In a recent press conference held in the 17th district of South Brooklyn, several state senators and assembly members united in opposition to Governor Cuomo and the Democratic Party’s push for a “comprehensive electrification” energy plan. They pointed out that the draft proposal released by the state’s Energy Planning Commission on July 23 emphasizes renewable energy and decarbonization but overlooks affordability, reliability, and consumer choice, leading to a continual increase in utility costs and putting heavy pressure on working-class families and small businesses.
According to the draft proposal (details at https://shorturl.at/6TjFF), New York plans to massively promote electric vehicles, geothermal heating, and accelerate the construction of wind and solar energy facilities over the next decade to meet the decarbonization goals set out in the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA).
Phil Palmesano, a senior member of the minority party in the State Energy Commission and a state assemblyman, pointed out the significant disparities between these visions and reality:
Firstly, the relevant technologies and infrastructure are not yet mature, making the transition costs to full electrification unaffordable for households. For example, to switch a residence’s heating from natural gas to full electrification would cost at least $35,000 to $50,000, making it nearly impossible for fixed-income elderly individuals. Even if the public school system were to mandate the replacement of their fleets with electric school buses, it would require a significant amount of taxpayer funds.
Secondly, the proposal ignores the current electricity supply concerns in New York. The closure of the Indian Point nuclear power plant on the Hudson River immediately reduced New York’s electricity supply by 25%. While the state government is closing stable nuclear and natural gas power plants, it has yet to provide equivalent alternative energy sources, creating a situation akin to “tearing down old bridges without building new ones.”
State Senator Chen Xueli stated, “According to the state’s calculations, it may take until 2038 to achieve a 40% emission reduction, while the CLCPA requires completion by 2030. Over the next four years and more, they want us to cut our carbon footprint by 40%. Look at the cars on the street; they say more than half need to be switched to electric cars, but what I see is – almost none, at most 2%. Can you imagine how far off this is from the goal?”
Representing the Sheepshead Bay district, State Assemblyman Michael Novakhov showcased a Brooklyn household’s electricity bill, with some bills reaching nearly $1,000 for a single month in June. He criticized the energy policy for exacerbating residents’ burdens. He emphasized that the core of energy policy should be affordability and reliability, rather than idealistic decarbonization goals, calling the plan an economic nightmare for all New Yorkers, disguised as energy innovation.
Palmesano mentioned that the state government’s gradual dismantling of natural gas infrastructure means residents will be deprived of their freedom to choose in heating, cooking, and transportation, and will be forced to accept electrification plans. He emphasized that he is not against clean energy but is against the ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach.
Donald Cranston, representing Jamie Williams, a Democratic state assemblyman, pointed out that while Williams initially voted in support of the clean energy plan, she now recognizes the plan’s serious safety and siting issues. Her district is facing concerns over a large lithium battery storage facility planned to be built near residential areas, raising resident concerns.
He said, “We all experienced Hurricane Sandy, with many people only able to boil water for their kids to take a bath after the power went out. When you have a second energy option, to give it up before there is an alternative is extremely unwise.”
Chen Xueli added that the production and disposal of lithium batteries involve pollution, and in case of a thermal runaway fire, it often takes days to burn everything down to ashes, releasing a large amount of harmful gases. “This is by no means green energy.”
Energy transition not only involves the promotion of electric vehicles and renewable energy but also implies a change in the cooking habits of residents’ kitchens, such as phasing out gas stoves and fully switching to electric cooking, which particularly impacts Chinese restaurants relying on high-temperature rapid-fire cooking. Chen Xueli questioned, “Can cooking on an electric stove achieve the same effect as gas for stir-frying or baking bread and pizza?”
Palmesano warned that if energy policy continues to ignore costs and reliability, New York will face more severe economic risks and population outflows. High energy costs will squeeze profits in manufacturing, agriculture, and small businesses, forcing companies to relocate out of state. The continued rise in the cost of living for residents will also accelerate middle-class outflows, affecting the state’s tax base and Wall Street financial dominance in the long run.
He also cited a warning from the New York Independent System Operator (NISO) that there are both short-term and long-term supply gap risks for New York. If fossil fuel power plants are accelerated out of the mix without timely replacement by renewable energy sources, large-scale blackouts may occur.
Palmesano pointed out that New York accounts for only 0.4% of global carbon emissions, while China accounts for 30%, with Russia totaling 40%. In this context, solely relying on New York’s “aggressive emissions reduction” will have limited actual impact on global climate while potentially incurring massive economic and social costs.
He questioned why the state government is pushing to eliminate natural gas without establishing reliable alternative solutions. For instance, if heavy trucks were to be replaced with electric ones, there are currently no heavy-duty charging facilities along highways, indicating an inherent contradiction in the policy.
Recently, some legislators proposed excluding issues related to the Northeast Supply Enhancement (NESE) of National Grid gas company from public hearings. Palmesano stated that this is an example that affects the utilization of existing natural gas resources, as if leaving natural gas idle and unused. Additionally, some school districts have had to raise tens of millions of dollars on their own to construct substation stations to meet mandatory electrification requirements, with all final costs being borne by local taxpayers.
According to energy experts’ estimates, by 2040, New York will need an additional 27-45 gigawatts of dispatchable zero-emission energy to maintain grid stability. However, currently available solutions like new nuclear technologies, hydrogen energy, carbon capture, etc., are still immature.
Palmesano advocated for an energy policy adopting a “portfolio” model, similar to a 401(k) investment plan: wind energy, solar energy, hydroelectric power, nuclear energy, natural gas, and even oil should all be considered to diversify risks, ensure stability, rather than relying on a single approach.
Finally, the legislators demanded a 90-day extension of the public comment period for the energy draft proposal and more hearings in various regions to allow grassroots residents and small businesses to voice their concerns. They also urged voters to mobilize and use their votes to halt the Democratic Party’s “unrealistic” energy reform from advancing.
Alec Brook-Krasny, a state assemblyman representing Coney Island and Bay Ridge, who is a Soviet immigrant, equated current policies with the failed experiences of Venezuela and the Soviet Union, warning that New York is moving towards the dangerous path of “government overreach and socialism.”
He said, “The core phrase that Charles Kirk talked about is ‘earn’ – you have to earn it, whatever you have, you have to earn it yourself, rather than letting others ‘give it to you for free.’ This is the idea we must promote.”
“We are not against green energy, but we are for feasible solutions,” Palmesano said. “Why should school districts and local taxpayers be the guinea pigs of this social experiment? Policies should be based on common sense and practicality, not idealistic experiments.”