State lawmakers have been moving along through the legislative budget hearings process and are expected to wrap them up next week.\u00a0 This week, one of the big hearings focuses on Governor Hochul\u2019s proposed budget plans for the environment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Like in any proposed Executive Budget, the governor\u2019s plan contained good news and bad. Her proposal included ending<\/a> the so-called \u201c100 foot rule.\u201d The 100 foot rule, which dates back to 1981<\/a>, requires energy utility companies to hook up any new customer to its gas line if the transmission line is within 100 feet of the structure and the customer wants the hookup. The connection is provided at no charge to the new customer and the hookup cost gets spread among all gas ratepayers. Advocates for scrapping the rule argue<\/a> that it incurs costs of $1 billion over five years, distributed among gas ratepayers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The governor proposed that the state\u2019s Environmental Protection Fund maintain its funding at $400 million, although she does shift<\/a> some costs within the program. The governor also proposed<\/a> to spend $250 million of the state\u2019s recently approved Environmental Bond Act for a voluntary buyout of properties threatened by climate change and spending $47 million to plant over 25 million trees by 2033.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Her budget did draw jeers<\/a> from environmentalists for some of the plans \u2013 in particular her plan to cut in half the state\u2019s investments in upgrading water infrastructure. The Cuomo Administration had pledged<\/a> in 2019 to spend $2.5 billion investing in upgrading water supplies, with that spending phased in over five years. The five years are up. Governor Hochul has proposed<\/a> in her budget that the state spend $500 million over two years ($250 million per year) on water infrastructure upgrades, cutting in half the amount spent over the previous five years. <\/p>\n\n\n\n For many, one area that the governor did not address got the most negative reaction. The governor did not meaningfully tackle the looming costs from damages caused by a rapidly heating planet. The governor did propose<\/a> a comprehensive resiliency plan to \u201cprotect New Yorkers from extreme weather as part of her 2024 State of the State and included $435 million in the Executive Budget proposal to help implement the initiatives.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n But as proposed by the governor, those costs would be borne by the taxpayer. And the amount she recommended is woefully inadequate to meet the worsening task.<\/p>\n\n\n\n New York\u2019s climate costs are expected to skyrocket. It has been estimated that Long Island alone faces up to $100 billion<\/a> in climate costs. A study from NYS Comptroller DiNapoli<\/a> found that over a ten-year period (the last five and next five years), more than half of New York localities’ municipal spending outside of NYC was, or will be, related to climate change. New York City estimates <\/a>as much as <\/a>$100 billion will be needed to upgrade its sewers for more intense storms. And those costs are on top of the $52 billion<\/a> that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has estimated is needed to protect New York Harbor from rising sea levels. Those costs \u2013 like the temperature of the planet \u2013 are expected to keep increasing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n New Yorkers could see those costs rise to as much as $10 billion<\/a> annually. New York taxpayers shouldn\u2019t have to bear that burden alone.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Yet, the governor\u2019s budget did not highlight the necessary funding for tackling this problem. According to my colleagues<\/a> at NYPIRG, New York spent over $2 billion<\/em> last year<\/em> to address climate damages and resiliency costs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Unless something changes, the costs of addressing the damages from a worsening climate \u2013 repairing roads and bridges, protecting low-lying areas, adding air conditioning to schools and much more \u2013 will be borne by taxpayers. Those most responsible for the mess that we\u2019re in \u2013 the biggest oil companies \u2013 are off-the-financial-hook. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Big Oil has known for decades that the burning of fossil fuels would trigger a heating planet and possible devastation. The most recent revelation<\/a> is that the industry knew as early as 1954 of the possible dangers. That\u2019s not the only evidence, but despite knowing, the industry did all it could to undermine efforts to address the climate crisis they caused and knew was coming<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Meanwhile, while the bills pile up for taxpayers, the industry responsible for this mess is raking in cash. The top Big Oil companies in the U.S. are on track for a second consecutive year of record profits<\/a>, and the industry globally is performing much better than expected<\/a>. Those record profits allowed them to deliver unprecedented returns to shareholders.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Unless something changes, Big Oil will continue to enrich itself, block needed actions, and New York taxpayers will be stuck with the tab.<\/p>\n\n\n\n As New York\u2019s budget process plays out, making Big Oil accountable for the mess that they made, must be central to the state\u2019s environmental budget.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" State lawmakers have been moving along through the legislative budget hearings process and are expected to wrap them up next week.\u00a0 This week, one of the big hearings focuses on Governor Hochul\u2019s proposed budget plans for the environment. Like in any proposed Executive Budget, the governor\u2019s plan contained good news and bad. Her proposal included […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2983","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nypirg.org\/capitolperspective\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2983","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nypirg.org\/capitolperspective\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nypirg.org\/capitolperspective\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nypirg.org\/capitolperspective\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nypirg.org\/capitolperspective\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2983"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.nypirg.org\/capitolperspective\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2983\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2984,"href":"https:\/\/www.nypirg.org\/capitolperspective\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2983\/revisions\/2984"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nypirg.org\/capitolperspective\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2983"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nypirg.org\/capitolperspective\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2983"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nypirg.org\/capitolperspective\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2983"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}