbying, but trying to influence who is picked to make the rate decision is not. How does that make sense? Apparently, the Assembly didn’t see the public interest in disclosing that lobby spending and the bill was blocked.

Another example is legislation that would have established an incentive program for landscaping companies and local governments to purchase electric lawn equipment instead of gas powered ones. We’ve all had the jarring experience of having a peaceful day interrupted by an obnoxiously loud gas-powered leaf blower or other lawn equipment that’s spewing fumes from its engine.

These machines are not only staggeringly loud, but they also produce a shocking amount of air pollution. That makes them more than a Saturday morning annoyance – they’re also a health hazard.

Legislation to incentivize the use of quieter, less polluting, battery powered lawn equipment had broad support by a diverse set of constituencies and interests, including over one hundred public health, environmental and community groups, lawn equipment manufacturers, and equipment retailers like Home Depot.

With support from unusual allies like this, it was expected that the bill would sail through the Assembly. But it too died on the Assembly floor without a debate.

Of course, there were other more controversial legislative casualties resulting from Assembly inaction. One was legislation to reduce the amount of plastic packaging in New York.

According to the to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), “New York’s 25 municipal solid waste landfills have a combined landfill capacity of between 16 and 25 years.” If the state’s landfills are filled to capacity in a decade or so, what should New York do? The DEC has recommended that the state adopt a “producer responsibility” approach and urged action to, among other things, reduce packaging wastes.

The Packaging Reduction and Recycling Infrastructure Act legislation would have done just that. But despite having passed the Senate, broad public support, and having more than enough votes in the Assembly, the bill never came up for a vote.

The packaging legislation was opposed by companies willing to spend big bucks to defeat it – and they did just that.

It is impossible for the public to know why the Assembly has chosen to block hundreds of Senate-approved bills. As mentioned, those bills die a quiet death, with no public debate. Obviously, the Assembly majority is comfortable with this approach, whatever the reason.

Yet, the Assembly opposition blocks solutions to serious public problems. As servants of the public, the Assembly should at least explain its inaction to voters and taxpayers who deserve some answers.

Last week, New York’s State Senate wrapped up its legislative session. During the session, the Senate approved nearly 1,750 bills. In order for those proposals to become law, the state Assembly must approve identical legislation.

The state Assembly is scheduled to return for a few days this week and, so far, has approved more than 800 bills, a lot but not quite half of the Senate’s total. It is expected that hundreds of bills will be approved by the Assembly as it rushes to finish this week.

That’s a lot of bills and little time to do them.

New York’s lawmakers introduce more bills than any other state in the nation – and it’s not even close. Not surprisingly, New York also is among the leaders nationwide in approving legislation.

Many of the bills are high impact – meaning they will directly impact many New Yorkers – and some are less. For example, New Yorkers pay among the highest utility bills in the nation. Yet, consumers don’t have a full-time, well-resourced advocate for their interests at the crucial decision points that affect utility reliability and affordability. As a result, regulators typically only get to hear fully developed arguments from industry sources. The voice of the average residential consumer can get lost in the cacophony of industry lobbyists, engineers, and economists. Legislation has been approved in both houses that establishes a utility ratepayer advocate that will look out for the interests of consumers before state regulators. How the governor will respond is unclear, but given her stated desire to make New York more “affordable,” this should be an easy one to approve.

Another bill that was approved by the Senate and is under consideration in the Assembly should be a “no-brainer.” That “inside-baseball” bill plugs a loophole in the state’s lobbying disclosure law.

New York’s lobbying law currently does not require public disclosure of efforts to influence the nomination or confirmation process for positions requiring Senate approval. This loophole allows lobbying to go unreported and thus allows spending to influence the appointment of important state positions to occur out of the public’s view.

Here’s why plugging the loophole should be a legislative “no-brainer.” As mentioned earlier, legislation has been approved that would establish a utility ratepayer advocate before state regulators. The key regulator is the Public Service Commission, which sets utility rates. Under New York law, spending to get a rate hike approved or denied is considered “lobbying.”

However, due to the existing loophole, advocacy to influence the governor’s choices to be on the Public Service Commission is not considered lobbying. So, trying to influence utility rates is lobbying, but trying to influence who is picked to make the rate decision is not. How does that make sense?

Thankfully, the Senate approved the legislation to plug the loophole and the chair of the relevant Assembly Committee, John McDonald from the Albany area, is the leader pushing the legislation in that house. The bill makes sense and has not seen any lobbying in opposition and therefore should be an easy one for the Assembly.

There is one bill that could have a big impact on people and has been approved by the Senate but has not yet been acted upon by the Assembly. That legislation would require retailers to furnish prescribed warnings that gas and propane stoves used for commercial or residential food cooking emit poisonous gases that are hazardous to human health, which can cause or worsen respiratory problems. Warning labels on products, signs/posters on premises where covered products are displayed, and conspicuous notices for online sales would be required.

The evidence is in and it’s clear that a fixture in many New York homes and restaurants – the gas stove – is a potent health danger. Gas stoves using natural and propane gas for cooking release carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, and fine particulates. Gases – including the powerful greenhouse gas methane – can be released even when the stoves aren’t in use.

Unfortunately, too many people are unaware of the hazards. The public has a right to know and to be educated at the point of sale.

While it’s imperative that the world rapidly transition to renewable energy sources for heating, cooking, and transportation, public education around the health dangers associated with using gas and propane can help consumers make smarter choices – for their health and the planet’s. This legislation would contribute to public education by providing relevant health information to consumers at the time they’re considering a gas stove purchase.

New Yorkers will soon know whether the Assembly sees it that way.

While Albany continued to slog along toward the end of the legislative session, a perhaps not surprising twist in Washington overshadowed much of New York’s politics: the public breakup between billionaire Elon Musk and President Donald Trump. The first public evidence of the developing rift was Mr. Musk’s critique of the President’s “Big, Beautiful Bill” that was approved by the House of Representatives and is under consideration by the U.S. Senate.

The “Big Beautiful Bill” is an attempt by the President to get his top-line fiscal policies approved by the Congress. The 1,000+ page bill would:

• Extend and increase the nation’s debt limit, allowing it to borrow more to pay its bills;
• Cut billions of dollars from federal programs, such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and Medicaid, programs that provide food and health care to low income Americans; and
• Extend trillions of dollars in tax cuts, primarily benefiting the well off.

According to the Congressional Budget Office – the office that offers an independent analysis of fiscal matters before the Congress – the President’s plan would increase the nation’s debts by $2.4 trillion over the next decade.

This increase in the nation’s debts would represent roughly 150% of the United States’ gross domestic product – the total market value of the goods and services produced within the United States in a year.

To put that in some context, after World War II, the U.S. debt to GDP percentage was a bit over 100%. The President’s plan – as approved by the House – would push the nation into unknown fiscal debt territory.

When Mr. Musk served in the Trump Administration as its de facto leader of the “Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), part of its mission was to make government more efficient. In one press event in the Oval Office, Mr. Musk said, “If we don’t do something about this deficit, the country’s going bankrupt….And it’s essential for America to have the resources necessary to provide things to its citizens and not simply be servicing vast amounts of debt.”

Musk’s concerns about the nation’s finances were echoed by members of Congress, for example one New York Representative stated, “Our national debt is now over $35 trillion. As a father, it pains me to see the debt we are saddling on our children and grandchildren.” Indeed, opposition to the President’s plan is, at least to some extent, driven by the legislation’s failure to reduce the nation’s debt.

Proponents have argued that the tax cuts will stimulate economic activity and that will help the nation grow its way out of its fiscal plight. While it’s likely that the tax cuts will stimulate the economy, it won’t offset the massive losses in revenue.

There is simply no way to reduce spending in any significant way without savaging politically popular programs. Indeed, some of the opposition in the Senate is due to the House budget’s planned cuts to Medicaid, which if enacted would eliminate health insurance for millions of Americans.

After World War II, the nation embarked on a strategy to eliminate its massive war debt. An important component of that was to run federal budget surpluses for many of the years following the war. By the mid-1970s, the nation had reduced its debt to GDP ratio to about 25%.

One important component of running those surpluses was to raise taxes – particularly on the wealthy. After the war’s end, the highest tax bracket was raised to 91 percent at its peak.

Starting in the mid-1960s that began to change, with a steady reduction in the highest tax rates from 70 percent in 1965 to just under 40 percent today. Those reductions happen to correspond to the nation’s growing debt-to-GDP.

Part of the defense of slashing federal spending is the desire to reduce the mounting and unsustainable national debts. But the President’s plan, at least as drafted by the House, forces those who rely on federal programs to feel the pain while allowing the well-to-do to escape any of the pain – in fact the wealthy will further benefit.

How does that make sense? All Americans have a stake in the future of the nation – as was the case after fighting and winning World War II.

This time a combination of a global pandemic, a financial meltdown, and tax policies that have reduced the financial burden of the wealthiest Americans, have driven the nation’s debts to the worst that it has been in nearly a century.

And the plan before the Congress is to make it worse.

We all live in the same nation. We will all sink or swim based on the nation’s decisions. Tax cuts will do nothing meaningful to help the nation’s financial crisis. New Yorkers should look to their Representatives to protect the nation’s financial future, not worsen it while eviscerating the U.S. safety net that protects the most vulnerable among us.

As the clock ticks down toward the end of the 2025 legislative session, environmental issues have moved to the forefront. Last week, the state Senate approved a new Commissioner for the Department of Environmental Conservation. The DEC is a sprawling agency that plays a leading role in a range of issues from permits for hunting and fishing, to overseeing state water quality, climate change, and the state’s mounting trash disposal problem.

The approval of a new DEC Commissioner came at the same time as top environmental issues were emerging during the session.

One of the top issues that has been the subject of keen attention is the NY Home Energy Affordable Transition (HEAT) Act. This legislation aligns utilities’ policies on providing power to residential consumers with the state’s climate mandates.

New York’s current laws promote gas system expansion by mandating a gas utility’s obligation to provide gas service to any new customer upon request while requiring that existing customers subsidize their new service connections within 100 feet of a main gas line. That subsidy – estimated to be $200 million annually – would be eliminated by the legislation. The bill also protects ratepayers from the necessary transition costs in moving to a “greener” power supply by capping home energy bills for all customers at 6% of income. 

It has been reported that negotiations between the state Senate and Assembly on the bill have been ramping up and may be moving toward agreement over the next few weeks of the session.

Another top issue facing the state is what to do about its mounting trash disposal crisis. According to the DEC, Americans now generate twice as much waste as they did 50 years ago. What to do with the trash that we all produce? Right now, the number one place that residential trash goes to is a landfill; number two is export for disposal; number three is burning; and the last is to be recycled. There is no evidence that the problem is getting better. In fact, the state’s residential recycling rate has been dropping over the past decade.

The state’s capacity to tackle this problem is dwindling. Again according to the DEC, “New York’s 25 municipal solid waste landfills have a combined landfill capacity of between 16 and 25 years.”

If the state’s landfills are filled to capacity in a decade or so, what will happen? At the end of 2023, the DEC issued its “New York State Solid Waste Management Plan” to tackle that emerging problem. Among its recommendations, the DEC highlighted the need for a “producer responsibility” approach and urged action to, among other things, expand the state’s bottle deposit law and reduce packaging wastes.

Those two legislative proposals are actively under consideration in Albany.

The Packaging Reduction and Recycling Infrastructure Act (PRRIA) legislation will reduce plastic packaging to dramatically reduce waste, as well as phase out some of the most toxic chemicals used in packaging; improve recyclability of packaging; and slash greenhouse gas emissions associated with plastic. It will also make polluters pony up by establishing a modest fee on packaging paid by packaging producers, generating new revenue to help defray waste costs for local taxpayers.

Last week, that legislation was approved by the state Senate and advocates are slugging it out as the bill moves through the Assembly.

The packaging bill does not cover beverage containers that fall under the state’s Bottle Deposit Law. That’s the law that requires a nickel deposit on certain carbonated beverages and bottled water. When you return the container, you get your nickel back. The DEC describes the Law as a “tremendous success.” When the law kicked in 42 years ago in 1983, carbonated beverage containers were found everywhere; now the overwhelming majority of these containers are redeemed under the program. But many beverages – most notably non-carbonated sports drinks – didn’t exist four decades ago and are not covered by the law today.

Legislation to modernize that law was reported out of the state Assembly’s Environmental Conservation Committee last week and may be considered as part of any overall agreement on reducing packaging wastes.

The new DEC Commissioner has a golden opportunity to weigh in on these and other important issues. Many of the top issues at the end of the session fail in the final stretch as time runs out. The ones that are approved get a last-minute push from important advocates. The 2025 session is an opportunity for the Hochul Administration – and its new DEC chief – to weigh in and move lawmakers toward approval of these important bills.

But the legislative clock continues to tick toward its midnight. Now is the time to act.