Category: NY Carbon Price Initiative

According to a new report from Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) and Greenline Insights, New Yorkers will “realize significant economic benefits, including household savings and new job creation, with the Clean Air Initiative.”  This article explains why this report is bogus on multiple levels.

I have extensive experience with market-based pollution control programs.  I have been involved in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) program process since its inception and have no such restrictions when writing about the details of the RGGI program.  I have worked on every cap-and-trade program affecting electric generating facilities in New York including RGGI, the Acid Rain Program, and several Nitrogen Oxide programs. I have also been following the New York Cap-and-Invest (NYCI) program and other similar programs in New York   The opinions expressed in this post do not reflect the position of any of my previous employers or any other organization I have been associated

Clean Air Initiative

My first thought when I read this was what is the Clean Air Initiative?   The report states: “state agencies have developed proposals for an economy-wide cap-and-invest program – known as the Clean Air Initiative (CAI).”  I have been following the economy-wide cap-and-invest program and I was unaware of any agency calling the economy-wide program anything other than the New York Cap-and-Invest (NYCI) program.  So, I used Perplexity AI to ask if any New York agencies used CAI instead of NYCI.    The response stated:

No New York State agency officially refers to the cap-and-invest program as the “Clean Air Initiative.” Throughout all Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) and New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) official documentation, press releases, regulatory proposals, and public communications from 2023 through early 2026, the program is consistently designated as:

• New York Cap-and-Invest (NYCI) – the primary official name
• Cap-and-Invest Program – the standard reference

I believe the answer to why these organizations use this nomenclature is directly related to the mission of the organizations. Greenline Insights “provides non-partisan research to drive smart decision-making. We specialize in modeling, analysis, and policy design to maximize positive outcomes for local workforces, businesses, and communities.” Their description of services provided states: “We work with clients to develop compelling research questions and build the right mix of tools to answer them.”  Reading between that line I think it means that if a client wants a particular answer, they will get that result.

EDF claims “Guided by science and economics, and committed to climate justice, we work in the places, on the projects and with the people that can make the biggest difference.”  According to another Perplexity AI query EDF has “strongly supported the economy-wide cap and invest program proposal included in the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA) Scoping Plan” finalized in 2022 and since then “has engaged in extensive and sustained lobbying and advocacy efforts to advance New York’s economy-wide cap-and-invest program since early 2023.”  EDF has a vested interest in the success of an economy-wide program.

The Perplexity AI “Deep Research” response to my query about the use of CAI the AI program concluded “The Environmental Defense Fund and allied advocacy organizations strategically adopted “Clean Air Initiative” as alternative branding to frame the program around air quality and public health benefits in their campaigns to pressure Governor Hochul to finalize and implement the regulations.”

In other words, the Clean Air Initiative terminology  is all about the messaging.

Clean Air Initiative Claims

The January 8, 2026 CAI  report announcement states:

NEW YORK — New Yorkers will realize significant economic benefits, including household savings and new job creation, with the Clean Air Initiative, a new report from Environmental Defense Fund and Greenline Insights finds.  

The report comes as New Yorkers continue to await the launch of the Clean Air Initiative: an economywide cap-and-invest program that works by simultaneously putting a limit on the tons of pollution companies can emit — “cap” — while requiring them pay for each ton of emissions, funding clean energy projects that create health and cost-saving benefits for communities — “invest.” At the same time, energy affordability remains an issue that’s top of mind for New York voters.  

“Our analysis shows that the vast majority of New Yorkers are missing out on savings and economic opportunities across the state due to delays in implementing the Clean Air Initiative,” said Kate Courtin, Senior Manager for State Climate Policy & Strategy. “The sooner this program is implemented, the sooner communities will see billions in investments that will expand access to cleaner, cheaper energy, cut pollution and create healthier, more resilient communities.” 

The report finds that, over its first decade, the Clean Air Initiative would deliver: 

$6.9 billion in net savings, or an average of $1,060 per household earning $200k per year or less — about 85% of households in the state.  

Over 300,000 new jobs, with job growth strongest in fields like construction and transit as a result of investments in clean transportation services, decarbonization of buildings, and the build-out of clean energy infrastructure.

$48 billion in economic growth supported by program investments across the state. 

“The data is clear that the Clean Air Initiative is a potent job creator and economic development tool.” said Jonah Kurman-Faber, Founder and Principal at Greenline Insights. “The program’s investments play to the state’s economic strengths and provide meaningful financial benefits to an overwhelming majority of the population.” 

Pollution Control

EDF claims without any evidence that setting a cap ensures compliance with the arbitrary limits of the Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act).  The report claims that the “economywide cap-and-invest program works by simultaneously putting a limit on the tons of pollution companies can emit — “cap” — while requiring them pay for each ton of emissions, funding clean energy projects that create health and cost-saving benefits for communities — “invest.”  That is the theory.

I recently published several articles about RGGI, the existing New York cap-and-invest program for electric utility generating units that shows reality is different.  I showed that the reason NY utility emissions have dropped is because NY power plants switched from using coal and oil to using natural gas.  Natural gas emits less CO2 and was cheaper, so the observed reductions are mostly because of economic fuel switching not RGGI.  I compared the observed reductions and RGGI investment emission savings and found that the total cumulative annual emission savings represents a reduction of only 4.2% from the pre-RGGI baseline.  That comparison also found that the observed cost per ton of emissions removed is $583.  None of these results suggest that the CAI will work as claimed.

GHG emissions are directly related to energy generation.  When a GHG pollution control program caps emissions it caps energy use so capping emissions essentially rations energy use.   Combined with the RGGI results, that means that compliance with the cap can only occur if energy use is rationed

Economic Benefits

According to the announcement, Kate Courtin, Senior Manager for State Climate Policy & Strategy said that “The sooner this program is implemented, the sooner communities will see billions in investments that will expand access to cleaner, cheaper energy, cut pollution and create healthier, more resilient communities.”   I am not an economist so I submitted another Perplexity AI query asking about opportunity costs and the Greenline Insights analysis.  The summary notes:

The “Investments for New York’s Future” report by Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) and Greenline Insights, released in January 2026, projects that New York’s Clean Air Initiative (cap-and-invest program) would generate $6.9 billion in household savings, create over 300,000 jobs, and support $48 billion in economic growth over the program’s first decade (2026-2035). While the specific methodological details of this report remain inaccessible through the provided URL, extensive research into Greenline Insights’ comparable analyses, standard input-output (I-O) modeling practices, and economic impact assessment literature reveals fundamental concerns about the treatment—or more precisely, the omission—of opportunity costs in such economic analyses.

Even a non-economist like me understands that if an analysis does not consider how the money raised by NYCI might have been used elsewhere is not considered, then that is a problem: 

Opportunity cost represents “the value of the alternative foregone by choosing a particular activity”—the benefits that could have been realized if the same resources were deployed differently. In climate policy analysis, this concept is essential because government spending and regulatory mandates redirect capital, labor, and productive resources from alternative uses. A comprehensive economic evaluation must compare not just the projected benefits of a policy against its direct costs, but also assess what economic activity would have occurred absent the intervention—the counterfactual baseline.

The response to my query raised the following issues with the Greenline Insights methodology:

1. The “Missing Peter” Problem

As economists from the Beacon Hill Institute articulated in critiquing renewable energy economic impact studies: “They are robbing Peter [existing economic activities] to pay Paul [the supported sector], and claiming the program increased total spending because now Paul spends more, but they ignore accounting for Peter”.

​

Every dollar collected through allowance auctions or allocated to climate investments is a dollar unavailable for alternative economic uses—whether private consumption, business investment in other sectors, or different government priorities. Standard I-O models “cannot compute possible reductions in output and jobs elsewhere in the economy, due to the reallocation of resources towards the supported project”.

2. Assumption of Idle Resources

The typical economic impact study assumes “that the dollar that flows through the industries identified by model’s I-O tables, and the resources that they are commanding, would not otherwise be used”. This assumption may be defensible during severe recessions with high unemployment and underutilized productive capacity, but becomes increasingly problematic as economies approach full employment.

New York State added over 1 million private sector jobs since April 2020 and reached record employment levels as of September 2024. In this context, labor and capital redirected to clean energy investments necessarily displace activity in other sectors. One analysis noted explicitly: “IMPLAN cannot be used to model nonresidential sector opportunity costs, so those were not included”—a tacit acknowledgment of the methodology’s inherent limitation.

3. No Counterfactual Baseline

Rigorous policy evaluation requires comparing outcomes under the policy scenario against a well-specified counterfactual: what would have happened in the policy’s absence. This counterfactual must account for:

• Alternative deployment of capital: If the $61-126 billion in projected cap-and-invest revenues were instead left with households and businesses, what consumption and investment would occur?
• Baseline economic trajectories: What job growth, wage increases, and economic output would materialize under business-as-usual conditions?
• Displaced economic activity: Which sectors contract as resources shift toward clean energy, and what are the productivity implications?

Standard I-O models do not construct this counterfactual. They measure gross economic activity associated with program spending but do not subtract the economic activity that would have occurred with alternative resource allocation.

4. The Economist’s Critique

The academic economics community has long criticized the misapplication of I-O analysis for policy advocacy. As one prominent critique states: “There’s a joke among economists who look at economic impact studies, and we say ‘Define all costs as benefits, and double them'”. This captures the tendency of such analyses to:

• Present gross job creation without netting out job displacement
• Calculate multiplier effects on program spending without comparable analysis of opportunity cost multipliers
• Report total economic output without addressing whether this represents additional output or reallocated output

The response to my query concludes:

For policymakers and stakeholders evaluating the economic case for New York’s Clean Air Initiative, this means:

• The reported economic benefits are overstated to the extent they represent reallocation of economic activity rather than net additions
• The true net economic impact depends on the relative productivity of clean energy investments versus displaced alternatives—a comparison the analysis does not make
• The strongest case for the policy rests on climate and health benefits, not the economic multiplier effects emphasized in the report’s communications
• More rigorous analysis following a similar Resources for the Future approach or comprehensive cost-benefit frameworks would provide better-informed decision-making

Conclusion

This report is simply a lobbying presentation that was commissioned by EDF to support their arguments that NYCI is a good idea.  One common aspect of all these analyses is that the benefits are overstated, the costs are minimized if not ignored, and the methodology is sketchy.  I do not think that any of the job estimates and economic projections are credible.

Last March environmental activists sued the State of New York because the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) was not promulgating the regulations for the  New York Cap and Invest (NYCI) Program on schedule.  Last Friday, an Albany County judge heard arguments from the activists and the DEC.  A report suggests that the judge “will likely rule that New York is breaking its climate law.”

I have followed the Climate Act since it was first proposed, submitted comments on the Climate Act implementation plan, and have written over 550 articles about New York’s net-zero transition.  My background is particularly suited for NYCI evaluation.  I have worked on every market-based program that affected electric generating facilities in New York including the Acid Rain Program, Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), and several Nitrogen Oxide programs. I follow and write about the RGGI and New York carbon pricing initiatives. 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.  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.”  After a year-long review, the Scoping Plan that outlines how to achieve the targets was finalized at the end of 2022.  Since then, the State has been trying to implement the Scoping Plan recommendations through regulations, proceedings, and legislation.  NYCI is but one example of that effort.

Cap-and-Invest

The CAC’s Scoping Plan recommended a market-based economywide cap-and-invest program.  NYCI is supposed to work by setting an annual cap on the amount of greenhouse gas pollution that is permitted to be emitted in New York: “The declining cap ensures annual emissions are reduced, setting the state on a trajectory to meet our greenhouse gas emission reduction requirements of 40% by 2030, and at least 85% from 1990 levels by 2050, as mandated by the Climate Act.”  Affected sources purchase permits to emit a ton (also known as allowances) and then surrender them at the end of the year to comply with the rule.  Colin Kinniburgh’s description at New York Focus describes the activist’s theory of a cap-and-invest program as a program that will kill two birds with one stone.  “It simultaneously puts a limit on the tons of pollution companies can emit — ‘cap’ — while making them pay for each ton, funding projects to help move the state away from polluting energy sources — ‘invest.'” 

As is the case with all aspects of the Climate Act, this approach is not simple and is riddled with complications that make it unlikely that it will work as advocates expect.  I have summarized my concerns on my Carbon Pricing Initiatives page.  Furthermore, the implementation timetable promulgated by politicians mandated a schedule at odds to the scope and challenge of an economy-wide market-based program.  Even if a direct charge on fossil emissions was not a politically charged issue, it is no surprise that DEC implementation is late.

NYCI Lawsuit

Colin Kinniburgh, writing at NY Focus, published a series of articles describing the background of this issue.  After Governor Hochul’s State of the State address in January he explained that Hochul promised to release NYCI regulations but back-tracked on that promise.

In March he summarized the lawsuit:

Four environmental and climate justice groups filed a lawsuit Monday in a state court, claiming that New York is “stonewalling necessary climate action in outright violation” of its legal obligations. By not releasing economy-wide emissions rules, the suit alleges, the state Department of Environmental Conservation, or DEC, is “defying the Legislature’s clear directive” and “prolonging New Yorkers’ exposure to air pollution … especially in disadvantaged communities.”

It’s the first lawsuit to charge the state with failing to enforce the core mandate of its 2019 Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act, or CLCPA: eliminating nearly all of New York’s greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. The law tasks DEC with crafting rules to get there and to reach an interim target of 40 percent emissions cuts by 2030.

The state’s deadline to release those rules was Jan. 1, 2024 — a date the agency blew past. More than a year later, New York has yet to issue even draft rules, and it’s becoming less and less clear that it intends to do so, even though, throughout last year, Governor Kathy Hochul’s administration promised that it was working on them as quickly as possible.

Kinniburgh described the hearing as follows:

Ulster County Supreme Court Justice Julian Schreibman on Friday skewered a lawyer for the state Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) who argued that the state could not issue required regulations to cut greenhouse gases any time soon.

“It seems to me that the core of your argument is that we’re living in a time of change and uncertainty, and DEC needs to be given some leeway to accommodate that,” Schreibman said.

“That’s correct, your honor,” replied Meredith Lee-Clark, of the New York State Attorney General’s office, who was representing DEC.

“I don’t know that I’ve ever lived in a time that wasn’t one of change and uncertainty, so I don’t know how that is a governable standard,” the judge continued.

Schreibman went on to say that the most relevant cases in the record “almost compel” him to side with the plaintiffs: four climate justice groups who sued the state for violating its climate law by failing to issue regulations needed to meet it.

However, he suggested that he is unlikely to force the state to take action on the kind of timeline the plaintiffs’ lawyer suggested in the hearing — as little as 30 days to issue draft regulations and 100 days to finalize them.

I am no lawyer, but it does not seem that the DEC has much of an argument.  They are not meeting the timetable.  Whether that is a “governable standard” is another issue because there have never been a demonstration that the schedule and ambition of the Climate Act has never been shown to be feasible.  It is not clear if that issue can be addressed in this case.

NYCI Implications

In my most recent post discussing NYCI I addressed the first of the three implanting regulations for NYCI.  The regulation establishes reporting requirements necessary to determine how much affected sources will have to pay for the right to emit carbon dioxide emissions.  I made a general point for the uninitiated, that implementing a rule like others already in place elsewhere seemingly should be simple and straightforward.  The reasoning goes something like this: California has a similar program in place, so all New York needs to do is to convert their rules for use in New York.  It is not that easy.  For starters, California took upwards of ten years with a large staff to develop their rules.  NYCI implementation started in early January 2023 and DEC has many fewer staff.  Furthermore, the Climate Act has unique emissions definitions which makes simple substitution impossible. Finally, there are significant differences between the energy system nomenclature in the states.  In my opinion, DEC did a remarkable job getting something out.  Unfortunately, the proposed rule shows signs of haste and lack of understanding of the nuances of emission reporting.

The “30 days to issue draft regulations and 100 days to finalize them” timeline suggested by the plaintiffs’ lawyer is absurd.  It is inconsistent with the New York Administrative Procedure Act timing requirements for starters.  They could argue that it should be subject to an emergency rulemaking, but the implementation regulations are all complex and there is very weak rationale for this as an emergency.   

Unfortunately, there will likely be pressure now on DEC to accelerate a process that already shows signs of poor rulemaking.  Poorly designed regulations will have unintended consequences that will further weaken what I believe is a doomed policy.

Discussion

I have made this point before, but it bears repeating.  I am convinced that no GHG emission reduction cap-and-invest program like NYCI can successfully put a constraining limit on the tons of pollution companies can emit while making them pay to fund projects to help move the state away from polluting energy sources.  Danny Cullenward and David Victor’s book Making Climate Policy Work explains why.    They note that the level of expenditures needed to implement the net-zero transition vastly exceeds the “funds that can be readily appropriated from market mechanisms”. 

The indications are that NYCI regulations will be based on political considerations.  The prices for allowances will be based on what the Hochul Administration expects will be politically feasible not what is needed to fund needed reductions.  In any event, the plan for allocating the proceeds does not set a priority on funding emission reduction programs and includes several set asides to politically connected constituencies.  The politically designed reduction targets are inconsistent with the observed deployment of the control strategies.  NYCI will set a cap that will inevitably be too difficult to achieve, triggering an artificial energy shortage.  This will also exacerbate the designed increase in energy costs.  The end result will be increased costs and increased reliability risks.

Conclusion

I don’t think this lawsuit will have much of an impact on NYCI.  You cannot speed up implementation by issuing an order.  Throw in the political reluctance to speed up the process and I see minimal schedule changes.  In the meantime, the impending energy affordability crisis hopefully will trigger reconsideration of the whole transition.

This lawsuit is the first of many.  When the politicians set emission reduction targets without considering feasibility it was inevitable that they could not be achieved.  Political will is a great slogan but a poor driver for energy policy.

Recently I described the status of the New York Cap-and-Invest Program (NYCI).  It was widely accepted that Governor Hochul’s State of the State address would say that NYCI implementation would be a priority and that a schedule for the first auctions would be announced.  However, the only mention of NYCI noted that in the coming months the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) and the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) will take steps forward on developing the cap-and-invest program by proposing new reporting regulations to gather information on emissions sources.   Nothing was said about implementing an auction.  This post describes reactions to this unexpected development.

I am convinced that implementation of the New York Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (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 490 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 2030 reduction target of a 40% GHG reduction by 2030. The Climate Action Council (CAC) responsible for preparing the Scoping Plan to “achieve the State’s bold clean energy and climate agenda” recommended a market-based economywide cap-and-invest program. 

The program is supposed to work by setting an annual cap on the amount of greenhouse gas pollution that is permitted to be emitted in New York: “The declining cap ensures annual emissions are reduced, setting the state on a trajectory to meet our greenhouse gas emission reduction requirements of 40% by 2030, and at least 85% from 1990 levels by 2050, as mandated by the Climate Act.”  The prevailing perception of NYCI is exemplified by Colin Kinniburgh’s description in his recent article in New York Focus.  He describes the theory of a cap-and-invest program as a program that will kill two birds with one stone.  “It simultaneously puts a limit on the tons of pollution companies can emit — ‘cap’ — while making them pay for each ton, funding projects to help move the state away from polluting energy sources — ‘invest.'” I described questions about NYCI that I believe need to be resolved here.

Kinniburgh also described the last-minute decision to pull any mention of timing about NYCI from the State of the State briefing book.  In the remainder of this post, I will describe the response to the delay by politicians and environmental advocates.

Political Reaction

Kate Lisa described the reaction of New York lawmakers on Spectrum News.  After describing the program, she explained that late last year Hochul’s office “floated a draft plan with varying funding levels to stakeholders, who anticipated a proposal in the upcoming executive budget.”  Lisa believes:

The delay of the program means the system will not be in place to generate revenue for the state’s green energy mandates until at least 2027 and increases the chances lawmakers will have to rollback its ambitious emission reduction mandates set under its climate law.

Her interview with Sen. Kevin Parker, a Democrat from Brooklyn included the following quotes:

“They haven’t talked to anybody. They haven’t had hearings, they don’t know what the community thinks, (and) they haven’t talked to the Legislature with their ideas about it.”  Lisa stated that “The senator said Hochul, and her team failed to tell policymakers about their new hesitancy to impose cap and trade after codifying language in the 2023-24 budget to create a fund to impose the program this year.”   She quoted Parker: “They said: ‘We’ve got it, we’ll come out with rules,’ and now, they said they’re not ready”.

Lisa noted that:

Hochul on Wednesday defended her decision to delay the program’s rollout and said the state needs more pollution data to get the program right. She insisted that her support for New York’s climate mandates have not faltered.

“This simply says we can study here, we’ll get the right information, we’ll get it right,” Hochul told reporters. “But I’m not letting these projects go unfunded. I think that’s an important distinction to make here.”

As I noted in my first article about NYCI in the State of the State address, funding is the key issue.  Lisa quoted Senate Environmental Conservation Committee chair Pete Harckham who said:

What was disappointing was that there was no mention of climate change, the environment, or specifically cap and invest pertaining to climate change.  Let’s hope the approach to climate policy is not changing.  It’s greatly disappointing, but more importantly, it’s a missed opportunity to address climate change and a missed opportunity to address affordability in utility rates.

Lisa noted that “Other top Democrats stand ready to fight back this budget cycle — arguing the policy is critical to bridge the state’s affordability gap that Hochul focused on in her speech.” She noted that Hochul has proposed that the NYCI fee on polluters would “fund rebates for consumers to drive down utility costs.”

Senate Finance Committee chair Liz Krueger expressed her extreme disappointment in a statement that claimed Hochul is “choosing not to save ratepayers billions of dollars every year through NY HEAT or provide low- and middle-income New Yorkers the immediate affordability benefits of cap and invest.”

I am no economist, but politicians are innumerate.  The initiatives to reduce emissions are going to cost money.  The only way that NYCI will address affordability in utility rates is if the money comes from somewhere else.  The more complicated the scheme to fund the initiatives the more likely that the transactional costs will increase overall costs.  NYCI is supposed to fund emission reduction programs, so the proposed rebates decrease the funding available for reductions.  Another problem with rebates is that a fundamental precept for market-based programs is that increasing costs incentivizes people to change behaviors that can reduce emissions.  Rebates ruin that incentive.  Another nonsensical idea pushed by Democratic leadership is the idea that fees on polluters will not get passed on to consumers.

Kate Lisa also recognized that critics worry that the cap-and-invest system would increase gas prices and costs of natural gas and other utilities. “The speed in which they’re moving forward is really unworkable, not feasible and very, very costly,” said Assemblyman Phil Palmesano, the ranking Republican on the Energy Committee. “It’s a radical energy climate agenda that’s really going to be borne by ratepayers and businesses.”

Environmental Advocate Reactions

It is no surprise that environmental advocates are concerned.  The Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) voiced disappointment with the delay in implementing the cap-and-invest program. Kate Courtin, Senior Manager of State Climate Policy & Strategy at EDF, criticized the decision, stating, “By continuing to kick cap-and-invest down the road, Governor Hochul is delaying the benefits that New Yorkers want — cleaner air, lower energy bills and more resilient communities.” The Nature Conservancy in New York released a statement from Jessica Ottney Mahar, policy and strategy director, that included the following:

Unfortunately, in a concerning setback for climate action, Governor Hochul is delaying the implementation of a Cap and Invest Program that would reduce the air pollution that causes global warming. Rather than advancing draft regulations this month, as had been widely discussed, the Governor’s address states that partial program details will be released sometime this year, and then proposes a one-time infrastructure investment of $1 billion. This is insufficient. Policy change is needed to reduce carbon pollution and generate ongoing revenue that can be used to invest in cleaner energy, buildings, transportation and cost reduction programs for New Yorkers. A Cap and Invest program is necessary for the State to meet the goals of the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act. At a time when our state and our nation face unprecedented impacts from climate change—from flooding to wildfires to droughts—as well as new uncertainty regarding climate policy at the federal level, there is no time to waste. We must address the climate emergency now, and New York must lead the way. The Nature Conservancy urges Governor Hochul to implement a strong Cap and Invest Program this year.

Kinniburgh quoted Patrick McClellan, policy director of the New York League of Conservation Voters, who was dismayed to learn of the change: “There’s really no reason why that rule couldn’t be done this year,” he told New York Focus by text. “If the Governor is unwilling to set a deadline even for that then I think it’s a total capitulation on her part.”

In her Spectrum News segment Kate Lisa referenced lawmakers and environmental advocates who argue the continuing costs of climate change are higher than waiting to address it.” I cannot let that statement go unchallenged.  The idea that the costs of Climate Act inaction are greater than the costs of action is a political sound bite that is is misleading and inaccurate as I documented in my verbal comments and written comments on the Draft Scoping Plan.  I summarized the machinations used to mislead New Yorkers as a shell game in a summary post.

One of the talking points of environmental advocates is the concern that delaying NYCI could impact the strict timeline of the state’s other climate mandates.  Lisa quoted New York League of Conservation Voters President Julie Tighe:

The longer we wait, the harder it will be to meet those targets and generally speaking, the more expensive it will get. Most infrastructure projects don’t get cheaper over time, they get more expensive, so trying to move things along sooner rather than later also provides a longer time frame over which to help get those reductions.

I agree with Tighe that the longer we wait the more expensive infrastructure will get.  However, that is not the position taken in the Scoping Plan.  For example, the Integration Analysis device costs for zero-emissions charging technology and the vehicles themselves is presumed to decrease significantly over time. Home EV chargers and battery electric vehicles both are claimed to go down 18% between 2020 and 2030. Of course, this optimistic scenario is not panning out. 

Conclusion

Democratic legislators and environmental advocates subscribe to the NYCI premise that it would be an effective policy that would provide funding and ensure compliance because of their naïve belief that existing market-based programs worked.  Past results are no guarantee of future success, especially when past results are not triumphs. My evaluation of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) program results show that cap-and-invest programs can raise money but have not shown success in reducing emissions.  That analysis also showed that New York investments in programs are not cost-effective relative to the state’s value of carbon.  Unfortunately, that is not the reason that Hochul is delaying implementation.  It is all about the money.

It is not just NYCI.  The optimistic projections of environmental advocates and the Progressive Democrats who whole-heartedly support the Climate Act are at odds with reality.  When all the transition costs are tallied, massive increases will be found whatever word games and numerical tricks are employed to claim otherwise.  I believe it would be prudent to re-assess the Scoping Plan cost estimates to determine if New York can afford to implement the Climate Act in general and NYCI in particular.