Rory Christian, Chair and CEO of the Public Service Commission recently posted a brief status update regarding the Commission’s ability to make changes to the Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act). He explained that they can only make changes to the electric sector targets established in the Public Service Law section of the Climate Act. This is an important distinction that has ramifications to the hints that Governor Hochul wants to make changes to the New York Cap-and-Invest (NYCI) regulations.
I am convinced that implementation of the Climate Act net-zero mandates will do more harm than good if the future electric system relies only on wind, solar, and energy storage because of reliability and affordability risks. I have followed the Climate Act since it was first proposed, submitted comments on the Climate Act implementation plan, and have written over 600 articles about New York’s net-zero transition. The opinions expressed in this article do not reflect the position of any of my previous employers or any other organization I have been associated with, these comments are mine alone.
Overview
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. The Climate Action Council (CAC) was responsible for approving the Scoping Plan prepared by New York State Energy Research & Development Authority (NYSERDA) that outlined how to “achieve the State’s bold clean energy and climate agenda.” NYSERDA also prepared the recent State Energy Plan that was approved by Energy Planning Board (EPB). Both the CAC and the EPB were composed of political appointees .
On February 26, 2026 the Hochul Administration “leaked” a New York Energy Research & Development Authority (NYSERDA) memo that said that “full compliance with New York’s 2019 Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act could cost upstate households more than $4,000 a year – on top of what they are already paying today”. On March 5, 2026, a group of 29 New York Democratic state senators responded with a letter (“Democratic Letter”) to Governor Hochul saying they “categorically oppose any effort to roll back New York’s nation leading climate law” and urging Hochul to “stand strong in the face of misinformation” about affordability. The letter insists that any pushback on the Climate Act amounts to “climate denial” and that only their “bold” agenda will save New Yorkers money, clean the air, and protect a livable climate for our grandchildren. That framing gets the politics right, but the facts are wrong. Hochul’s suggestion that lawmakers need to delay emission mandates in NYCI.
Christian Linkedin Note
Christian recently posted the following on Linkedin:
A recent Times Union article highlighted a provision in the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (Climate Act) that provides the Public Service Commission with discretion to modify certain aspects of the law.
This is a reference to New York Public Service Law § 66-p “renewable energy systems”. Section 66-p (4) “Establishment of a renewable energy program” states: “The commission may temporarily suspend or modify the obligations under such program provided that the commission, after conducting a hearing as provided in section twenty of this chapter, makes a finding that the program impedes the provision of safe and adequate electric service; the program is likely to impair existing obligations and agreements; and/or that there is a significant increase in arrears or service disconnections that the commission determines is related to the program”. Christian went on:
It is important to clarify the scope of that authority. The Commission’s ability to make changes is limited to the electric sector targets established in the Public Service Law section of the Climate Act. The Commission does not have authority to amend the Climate Act’s economy-wide emissions reduction targets. Only the Legislature can amend those targets.
The distinction between Section 66-p (4) and the Climate Act’s economy-wide emissions reduction targets has caused confusion. The economy-wide emissions reductions target refers to the mandate for New York to implement New York Cap-and-Invest (NYCI) regulations. I described these regulations in a summary of Climate Act issues. DEC was supposed to implement NYCI regulations by 1/1/2024 but has only finalized the Mandatory GHG Emissions Reporting Rule. There have been no suggestions when the two other implementing regulations will be proposed. A year ago a group of environmental advocates filed a petition pursuant to CPLR Article 78 alleging that DEC had failed to comply with the timeframe for NYCI because DEC missed the January 1, 2024 implementation date. Supreme Court Judge Julian Schreibman’s decision stated that DEC shall “promulgate rules and regulations to ensure compliance with the statewide missed statutory deadlines” and ordered DEC to issue final regulations establishing economy-wide greenhouse gas emission (GHG) limits on or before Feb. 6, 2026 or go to the Legislature and get the Climate Act 2030 GHG reduction mandate schedule changed. DEC appealed the decision which means that the deadline is suspended until the Appellate Division rules.
The February 26, 2026 New York Energy Research & Development Authority (NYSERDA) memo that was “leaked” refers to NYCI and not PSL 66-P. Christian’s note is all about PSL 66-P. He explains:
Specifically, the statute provides that the Commission may temporarily suspend or modify obligations under New York State’s renewable energy program — the Clean Energy Standard — if the Commission finds that the program:
- Impedes the provision of safe and adequate electric service;
- Is likely to impair existing obligations and agreements; and/or
- Significantly increases arrears or service disconnections determined to be related to the program.
Even though New York has seen a significant increase in arrears since the Climate Act was enacted, The Commission did not hold a hearing to address their safe, adequate, and affordable obligations to New Yorkers. Christian notes that the Commission has finally acknowledged the possible need for a hearing:
Relatedly, a third party recently petitioned the Commission requesting adjustments to the electric sector targets. The Commission has posted the petition for public comment and will be accepting comments through the end of the month.
You can read the petition here: https://lnkd.in/edE92bhF
You can submit comments here: https://lnkd.in/eVeaJA5Y
Ramifications
Recent developments paint a consistent picture that it is appropriate to reconsider the Climate Act. NYSERDA’s cap‑and‑invest memo admits that hitting statutory targets on the current schedule requires fuel price shocks and thousands of dollars per year in added household energy costs. The PSC’s request for comments shows that the state’s own regulator is now weighing whether renewable mandates under the Climate Act have crossed the line into threatening safe, adequate, and affordable service—the core mission it cannot ignore. As a result, I encourage everyone to submit comments demanding a hearing to consider adjustments to the electric sector targets.
The important point made by Christian is that the Commission has limited powers to address the myriad implementation issues observed. It is up to the Legislature to address those other issues. Unfortunately, this would require many lawmkers to admit that their “nation-leading” law to save the planet needs to be reconsidered. I previously noted that 29 of the 41 Democratic senators went on the record saying they “categorically oppose any effort to roll back New York’s nation leading climate law”. However, there are 63 seats in the Senate, so this represents a minority. It is time to convince those 29 senators and the Assembly members that they need to step up and support the State’s obligation to provide safe, adequate, and affordable energy for all New Yorkers by addressing the observed problems.
Fundamental Implementation Issues
The Climate Act, Scoping Plan and State Energy Plan presumptions rest on a cluster of unrealistic assumptions that ignore engineering, economic, and scale realities. Lawmakers set legally binding “net‑zero” and renewable mandates without first demonstrating that they can be achieved on the required timetable while keeping electric service safe, adequate, and affordable, effectively turning the state into a live experiment.
Reliability is largely treated as a legal requirement rather than an engineering constraint: the Council assumes that a system dominated by wind, solar, and storage will work because the statute says it must, even though NYISO and others warn that needed dispatchable emissions‑free resources do not yet exist commercially on the required schedule. Costs are downplayed through modeling choices that embed major policies in the “reference” case and lean heavily on inflated “costs of inaction,” while NYSERDA’s own affordability work shows on the order of 40‑plus percent higher levelized monthly costs for a representative upstate household once capital costs are counted.
Climate Act environmental review assumes that large‑scale wind, solar, and storage build‑outs are benign, even though the cumulative impact statement has not been updated to match Scoping Plan build‑out levels or to define thresholds for wildlife loss, land conversion, or local impacts. Subsequent revisions to permitting requirements have turned project environmental assessments into unconscionable parodies of ecological protection.
Finally, the state behaves as if its actions will meaningfully change the climate experienced by New Yorkers, despite emitting less than one‑half of one percent of global greenhouse gases, so any reductions are quickly overwhelmed by growth elsewhere.
What is Needed
There is no question that the Commission needs to hold a hearing to address the Public Service Law mandates. Anyone who argues otherwise is not paying attention or does not want to admit that real‑world constraints in offshore wind, onshore wind, transmission, supply chains, and inflation that were not anticipated when the law passed in 2019 preclude achievement of the Climate Act 2030 targets. The hearing will undoubtedly find that the targets need to be delayed.
A cap-and-and invest program for carbon is not the magical solution that the Climate Action Council thought it was when they recommended an “economy-wide program” to cost‑effectively meet Climate Act targets. Hochul’s concerns about NYCI affordability are legitimate, but she does not recognize New York’s experience with the similar Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative indicate that the touted benefits of dividend investments did not include substantive emission reductions. Because GHG emissions and energy production are closely related, the cap on GHG emissions this means that setting the caps based on the artificial Climate Act schedule will likely lead to limits on energy production.
Most of the other issues are beyond the scope of the PSL 66-P hearing or NYCI. The Legislature needs to address the other issues openly and rely on the input of subject matter experts who are responsible for energy system reliability, not just a selected few academics who agree with their preconceived notions. First, and foremost a plan must be developed that demonstrates legally binding “net‑zero” and renewable mandates can be achieved on the required timetable while keeping electric service safe, adequate, and affordable.
The Legislature must define acceptable safe, adequate, and affordable metrics for electric service and energy resources. it is long past time that Legislators stop pretending to be energy experts and listen to and act on the existing reliability experts and standards of the NYISO and New York State Reliability Council. The Legislature must demand that NYSERDA transparently provide all the costs to achieve the Climate Act mandates, not just costs for the law itself, to provide guidance for an acceptable affordability criterion. In my opinion a key component of safe electrical service is environmentally responsible generation. The Office of Renewable Energy Siting and RAPID Act permitting guidance must establish thresholds for wildlife loss, land conversion, and local impacts.
Conclusion
There are reasons to be optimistic that the inevitable Climate Act disaster that will occur if there are no changes might be averted before real damage is done. The admission by Hochul that NYCI will be unaffordable and needs to be revised suggests that the Administration recognizes the affordability implications. The Commission is accepting comments on the need for a hearing regarding the Public Service Law component of the Climate Act is also encouraging. However, Commission Chair Christian’s note makes an important point that there are limitations on what the .Commission can do. Ultimately, the fundamental shortcomings of the Climate Act can only be changed by the Legislature. It is not clear whether New York lawmakers will cling to the current timetable in the face of reality or step up and resolve the problems. I recommend that readers contact your legislators and demand that they resolve the identified problems.
Pragmatic Environmentalist of New York 