Another year, another late budget. Under New York law, April 1^st is the first day of the state’s fiscal year, meaning that a new budget should be in place. Like the previous ones during Governor Hochul’s tenure, this one almost certainly will be late.

The reason? Governor Hochul’s insistence that state lawmakers accept her non-budgetary priorities as part of the final budget agreement.

As of the time of this opinion, all evidence is that there will be no on-time budget agreement. Assuming that the budget is late, the governor and lawmakers will have to do an emergency extension of the current fiscal year’s budget. For how long? With the religious holidays of Easter and Passover starting early, the extension could easily stretch into mid-April.

Earlier this year, it wasn’t expected that this year’s budget would get held up. Wrestling to develop a state budget that is the second largest in the nation is always difficult. Adding to the challenge is the impact of cuts approved by the Congress. Yet earlier this year observers thought there was a chance that this year’s budget would be less contentious: after all, 2026 is an election year and the budget proposed by the governor in January seemed, at that time, to be one that lawmakers could agree to.

However, after the public review of the governor’s budget was completed, the governor insisted that there would be no final agreement unless and until lawmakers agreed to changes to the state’s Climate Law and auto insurance regulations. Far from trivial matters.

Both of these issues are regulated by the state but play no central role in the development of this year’s budget. The governor’s plan to change major pieces of the state’s auto insurance law in the budget was rejected by both the Senate and Assembly. Why? Because they didn’t have much at all to do with the budget.

The governor has campaigned across the state arguing that New York’s rising auto insurance premiums are the result of fraud and “staged auto accidents.” No one would defend either, but they are both already illegal. What lawmakers found objectionable was the governor’s “fix”: changing the way people are compensated after they are hurt in a car crash.

Why put compensation limits for those injured in car crashes? Hard to say, but we do know that ride sharing giant Uber is 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.

So, there is a disconnect between what the governor says is the problem (fraud which is already illegal) and the solution being compensation limits for those injured in car crashes. Thus, lawmakers kicked her plan out of the budget. That’s not to say that lawmakers should ignore the governor’s complaints. If the governor’s allegations that fraud has gotten worse are true, they should examine what insurers, and her Administration, have been doing to fight fraud in recent years as well as the reasons for increasing insurance costs generally.

However, at least the governor actually offered an auto insurance plan in her budget. When it comes to changes to the Climate Law, she did not – and has still not offered one. The closest she has come is an opinion piece published on a news website. Hardly the stuff of legislation.

In this case, the governor’s “plan” is to weaken the state’s regulation of methane emissions (the worst of the greenhouse gases) and push further into the future the requirements for the state’s reduction in greenhouse gas emissions – which are the drivers of climate change. What does that have to do with the budget? Nothing, but given the governor’s power in the budget process, she’s using the leverage she has to advance climate law and auto insurance changes.

Getting the budget done by April 1^st is what Governor Hochul and state lawmakers are supposed to do. The state budget is the centerpiece of the legislative session, the most important task that voters “hire” elected officials to do when they cast their votes. When the governor links her non-budget agenda to the budget which causes it to be late, it feeds an increasingly cynical electorate’s assessment that Albany can’t get its work done like it’s supposed to.

It shouldn’t be this way. New Yorkers deserve better. After all, it’s your money.

This week the nation celebrates the need for government openness during the annual “Sunshine Week.” The logic for requiring that American government operate openly was best articulated by James Madison, former President and a key figure in the Constitutional Convention, who commented “A popular Government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy; or, perhaps both.”

Unfortunately, as regular observers of the Albany scene know, far too much of New York’s important decision-making occurs in secret behind closed doors. But even the most jaded have been surprised at what’s going on with this year’s budget negotiations.

Late last month, Governor Hochul amped up public pressure with a vague proposal to change New York’s seven-year-old Climate Law. The governor has urged modification of the law in the past, but she placed no proposal in her budget, nor in her budget amendments, and her current plan was informally announced as the budget hearings were wrapping up. Moreover, as of late last week, the governor had still not submitted to the Legislature (at least as far as we know) a written proposal at all. Thus, there was no meaningful way for her proposal to face public scrutiny.

The governor’s argument alleges that rising energy costs are the result of the Climate Law, which just happens to echo the messaging by a multi-million-dollar propaganda campaign launched by the Law’s opponents. Those opponents include the oil and gas industry and large investor-owned utilities.

But is the claim that the Climate Law is the biggest factor in rising energy costs true? Short answer: no.

Here in the Northeast, an obvious reason for electricity price hikes is increases in the cost of fuel, not the Climate Law. The region relies heavily on natural gas as both a home heating fuel and a source of utility-scale electricity. And gas prices have soared over the past year. The war in Iran is making those costs go up even more.

Yet, getting the power to your home is an even bigger factor. About two-thirds of utility bills are the result of those costs and they are going up faster than inflation. Of course, the unusually cold winter has also contributed to higher than usual energy costs.

Looking ahead, energy experts are warning that electricity costs will continue to go up, largely due to the need to modernize the power grid and to deal with the mushrooming number of data centers, which demand astronomical amounts of energy.

Addressing the worsening climate crisis – last year was one of the hottest in recorded history – will undoubtedly impact rising energy costs. Yet the state itself examined this cost and found that when it comes to the climate crisis, “The cost of inaction exceeds the cost of action by more than $115 billion.”

Looking at the cheapest way to produce the power that we need is the obvious way for policymakers to go. When it comes to that, it is well established that solar power is the cheapest and that setting up solar power generators is also the quickest way to generate power – even re-powering old fossil fuels facilities can take a few years to get up and running.

Yes, energy costs are going up, but here in New York our ranking – in terms of a residential electricity rates compared among the states – is essentially unchanged over the past decade.

Governor Hochul says that the Climate Law is hurting people’s pocketbooks. Yet the facts show that reliance on gas power, an aging power grid, and the specter of unregulated growth in data centers, are far bigger hits to ratepayers. Of course, an open, public debate over the issue – not a negotiation shrouded in secrecy – would shed some much-needed light on that conclusion.

When it comes to “Sunshine Week” New Yorkers should remember, openness in government is a prerequisite to good governance and that sunshine also delivers the cheapest electricity. Let’s hope the Legislature demands both.

As long-time observers know, Albany has a budget “dance.” The first step is that the governor must introduce her executive budget by mid-January; she has until mid-February to make any changes. In late January, the Legislature gets to “lead,” as it holds hearings to gather additional information on the governor’s budget plans from her agencies and the public.

Once the hearings are done, and they finished last week, each House develops its own budget plans based on the governor’s proposal and the feedback from the hearings. New York law requires that both the Senate and Assembly have public meetings to discuss their budget differences and then negotiations with the governor take place to finalize differences. The final product is due on March 31^st.

In New York the governor is in the driver’s seat when it comes to cobbling together a budget; the Legislature is a junior partner. In recent years, Governor Hochul has used her power to deliberately make budgets late in order to get concessions on other – usually non-budget – policies that she is advancing. The budget negotiations are held in secret.

Last week the governor added a new twist: On Thursday, her Administration unveiled a vague proposal to change New York’s seven-year-old Climate Law. The governor has expressed her desire to modify the law on numerous occasions, but no proposal was contained in her budget, nor her budget amendments, and was announced in informal verbal statements released as the budget hearings were wrapping up. Thus, there was no meaningful way for her proposal to face public scrutiny.

The Administration’s proposal was thrown into the budget “dance” to maximize the secrecy of what she intends. It must be underscored that the governor’s office has not actually proposed anything concrete, other than some statements that were later backed up by a three-page memo arguing that compliance with the Climate Law would cost New Yorkers thousands of dollars in additional energy costs.

Never mind that the governor has been proposing budgets for five years and in this year’s budget there was no plan to make changes. Never mind that her Administration has not released a deeper analysis of the sources for the estimates, methods or calculations in the three-page memo. Never mind that, if the Administration has its way, there will be no public scrutiny of the plan until after its possible inclusion as part of a secret budget negotiation.

So, what does New York’s Climate Law do?

It’s based on the planet’s worsening climate. The world’s climate scientists have agreed that “Human activities, principally through emissions of greenhouse gases, have unequivocally caused global warming” and that “limiting human-caused global warming requires net zero CO₂ emissions.”

The Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (“Climate Law”) was approved seven years ago and was designed to set 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.

New York’s Climate Law set interim goals designed to guide policymakers as benchmark steps to meet the targets advised by the world’s climate experts.  Those interim goals commit the state to generate 70 percent of its electricity from renewable power sources and achieve a 40 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 – just four years from now.   

After the Climate Law was passed in 2019, the state convened a panel of “stakeholders” to arrange an extended public process. Once that process was completed, a “blueprint” of how to proceed was released in 2022.  Yet, once the fanfare of signing the bill passed and the rollout of the blueprint was over, too little was done to meet the challenges set in the Climate Law.

New York’s goals are attainable.  For example, Germany, with its cloudy days and cool climate expects to generate nearly 15% of its electricity by solar.  While New York State generates a paltry 5%. In addition, the European Union has announced it expects to meet its 2030 targets of reducing net greenhouse gas emissions by at least 55% compared to 1990 levels and achieving at least 42.5% renewable energy.

What New York does matters. While the state is a small portion of the world’s population, if it were a nation, it would have the eighth biggest economy in the world. What New York does can have huge impacts on the world’s climate approach.

Yet, instead of proposing to galvanize the state’s so-far-lethargic effort to meet the science-based goals of the Climate Law, apparently the governor wants to back off. What should be done?

The Legislature should firmly reject the governor’s move. The governor’s apparent plan is too consequential to get jammed into secret budget negotiations. If the governor wants to propose changes, do it in the light of day outside of the budget. New Yorkers have a right to know.