New York Climate Act Reckoning is Inevitable – Watts Up With That?

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 requirement for 70% of electricity by 2030. The Climate Action Council (CAC) was responsible for preparing the Scoping Plan that outlined how to “achieve the State’s bold clean energy and climate agenda.”  Lately the State has been trying to implement the Scoping Plan recommendations through regulations, proceedings, and legislation. 

Poll Overview

The Empire Center is an independent, not-for-profit, non-partisan think tank dedicated to promoting policies that can make New York a better place to live, work and raise a family.  In the interests of full disclosure, I am an adjunct fellow of the Empire Center. 

Late last year the Empire Center canvassed 1,021 New York registered voters in a poll conducted by Morning Consult. There were 38 questions in the survey and 16 questions about the demographics of the respondents.  Survey toplines and crosstabs are available.  For survey neophytes like me the topline lists the questions and the overall results.  Crosstabs provide the breakdown of responses to questions by the demographic categories.

There were six questions were included about the Climate Act.  I only address the first two questions in this article.

Climate Act Awareness

I guess New York is getting what it deserves but I wonder how many people in other jurisdictions with similar net-zero legislation have any idea about the impacts of unrealistic policies header their way.

Willingness to Pay

In my opinion, the reality slap to New Yorkers will be when the costs go up and the Hochul Administration can no longer hide the extraordinary costs.  This is because I have never seen any poll regarding a willingness to pay that did not find most people are willing to pay very much.  This is verification for Roger Pielke Jr.’s Iron Law of Climate “While people are often willing to pay some price for achieving climate objectives, that willingness has its limits.”

This poll is no different.  One third of the respondents are not willing to anything on their monthly energy bill for cleaner energy.  Another 28% are only willing to pay up to $20 a month for cleaner energy while another 20% would pay up to $40 a month.  Nineteen percent are willing to pay up to $200 a month but only 3% are willing to pay more than $200 per month. Another 7% did not know or had no opinion.

National Grid Long-Term Gas Plan

One of the components in the Scoping Plan is to eventually electrify the natural gas system.  I recently described the comments I submitted on Case 24-G-0248 Review of the Long-Term Gas System Plan for National Grid.   That plan describes how the three National Grid New York operating companies intend to transition away from natural gas projected out to 2050. 

I was frankly surprised with the consumer costs projected for just this component of the Climate Act transition plan.  The scenarios include a reference case, CEV or “clean energy vision”, and AE or “accelerated electrification”.  The difference between the reference case and the CEV scenario represents the minimum cost of the Climate Act.  The following tables (using original table numbers) are from the Long-Term Gas System Plan document for three service territories now owned by National Grid in New York.

The 2030 average monthly increase for National Grid customers in the former Niagara Mohawk service territory in Upstate New York ranges from a 50% increase to a 96% increase.  The Climate Act cost by 2030 is $57 additional per month.

Table 12-11: Niagara Mohawk Bill Impacts by Scenario

Credit: National Grid Long-Term Gas System Plan

The 2030 average monthly increase for National Grid customers in the former Brooklyn Union Gas service territory in New York City ranges from a 65% increase to a 148% increase.  The Climate Act cost by 2030 is $43 additional per month.

Table 12-12: Brooklyn Union Gas Company Bill Impacts by Scenario

Credit: National Grid Long-Term Gas System Plan

The 2030 average monthly increase for National Grid customers in the former Key Span service territory on Long Island ranges from a 41% increase to a 90% increase.  The Climate Act cost by 2030 is $44 additional per month.

Table 12-13: KeySpan Gas (LILCO) Bill Impacts by Scenario

Credit: National Grid Long-Term Gas System Plan

Willingness to Pay for National Grid Long-Term Gas Plan

In the National Grid Long-Term Gas Plan, the expected increase in price to implement the “clean energy vision” consistent with the Climate Act exceeds $40 per month for all three service companies.  I consolidated cross tab survey results as show in Table 1 that lists the willingness to pay $40 per month for selected demographics of the survey participants in the Empire Center poll.  Note that 71% of respondents said that they were unwilling to pay more than $40 per month.  I am not going to discuss the demographic breakdowns but present them for your edification.

Table 1: Empire Center Willingness to Pay for Increased Energy Costs Relative to National Grid Expected Gas System Transition Costs of at least $40 per Month Additional by 2030

Discussion

I recently submitted comments about affordability in Proceeding 22-M-0149 “Assessing Implementation of and Compliance with the Requirements and Targets of the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act”.  On March 26, 2025, Jessica Waldorf, Chief of Staff and Director of Policy Implementation for the Department of Public Service (DPS) posted a letter responding to a letter from Michael B. Mager Counsel to Multiple Intervenors that had been submitted earlier in March to Chair of the Public Service Commission Rory Christian regarding the affordability standard.  The Mager letter from the Multiple Intervenors pointed out that the DPS and New York State Energy Research & Development Authority (NYSEDA) were supposed to provide an annual report describing Climate Act implementation costs.  No report was produced in 2024 and the letter asked when the next report would be provided.  Waldorf’s response made no commitment.  Given the politicization of all New York agencies and the “willingness to pay” results I don’t think that it is surprising that the Hochul Administration is failing to report on Climate Act as mandated.

Keep in mind that the natural gas transition cost component is only one program.  Electric bills will need to increase by at least the same amount to pay for the infrastructure necessary to electrify everything.  The New York Cap-and-Invest program is nothing more than a tax on carbon that will necessarily increase the cost of gasoline and heating fuels.  Personal investments in electrifying homes and transportation by most New Yorkers will be necessary.  I believe that a proper cost estimate will show that consumer costs will exceed $200 a month.

Inevitably people will figure out that there is a law in place that is causing much of the observed increase in energy costs.  I also believe that the Hochul Administration is fully aware of the ramifications of Climate Act costs on the next election.  Consequently, they are delaying implementation of the mandate to produce an annual cost information report as long as possible and may even try to wait until after the 2026 election.

In the meantime, the politicians will be more than willing to let the utilities take the heat for the inevitable observed cost increases.  No doubt they will simultaneously forbid the utilities to explicitly break out the Climate Act costs in the consumer bills all the while demanding that utilities lower their rate case proposals.

Conclusion

Any way you look at the willingness to pay question response, the Empire Center survey confirms Roger Pielke Jr’s Iron Law of Climate.  People polled are not willing to pay much for the net-zero aspirations of the Climate Act if 50% are unwilling to pay more than $10 per month for cleaner energy.  It is troubling that 88% of the New Yorkers polled had no more than a general sense of the Climate Act and many had never heard of it.  This is setting up a reckoning for all the politicians that foisted the Climate Act on New Yorkers.  It is inevitable that the politicians will reconsider and give up on it or be voted out for utter stupidity.  The only question is whether political reality will occur before the electric and gas system is destroyed and costs bankrupts the state.

Roger Caiazza blogs on New York energy and environmental issues at Pragmatic Environmentalist of New York.  The opinions expressed in this post do not reflect the position of any of his previous employers or any other organization he has been associated with.

Related