Hochul Blinks When It Comes to Climate Act Costs

[rangerrebew]

Hochul Blinks When It Comes to Climate Act Costs
14 hours ago Guest Blogger
Roger Caiazza

Rebecca Lewis posted two City and State articles that cited evidence that the Hochul Administration recognizes that the  Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act) is so expensive that the Governor appears ready to propose changes to the Climate Act to reduce the costly clean energy transition.

In the first article Lewis explains that state budget director Blake Washington described the cost burdens of the green energy requirements at the Citizens Budget Commission breakfast on 2/25/26.  Lewis stated:

Blake Washington called the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act “well-intentioned,” but said circumstances had changed since former Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed the law in 2019. “Sometimes you can change governmental rules to just fit the times and actually adapt to the realities, the realities before us, not how we wish them to be,” Washington said. He added that the estimated average cost to New Yorkers of the energy transition under current rules comes to roughly $3,000, a number the governor finds “unacceptable.”

In the second article Lewis described the contents of a NYSERDA memo from President and CEO of the New York State Energy Research & Development Authority Doreen Harris to Jackie Bray, Director of State Operations outlining “likely costs of CLCPA compliance” under hypothetical cap‑and‑invest regulations needed to hit the statutory 40% by 2030 GHG reduction target. This appears to update some of the numbers that Washington quoted the day before.  Lewis notes also that Hochul commented on the cost issues in an unrelated press conference at the same time the memo was “leaked”.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2026/03/02/hochul-blinks-when-it-comes-to-climate-act-costs/

[rangerrebew]

Hochul Wants To Pump The Brakes On New York’s Climate Law
State lawmakers push back as the governor warns the law would spike consumer energy bills.
by Chris Wade  March 18, 2026, 9:12 AM

Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul is urging state lawmakers to delay aggressive emission mandates in New York’s landmark climate law, citing the impact on energy consumers from spikes in utility and gas bills. [some emphasis, links added]


Hochul said Monday she plans to roll out a proposal this week to scale back provisions of the 2019 Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA), which requires New York to reduce excess greenhouse gas emissions 40% by 2030, compared to 1990 levels.

“I think we need a longer runway,” she said in remarks in Buffalo. “All the goals we’re supposed to meet would have to be met by 2030, 2031. That’s not possible without prices going up.”

Hochul has warned that the aggressive goals in the landmark climate law could cost the average New Yorker up to $3,500 per year.

She has also said the law’s emissions reduction mandates are “unrealistic” amid the Trump administration’s efforts to end support for clean energy projects.

https://climatechangedispatch.com/hochul-new-york-climate-law-rollback/

[catfish1957]

No way bitch....  You own this. 

Live by the scam, die by the scam

[rangerrebew]

Does anyone really think democrats didn't know this plan was a dud when they passed it?

[Fishrrman]

When it comes to state energy policy, hochul and the New York state legislature are like Thelma and Louise... speeding towards the edge of the cliff...

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Does anyone really think democrats didn't know this plan was a dud when they passed it?

Nope, the Dems are always doing things to bring distress, then signal they have a plan to get out of it.

It is in their DNA

[Hoodat]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WuRqSP9oahE

[rangerrebew]

Hochul Claims the Climate Act Can Be Affordable
18 hours ago Guest Blogger 
Roger Caiazza

A couple of days ago an article republished here by Robert Bradley described New York Governor Hochul’s retreat from climate activism.  On March 20, 2026 Hochul claimed in an exclusive opinion piece in New York Empire Report she outlined her vision.  She claimed that climate action and affordability “can and must” go hand in hand. She did not provide substantive evidence to support that claim and her claims do not address other Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act) affordability issues.

Status

The Climate Act established a New York “Net Zero” target (85% reduction in GHG emissions and 15% offset of emissions) by 2050.  It includes an interim reduction target of a 40% GHG reduction by 2030. Two targets address the electric sector: 70% of the electricity must come from renewable energy by 2030 and all electricity must be generated by “zero-emissions” resources by 2040.

Progress  on the Climate Act is at an inflection point.  I recently described two affordability aspects of the implementation process that are causing confusion for almost everyone.  Hochul’s administration has recognized two aspects but has covered up a third component.  I provide details of these aspects in the Status section of the companion post at my blog.

I believe that the primary reason for Hochul’s announcement is her gubernatorial election this year and her affordability theme.  In February the Hochul Administration “leaked” a New York Energy Research & Development Authority (NYSERDA) memo that said that “full compliance” with Climate Act New York Cap-and-Invest (NYCI) regulation could cost upstate households more than $4,000 a year – on top of what they are already paying today”.  This NYSERDA memo that Hochul points to as justification includes information that is just now convenient to release.  Hochul knew these costs in 2024 when the original analysis was done.  To keep prices down then, NYSERDA conjured up policy scenarios meant to keep costs at whatever level they thought they could get away with and not the higher cost the cap-and-dividend theory says will be necessary to meet the 2030 interim mandates.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2026/03/22/hochul-claims-the-climate-act-can-be-affordable/

[rangerrebew]

The fact she says it can is a tacit admission it can't.

[The_Reader_David]

Of course:  she's a Leftist and Leftists are constitutionally unable to understand economics properly.  She probably actually believes what she's saying.