Albany, New York– Seven years ago, New York lawmakers set ambitious goals to lower that ratio Greenhouse gas emissions With clear calls about saving the future. Now, with slow progress and changing political realities, the Govt. Cathy Hochul It is seeking a postponement, saying it wants to save consumers money.
The times may” Changed radicallySince 2019, when the state set a goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 40% by 2030, Hochul said.
She proposed giving the state additional years to comply, saying that pursuing that goal now by imposing planned fees on polluters would crush energy prices.
“I can’t in good conscience — knowing moms and dads and seniors and families that are struggling, paying their bills right now — I can’t do something that I know at this very moment is going to raise those prices,” Hochul said. On a final walk.
Hochul, who is running for re-election this year, is among several Democratic leaders trying to balance the party’s traditional support for clean energy policies with the current political imperative of advancing “affordability” agendas.
Many states — especially in the Northeast — are reevaluating clean energy goals. Others are looking to reduce surcharges on utility bills to help fund efficiency programs.
These shifts have alarmed environmentalists, who describe them as short-sighted. They point out that other states, including California, have remained committed to similar policies aimed at reducing reliance on fossil fuels.
“Ultimately, they look to keep New Yorkers on gas longer when it’s the fuel that’s causing their bills to rise,” Liz Moran of the environmental group Earthjustice said of Hochul’s proposals.
Hochul insists she is not abandoning efforts to combat climate change. But she and other Democrats complain about that Reducing clean energy grants Under President Donald Trump’s administration, it has raised the cost of meeting the state’s climate goals. Republican President He was hostile For some clean energy sources, in particular Offshore wind Farms owned by his department sought to prevent.
Meanwhile, U.S. residential electricity prices rose 27% on average from 2019 to 2024, with some of the most pronounced increases in California and the Northeast, according to study From Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Analysts cite multiple reasons for the rise in prices, including: Increased demand of data centers and the price of natural gas which is often used to generate electricity.
The electricity bills were A major issue in the gubernatorial races Democrats won it last year in New Jersey and Virginia. This was before the Iran War was sent Gasoline prices rise.
Rhode Island Gov. Dan McKee has proposed delaying the 2033 deadline for reaching 100% renewables until 2050, as part of his plan to cut energy costs by $1 billion over five years.
Last year, Connecticut lowered its renewable energy goal by 40% for 2030 to 29%. Democratic Gov. Ned Lamont said at the time “Electricity bills are very high.”
Massachusetts and New Jersey are among the states seeking to reduce fees on utility bills that help fund efficiency programs.
“It’s hard to talk about climate sometimes, because everyone is so focused on affordability and customer bills,” said Kyle Murray, director of the Acadia Center’s Massachusetts program. “So climate, while still important, is being pushed to the side, unfortunately.”
One of New York’s main mechanisms for cutting emissions was supposed to be a “cap-and-invest” system, where polluters buy allowances for their emissions, and the proceeds are then invested in things like clean technology and renewable energy.
In California, the cap-and-invest system is critical to achieving goals that include reducing global greenhouse gas emissions to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030. The state has used revenues from the cap-and-invest system to direct billions of dollars to things like public transit and clean vehicle incentives.
The program costs Californians an extra 24 cents per gallon at the pump and a little more on their utility bills, even though the state provides a regular “climate credit” on their bills, said Kyle Ming, an assistant professor of economics at UC Santa Barbara.
“When you make things more expensive, people keep them,” Meng said. “It’s like Econ 101, and that’s the basic idea behind cap-and-trade.”
However, New York officials missed a 2024 deadline to create regulations detailing how such a system would work in their state. Without these rules, the system would never have been launched. Environmentalists successfully sued the state for failing to meet the deadline, which Hochul cited in seeking a delay.
The governor’s new proposal, which legislative leaders are currently considering, would give the state until 2030 to set regulations. The state will set new targets for emissions levels for 2040.
If those deadlines are not postponed, consumers will pay the cost, Hochul said. Her administration estimates that implementing the cap-and-invest system now would result in costs exceeding $4,000 annually for some families.
Environmental advocates say the governor underestimates the costs of the “extreme” version, and that the analysis ignores the benefits of incentivizing polluters to move away from fossil fuels.
They also point to Washington, Where are the voters in 2024? It decided to retain that state’s cap-and-investment program by a wide margin.
“The sky has not fallen, and the program is working as intended,” said Caitlin Crane of the Conservation Movement Washington.
Bruce Blackman, a Republican county executive running for governor against Hochul, said he would get rid of the state plan entirely if he wins this fall.
“Delaying the pain will not make it go away, but rather leave bigger bills down the road,” Blackman said in a statement.