SC New York News

Senator O'Mara offers his weekly perspective on many of the key challenges and issues facing the Legislature, as well as on legislative actions, local initiatives, state programs and policies. Stop back every Monday for Senator O'Mara's latest column.

This week, "Doubts continue to grow over New York's climate mandates."

The drumbeats of doubt have continued to grow louder throughout the past few weeks as reality sets in over the ongoing plan by Albany Democrats to impose sweeping clean energy mandates on all New Yorkers.

Since the enactment several years ago of a far-reaching climate agenda known as the "Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act" (CLCPA), as well as the approval of other mandated actions since then, the governor, her energy czars, and a Democrat-led state Legislature have been moving fast to impose one of the world's most radical climate agendas on every citizen, every community, and every sector of the state's economy.

As I and many others have stated repeatedly, these actions come with a devastating price tag and consequences. Keep in mind some of the mandates already in the works:

-- No natural gas within newly constructed buildings, beginning in 2025;

-- No new gas service to existing buildings, beginning in 2030;

-- An all-electric school bus mandate starting in 2027;

-- No replacement natural gas appliances for home heating, cooking, water heating, clothes drying beginning in 2035; and

-- No gasoline-automobile sales by 2035.

Throughout July, however, the drumbeats of doubt have intensified.

First came a July 1 report from the Hochul administration that the timeline to achieve 70 percent renewable energy by 2030 and zero emissions by 2040 isn't realistic and can't be met.

Consequently, it's going to be back to the drawing board on the CLCPA and other climate mandates. It will at least open a long-overdue public discussion on the realities of the current strategy.

That discussion must start out with what Albany Democrats failed to do six years ago: a true cost-benefit analysis of New York State eliminating our 0.4% of global carbon emissions and what impact that will have on climate change issues. While I fully support efforts to lower emissions, it must be done responsibly. If that answer is nil, which I believe it will be, we should focus our resources toward resiliency on climate change effects.

The need for this reassessment was given further urgency in recent weeks.

First, in a preliminary analysis, NYSIO warned that under the current timeline the state is "at risk of blackouts without significant new generation coming online before the middle of the next decade," according to Politico.

Most recently came an audit from State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli that found serious flaws in implementing Democrats' climate agenda. The audit confirmed alarms over affordability, feasibility, and reliability that many have raised from the outset. Among other findings:

-- "The Public Service Commission (PSC), tasked under the Climate Act with establishing and reviewing the state's renewable energy program, sometimes used outdated data and wrong calculations to determine if the state could reach 70% renewably sourced electricity by 2030. The PSC did not update their calculations based on new laws and directives which may drive clean energy demand up like electric vehicles or new green buildings. PSC also did not fully account for other potential risks;"

-- "The PSC did not reasonably estimate or verify other entities' estimates of transition costs to renewable energy. Undertaking a project without knowing costs increases failure risk. The absence of cost estimates makes it difficult to assess its impact on New Yorkers struggling with rising utility bills."

Responding to DiNapoli's report, Upstate United Executive Director Justin Wilcox stated: "Following the release of New York State Comptroller's most recent audit we reiterate our calls to pause implementation until critical issues are addressed...utility bills are rising dramatically...New Yorkers continue to be left in dark about true costs associated with CLCPA."

Well said; I could not agree more. I've said it before: The current strategy is not realistic or achievable. It lacks critical foresight and unreasonably risks energy grid reliability and affordability.

###