Lawmakers may be open to delaying climate law deadlines to avoid something worse

Democratic state lawmakers immediately got up in arms when Gov. Kathy Hochul first began hinting she wanted to make changes to the state’s climate law in order to give her administration more time to hit ambitious goals. But once the governor actually released the first details of her proposal, some of those lawmakers quickly indicated room for compromise wrapped in overall climate outrage.

The 2019 Climate Leadership and Community and Protection Act currently requires the state to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 40% from 1990 levels by 2030 and 85% by 2050. Regulations to implement a cap-and-invest program or other regulations to reduce emissions are overdue, and the state is nowhere close to achieving its emissions reduction goals. 

Hochul’s proposal – presented in an op-ed that still lacked crucial details – had two parts: delaying a statutory deadline to implement regulations to help achieve the climate goals while adding a new interim emissions deadline, and changing the emissions accounting methods to make the state appear closer to meeting its emissions reduction benchmarks. Many lawmakers seem willing to come to the table about the deadlines, so long as the accounting methods remain the same and the state continues to enact pro-climate policies.

Speaking at a rally in Albany on Wednesday, state Sen. Liz Krueger highlighted a number of measures she and other legislators have proposed that the state could enact in order to speed up the green energy transition and lower carbon emissions. “It doesn't matter what the dates on the pieces of paper say, because the reality is the actual speed at which climate damage is continuing to destroy the health of New Yorkers,” she said. 

Krueger, who chairs the state Senate Finance Committee and champions many environmental bills, said she and her colleagues had still not seen specific language from the governor’s office, which she seemed more frustrated by than the actual proposals the op-ed had presented. “No one should be allowed – I don’t care who they are – to change our laws without even showing any of us what the hell they’re being supposed to do,” she said. 

Assembly Member Deborah Glick, the chair of the Assembly Environmental Conservation Committee, previously told City & State the emissions accounting methods were of greater concern to her. “You can change deadlines; you can't change science,” she said last week. Fellow Assembly Member Al Stirpe struck a similar tone, suggesting an “honest discussion” leaves room for compromise.

State Senate Majority Leader Micheal Gianaris told reporters on Thursday the state won’t have a budget by the April 1 deadline, and cited the climate law rollbacks as one of a small number of sticky issues taking up the bulk of negotiating time. But he added leaders have not made yet made any progress on the matter.

Up until Hochul’s op-ed, she seemed focused largely on providing the state more time to hit emissions goals, rolling back deadlines to account for changing economic factors and a hostile federal government. The governor hadn’t previously hinted at changes to how the state would measure those emissions reductions. Hochul attempted to quietly make similar changes without amending deadlines during the 2023 budget process, but failed at the time. 

Although environmental advocates want lawmakers to reject Hochul’s proposal in its entirety, the emissions accounting aspect is seen as the worse of the two-part pitch from the governor. It would substantively change how much New York brings down carbon emissions by relying on a less stringent method that critics say doesn’t properly account for the impacts of harmful methane. Without specific language yet, predicting a final outcome is impossible – but one state Senate source said it would be fair to say that right now, members might be willing to accept a compromise that kept the accounting methods in place, even if some deadlines got pushed back. 

Such an outcome would still be a victory for Hochul, who continues to fight a lawsuit over her administration’s failure to enact regulations before a statutory deadline to help meet the climate goals. Her proposal includes changing the deadline to finalize a cap-and-invest program or something similar from 2024 to 2030, which would make the lawsuit moot and let her kick the potentially controversial and costly state program four years down the road rather than deal with it during a consequential election year.

Of course, not all members are willing to make such a compromise. While some legislators spoke mostly in generalities and the need to move quickly to address the climate crisis, Assembly Member Anna Kelles made it clear she wants cap-and-invest now. “Get those regs released,” she said at the rally Wednesday, banging her hand on the lectern between each beat.

But even Kelles took pains to highlight the negative impact of changing the emissions accounting methods over any specific deadlines. “One of the things that has been proposed to be rolled back is the methane accounting,” she said to a chorus of boos. “That’s not popular … take notes.”