Scenes of massive wildfires and extreme heatwaves in Europe, Canada, and the Western United States (among other areas) are the most recent examples of a worsening climate. While here in New York we have been largely spared of these catastrophes – outside of unhealthy air quality days and heat waves – there is no doubt that global warming and the resulting climate catastrophes are, and will continue to be, a staple of our lives.

The costs to New Yorkers will go beyond the damage to the public’s health and environment; it will hammer our wallets too.

A recent report by the think tank Rebuild By Design estimated the expected taxpayer costs from climate damages to New Yorkers. The report, Paying For Resilience in New York State, examined the period 2015 through 2050. The Rebuild By Design researchers developed an inventory of approximately 700 in-progress, recently completed, and planned adaptation federal, state, and local projects in New York State. The report only examined public sector initiatives and did not include costs to individuals, businesses, and the private sector.

In other words, the impact on New York taxpayers. The report found that New York State is projected to surpass half a trillion dollars on infrastructure spending related to climate change by 2050. And that number is conservative.

The report broke down the expected costs by region. The New York City and Long Island metropolitan area will suffer the biggest costs due primarily to its coastline facing the ocean. Sea levels have risen by nearly one foot in the past century and are projected to increase another 1 to 2 feet by midcentury. Real estate and infrastructure are phenomenally expensive downstate, and the expected flooding (and other climate-related events) will result in a whopping price tag of about $400 billion!

But upstate regions will not be spared. The Hudson Valley will face estimated costs of $7.7 billion. New York’s Capital District will experience climate costs that exceed $860 million and the Mohawk River region will need to spend over $653 million.

The report’s authors stressed that their estimates are conservative. The report does not include future inflation, ongoing maintenance costs necessary to keep climate infrastructure functioning effectively and only examined projects whose costs exceed $1 million. And that doesn’t even include the cost of future disasters — a cost that can easily reach hundreds of millions (if not billions) of dollars.

As mentioned, some of these costs are expected to be covered by the federal government. But a lot will not and that means more taxes, reduced services, or both – unless other funding streams are established.

New York has tried to establish a program that would require the world’s largest fossil fuel companies to cover some of those costs. In late 2024, Governor Hochul signed a law requiring those companies to help pay to repair damage caused by extreme weather. The rationale behind the law is that the burning oil, coal, and gas warm the planet, which is worsening storms and heat waves.

Called the Climate Change Superfund Act requires those companies to pay $75 billion over 25 years into an account for infrastructure repairs and upgrades, as well as recovery efforts after disasters. But in 2025, the Trump Administration challenged the law effectively putting the interests of the immensely profitable largest oil companies ahead of the interests of New York taxpayers. The President’s effort was joined by “red” states’ Attorneys General and the oil industry.  

That case is being heard this summer. New Yorkers could soon learn if Big Oil will shoulder some of the costs from our worsening climate, or whether they will have to pay billions more.

Echoing the Trump Administration’s false claims about election security, and seizing on a new revelation that a New Jersey computer glitch allowed 400 non-citizens to vote in that state, top Republican officials in New York have called for legislation that requires certain forms of identification when registering to vote and claimed that Democrats would “steal” the election for governor.

“Stealing” an election is, of course, a criminal act, and there is no evidence to support the claim. Campaign rhetoric aside, what is the debate about and what would it mean to voters?

The first argument is that there is widespread voter fraud occurring now. As a result, the President is pushing for Congress to approve the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act, which, if it were to become law, would require proof of citizenship for people to register to vote at a state level for federal elections and mandate that voters show a form of photo ID when voting on election day or when requesting a mail-in ballot.

While most Americans think that’s a good idea in the abstract, the actual details and likely impacts of the legislation have not been adequately aired or debated. For example, according to the Bipartisan Policy Center “birth certificates often lack information that matches a person’s current identity. For instance, someone who has changed their name through marriage or court order may need to present a third document (such as a marriage certificate) to join their proof of citizenship…Even if voters were to provide documentary proof of citizenship, verifying the authenticity of those documents is an inherently complex task, one that election officials and motor vehicle departments often do not have the resources or training to perform.”

The “problem” that the SAVE America Act is supposed to “solve” is the demonstrably false claim that there is widespread voter fraud in the nation. Report after report have shown that it is simply not true that there is a significant problem with fraudulent voting and that it alters the results of elections. In fact, leading experts have argued that the nation’s elections are secure. Requiring voters to jump through verification “hoops” does nothing more than deter citizens from voting during a time when increased voter turnout should be encouraged. 

That said, the New Jersey revelation deserves attention. Here’s the background: A week ago, New Jersey Governor Mikie Sherrill disclosed that a “software error” at the Motor Vehicles Commission led to roughly 6,600 noncitizens getting added to the state’s voter rolls. About 400 of them voted, she said. The “software” error was in New Jersey’s “motor voter” system, which allows individuals to register to vote while they are signing up for state services (like getting a driver’s license.). Governor Sherrill said that the non-citizens didn’t intend to register to vote and there’s no indication the votes affected the outcome of an election. Without getting too deep into the weeds, the “software” error in the program doesn’t exist in New York since our system is run differently.

While there has been no evidence that the problem identified in New Jersey is found anywhere else in the nation, humans, and software, make mistakes, so programs should be run with oversight and auditing that minimizes the impact of those errors.

Another of the arguments for the Voter ID requirement is that “You need an ID to open a bank account, board a plane or buy alcohol.” While this argument may also sound appealing, there is a vast difference between opening a bank account and New Yorkers’ right to vote.

The New York Constitution clearly states that there is a right to vote; it is a “right,” not a privilege. There is no such provision stating that there is a right to open a bank account, or to buy alcohol. As with any other “right,” policymakers must, from time to time, ensure that obstacles to the exercise of that right are as few as possible to guarantee that right is realized and isn’t being infringed upon by outdated laws and/or the failure to implement technologies that could better enfranchise voters.

The nation deserves free and fair elections in 2026, not one that has been undermined by our elected officials in Washington or in Albany. If we remain vigilant, we can continue to have free and fair elections without creating barriers to voting that turn a fundamental right into a privilege enjoyed by far fewer Americans.

New York moved to the head of the pack in protecting consumers from looming rate hikes resulting from the inadequately regulated boom in data center construction. Recently, Governor Hochul issued an executive order placing a one-year moratorium on the permitting of hyper-scale (50MW or more) data centers in New York State. The governor’s move gives state regulators time to more carefully consider the environmental impacts of these industrial behemoths and comes amid growing public calls for restricting the permitting or construction of data centers in communities across the state.

These data centers are used for a variety of purposes. They provide the backbone of the information “cloud,” processing digital transactions the place where much of our data is stored. A typical facility contains an enormous number of computers, and given the modern need for computing they are housed all over the country – indeed spread throughout the world.

The construction and use of these data centers is driving a rise in utility rates all across the nation and New York is not immune. During the past legislative session, lawmakers took a step toward slowing down the data center construction “race” to allow time to formulate policies to ensure the public is protected. The legislation, known as the Responsible Data Center Development Act, places a one-year moratorium on data center development while reasonable safeguards are created. The bill passed both houses overwhelmingly, with support across the political spectrum.

While the governor has yet to act on the legislation, she signed her executive order – essentially a more limited version of the bill – in order to “pause” approval of proposed and pending data center construction projects, while beginning to review public protections. The governor’s order targets projects using 50 megawatts of power or more. The legislation would impact proposals using 20 megawatts of power or more and has broader regulatory requirements.

Of course, her action led to predictable partisan and ideological sniping (some more ridiculous than others).

From the public’s perspective, it makes perfect sense to take a breath before embarking headlong into a data centers construction boom. However this “pause” is finally implemented (either through the order alone or in conjunction with the legislation), safeguards must be put in place. Among those safeguards should be measures that:

1. Insulate the public from getting stuck with the bill if the data center flops or falls short. New Yorkers should not be left “holding the bag” if data center projects go belly up or greatly underperform.
2. Make data centers’ permits and contracts available to the public without secrecy. New York has exemptions in its open public records law that can be used to keep these contracts secret. They must not be.
3. There must be regular, ongoing monitoring and public reporting of water use, as well as noise impacts.
4. Ensure that not one residential utility ratepayer dollar should be – directly or indirectly — used to subsidize data centers. Data centers are expected to need a fantastic amount of electricity; they must not be driving up utility rates for New Yorkers.
5. Not one electron from the existing grid should be used to power data centers. Another way to jack up utility rates to subsidize data centers is by diverting current electricity in the grid to power data centers. Then ratepayers are on the hook to come up with new energy capacity.

New York now has at least one year to get it right. The governor deserves credit for getting the ball rolling. Signing the legislation would also add protections. Regardless of how this plays out, it will be up to the public to watchdog the process carefully to make sure the public’s interests are served.

There is an old political adage: “Money is the mother’s milk of politics” It means that political power flows from large warchests to candidates and to lobbying efforts that influence government decisions.

But where does the money come from? Powerful organized interest groups and the wealthy.

We saw it this year when lawmakers were wrestling with New York’s $268 billion-plus state budget. The successful campaign to weaken the state’s heretofore landmark Climate Law was to a large extent the result of a multi-million-dollar advocacy campaign launched by the oil and gas industry and large investor-owned utilities.

Another example was the successful effort to make it harder for victims of car crashes to get compensated. In that case, it was widely reported that ride sharing giant Uber was spending millions of dollars on an advocacy campaign to limit compensation for injured car passengers and drivers. Why? Because they are on the hook when their drivers are involved in an accident.

All in all, according to the most recent data, lobbying campaigns spent nearly $400 million to influence government decisions.

On the other side of the influence peddling coin is the campaign financing system. New York’s weak campaign contributions limits, poor disclosure rules, and huge contributions to the political parties have resulted in a system that relies on a small number of very large donors – entities that usually have business before the government.

New York has long been on notice of the failure of its state’s campaign finance law. Over thirty-five years ago, the final reports of the Commission on Government Integrity were issued. The Commission commented “In many instances these campaigns are disproportionately financed by groups, corporations or individuals whose businesses are directly regulated by government officials…[T]hese practices, among others, erode the public’s confidence in elected officials by giving at least the impressions that campaign contributors make contributions to candidates in order to obtain favorable treatment.”

Starting about ten years ago, New York took significant steps toward improving the system. It shrunk a loophole that allowed some businesses to give larger contributions than others. It established a voluntary campaign financing system that allowed a public “match” for small contributions, in order to help limit the influence of big donors. And it lowered campaign contribution limits for candidates running for office (although they are still high). But big donations to the political parties were left intact.

Campaign contributions to the political committees (for example the State Democratic and Republican Committees) are “capped” at $138,600, a ludicrously high level. Political committees are then allowed to transfer contributions of any amount to the candidates of their choice, effectively circumventing candidates’ contribution limits.

For those who want to give more, donations of any size are allowed to these political committees – as long as they are not used to advance a candidate.

Who makes contributions of these amounts? Those with access to big money, the same entities and individuals who are capable of spending big efforts on lobbying.

The result? Not enough has changed in Albany; it’s still a big money town. As the 1980s Commission noted, “torrents of money, unrestrained by real limits, pour from corporations, PACs and unions…The Commission found that this creates an unhealthy climate of indebtedness, with some candidates owing their success to party leaders who are in turn dangerously dependent on large contributions from special interests and those doing business with the government.”

What was true then, is still true today. As candidates run for state office, ask them how they intend to address this “unhealthy climate of indebtedness.”

Everywhere you look, there is a growing concern over the threats posed by A.I. data centers.  We have relied on data centers for years, but the burgeoning construction of new, more massive ones has hit a nerve in an increasingly cost-conscious America.  

Until recently, when we asked where our stored electronic information went, we were told “the cloud.”  Of course, there is no information “cloud”; our data is stored in computers.  Stored in computers that are housed all over the country – indeed sometimes the world.

The number of computers to store our data, process online transactions, and handle our internet information requests and computations, is mind-boggling.  With the rise of the use of A.I., so-called “artificial intelligence,” the projected demand for computer space and capabilities is mushrooming and accelerating.

With that demand comes the need for more and more access to computers, computers that are stored in massive buildings, and now being built all around the nation at an increasing speed.  Those computer buildings are known as “data centers” and their thirst for energy and often water (for cooling) is virtually insatiable.

The construction and use of these data centers is driving a rise in utility rates all across the nation and New York is not immune.  Beyond those costs these massive data centers can be “energy hogs.”  According to New York regulators, the electricity demand of proposed data center projects totals more than 11,000 MW, equivalent to around 1.5 times the demand of all New York State households combined.

During the past legislative session, lawmakers took a step toward slowing down the data center construction “race” to allow time to formulate policies to ensure the public is protected.  The legislation, the Responsible Data Center Development Act, places a one-year moratorium on data center development while reasonable safeguards are created.  

The “ball” will soon be in Governor Hochul’s “court.”  It is the governor who will decide if this legislative “pause” button gets pushed.  

From the public’s perspective, it makes perfect sense to take a breath before embarking headlong into a data centers construction boom.  If the bill is enacted, New York policy makers will have one year to put adequate safeguarding in place. Those safeguards should these five proposals:

Insulate the public from getting stuck with the bill if the data center flops or falls short.  New Yorkers should not be left “holding the bag” if data center projects go belly up or greatly underperform.

Make data centers’ permits and contracts available to the public without secrecy.  One national review of data centers found that required permitting for data centers were shielded from public disclosures.  New York has such exemptions in its open public records law that can be used to keep these contracts secret.  They must not be.

There must be regular, ongoing monitoring and public reporting of water use, as well as noise impacts.

Ensure that not one residential utility ratepayer dollar should be – directly or indirectly — used to subsidize data centers.  Data centers are expected to need a fantastic amount of electricity; they must not be driving up utility rates for New Yorkers.

Not one electron from the existing grid should be used to power data centers.  Another way to jack up utility rates to subsidize data centers is by diverting current electricity in the grid to power data centers.  Then ratepayers are on the hook to come up with new energy capacity.

Of course, none of these protections can take place without the governor’s approval of the Responsible Data Center Development Act.  New Yorkers have heard a lot about the need to tackle skyrocketing utility rates.  This legislation does something about it.