ALBANY, N.Y. — When New York legislators established bold environmental targets in 2017, they proclaimed their commitment to protecting future generations from climate change. Today, with minimal advancement and shifting political winds, Governor Kathy Hochul wants to postpone those deadlines, claiming her priority is protecting residents from financial hardship.
The situation has “radically changed,” Hochul explained, referring to the period since 2019 when New York committed to cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 40% before 2030.
The governor has suggested extending the state’s compliance timeline by several years, arguing that implementing the scheduled pollution fees would result in devastating energy costs for families.
“I cannot in good conscience — knowing the moms and dads and the seniors and the families that are struggling, paying their bills now — I cannot do something I know at this very moment that’s going to raise those prices,” Hochul stated during a recent public event.
As Hochul campaigns for reelection, she joins other Democratic officials attempting to reconcile their party’s historic commitment to environmental policies with current political pressure to prioritize affordability initiatives.
Multiple states throughout the Northeast are reconsidering their environmental objectives, while others examine reducing additional utility bill charges that support energy efficiency initiatives.
These policy reversals have concerned environmental advocates, who characterize them as lacking long-term vision. They emphasize that other states, including California, have maintained their dedication to comparable programs aimed at reducing fossil fuel dependency.
“She’s looking to, ultimately, keep New Yorkers on gas longer when it’s the very fuel that’s causing their bills to rise,” Liz Moran from environmental organization Earthjustice commented regarding Hochul’s proposals.
Hochul maintains she remains committed to addressing climate change. However, she and fellow Democrats argue that reductions in environmental funding during President Donald Trump’s tenure increased the expense of achieving state climate objectives. The Republican president has opposed certain renewable energy initiatives, especially offshore wind projects, which his administration has attempted to halt.
Data from Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory reveals that average residential electricity costs nationwide increased 27% between 2019 and 2024, with California and northeastern states experiencing the steepest rises. Experts attribute these increases to various factors, including growing demand from data centers and natural gas pricing, which frequently powers electricity generation.
Energy expenses became central issues in recent gubernatorial campaigns won by Democrats in New Jersey and Virginia. These concerns intensified after conflicts involving Iran drove gasoline prices higher.
Rhode Island Governor Dan McKee has suggested extending a 2033 target for achieving complete renewable energy to 2050, as part of his strategy to reduce energy expenses by $1 billion across five years.
Connecticut reduced its renewable energy target for 2030 from 40% to 29% last year. Democratic Governor Ned Lamont declared then that “electric bills are too damn high.”
Massachusetts and New Jersey are considering reducing utility bill surcharges that finance efficiency programs.
“It is hard to talk about climate at times, because everyone is very laser-focused on affordability and customer bills,” explained Kyle Murray, Massachusetts program director for the Acadia Center. “So climate, while still important, is getting kind of pushed aside, unfortunately.”
New York planned to reduce emissions through a “cap-and-invest” program, where polluting companies purchase emission permits and the funds support clean technology and renewable energy development.
California relies on cap-and-invest to meet objectives including cutting greenhouse gas emissions to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030. The state has used program revenues to fund billions in public transportation and clean vehicle incentives.
The program adds 24 cents per gallon at California gas stations and slightly increases utility bills, though the state provides regular “climate credits” to customers, noted Kyle Meng, UC Santa Barbara economics associate professor.
“When you make things more expensive, people conserve. It’s like Econ 101 and that’s the basic idea behind a cap-and-trade program,” Meng explained.
New York officials failed to meet a 2024 deadline for creating regulations governing their cap-and-invest system. Without these guidelines, the program never began. Environmental groups successfully challenged the state in court over the missed deadline, which Hochul has cited in requesting the delay.
The governor’s current proposal, being reviewed by legislative leadership, would allow the state until 2030 to develop regulations and establish new emission targets for 2040.
Hochul warns that maintaining current deadlines will burden consumers financially. Her administration projects that launching a cap-and-invest system immediately could cost some households over $4,000 annually.
Environmental supporters argue the governor is calculating costs for an “extreme” scenario and that her analysis overlooks benefits of encouraging polluters to abandon fossil fuels.
They reference Washington state, where voters decisively chose to maintain their cap-and-invest program in 2024.
“The sky has not fallen,” said Caitlin Krenn from Washington Conservation Action, “and the program is working as intended.”
Bruce Blakeman, a Republican county executive challenging Hochul in the upcoming election, stated he would eliminate the state’s environmental plan entirely if elected.
“Delaying the pain won’t make it disappear — it just leaves bigger bills down the road,” Blakeman said in a statement.
