New York City – the nation’s largest – is one of the great urban areas in the world.  The Big Apple is also a powerful economic engine.  The City, with its center in Manhattan, is a world leader in banking, finance, culture, and communications.

New York City is also highly congested, with its large population contained in a dense geographic area, and its roadways often choked with traffic – particularly in Manhattan’s core.  That congestion not only leads to long commutes, but damages the health of its residents.  It also creates incredible challenges for emergency service personnel and everyone else trying to get around.

For well over a century, New York City has helped reduce its congestion through an extensive network of mass transit systems – its subways, ferries, and buses.

Despite the importance of these systems, over the decades New York has not funded them adequately.  When the City endured its financial crisis in the 1970s, cuts to the mass transit programs, coupled with years of neglect, almost brought the City to its knees.  

Recognizing that a deteriorating City mass transit network damaged businesses and the overall quality of life, government acted.  Through substantial investments and important reforms in the 1990s, the subways and buses of New York City were significantly improved.

Unfortunately, in recent years the mass transit system was taken for granted and support stagnated.  In 2020 the impacts of the Covid pandemic led to a dramatic downfall in ridership and thus revenues – deepening the problems into a crisis.  Covid also led to greater use of cars and with that more roadway congestion and worsening air quality.

It was the combination of eroding service, antiquated equipment and deferred maintenance that drove lawmakers to seek a solution.  

In 2019, congestion pricing was passed into state law with a mandate to raise $1 billion per year for the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (which runs the mass transit system) capital improvements program.  In 2023, the state received final approval of the program from the federal government.  

What is congestion pricing?  Congestion pricing is a system of surcharging users of public goods that are strained by overuse due to excess demand, such as through higher peak charges for use of bus services, electricity, metros, railways, telephones, and road pricing to reduce traffic congestion.  Applied to urban traffic congestion, the approach is to charge a vehicle if it passes into a certain zone of a city, often only during certain “peak” hours.  Congestion pricing is not an untested, novel idea:  There are cities around the world that have successfully adopted it, including Singapore, London, Milan, and Stockholm.

New York’s congestion pricing plan was scheduled to go into effect at the end of June.  Earlier this year, the MTA announced that it would start charging most passenger cars $15 a day to enter a congestion zone below 60th Street.  Trucks would pay $24 or $36, depending on their size.  Taxi fares would go up by $1.25, and Uber and Lyft fares by $2.50.

The announcement of those tolls triggered an intense opposition to the program’s implementation.  In early June, Governor Hochul announced a “pause” in the implementation, without setting a date for when that pause will expire.  Her announcement was surprising given that just two weeks earlier she had crowed of her success in getting federal approval.  In her self-congratulatory statement the governor said, “It took a long time because people feared backlash from drivers set in their ways.  In New York City, the idea stalled for 60 years until we got it done earlier this year.”

The “pause” not only reverberated throughout the transportation world, but it also created an enormous hole in the MTA’s finances.  Last week, state Comptroller DiNapoli released a report detailing the financial plight of the MTA.

According to the Comptroller, the MTA faces a potential $27 billion funding gap in its next capital budget that would replace thousands of rail cars, strengthen the system against extreme weather and increase accessibility.  

Without the revenues expected from congestion pricing, the MTA is unlikely to be able to fund needed improvements and enhanced services.  One option will be to hike the cost of the fares for service, which hits the working poor the hardest, those New Yorkers already struggling to afford mass transit.

Whether that happens is a function of when the governor chooses to lift the pause.  The sooner she does, the smaller the budget hole.  If she chooses to make it a permanent pause, then the precarious finances of the MTA become more dire.

It is not expected that the governor will make her decision before the November election, which makes it increasingly likely that it will become a dominant factor in the upcoming state budget deliberations that start in January.  How the state and city provide the needed funding is anyone’s guess, but will likely be a feature of the final budget agreement. 

Keep in mind that New York City is the economic engine of the state, and the nation.  Its lifeblood is a functioning mass transit system.  That system is in jeopardy as a result of Governor Hochul’s 11^th hour “pause.”  If changes to the program occur within the context of the state budget, where those revenues come from could impact the quality of other, non-transit, services and the taxes we all pay.

The congestion pricing mess is one that affects us all.  We should all hope that the “pause” ends quickly.

Late last month, New York’s highest court issued a ruling that should make voting easier.  In a 6-1 decision, the state’s Court of Appeals ruled that a new law allowing New York voters to obtain a mail-in ballot (as long as that ballot is cast during the early voting period) was constitutional.  The decision essentially allows mail-in voting for anyone wishing to vote in the upcoming November election – as long as the ballot is submitted during the early voting period.  This year’s early voting period runs from Saturday, October 26^th through Sunday, November 3^rd.

The law was enacted last year and went into effect at the start of this year.  There’s only been two elections since then: the primary elections for president in March and all other offices in June.  Local boards of elections haven’t reported any major disruptions caused by the new law.

The new law changed the way absentee ballots have been used in New York.  Previously, the belief was that the state Constitution required that voters who wished to vote by mail could do so only if they were ill, traveling, or in military service.  Supporters of the mail-in legislation pointed out that the state Constitution’s absentee ballot rule only applied to the General Election, not the early voting period.  The court agreed.

As a result, anyone can now vote by mail — but only during early voting periods, not on Election Day itself.  

Making it easier for voters to cast their ballots fits within the state Constitution’s provision that says that New Yorkers have a right to vote.  

The Constitution clearly grants the power to implement that right to state lawmakers, but it is a “right,” not a privilege.  And 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.

This legislation builds on the successes of absentee mail in voting that had been allowed during the pandemic.  Establishing a system that allows easy access to mail in voting builds on successes in other states.  In an age where some states such as Oregon successfully moved to conducting entire elections via mail, it’s time to rethink the state’s policies with an eye towards expanding absentee voter opportunities as a method of increasing voter participation.  Oregon’s 25 years of  experience shows that widespread use of mailed-in ballots has not resulted in fraud, but has increased overall turnout to among the highest in the nation.  

Clearly, allowing voters an easy opportunity to vote through the mail is an important way to make civic participation easier in the modern age.  

With the election less than two months away, New Yorkers should know of this new option.  According to the state Board of Elections, requests to receive an early mail ballot must be received by the board of elections in your county no later than ten days before the election.  Early mail ballot materials will be sent to voters who have requested a mail-in early voting ballot beginning 46 days before the relevant elections in which you are eligible to vote.

According to the state Board of Elections, a voter may return the ballot in any of the following ways:

For the November General Election:

• Put it in the mail ensuring it receives a postmark no later than November 5^th and it must be received by the County Board of Elections no later than November 12^th. 
• Bringing it to your County Board of Elections Office no later than November 5^th by 9 p.m.
• Bringing it to an early voting poll site in your county between October 26^th and November 3^rd.
• Bringing it to a poll site in your county on November 5^th by 9 p.m.

Here in New York, voting is a right, not a privilege.  This new law will not only add another convenience to voters who wish to exercise that right but will also protect individuals who continue to be concerned about the various respiratory illnesses that tend to circulate in the fall.  

Lawmakers worked hard to add this new voting option.  Regardless of whether you vote early or on Election Day, in person, by mail, or drop off ballot, let’s all make sure our voices are heard by voting in the upcoming election.

Among the savviest phrases in American politics is “controlling the narrative.” That means telling a story your way, before someone else tells it — and possibly tells it better — their way. Sometimes it even means spinning a policy narrative so that the public never hears of the underlying policy failure.

A good example of that will occur this week with Governor Hochul’s “Future Energy Economy Summit.” The Summit, being held in Syracuse, N.Y., is being advertised as an opportunity for policymakers to “gather feedback on strategies to accelerate renewable energy deployment and explore the potential role of next generation clean energy technologies…”

The Summit comes on the heels of gathering criticisms of the Hochul Administration’s implementation of New York’s Climate Law. The Climate Law was approved five 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.

New York’s law set interim goals designed to guide policymakers as benchmark steps to meet the goals 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.

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 allow input.

Their blueprint, known as the “Scoping Plan,” was released at the end of 2022. Among its findings was one that stated that unless measures were taken, New Yorkers faced a considerable financial risk from climate-change impacts.

During the ensuing five-year period, it has become clear that the state did not do enough to meet the law’s requirements as well as the recommendations made in the Scoping Plan. Reviews of the state’s efforts, both inside and outside state government, found that far too little was accomplished — largely due to an anemic response by the Administration.

Now that it looks increasingly clear that the state will miss its first benchmark, the governor has organized the Energy Summit. In an apparent effort to help change the narrative for a policy failure, one key element of the Summit is to gather “further input on technologies,” such as “advanced nuclear.”

Nuclear power has been an ongoing controversy since the near-meltdown at a Pennsylvania plant in the 1970s. Since then, the nation has had a near freeze on expanding its use. Here in New York, four ancient nuclear power plants are operating north of Syracuse and continuing to run due to multi-billion-dollar ratepayer subsidies — meaning all electric consumers are propping up these old plants.

The governor’s mention of “advanced nuclear” is the product of Congressional legislation approved by President Biden earlier this year. The ADVANCE Act, aims to further streamline permitting for new reactor designs, change the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s mission to not only protect public health and safety but also to protect the financial health of the nuclear power industry, and promote deployment across the globe.

The problems with constructing nuclear power plants are massive — given the legitimate safety concerns. Nuke plants have been plagued with construction delays, cost overruns, taxpayer subsidies, dangerous risks from uranium mining, and serious problems with the lack of long-term spent radioactive fuel storage capacity. To date, the only long-term spent radioactive fuel storage occurs on the site of the facility itself. So, each nuclear power plant location is also a radioactive waste site.

Moreover, the new “advanced nuclear” technology has problems. A project to build a first-of-a-kind small modular nuclear reactor power plant was terminated earlier this year. The project had the only small modular nuclear reactor design certified for use in the United States. The company cited lack of consumer interest and cost increases as the main reasons. The story is the same elsewhere, as delays, huge cost overruns and the dropping cost of solar and wind power make “new wave” nuclear power a questionable option.

In New York, however, the mere advancement of the concept will change the narrative and force a public debate over nuclear power and divert attention from the state’s failure to meet the Climate Law’s 2030 goals.

New York’s science based goals are too important to get lost in the debate. New Yorkers should continue to hold the Hochul Administration’s “feet to the fire” and demand that it follows the law’s mandates. There is too much at stake.

Colleges begin to open this week. The excitement of attending college is at its peak early in the fall semester – students are glad to see friends, the weather is great, and the work hasn’t started. Yet for many, attending college is at best a struggle, at worst inconceivable. One of the key obstacles is the cost.

New York State offers a myriad of college financial assistance programs, but the biggest by far is the Tuition Assistance Program (TAP).

During the past legislative session, New York lawmakers and Governor Hochul agreed to steps to expand the coverage of TAP. For five decades, TAP has been the way of directing financial aid to the neediest students in both the public and independent college sectors. Historically, TAP has covered the entire cost of public college tuition for the lowest income students and helped offset those costs for moderate- and middle-income students.

However, the TAP program had been neglected over the past few decades. Policymakers did little to strengthen the program in order to keep pace with changes in higher education. The maximum family income for TAP eligibility had stayed the same for the past twenty years. The minimum TAP award had stayed the same during that period, as well.

During last year’s budget, the Legislature and the governor agreed to robust improvements in TAP: For example, they increased maximum income eligibility from $80,000 to $125,000 and increased the size of the minimum award from $500 to $1,000.

After decades of neglect, there is still more to do. For example, lawmakers did not increase the size of the maximum TAP award, which is still below the amount charged for SUNY tuition.

Governor Hochul will soon be faced with a decision on another college financial assistance program, this one targeting a more specific group: veterans.

A bill that was approved by the Legislature expands current college financial assistance to allow any person who served in the military to apply for the state’s scholarship for veterans.

New York offers awards to combat veterans who served in conflicts like Vietnam, the Persian Gulf, Iraq, or Afghanistan to assist with their undergraduate or graduate degree or other vocational training program.

The annual award is $7,070 (higher than the maximum TAP award) — SUNY’s average tuition — or the program’s actual cost, whichever is less. Unlike TAP, the program does not have restrictions based on a person’s annual income.

The program is not part of TAP but can supplement that program. For example, the assistance may replace a TAP award. If an eligible SUNY student applies for veterans’ tuition assistance, they will receive an amount that exceeds the maximum TAP award since that financial aid covers all of SUNY tuition. Moreover, a veteran’s application does not depend on income eligibility like TAP. If the student is a combat veteran, the award is available.

However, for veterans who did not see combat, they are currently ineligible for financial aid. Advocates for the legislation point out that the current policy unfairly excludes veterans who were ready to serve in combat but were not deployed due to factors beyond their control. The legislation ensures all veterans receive equal access to educational benefits in New York State.

By expanding coverage, there is a cost to the bill. Advocates point out, however, that since there are fewer veterans receiving funding under the existing program, there is additional money to expand coverage.

The reality is veterans are no less susceptible to financial hardship than other college applicants. Expanding veterans’ eligibility for college financial assistance makes sense for the same reasons that it does for non-veterans. Of course, with one distinction. Veterans – both those involved in combat and those who did not – have voluntarily put themselves on the line in defense of the country. Helping them to afford college is one way New York – and Governor Hochul – can show gratitude.

Another summer of heat, wildfires, polluted air, storms, and floods.  Another year that looks like it will be the hottest ever.  Another year of increasing climate-related dangers.

It also looks like one of the most profitable years for Big Oil.

A review of profit data shows Big Oil companies like Saudi Aramco, ExxonMobil, Shell and Chevron, have made an astounding$119 billion through the middle of this year, averaging $10 billion in profits each month.  From the beginning of 2021 through June 30, 2024, Big Oil’s profits were nearly a whopping $1 trillion – and have likely exceeded that amount as of today.

While these companies continue to rake in money hand over fist, the world suffers with the consequences.  It was, after all, the oil industry’s scientists that long knew of the mounting dangers from the burning of oil, coal, and gas.  Starting in the 1970s, scientists working for Exxon made “remarkably accurate projections of just how much burning fossil fuels would warm the planet.”  Yet for years, “the oil giant publicly cast doubt on climate science, and cautioned against any drastic move away from burning fossil fuels, the main driver of climate change.”  Yet instead of warning the world, those companies entered into a half-century campaign of deception designed to stymie environmental measures that could have minimized the risk.

A recent German government-backed study estimated that by the year 2050, the cost to the world from climate-related damage could be as much as $38 trillion, per year.  There can be no doubt that societies around the world will suffer both in human terms as well as financial.

Here in New York, the estimates of climate damages are staggering.  The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers estimates that it will cost $52 billion just to protect NY Harbor.  On top of that, the state needs $75-$100 billion to protect Long Island, and $55 billion for climate costs across the rest of the state.  The state Comptroller has predicted that more than half of local governments’ costs will be attributable to the climate crisis.  Last year’s climate damages cost New Yorkers more than $2 billion and those costs will only go up.  By the middle of this century, New Yorkers may have to spend $10 billion annually to cover climate costs.  That’s less money for health care, education, and programs for the needy.

So, what to do?  The world’s expert climate scientists argue that ending reliance on oil, coal, and gas as quickly as possible is a must.  According to the world’s climate experts, renewables and energy efficiency are the unquestionable pillars of the decarbonization of energy, starting with the electricity sector, which must achieve net-zero emissions between 2045 and 2055 globally.  New York has adopted a climate law guided by experts, setting a goal of net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.

Notwithstanding that legal requirement, a lack of political will has undermined New York’s progress.  According to a recent study, despite the fact that New York’s law has been on the books for five years, “the state’s largest and most powerful agencies have failed to comply with the Climate Act and have not yet issued policies or guidance on implementation of the law.”

The opponents of the climate law have seized on the failure of the government to follow the law by contending that the law was too ambitious, despite its reliance on the best science.  They are arguing that the law must be weakened.  Instead, New York should double-down on meeting its climate goals, not turning its back on them.

When it comes to costs, there has been a lot of rhetoric, but so far too little action to help curb the rising impacts of meeting the climate goals on taxpayers.  Depending on what Governor Hochul does, that may soon change.

In the waning hours of the 2024 Legislative Session, the state Assembly passed the Climate Change Superfund Act by a vote of 92-49.  The Senate passed it 43-17 earlier in the session, for the second time.

The Climate Change Superfund Act is modeled on the existing State and Federal Superfund law (which requires polluters to fund toxic waste dump cleanups) by making Big Oil climate polluters financially responsible for the environmental damages that they have caused.  The top Big Oil companies will be required to pay a combined $3 billion annually, every year for 25 years.  These costs won’t fall back on consumers, according to economists and an analysis from the think tank Institute for Policy Integrity at NYU School of Law.

The Climate Change Superfund Act isn’t just necessary – it’s popular.  According to a poll from Data for Progress, a whopping 89% of New Yorkers support fossil fuel companies covering at least some of the cost for climate damages.  Over 400 community, environmental, labor, religious, and youth groups supported the legislation, and it is backed by the NYS Association of Counties, NY Conference of Mayors and 100 local New York elected officials.

New Yorkers can now see a trillion reasons why Big Oil should pay.  Time will tell if Governor Hochul sees it, too.