A NYSERDA memo to Governor Hochul details projected energy cost increases under the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act, reigniting a fierce debate between environmentalists and fiscal critics
The Price Tag on Clean Air: New York’s Climate Law Under Fire
A confidential memo from the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, shared with City and State New York and dated February 26, 2026, has poured fresh fuel on the already heated debate over New York’s landmark 2019 Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act. According to the memo, upstate households that currently rely on gas and oil could face gross cost increases exceeding $4,100 by 2031 under a hypothetical cap-and-invest compliance system. New York City households on gas could see around $2,300 in added costs, while gasoline prices could rise by more than $2 per gallon. The numbers landed like a grenade in Albany, where Governor Kathy Hochul has been signaling for months that she intends to revisit the law’s most aggressive mandates.
What the Memo Actually Says
It is important to read the NYSERDA analysis carefully. The projections are based on a hypothetical cap-and-invest regulatory framework — one that does not yet exist, because Hochul’s administration has repeatedly delayed publishing the required rules. NYSERDA modeled a scenario where carbon allowances start at roughly $120 per ton and rise to nearly $180 per ton by 2031 with no cost caps — an unusually aggressive design that critics say overstates likely real-world costs. When affordability offsets are factored in, net increases fall to approximately $2,500 for upstate households and $1,500 for New York City households. And for households that have fully electrified with high-efficiency equipment, the memo projects net savings of around $1,500 upstate and $800 in the city. NYSERDA maintains extensive public resources on the state’s clean energy programs and the data underlying its analysis.
Environmental Advocates Push Back Hard
Environmental groups were swift and pointed in their response. Justin Balik of Evergreen Action said the governor should be expanding clean energy initiatives rather than retreating from mandates. He argued that the memo’s use of hypothetical regulations makes the cost estimates inherently unreliable. “There can’t be cost estimates that are sound for a program design that hasn’t been released yet,” Balik told City and State. Liz Moran of Earthjustice accused the governor of stalling implementation for years while blaming the law for consequences of her own inaction. State Senator Pete Harckham, chair of the Senate Environmental Conservation Committee, maintained that addressing climate change, reducing costs, and creating jobs are not mutually exclusive goals. The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation oversees CLCPA implementation and provides public documentation on the law’s requirements and timelines.
Republicans See Vindication
On the other side of the aisle, Republicans treated the memo as confirmation of warnings they had raised for years. Former Congressman Marc Molinaro, now running for Assembly, posted on X that the administration was “finally admitting what we have known and said all along.” The state Senate Republican conference similarly declared that Democrats were acknowledging their climate policies would cost New Yorkers money. Both characterizations oversimplify the memo’s findings, which include scenarios with significant savings for households that make the transition to electrified equipment. But the political reality is that cost-of-living concerns are resonating broadly with New Yorkers who are already under pressure from housing costs, grocery prices, and post-pandemic economic recovery challenges.
The Federal Wildcard
Governor Hochul added a new dimension to her defense of potential rollbacks: the Trump administration’s aggressive dismantling of federal clean energy programs. She noted that the federal government’s curtailment of offshore wind development had removed a key pillar of New York’s renewable energy strategy. “I did not expect Donald Trump to cut down some of the major resources of renewable power — wind and solar — like that,” she said at a press conference. Her argument is that the law was designed in a different regulatory environment and needs to be recalibrated for current realities. Critics respond that political uncertainty is not a reason to abandon the law, but rather a reason to accelerate the transition to energy sources that are not subject to federal interference. Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy offers rigorous, nonpartisan analysis of state and federal energy policy trade-offs relevant to this debate.
What Comes Next
The NYSERDA memo is expected to shape Hochul’s upcoming executive budget proposal and her negotiations with a Legislature that has been more aggressive on climate than the governor’s office. Environmental advocates have vowed to fight any rollbacks to the CLCPA’s core emissions reduction targets, while fiscal conservatives will use the memo’s numbers to argue for a more gradual transition. At its core, this debate is about who pays for the costs of climate inaction versus the costs of climate action — and how those costs are distributed across income levels, geographic regions, and generations. The memo does not resolve that question. It simply illustrates how high the stakes have become.
