New York spends billions of dollars on programs to spur economic activities.  Yet the spending is hard to track because there is no standard definition of economic-development spending.  Generally, when policymakers are discussing “economic-development activities” they could be discussing policies about workforce development and training programs, place-based revitalization strategies, direct business assistance and tax breaks, arts and culture funding, sports facilities, and infrastructure projects.

New York’s programs have long been controversial and in recent years the source of scandal.  The most notable among them was the so-called “Buffalo Billion” scandal.  Essentially, large donors to the then-governor’s re-election effort received big benefits through the “Buffalo Billion” and other upstate economic development plans.  As a result of federal prosecutions, the former governor’s top aide and the state’s hi-tech economic development czar were convicted (although a recent US Supreme Court decision reversed those convictions).

Despite the controversies and scandals, New York’s business incentives are supposed to stimulate economic activity for efforts that otherwise would not get started.  One such package of incentives was under fire last week: New York’s tax benefits for the oil industry.  That’s right, the oil industry.

Currently, New York’s tax code offers benefits for the production, transmission, distribution, transportation or storage of fossil fuels.  It is estimated that these tax benefits total around $1.5 billion each year.

At the same time, the use of fossil fuels is causing enormous damage as the climate gets worse.  The climate crisis costs New Yorkers, including tens of billions of dollars in damages and hundreds of lives lost.  A 2022 federal report found New York State experienced 51 billion-dollar disaster events due to the climate crisis from 2000 to 2021—costing the State between $50 to $100 billion dollars, and up to $20 billion in 2021 alone.  A total of 594 deaths have been linked to severe weather in New York between 1996 and 2024. 

Climate change resiliency measures are uniquely necessary—and expensive—in New York.  A review of Governor Hochul’s climate-related public announcements documented that she had pledged over $2 billion in 2023 to cover damages and projects to boost the resilience of New York’s infrastructure damaged by climate change-driven extreme weather.  This spending is entirely funded by New York taxpayers. 

A study by New York State Comptroller revealed that over a ten-year span, more than half of New York localities’ municipal spending outside of New York City was or will be linked to climate change.  New York City may need to spend around $100 billion to upgrade its sewer systems to withstand intensified storms.  And those costs are on top of the $52 billion that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has estimated it will cost to protect New York Harbor from rising sea levels and storms.  Estimates suggest that Long Island alone could incur up to $100 billion in climate-related costs.  These financial burdens are projected to escalate, potentially reaching $10 billion annually for New Yorkers by the middle of the century.

The industry has known for decades that the burning of fossil fuels will lead to the planet heating up.  Instead of taking responsibility for their business practices, they engaged in a campaign of aggressive climate denial.  Decades of opposition to environmental protection legislation and international treaties have resulted in a climate crisis that only dramatic action can help to mitigate. 

As New York State—and the world—struggles with the ravages of climate change, the oil industry is raking in enormous profits.  In an analysis released last week, the total amount of profits over the past four and a half calendar years for Big Oil is over $1 trillion.

The question is obvious: Why is New York offering tax incentives to those same companies?

Some of the tax benefits are really ones that ultimately benefit consumers, like providing heating assistance to low-income New Yorkers.  Yet some do not.

A bill has been introduced that eliminates tax provisions that benefit the fossil fuel industry, while minimizing the impact on the public.  This bill repeals the most egregious fossil fuel subsidies and saves the state approximately $350 million annually, or roughly one-fourth of the total benefits to the industry.

Why should New York taxpayers grant tax benefits to an enormously profitable industry—and one that has contributed mightily to the climate crisis?  The industry knew of the dangers, deceived the public, and they are making staggering profits.  And the state is facing fiscal difficulties.  Why allow benefits to this undeserving wildly profitable industry?

In a year where the state budget is likely to be buffeted by changes enacted by the Congress—like eliminating health coverage benefits for some lower-income New Yorkers—Governor Hochul and lawmakers will be looking to make every penny count.

Eliminating wasteful tax benefits for the oil industry seems like a good place to start.  We’ll see what the governor does early next year.

We all are familiar with New York’s Bottle Bill. That’s the law that requires a nickel deposit on some beverage containers – soda, beer, and water. It’s been on the books for over 40 years. The laudable goal of the law is to divert some beverage containers from landfills and incinerators to the companies that make the products so that they can be recycled.

It’s worked reasonably well over its long “life” in New York. But for the law to work best, the purchasing consumer should have easy ways to get their nickel back. If it’s hard to get, it essentially becomes a “tax” that makes soft drinks and water container purchases less affordable.

When the law was originally approved back when Hugh Carey was governor, it included a requirement that helped make it easier for the consumer to understand how to get their deposit back.

The law requires the posting of a sign informing consumers about how to get their deposit back and how to complain if they have a problem doing so. The law is very detailed in how it should be written and where it should be posted at the retailer who sells the products. The law says that the “sign must be no less than eight inches by ten inches in size and have lettering a minimum of one quarter inch high, and of a color which contrasts with the background. The department shall maintain a toll-free telephone number for a ‘bottle bill complaint line.’”  This became what’s known as the Bottle Bill “Bill of Rights.”

The law states that the sign must be posted at the “point of sale” – meaning where the consumer pays for the product.

Despite the clear language in the law, most people would say they have never seen such a sign. To test whether those anecdotes represent a failure of the law was put to the test by community volunteers all across New York State earlier this Fall.

Last week, a coalition of environmentalists, charities, and civic groups released a compliance-check survey showing a widespread failure of retailers to post a Bottle Bill “Bill of Rights” sign as required by state law. The survey of nearly 300 retailers across New York State found that 80 percent failed to post the signs visibly and that an additional 10 percent did not post those signs at the “point of sale” as required by the state.

Only 10 percent posted the sign as required by law.

In a letter to Governor Hochul, the groups called on the Administration to “direct the DEC to act to ensure that all retailers are aware of, and comply with, New York’s ‘Bottle Bill’ signage law.”

The groups also noted that “The lack of the required signage is no small matter. If consumers are unaware that they can return their used beverage containers to the store at which they purchased them, it adds at best an inconvenience – since the container would have to be returned somewhere else – or an increased price – since the consumer may simply be unaware of their rights and discard the used container.”

Lastly, the groups urged the governor to make modernization of the Bottle Bill a legislative priority next session. The groups cited the Bigger, Better, Bottle Bill (S.5684/A.6543) as their preferred approach.

Enacted in 1982, the New York State Returnable Container Act, commonly known as “the Bottle Bill,” requires a 5-cent refundable deposit to be placed on eligible beverage containers. Upon passage the Bottle Bill covered only beer and soda sold in New York. Water containers were added later. The Law requires retailers who sell covered beverages to accept returns of empty containers for the products they sell and refund the deposits. The Law also requires beverage distributors to compensate retailers for the cost of collecting and returning empty containers by paying them a small “handling fee” for each redeemed bottle and can.

Over its 40-year history, New York’s Bottle Bill has proven to be a highly effective program to reduce litter, increase recycling rates and support a local “circular economy.” The Bottle Bill reduced roadside container litter by 70%, diverting 6.4 billion cans and bottles each year from the environment and landfills and putting them towards productive use at recycling facilities. On average, containers with a deposit are three times more likely to be recycled in America than those without.

The groups’ compliance check underscored not only a specific problem, but an overall need to modernize New York’s 40+ year old law. Approval of the “Bigger, Better, Bottle Bill” would benefit state revenues, enhance recycling, save local taxpayers’ money, and support struggling businesses and charities that provide critical services to the needy. Let’s see if the governor acts. And if you buy soda, beer, or water containers, stand up for your rights and make sure you get your nickel back.

The big news last week was the election results.  By and large, it was a good election day for Democrats across the nation.  Here in New York, Democrats won in many parts of the state.  For example, Democrats picked up control of the Onondaga County Legislature, a feat that they have not accomplished in almost half a century.

Yet in many ways, the New York results were about Democrats both mobilizing their base and also doing well with unaffiliated voters.  While New York is known as a “blue state” – meaning Democrats dominate – the data paints a more complex picture than the conventional wisdom.

A recent examination of partisan voting enrollments over time showed just how nuanced New York’s electorate is.

While Democrats continue to dominate partisan enrollments, their advantage has been slipping in recent years.  In addition, Republicans – who had seen significant erosion in their enrollments — have recently stopped their enrollment decline.  Yet, when looking at both parties’ enrollments over the past two decades, they have more or less stagnated in their relative enrollments.

Where New York has seen the most enrollment growth is among unaffiliated voters, the so-called “blanks” category.  The non-partisan blanks have seen their enrollments swell, having overtaken Republican enrollment as of 2020.  And that advantage is growing.  In 2010, Democratic enrollment totaled just short of half (49.66%) of New York voters, Republicans were a bit shy of one-quarter (24.93%), and “blanks” slightly more than 20% (20.04%).  In 2025, Democrats’ percentage has slipped a bit (now 48.15%); Republicans dropped (22.41% – though that was a bit higher than recent elections); and “blanks” increased to over one quarter (25.24%) of registrants.  

“Blanks” have exceeded Republicans in New York City for years and are now neck-and-neck with Republicans in the three downstate NYC suburbs.  In 2021, Democratic NYC enrollment totaled more than two-thirds (67.52%) of voters, Republicans 10% (10.08%), and “blanks” nearly double that of Republicans (19.43%).  In 2025, Democrats’ percentage of NYC voters slipped to just under two-thirds (65.9%), Republicans inched upwards (to 10.73%), and “blanks” increased to over 20% (21.01%).  

In 2021, Democratic Suburban NYC (Nassau, Suffolk, and Westchester) enrollment totaled more than 40% (40.13%) of voters, Republicans nearly 28% (27.98%), and “blanks” more than 26% (26.41%).  In 2025, Democrats’ percentage slipped to under 40% (38.57%), Republicans inched upwards to more than 28% (28.23%), and “blanks” increased to nearly 30% (28.91%), now exceeding the percentage of Republicans.  Unaffiliated voters also have inched ahead due to a growing gap in favor of “blanks” in Westchester County.

And the rise of the unaffiliated voter is not just a downstate phenomenon.  When examining the enrollments in counties north of the Greater NYC region the trend is similar.  It appears that “blanks” may even overtake Democratic enrollment in those areas.  In 2021, Democratic non-Greater NYC voter enrollment totaled a bit more than 37% (37.16%) of voters, Republicans nearly 31% (30.92%), and “blanks” nearly one-quarter (24.39%).  In 2025, Democrats’ percentage slipped to 35% (35.23%), Republicans inched upwards to more than 31% (31.18%), and “blanks” increased to over 27% (27.56%).  

These trends show how daunting it is for Republicans to win statewide office, which they have not done since 2002.  This underscores that the road to a statewide Republican win in New York is paved with strong appeal to the unaffiliated voter.  Nearly half of all registered voters are Democrats; in order to win, Republicans have to run the table among the rest of the electorate.

Which may explain the successes Democrats had in many parts of the state last week.  While the election ensured that Democrats kept the mayors offices in urban areas (replacing Democratic mayors with Democratic mayors), the suburban successes that Democrats had was a testament to Democrats’ appeal to the “blanks.”  Not to be overlooked however, Republicans did score key victories in suburban areas.  Incumbent Republican County Executives won in Rockland and Nassau counties.  And it was in Nassau that Republicans won all countywide offices, despite being at an enrollment disadvantage.  Their successful appeal to unaffiliated voters carried the day.

These unaffiliated voters, the “blanks,” may well determine state and national policies next year.  Appealing to “blanks” by Republicans will likely demand they stake out significant policy differences from the President – who is deeply unpopular in New York.  Appealing to “blanks” by Democrats will likely demand greater appeal to suburban voters’ concerns.  

Given the redistricting changes the nation is seeing, it is likely that the party that controls the House of Representatives will have a small majority.  The appeal that downstate Congressional Representatives have toward “blanks,’ may determine who controls the House, as well as New York’s Governor’s Mansion.

When it comes to politics, enrollment “demography” can be destiny.  The interests of the unaffiliated voter may be most important ones come next November.

A new report from the State Comptroller found that severe weather events in the state are more frequent and that these storms require New York taxpayers to shoulder a growing financial burden. The report found that:

• Weather-related disasters that cause $1 billion or more in damage have occurred at an increasing rate since 1980.
• Severe weather events are increasing in New York and certain types of events, including thunderstorm-related damaging wind and flash floods, are also increasing.
• Since 1998 there have been an average of 2.5 weather events per year in New York that resulted in federal disaster or emergency declarations with authorized annual assistance averaging nearly $1 billion.

The report also identified the New York counties getting hammered worst, including Saratoga, Herkimer, Ulster, Albany, Dutchess, Columbia, Rensselaer, Oneida and Washington counties.

The costs are staggering and taxpayers – both federal and state – bear those costs. The Comptroller’s report mentioned that the state’s recently approved Clean Water, Clean Air and Green Jobs Bond Act covers some of the costs, but you pay for that too.

What the report failed to mention was New York’s new law, the landmark Climate Change Superfund Act. The Climate Superfund requires that major polluters like Exxon, Saudi Aramco, and BP for the first time will pay for some of the costs of extreme weather.

New York’s law shifts the financial burden from local taxpayers to polluters. New York’s Climate Superfund is a mechanism to ensure that state and local taxpayers are not on the financial hook for 100% of the damages caused by severe storms, rising sea levels, and hotter temperatures. New Yorkers are already paying billions in climate-related damages. There is no doubt that those costs will continue to rise for the foreseeable future.

Why should the fossil fuel industry help offset the state’s costs for a worsening climate? The oil industry knew for decades that the burning of fossil fuels contributes to rising temperatures and correctly anticipated all of the havoc that it would cause. Yet, instead of being responsible members of civil society, they bamboozled the public and lawmakers about the dangers in order to maintain their profits.

Now the costs are coming due. Here are some examples facing New York: Recent estimates put the price tags at $52 billion to protect NYC Harbor, $100 billion to upgrade NYC’s sewers to handle more intense storms, $75-$100 billion to protect Long Island, and $55 billion for climate costs outside of New York City. The state Comptroller has predicted that more than half of local governments’ costs will be attributable to the climate crisis.

The costs will be staggering, yet they are costs that must be paid. New York has decided that the companies most responsible for the emissions of greenhouse gases should pay their share. Thus, the Climate Superfund assesses the largest oil companies $3 billion annually for each of the next 25 years to help offset these costs.

It does so in a way that ensures that the companies cannot pass these costs on to the public.

According to an analysis by the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University School of Law, companies’ payments would be based on historical greenhouse gas emissions, so oil companies would have to treat these as one-time fixed costs. Nobel Prize winning Economist Joseph Stiglitz agrees, concluding that the Superfund Act will not raise the price of oil on consumers since “the assessment generated by the Climate Superfund is based on past pollution and therefore does not affect today’s marginal cost of production, there should be no shifting of costs to consumers.”

While it lost in the state Legislature and with Governor Hochul, the oil industry is not giving up the fight to stop New York’s Climate Superfund law.

As reported in The Wall Street Journal, the oil industry has met with the President to urge action to both overturn New York’s law as well as to more generally block environmental litigation. If the oil industry is successful, those $3 billion will be charged back to state and local taxpayers – either through a massive increase in taxes or draconian cuts to government-provided services.

To reiterate, these climate costs are not optional, they have to be paid, there is no getting around it. If a roadway gets flooded, or a bridge washed away, they have to be replaced. The question is should the public pay all of these costs? New York says no. If Washington overturns New York’s law, taxpayers will have to pick up the entire cost, increasing taxes (or cutting services, or both) to the tune of $3 billion annually. Here’s hoping that our Congressional delegation makes sure that does not happen. Otherwise, expect another climate hit to your wallet.

The federal government’s slashing of domestic spending (while boosting tax cuts for the wealthy) has put states’ budgets at risk. The impact on New York’s budget is unquestionably significant.

The federal legislation approved this past summer, dubbed the “One Big, Beautiful Bill,” covered a lot of issues. The ones that received the most attention are the changes to Medicaid (health insurance for the poor) and the SNAP program (subsidies to purchase food for the needy), the elimination of federal spending on climate programs, as well as increasing the nation’s debt ceiling to $5 trillion.

New York has been bracing for the state budgetary impacts: an estimated cumulative budget gap of $34.3 billion over the next three years.

Yet, last week New York received some good news on the budget front. According to the State Comptroller, Wall Street’s profits increased at “a faster pace than last year” and represented “the fourth-highest level on record.” The analysis concluded that Wall Street’s “profits and bonuses could help generate higher-than-expected city and state tax collections if this pace continues.”

While no one should bet the ranch on Wall Street continuing to boom for the rest of the year, it looks like its strong performance may cushion the expected fiscal blow to the state from the federal budget.

The smart move is to prepare for a still bad state budget next year. The state will need to focus on fixing or eliminating programs that are inefficient and spending that makes no sense. One obvious place to look is the state’s economic development and benefit programs.

New York spends billions on its so-called economic development programs, more than virtually every other state. Those programs have been subject to ongoing criticisms, in particular for the state’s failure to conduct a comprehensive review that evaluates whether these programs actually work. The state support for these programs hinges on the promise that they will generate jobs and stimulate economic activity.

In some cases, the failures are obvious, like the “Buffalo Billion” program, which came way short of the promises. In others, it’s hard to tell if the state got any “bang for its buck.” A fundamental problem is that there are few mechanisms for real-time evaluation, in particular to answer the “but-for” question: Would companies have hired workers or made investments at the same level they did but-for the tax incentives? In other words, was the tax incentive necessary to induce the companies’ investments or would they have happened anyway?

According to some analyses, the answer to that question is “no.”

In addition, some tax incentives make little sense. For example, New York law provides tax benefits for the use of fossil fuels, usually to protect consumers from some taxes, like buying home heating products.

In the age of climate catastrophe – and possibly shrinking federal support for climate programs – tax incentives for oil, gas or coal products should be examined carefully to make sure that they are reasonable, meaning that they protect the public not Big Oil and its allies. Good examples of tax benefits that makes no sense in the age of climate catastrophe are those that give $350 million in benefits to the oil and gas industry.

The oil industry has been enormously profitable. And while a chunk of those profits have been used for additional investment in exploration, a lot has been “invested” in our political system. Here in New York, those political investments have paid off.

Their recent campaigns to roll back the state’s climate law, postpone fees on greenhouse gas emissions, and undermine electrification in the building of new homes, have registered. You can hear it in Governor Hochul’s pledge to support “all of the above” in terms of sourcing power. “All of the above” includes relying on fossil fuels, even though climate experts warn that such an approach will accelerate the climate catastrophe.

New Yorkers see the propaganda campaign advanced by Big Oil and its allies for what it is. But they should also know that they are unwittingly helping to subsidize this enormously profitable and dangerous industry. That subsidy should stop.

Legislation has been introduced to close loopholes in state law that benefit the oil industry. Of course, $350 million is a far cry from the billions needed to close next year’s budget gap, but it’s a good place to start.