Tag: Democratic Governor Kathy Hochul

Energy Affordability: An IQ Test For New Yorkers That They Will Very Likely Fail

Here in New York, our very-light-weight Governor Kathy Hochul is running for re-election. To her slight credit, she has noticed that New York is a high-cost state, not the least for cost of energy, and that New Yorkers are upset about that.

The Statue of Liberty in the foreground with the New York City skyline and wind turbines in the background.

From Manhattan Contrarian

By Francis Menton

Here in New York, our very-light-weight Governor Kathy Hochul is running for re-election. To her slight credit, she has noticed that New York is a high-cost state, not the least for cost of energy, and that New Yorkers are upset about that.

New Yorkers are right to be upset about the cost of energy. According to this chart from the federal EIA containing most recent data for July 2026, the average price of electricity to the ultimate consumer in New York for that month was 29.9¢/kWh, compared to a national average of 18.31¢/kWh; and New York’s cost had increased more than 14% from 26.22¢/kWh in July 2025, versus a 4.9% increase in the national average over last year’s 17.45¢/kWh. New Yorkers are also right to be upset because the premium they pay for electricity is mostly to entirely the consequence of intentional government policies that drive up the cost.

What’s crazy is that Governor Hochul has decided to make “energy affordability” a theme of her campaign. The reason that is crazy is that at the same time that Hochul claims she favors more “affordability,” she also brags about maintaining and expanding the very policies that have caused the excess costs. The person most responsible for New York’s high energy cost is Kathy Hochul. But hey, this “energy affordability” theme seems to have worked in somewhat comparable circumstances for Abigail Spanberger and Mikie Sherrill, running respectively in Virginia and New Jersey last year. If the Virginia and New Jersey voters fell for it, maybe the New York voters will too.

On September 15, Hochul launched her latest “energy affordability” initiative with a big press release and a press conference. This latest initiative seeks to mask a portion of New York’s higher costs by distributing checks and discounts to the populace. From Hochul’s press release:

“As Washington Republicans keep driving up the cost of energy, gas and groceries, I’ll never stop working to help New Yorkers keep more money in their pockets,” Governor Hochul said. “That’s why I expanded access to our Energy Affordability Program – a move that will save residents across the state up to $500 annually on their energy bills. Right now, 2.5 million eligible New Yorkers are leaving money on the table and I’m on a mission to help keep the lights on and costs down by launching an all-of-government push to get them enrolled in this money saving program.”

As is usual for New York politicians, the playbook only extends as far as trying to bribe the people with some portion of their own money. So this becomes an IQ test for New Yorkers: Can we calculate whether ratepayers come out ahead or behind under Hochul’s proposal?

Again from the EIA, the average New York household uses about 8000 kWh of electricity per year. There is a difference of 11.59¢/kWh between the average New York electricity rate and the average rate in the rest of the country. That means the average New York household pays more than $900 per year for electricity in excess of what it would pay if our rates were equal to the national average. Now our very generous Governor comes along offering a discount of “up to” $500, to 2.5 million households (out of about 8 million households). Let’s see, have we come out ahead or behind? (Which is larger, $900 for each of 8 million households, or “up to” $500 for each of 2.5 million households?)

And then there is the issue of how New York’s rates came to be so much higher than the rates in other states. It can’t be geography — as an example, bordering Pennsylvania’s average rate for July was 21.72¢/kWh, fully 27% lower than our average rate. If you look at the EIA’s chart of average electricity rates by state, there is a remarkable (although not perfect) correlation between Republican-led states on the one hand (low rates) and Democrat-led states on the other (high rates).

And then consider some of the major New York energy policies that drive up rates. First there is the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act of 2019 (CLCPA). Provisions of this statute drive up consumer costs in multiple ways. First, the statute imposes a mandate that by 2030 70% of electricity must come from renewable sources. That provision makes it impossible to build new and more efficient natural gas power plants, or to re-power existing inefficient natural gas plants to use far less fuel to produce the same amount of electricity. Second, substantial amounts of new wind and solar generation have been built to try to comply with the 70% mandate, but since those only operate intermittently, all of the old natural gas plants must be retained, and we end up paying for two redundant generation systems instead of one. Third, the new wind and solar generators are also sited in remote locations, requiring substantial additional and expensive transmission, all of which gets paid for in electricity rates.

And then there’s the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, or “RGGI.” RGGI is a compact among eleven Northeastern states to force greenhouse gas emitters (i.e., electric power plants) to purchase allowances for every ton of CO2 that they emit. The quantity of allowances shrinks every year, thus forcing the auction price to increase. The auction clearing price has gone from $2.53/ton in 2017 to $37.65/ton in the most recent auction this month. And the cost of the allowances ultimately gets added into the electricity rates. In short, this is a program whose main purpose is intentionally to drive up electricity rates.

The number of these “allowances” for FY 2026-27 is set at 25,356,513. At $37.65 each, that means that the State adds close to $1 billion per year to end-user electricity bills. Divide by the number of households, and it’s about $120/year each, which represents about 5% of the aggregate of consumer electric bills. And, unless the RGGI structure gets changed, this figure is almost certain to rise.

On August 5, two New York State agencies, the Department of Environmental Conservation and the Energy Research & Development Authority, finalized regulations relating to implementation of the RGGI compact in New York. In a press release of that date, the agencies claimed that New York had received $2 billion cumulatively from the auction receipts built into RGGI program to that time, but they said they were using the money to make “investments” that would return $12 billion, or six times as much:

The updated cap trajectory is designed to achieve affordable emissions reductions more quickly, while ensuring long-term availability of allowances under the program.  Net savings are expected to reach nearly $12 billion (PDF) over the lifetime of the investments, providing a nearly 6-to-1 benefit based on investment of about $2 billion to date.

Note that the $2 billion of receipts and $12 billion of “benefits” are only as to receipts to date. Receipts going forward are projected to increase dramatically, to a cumulative total of $4.7 billion by FY 28/29.

So where do they come up with this $12 billion of supposed “benefits,” not now, but supposedly over the lifetime of the programs funded by the $2 billion spent so far. There is no real information available on that. In a document called the “New York’s Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative Operating Plan Amendment for 2026,” the agencies have provided a long list of entities and programs that either have or will be getting large cash handouts from the program. (To access that document, go to my colleague Roger Caiazza’s blog here, and follow the link for “Operating Plan Amendment” in the first line of that post.) There are dozens of recipients and programs listed, many getting funding of tens to hundreds of millions of dollars cumulatively over multi-year periods. Here are some examples of larger items listed: “Green Jobs Green New York (Fund)” — $517 million; “Clean Transportation” — $450 million; “UPA Efficiency and RE” — $389 million; “Retrofit Challenges” — $464 million; “Clean Energy Communities” — $144 million. And these are just a few examples of some of the larger allocations. So what exact entities are getting these vast sums, and what exactly are they going to do with the money to provide the claimed benefits? There are no details offered beyond the brief descriptions quoted.

In other words, these have the total appearance of being enormous slush funds passed out to friendly but unnamed NGOs. The idea that there will be $12 billion of benefits to the ratepayers from the $2 billion disbursed so far is pure speculation with no backup of any kind. Are there any actual “green jobs” emerging from the $500+ million handed out to the “green jobs fund”? Go ahead and try to find any of them. What is the “clean transportation” that we are supposedly getting for $450 million? If anyone knows they are not saying.

Do New Yorkers have sufficient IQ to figure out that they are getting scammed with this “energy affordability” mantra from Governor Hochul. I guess we will find out in the upcoming election. But let’s face it — New York voters are very likely to fail this test.

Climate And Energy Provisions In New York’s FY 2027 Budget: Making The Coming Crash Worse

New York State’s fiscal year runs from April 1 to March 31, and thus there is a mandate that the budget for each year must be approved before April Fool’s Day. This year they blew right by that deadline. But today, 8+ weeks late, it appears that a new budget has been enacted for what they call “fiscal year” 2027, that is, April 1, 2026 to March 31, 2027.

From Manhattan Contrarian

By Francis Menton

New York State’s fiscal year runs from April 1 to March 31, and thus there is a mandate that the budget for each year must be approved before April Fool’s Day. This year they blew right by that deadline. But today, 8+ weeks late, it appears that a new budget has been enacted for what they call “fiscal year” 2027, that is, April 1, 2026, to March 31, 2027.

Among several contentious issues that held up enactment of this year’s budget, probably the most contentious involved the provisions relating to energy and “climate.” Our climate law, the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act of 2019 (CLCPA) had imposed absurd deadlines for eliminating fossil fuels from the energy system. Seven years in, Kathy Hochul, our lightweight Governor, had finally mustered just enough brain cells to recognize that disaster was approaching. But she faces big legislative majorities of her own Democratic Party committed to “climate action.” And of the members constituting those majorities, most are not moderates open to pragmatism, but rather progressive activists committed to total climate purity. How to get out of this trap?

Hochul adopted a strategy of seeking minimum possible modifications of of the CLCPA, affecting only the most immediate impending deadlines of the Act. The apparent goal is to provide a couple of years of breathing room, sufficient (they hope) to get Hochul safely re-elected later this year.

But then what? It looks like they have traded a very brief reprieve for what will very likely be an even worse subsequent disaster.

First, let’s review the problematical CLCPA provisions. The CLCPA had three near-term deadlines that had become obviously impossible. Those were: (1) a 2024 deadline for promulgating regulations, particularly for what they called a “cap and invest” program, to implement the Act; (2) a 2030 deadline to reduce statewide “greenhouse gas” emissions by 40% from 1990 levels; and (3) a 2030 deadline to get 70% of electricity from “renewables.”

So where was the State with respect to these CLCPA statutory mandates?

  • The State had completely blown off the 2024 deadline for the “cap and invest” regs. As a result, environmental groups had sued, and a state court had ordered that the State issue the regulations as required, as painful as that may be. However, the judge had stayed his injunction in order to give the legislature time to act.
  • As to the mandate of 40% reduction of GHG emissions from 1990 levels by 2030, the State “Climate Act Dashboard” admits that the reduction so far has been only 14% (data only through 2023, but not much has changed since). Most of that has been a consequence of switching power plants from burning coal to natural gas. There are no more coal power plants to switch. The prospect of major further reductions in GHG emissions between now and 2030 is nil.
  • As to renewable electricity generation, the Climate Act Dashboard states that 32% of the goal of 70% or electricity from renewables has been achieved, and another 30% of the goal is supposedly “in the pipeline.” Most of the 32% already achieved consists of Niagara Falls, which existed way before the CLCPA came along in 2019. They don’t give details of what the “in the pipeline” projects are, or of whether they are anything more than pipe dreams. They clearly will get nowhere close to the supposedly mandatory “70% of electricity from renewables” goal by 2030.

So how does the new budget deal change these things? I can’t find exact enacted statutory text, but here is a good summary from a law firm, Greenberg Traurig. With respect to the three provisions identified:

  • The 2024 deadline for promulgating “cap and trade” regulations gets moved from 2024 to 2028.
  • The mandate for 40% reduction in GHG emissions in 2030 is eliminated. In its stead, we get non-binding target of a 60% reduction in GHG emissions by 2040.
  • From what I can tell, the “70% of electricity from renewables” mandate remains in place.

Comments:

(1) The “cap and trade” regulations will be no more feasible in 2028 than they are today. The only difference will be that Hochul will not be up for re-election that year. They will have two options, which will be to blow off the deadline as they did the last time, or extend it again.

(2) The idea that GHG emissions will be reduced 60% by 2040 is even more absurd than the prior idea that emissions would be reduced 40% by 2030. Given that it is no longer a mandate, and has been moved from four years out to fourteen, nobody will even bother to pay attention to this one for at least a decade.

(3) The “70% of electricity from renewables by 2030” mandate will be missed by a mile. But there is no one to hold accountable. Utilities? They are not in the business of generating the power any more. The people who do generate the power are independent operators who run one or a few power plants or wind farms or whatever, but have no responsibility for the overall generation mix. The people who are supposedly responsible for the generation mix are an alphabet soup of brainless state agencies (NYSERDA, NYISO, CAC, etc.) with no skin in the game. The whole idea of holding such bureaucracies accountable is antithetical to their very nature.

But meanwhile, as time will continue its march, New York’s energy situation will continue to worsen:

  • The provisions of the CLCPA and New York’s environmental laws that currently make it impossible to build new natural gas power plants, or repower old ones to new technology, will remain in place. The natural gas fleet will continue to age, and some plants will retire.
  • The termination of federal subsidies plus restrictions on offshore wind mean that little wind or solar generation will be built either.
  • New York City’s Local Law 97, mandating conversion to electric heat for most large buildings, remains in place. Where is the electricity going to come from? Nobody knows.
  • And then there is RGGI, the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. New York is a member, along with all the other states along the Atlantic Coast from Maine to Virginia (except Pennsylvania). There are limited allowances for GHG emissions from power plants, and the amount of those allowances is scheduled to decrease by approximately 10% per year every year through 2033. The very idea is to force many of the natural gas power plants to close, and to force the price of electricity from the remaining ones to skyrocket. As of now this remains in place. If you think this scheme is so ridiculous that no state could possibly be part of it, remember that Virginia just re-joined a couple of months ago.

Here is some related advice from the State of New York: if you should ever find yourself in a car hurtling toward a brick wall at 100 mph, your best strategy is to close your eyes and pretend it is not happening.

If it is any consolation, the Greenberg Traurig summary of the CLCPA amendments reports that another change in the statute is that the percent of “benefits” of the Act directed to “disadvantaged communities” is to go from 40% to 45%. So at least there’s that.

New York Approaches the Green Energy Cliff with Morons in Charge

As New York approaches the Green Energy Cliff, developments are starting to come more quickly.

From Manhattan Contrarian

By Francis Menton

As New York approaches the Green Energy Cliff, developments are starting to come more quickly. When last I addressed the subject on March 6, there had just been “leaked” a three-page memo from the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) to the Governor’s office, revealing that implementation of what New York calls its “cap and invest” program — actually, an artificial scarcity program intentionally designed to drive prices up and impoverish the people — would cost every New York household thousands of dollars in increased energy costs. (I put the word “leaked” in quotes because most knowledgeable observers think that the Governor released the memo intentionally.).

Clearly the Governor was using this memo to provide cover for her next move. That move then occurred on March 20, in the form of an op-ed published by the Governor in something called the Empire Report. Several of my co-energy realist bloggers have already commented on this piece at Watts Up With That, including Robert Bradley (“Democrats Retreat From Climate Activism”) and Roger Caiazza (“Hochul Claims the Climate Act Can Be Affordable”).

The only proper response to Gov. Hochul’s piece is scorn and derision, and no matter how much of those you can muster, it’s not enough. The Governor and all of her staff and agencies have approached the subject of energy policy as morons, and they also treat the people as morons. They have never done any credible assessment of either feasibility or cost of the Climate Act mandates. Now that the mandates are approaching, it is obvious that they cannot be achieved at any remotely reasonable cost; but our leaders have no plan forward. Their only idea is to pretend that the Climate Act plan is real when it is not, and that it is moving forward when it is not, and then postpone the hard deadlines until after the current Governor is gone.

The spin in the Governor’s piece will leave you dizzy for weeks. I’ll give you a few choice quotes, with my translation into plain English:

All New Yorkers should be immensely proud that their home state is a national leader for clean energy and climate action. As Governor, I take that role very seriously, knowing it is our mission to leave our world better than we inherited it. . . . Since I have been Governor, more than $88.7 billion has been invested in clean energy through programs that have made us an example for the rest of the nation.

Translation: We have wasted $88.7 billion taxpayer dollars on wind and solar projects and related infrastructure that are completely useless. (She doesn’t give a breakdown of how much of the $88.7 billion is New York taxpayer money versus federal.). For a fraction of that money, we could have re-powered our natural gas power plants into much more efficient combined-cycle plants, but we didn’t do that because the enviro zealots were against it and we do whatever they say without ever considering whether it makes sense.

President Trump has denied the science, calling climate change a hoax. Just this week, he again vowed to block all new offshore wind projects and is actively attempting to dismantle those already under construction. At the same time, the federal government is also canceling grants and tax credits for solar and wind, electric vehicles, heat pumps, and other pollution-reduction initiatives while rolling back key scientific findings and regulations that would have helped the nation move toward reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Without a federal partner, there is only so much states can do on their own. . . . The fact is, we will be dealing with a White House outright hostile toward renewable energy for at least another three years, making it impossible for us to meet our targets without imposing higher costs on homeowners, renters, and businesses.

Translation: We claimed to be the “climate leader,” but in fact we never had any intention of spending much if any of our own money on this, and we were planning to stick almost all of the exorbitant cost to the federal taxpayers. Now that President Trump has nixed that scam, we realize that this is completely unaffordable. So we will call President Trump a bunch of nasty names, even though we have to admit that he is completely right on this issue.

[A]dvocates . . . took the extreme step of suing the state to force it to issue regulations to meet the Climate Act’s 2030 emission reductions targets. A judge agreed and ruled that the state must swiftly issue regulations to achieve what now would be costly and unattainable targets, unless the law is changed. . . . We need more time, and so I am proposing we amend the law to require regulations to reduce statewide greenhouse gas emissions to be issued at the end of 2030.

Translation: I’m running for another term, which will likely be my last. The final day of that term is December 31, 2030. So let’s make that the mandated date for Climate Act compliance regulations to take effect. I will do nothing, and the next guy will take office on January 1, 2031 and find him or herself immediately in default and under court injunction to do something. HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

And meanwhile, what is this business about “we need more time.” Time for what? Nothing significant about this is going to be any different four years from now. Electricity generation from wind and sun will still be intermittent and in need of full backup to be useable on the grid. Cost of energy storage may fall a little, but nothing near the factor of a hundred or more that would be needed for a wind/solar/storage grid to be an economically viable replacement for a grid powered by dispatchable generators. The magical “dispatchable emissions-free resources” talked about by New York energy bureaucrats will be no closer to existence than they are today.

We are moving into a world of make-believe. At this point, nothing about the supposed green energy transition is real, except for the ongoing costs getting stuck to the taxpayers and ratepayers. The people in charge in New York — Kathy Hochul and all of her bureaucratic underlings — have no idea what they are doing, so they are closing their eyes and hoping the whole thing goes away.

If the extension of Climate Act deadlines were a stand-alone piece of legislation, it would likely need to go through public hearings at the Capitol, and it would attract substantial attention. So watch for this to treated as part of the “budget” negotiations, and emerge as one piece in a massive omnibus budget bill with little or no further mention.

Meanwhile, tens of billions of taxpayer and ratepayer dollars continue to be wasted on useless wind turbines and solar panels and grid-scale batteries and additional transmission and delivery infrastructure. I guess we can be thankful that it’s only tens of billions, versus the hundreds of billions that would have been wasted if the federal taxpayers remained on the hook.

Democrats Retreat from Climate Activism (energy affordability, electability in play)

“[New York Governor] Hochul’s shift could become a blueprint for Democrats across the country as they desperately try to convince voters they’re aggressively tackling cost-of-living concerns — including energy bills — ahead of the midterm elections.” – Politico, March 7, 2026

From Master Resource

By Robert Bradley Jr.

“[New York Governor] Hochul’s shift could become a blueprint for Democrats across the country as they desperately try to convince voters they’re aggressively tackling cost-of-living concerns — including energy bills — ahead of the midterm elections.” – Politico, March 7, 2026

Next time you hear that climate policies are affordable or that wind and solar save money, look out the window. What are consumers saying? What are politicians under affordability pressure saying? No quantity of studies or fearmongering about climate can refute what is happening in the real world. Energy prices, energy economics, matter.

NY Governor Kathy Hochul

Democrat politicians today are retreating from heady climate goals of the past. Consider this article in Politico, “‘Hurting peoples’ pocketbooks’: Hochul pushes to pare back landmark climate law.”

“The New York governor is pushing for changes to the state’s landmark climate law because of affordability concerns, reflecting a national clash between high energy prices and environmental goals,” Marie French reports, adding:

It’s a major shift for Gov. Kathy Hochul, who once championed New York’s climate efforts on a global stage and rejected permits for gas power plants. The moderate Democrat has laid the groundwork to seek changes in secretive, closed-door budget negotiations in Albany in the coming weeks. The state’s Green New Deal embodied in 2019 legislation is in trouble. In Hochul’s words: “There were so many unforeseen factors. There’s going to be enormous costs.

New York State’s retreat–“it could be the most significant rollback on climate action in a liberal bastion since progressives embraced the “’Green New Deal’ concept”–is part of something bigger. French:

Hochul’s positioning reflects a national shift among Democrats on energy as they refocus on affordability amid near-term implementation challenges and seemingly insurmountable federal opposition to clean energy. Likely 2028 presidential contenders — Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro and California Gov. Gavin Newsom — have also slowed or abandoned some climate-friendly proposals.

Moreover, reports French, “Hochul’s shift could become a blueprint for Democrats across the country as they desperately try to convince voters they’re aggressively tackling cost-of-living concerns — including energy bills — ahead of the midterm elections.”

As far as cost-inflation, what opponents call “Green New Deal Scam,” Hochul warns that CO2 pricing could increase gasoline prices by increase gasoline prices by $2.23 cents per gallon and home heating fuel costs above $3,000 per year.

Critics of the the rollback concede that energy affordability (social justice?) is important. But they fallaciously contend that wind, solar, and other forced climate policies are money-savers. Nope: listen to the public and your own politicians for a change.

Sheldon Whitehouse Holds Out

The story was similiar in another POLITICO article, “Democrats are shying away from climate messaging. One of their own is fighting back” (January 25, 2026). “One of Congress’ loudest climate hawks is trying to fend off a push within his party to abandon calls to combat climate change as left-leaning agenda-setters are plotting to reclaim both chambers of Congress in the midterms,” Amelia Davidson and Kelsey Brugger begin. The political problem?

Now Democrats are increasingly showing they have decided it’s a losing message to tout the ways in which they’d curb fossil fuel production to thwart the most dire effects of climate change. Instead, they’re choosing to focus on policies that would lower energy costs and lean hard into affordability talking points embraced by Trump and congressional Republicans.

The retreat of climate activism as a kitchen table issue has been increasingly noted. “Is this really the climate movement’s next chapter?” asked Stephen Lacey, cofounder and executive editor of Latitude Media, a publication “covering the new frontiers of the energy transition.”

Davidson and Brugger continue:

If so, it will end in nothing more than further alienating voters. The progressive approach to climate mobilization has largely failed to build durable coalitions and policies. The election of Trump clearly showed that kitchen table issues matter most. We are in an extraordinary moment where people are struggling to pay their energy bills — and this is the answer? I agree with Michael Liebreich that we need a deep, pragmatic climate reset.

A Megatrend

MasterResource has followed the shifting politics of climate alarm and forced energy transformation. Note these posts from the last year alone.

The retreat began before Trump II as global politics against fossil fuels stalled amid energy and economic realities. Earlier posts included:

Appendix: A Wider Problem

The wider problem for the Progressive Left’s takeover of the Democrat Party has been noted in month’s past. Some quotations from the New York Times:

I don’t see how a “fighting” Democratic Party can hope to win back the Senate, let alone build what every fighting liberal claims to want — the kind of durable majority that could actually marginalize Trumpism and populism — if it doesn’t admit to itself that what happened in 2024 wasn’t just about Joe Biden’s age or Elon Musk’s algorithm. It was also an ideological referendum, and progressivism lost.

– Ross Douthat, “It’s Obvious Why Harris Lost in 2024. But Can Democrats Accept It?” New York Times (November 1, 2025)

“Inside the Democratic Party — in its backrooms and its group chats, its conferences and its online flame wars — an increasingly bitter debate has taken hold over what the party needs to become to beat back Trumpism. Does it need to be more populist? More moderate? More socialist? Embrace the abundance agenda? Produce more vertical video?

The answer is yes, yes to all of it — but to none of it in particular. The Democratic Party does not need to choose to be one thing. It needs to choose to be more things.”

”That will require a more pluralistic approach to politics. It will require the Democratic Party to see internal difference as a strength that requires cultivation rather than a flaw that demands purification. That is the spirit it needs to embrace. Not moderation. Not progressivism. But, in the older political sense of the term, representation.”

“One worry I have about Democrats right now is that they do not want to confront how much of the country disagrees with them.”

– Ezra Klein, “This Is the Way You Beat Trump — and Trumpism.” New York Times (November 2, 2025)

Whether or not recent foreign policy (the Iraq War) reverses the above remains to be seen.

Three Strikes and You’re Out! New York Swings And Misses Again with Climate Litigation

Frank Sinatra says if you can make it in New York, you can make it anywhere. So what does it mean when it’s repeatedly made clear that you just can’t make it in New York? That question is one the climate litigation campaign is grappling with today.

FromWatts Up With That?

From ENERGYINDEPTH

Mandi Risko

Frank Sinatra says if you can make it in New York, you can make it anywhere. So, what does it mean when it’s repeatedly made clear that you just can’t make it in New York? That question is one the climate litigation campaign is grappling with today.

In yet another demoralizing defeat for the nationally-coordinated climate litigation campaign – and a poignant moment of déjà vu – New York City’s lawsuit against American energy producers yesterday has been dismissed (for the second time). The Supreme Court of the State of New York’s ruling firmly rejected the city’s claims that the companies had misled the public about their products and their sustainability commitments.

This defeat marks the third blow to New York – city and state – in their attempts to “take down” American energy companies.

Recall that the national campaign kicked off in the state in 2015 when former New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman met with Greenpeace and the Rockefeller Family Fund, who spoon-fed him a novel climate lawsuit cooked up by academic activists in La Jolla, California years before. The state’s case was dismissed in 2019 after what was marketed as “the climate trial of the century,” with the decision labeling the claims “hyperbolic“.

New York City filed its own climate case against the industry in 2018 – only for it to be thrown out in 2021. Undeterred, the city refiled a new lawsuit a month later, giving their means-to-an-ends crusade a facelift by swapping out the claims to focus on alleged consumer protection violations.

Today, that case joined the ghosts of failed New York lawsuits past, with the State Supreme Court acknowledging it as an obvious “re-purposing” of rejected allegations. Ten years and three lawsuits later, New York has nothing to show for its decade-long effort other than an 0-3 record.

Judge: Plaintiffs Can’t Have It Both Ways As To Whether Everyone Knew

Justice Anar Rathod Patel, an appointee of Democratic Governor Kathy Hochul, ruled that New York City’s claims did not sufficiently make the case that the oil companies could have deceived the public about the climate impacts of its oil and gas products.

While the City hoped to hold the companies “accountable” for not putting warning labels on gasoline pumps, Judge Patel argued that such disclosures weren’t necessary because the city itself admitted that New York City consumers are climate-aware consumers:

“The City cannot have it both ways by, on one hand, asserting that consumers are aware of and commercially sensitive to the fact that fossil fuels cause climate change, and, on the other hand, that the same consumers are being duped by Defendants’ failure to disclose that their fossil fuel products emit greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change.” (emphasis added)

Greenwashing Claims Don’t Pass Muster, Plaintiffs Took Statements Out of Context

Judge Patel also rejected the plaintiff’s far-fetched greenwashing claims, stating that the City did not convincingly make the case that companies made false statements in connection with the sale of energy to New York city consumers:

“Second, the City has not sufficiently pled that Defendants’ alleged greenwashing campaigns, involving statements about clean energy and alternative energy sources, are ‘made in connection with the sale’ of a consumer good (i.e., fossil fuel products) in NYC, as required under the CPL.”

Interestingly, the Judge duly noted that many of the corporate statements that plaintiffs cited were taken out of context, and when she actually went to the companies’ websites to read the claims, they didn’t appear to be “deceptive” in any sense:

“[C]ertain of the alleged statements are distortions of statements that have been taken out of context and Plaintiff does not not—and cannot—allege that each statement when viewed ‘in light of its context on the product label or advertisement as a whole’ is misleading to the reasonable consumer.” (emphasis added)

So, to summarize: it turns out that the “deceivers” were never the energy companies to begin with. Rather, New York City attempted to deceive the legal system by taking information out of context in order to name and shame American energy companies. While unfortunate, this activity isn’t surprising considering the City’s law firm, Sher Edling, is currently under Congressional investigation for its dark money financing and questionable ties to activist-academics.

Bottom Line: New York has now taken three big swing-and-a-misses. Will they try to step up to the plate again for a fourth attempt at climate litigation? We say it’s time to go back to the dugout.