Staying the course on New York’s greenhouse reduction goals

While Gov. Kathy Hochul is looking to backtrack on the implementation of New York’s greenhouse gas reduction law from 2019, a former state energy official is calling for New York policymakers to lean into this mission. We talk about implementing the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act with Jamie Dickerson, senior director of Clean Energy and Climate Programs at Acadia Center.

David: Well, I want to start with the crux of the argument from Governor Kathy Hochul, which is essentially that the world has really changed since the adoption of the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act in 2019. And the governor points to both the increased cost of pretty much everything as well as the hostility of the Trump administration toward pretty much anything related to green energy. And that’s a roadblock you’ve actually acknowledged was not anticipated when the state was crafting its plan for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the aftermath of adopting this law. How do you think the state should handle all of these variables that have emerged?

Jamie: Yeah, it’s a great question. I mean, I think it’s fair to say back in 2019, no one was thinking that this transition would be easy. But I don’t think anyone could have predicted it would be as hard as it has proven to been, not only for New York but for the rest of the region working on these policies. And it is a balancing act. There haven’t undoubtedly been been headwinds that New York State has faced. No one could have predicted the pandemic, the impacts to supply chain disruptions and inflation and then the second Trump administration. At the same time, I do think in fairness, there have been tailwinds that, you know, folks working on decarbonization have have benefited from broadly and speaking on a global level. And we’ve seen continued cost declines in in lots of renewable energy technologies that are going to be core to the achievement of the long term goals, battery storage chief among them coming to mind right now. And you know, there was the Inflation Reduction Act for three years. And so I do think, you know, there have been headwinds and tailwinds. But fundamentally, as I said, as I wrote in the piece that I did, never before in human history really have we seen such dramatic advancements in the means of both producing, consuming and storing and transmitting energy as we have seen in the past five years. So that is a major tailwind that we do need to consider.

Achieving Climate Goals While Improving Energy Affordability with Cap-and-Invest

David: Well, one of the changes that the governor is looking to make is the timeline for implementing rules and regulations that would help us achieve the greenhouse gas reductions in a law. The governor has argued that right now is not the appropriate time. And when I say right now, I mean we’re already a couple years behind schedule and she’s looking to push that effective date back to 2030. Do you think these rules and regulations can be implemented in a way that they are both environmentally effective and also not a drain on people’s resources?

Jamie: I do think so. And you know, for me through the crux of how I’m approaching this question is that bring making progress on climate and improving energy affordability don’t have to be at odds. And in fact, I think when they’re done right, it can and will be mutually supportive in the vast majority of, of circumstances. We’re talking really about the very same set of solutions that get at the core drivers, both of emissions and the core drivers of, of rising energy costs, which in this case I think is, you know, fossil fuel commodity costs and their volatility, legacy infrastructure costs for T&D, both gas and electric, and a variety of other factors that are driving cost increases recently. So for me, I, you know, I think it both, the both end can be achieved both for New York and for other neighboring states. And in this case, it’s, I think it’s really important to remind ourselves that even though we’re talking about climate and emissions reductions, what that will deliver is improvements that families and businesses feel in their daily lives from their housing, their transportation, how abundant and efficient and affordable it all is, giving them relief on their bills, less exposure to those volatile prices. I think that control aspect for New York shift from really being on the receiving end of the global energy geopolitics that we’re seeing right now to to being in the driver’s seat. So that’s I think the the opportunity to thread this really difficult needle right now.

David: Well, that potential outcome that you just framed is quite different than the one highlighted by the Governor who sites a report from the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, your former employer, which estimates that the implementation of rules and regulations related to this law would ultimately cost New Yorkers thousands of dollars in terms of showing their work. There’s a couple page memo that they back this up with. What do you think of that scenario that they laid out and does that represent a good faith implementation of the law?

Jamie: I think, I think that analysis, obviously, you know, I can’t speak for the agency anymore since I’m not there, but from, from what I could tell, that was purposely intended to depict what I would call one side of the riverbank, so to speak, sort of a the strictest implementation realities. But I think what I would point to as like the most illustrative analysis of the path forward for New York State is the very, very extensive analysis and stakeholder engagement that the agencies conducted in 2023 and 2024, which is really around maybe a middle of the river, you know, reasonable but ambitious and affordability centered cap and invest program, which I think at the time and I think it still is fair to say is the case, would be the most cost effective way to meet the state’s targets. I don’t know if this is lost to history, but the in between the draft scoping plan that the state finished up in, I guess it was 2021 and the final scoping plan that was finalized in late 2022. Cap and invest. The addition thereof was the primary addition, not the only, but one of the biggest additions to that final plan. And that was because of the recognition about how critical it would be as a cost effective way to ensure the, the achievement of the of the targets. And, you know, basically making the ability to make real progress in a in a in a relatively short time frame.

David: Well, before we move on, let me reintroduce you for listeners just joining us, this is WCNY is the Capital Press Room. I’m David Lombardo and we’re speaking with Jamie Dickerson, the former Chief of Staff for the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority and now the Senior Director for Climate and Clean Energy Programs at the Acadia Center.

Exploring CLCPA Implementation Flexibility and Untapped Policy Levers.

David: How much flexibility is there in terms of implementing this law? Because that’s one of the other critiques about the assessment by the Hope administration is that it assumes a very aggressive kind of worst case scenario of how to implement this law. And I wonder if the state’s hands really are tied to that degree and whether we’re not necessarily also accounting for the positive side of things because that’s something that’s been highlighted in the past in discussions with the Hope administration, which always highlights say this is title benefits of something. It didn’t feel like that was necessarily part of this analysis.

Jamie: Yeah. I mean on the flexibility question, the CLCPA is it’s very lengthy law. At the same time though, it really is not hugely prescriptive on the path forward for the achievement of the critical like 20-30 and 2050 emissions milestones. There are some sub goals around you know 70 by 3000 by 40 in terms of renewable energy and 0 emissions electricity. But by and large the the decisions on the exact pathway of decarbonization that the state would take would be left to the regular regulation rule making process that agencies would would initiate after the scoping plan. So that’s really where we’re still at right now. Obviously some years have elapsed, we still are you know whatever 4 1/2 years away from the end of 20-30. But what we’re talking about again with cap and invest as it’s sort of example policy, that’s a that’s a market based policy and it’s not a command and control thou shalt, you know, mandate approach. It’s activating the market and getting the right market signals. Well, that actually has some tried and true cost containment and affordability mechanisms built right into that mechanism. So I honestly think cap and invest can be as much of an energy affordability policy as it can and will be an emissions reduction policy.

David: Throughout this debate, the governor has stressed her environmental bona fides, pointed to the amount of investment in clean energy under her watch. At the same time, though, environmentalists who have been critical of a potential delay of the state’s climate law have argued that there have been missed opportunities. When you look at the landscape, do you feel like there are levers at the state’s disposal that have either not been pulled or maybe not completely utilized?

Jamie: It’s a great question. I actually do think the governor and her agency teams deserve fair credit for all the hard work they’ve put into, again, not only stand up to Trump, but to make real progress where it’s been possible in the last few years. The Champlain Hudson Power Express transmission project just energized recently, for example, distributed solar has been a bright spot for the state’s progress. And so it’s challenging as things seem right now. Imagine if those important infrastructure priorities had not been prioritized by the hopeful administration in the last few years. So I do think the fact of the matter is there’s a lot that New York is and has been doing under Oakland leadership that’s really right on point and deserving of praise. I do think at the same time, energy policy making is always evolving. And even in the last few years, my eyes, I think have been opened up to not only sort of the inefficiencies that do exist still in the legacy system, which was something my piece touched on, but also the new policy levers that we could actually activate to get at some of those inefficiencies. You know, one that, you know, New York actually does have a leg up with the existence of NIPA in terms of having an agency that effectuates sort of a public power mandate authority. But one of the policies I highlighted in my piece was on public financing for grid investments basically to reduce the cost of capital that investor owned utilities have been currently using to to finance the grid upgrades both traditional and new using. And again using that lower cost of capital to drive really substantial like on the order of 30 to 40% savings for for ratepayers which ultimately will amount to billions of dollars. So I don’t think the hope administration has been ignoring some of those new tools. I just think the new tools are are actually making themselves known in real time. So that’s again my posture We have we can those news, those new tools and those new levers can be pulled now.

The Need for Regional Climate Collaboration Amidst Transition Challenges

David: Another, the concern that the Hope administration has raised is that New York is kind of out front, in front of everyone else. We’re doing this alone. We’re treading into frontier that no one else has gone, and maybe there’s a reason for that. At the same time, though, you’ve argued that this is an opportunity to find new partners and to work in a collaborative approach regionally. What would that look like?

Jamie: Yeah, absolutely. I mean I do think there is so much strength in numbers in a situation like we have right now at the federal level and all states are in this together, especially the neighboring states of the Northeast region that share economies, they share transportation corridors, they they share similar policies already. What it might look like honestly, is what multi state collaboration has been going on the longest in the energy and emission space in the Northeast, which is the Reggie program, which I’m sure you and your viewers know about, but there’s so much.

David: Foundation initiative, correct?

Jamie: And that’s the, that’s basically the analog for capital invest for the power sector that’s existed for, you know, more than 15 years at this point. And again, just last year, New York and the other Reggie states recommitted to continuing that program through 2037 with a pretty ambitious decline in emissions reductions. And also since then we’ve had Virginia with the election of Governor Spanberger indicate that they are going to be actually rejoining that that that coalition as well, which is a bipartisan coalition still. So I think that can be replicated in other sectors whether it’s on true sort of carbon markets or on just plain old sort of infrastructure funding, but also policy making that can stand state lines and again be really help the the overall regional market evolve and grow in sync rather than sort of on a piecemeal basis.

David: Right now, New York is in the process of implementing other green initiatives. One that comes to mind is the rollout of a mandate for the adoption of 0 emission school buses. And I think that has generated a lot of skepticism about green energy mandates in general because the pitch at the time was, hey, if we mandate this, the technology will become cheaper and we’re also going to see environmental benefits. It’s going to be the greatest thing since, you know, sliced bread. How should New Yorkers think about this evolving space and the idea to be flexible if, for example, burdens do pop up and costs don’t necessarily change the way we might expect?

Jamie: I mean, it’s a great question. I do think you have to observe that really the legacy system that the CLCPA is trying to move away from, that energy system is shaped by forces that are really well beyond the control of anyone state in terms of the fuel markets, the sort of the investment decisions or lack thereof of incumbent industries, financial market practices, things like that. And when it comes to the sort of the influx of new technologies, new solutions, those are happening at a global level as well. And obviously states like New York are trying to bring supply chains to their state. They’re trying to work with communities to actually make the procurement and investments of those of those technologies. Honestly, one helpful framing for me is that we’re in the mid transition and I think it is fair to recognize that it is and going and is going to be messy to some extent. It’s not going to be a straight line from A to B. There will be steps forward, some steps backward learnings, lessons learned along the way for sure. You mentioned school buses, which is like seems like one of the most common sense opportunities to bring, you know, air pollution benefits to communities that currently, you know, rely on diesel school buses. And it might take some creative policy making if the if the dollars and cents don’t work out on sort of a apples to apples basis, just bus for bus, the state and and its agencies can work to actually set up ways for those buses to be assets for the grid during the summertime, you know, when they’re when they’re not taking kids to and from school. So I think we have to be creative both on a policy and a technology level. And and that’s going to be the way to ride through this mid transition.

Ensuring Policy Flexibility to Absorb Shocks in Climate Implementation

David: Well, finally, let’s say the status quo is maintained and the state focuses on implementing the greenhouse gas reduction goals. Rules and regulations take effect. For example, is there flexibility in the system, in the law, in the rules and regulations to respond to adverse consequences, to respond to costs that maybe don’t decrease as projected or environmental benefits that don’t necessarily realize or other variables? I mean, do we have enough flexibility built in or is that part of the conversation that we should have right now, maybe to give policy makers a little more confidence that they should maintain the trajectory that the law requires?

Jamie: Yeah. I mean, I do think there is existing flexibility that the policy makers and agencies can exercise in implementing the rule. And I do think honestly the path forward is really moving forward with a plan that swiftly initiates the implementation of the key programming and regulations that New York has contemplated, like CAP and invest. And doing so will allow New York to ensure that it makes progress and stays on that positive path to really improve the everyday lives of New Yorkers. So just to give you one example of that flexibility that I think not a lot of people appreciate and I sort of when it does its long term contracting for large scale renewable energy projects, they have shifted to a contracting structure known as an index wreck. And that’s basically directly intended to do what you said, which is allow projects to absorb some of the volatility and also insulate ratepayers from the risk of energy market volatility. And basically make sure that if energy market revenues dramatically shoot up, then the state is actually going to have to pay way less and actually might, might get some money back from the markets and from the developers. So there again, there are creative policy mechanisms that the state has already implemented. And I’m sure there are more, more, more models like that that can be added as well to, to make sure that on route from the path from where we are today to the, you know, existing milestones in the law, we’ll have that flexibility to absorb to shocks and disruptions along the way.

To listen to the full interview from the Capitol Pressroom, click here.

As energy costs rise, some states back off ambitious climate goals

ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) — Seven years ago, New York lawmakers set ambitious goals for slashing greenhouse gas emissions with clarion calls about saving the future. Now, with slow progress made and political realities shifting, Gov. Kathy Hochul is seeking a delay, saying she wants to save consumers money.

Massachusetts and New Jersey are among the states looking at lowering charges on utility bills that help fund efficiency programs.

“It is hard to talk about climate at times, because everyone is very laser-focused on affordability and customer bills,” said Kyle Murray, Massachusetts program director for the Acadia Center. “So climate, while still important, is getting kind of pushed aside, unfortunately.”

To read the full article from the Associated Press, click here.

Gasoline price spike bears down on Massachusetts

We probably don’t need to tell you: Gasoline prices are way up in Massachusetts, as in the rest of the country, as war between the US and Iran continues to disrupt critical global energy supplies.

How bad? Try a 50-cent increase in a month. Average regular gas prices in Massachusetts are now $3.97 per gallon, up sharply from $3.47 a month earlier – and $2.96 a year ago, according to AAA.

Kyle Murray, director of state program implementation in Massachusetts for the environmental nonprofit Acadia Center, said that the seemingly sudden collective lightbulb going off about the case for renewables to insulate us from fossil fuel volatility is like deja vu (with the caveat, he added, that this particular snag with the Strait of Hormuz could also choke off key shipping routes important for clean energy sources, too).

“I urge the governor to keep making that case that this is the affordability path forward: by pursuing renewables and energy efficiency,” Murray said.

To read the full article from Commonwealth Beacon, click here.

As Smithfield moves to ban data centers, Smith Hill is still debating how to define them

There’s no concrete proposal yet for a data center in Smithfield.

But there is a ghost town.

A 2010 inventory of Smithfield’s historic sites described a settlement known as Hanton City, located near Fidelity Investments’ corporate campus, like this: “Was a late 17th C. farming village, now just ruins. Some is protected and some is private. Large undeveloped tract of land.”

That constraint reemerged during a testimony near the end of the night. Emily Koo, Rhode Island program director for the Acadia Center, spoke in support of Speakman’s bill, arguing a 20-megawatt threshold would more comfortably fit the tiniest state than Kennedy’s 50-megawatt benchmark.

Rep. Tina Spears, a Charlestown Democrat, asked Koo why the Acadia Center, a clean energy and climate policy nonprofit, didn’t take a more hardline stance.

“We just heard Rhode Island Energy talk about supply issues,” Spears said. “So I’m a little surprised that Acadia just isn’t coming out in opposition to the bill, to the expansion of data centers.”

Koo replied that the Acadia Center was only asked to examine best practices for guardrails but will share a more formal position.

To read the full article from Rhode Island Current, click here.

Northeast States Set Big Climate Goals. Now Those Plans Are in Trouble.

Several years ago, in a burst of climate optimism, Democratic-led states across the Northeast adopted some of the world’s most ambitious policies to shift away from fossil fuels and cut planet-warming emissions.

But today, many of those states are scaling back or rethinking their climate plans as they miss emissions targets, struggle with soaring electricity bills and confront the Trump administration’s hostility to renewable energy.

Then Mr. Trump returned to office and sought to block offshore wind, a technology he detests. While four offshore wind projects are still under construction, it is unclear if more can be built. New York’s climate plan calls for 9,000 megawatts of offshore wind by 2035, enough to power 6 million homes. Currently, only 1,800 megawatts are set to come online.

“That was a huge setback,” said Kyle Murray, the director of state program implementation at Acadia Center, a clean energy advocacy group. “Offshore wind was the primary strategy that states like Massachusetts were going to pursue for its electricity future, and now it’s shut down.”

Environmentalists have opposed many of these changes, arguing that expensive natural gas is the biggest reason for high energy prices in the region, and the quicker utilities can get off gas, the better. That means doubling down on efficiency and conservation measures, solar power and batteries while investing less in extending gas pipelines to new homes, they say.

“We could cut all these clean energy programs now and save a little on bills, but we’re still going to be in a constant cycle of natural gas costs going up unless we figure out how to break the cycle,” said Mr. Murray of Acadia Center.

To read the full article from the New York Times, click here.

Data Center Interest, Opposition on the Rise in New England

While the data center boom has yet to have a major impact on the New England grid, increased interest from data center developers is fueling concern about potential effects on energy affordability and long-term resource adequacy.

Affordability concerns have dominated energy policy discussions in New England since consumers were hit with price spikes in the winter of 2024/25. Costs remained high over the past winter, which was the most expensive winter in the history of ISO-NE’s wholesale markets. (See 2025/26 Most Expensive Winter in History of ISO-NE Markets.)

“Everybody is acutely aware that we are already in this affordability crunch,” said Noah Berman, senior policy advocate at the Acadia Center. With the potential for data center demand on the horizon, “legislators are thinking about this … and are trying to get out ahead of it.”

In PJM, the data center boom has contributed to a rapid increase in forecast demand and skyrocketing capacity prices in recent capacity auctions. (See PJM Capacity Prices Hit $329/MW-day Price Cap.) Nationally, data center demand also drove increased coal-fired generation and overall power sector emissions in 2025.

“People are seeing what’s happening in PJM … in PJM [data centers] are absolutely causing price spikes,” Berman said.

To read the full article from RTO Insider, click here.

Energy Efficiency Takes Backseat as States Tackle Affordability

Some Democratic-led states are looking to cap or cut energy efficiency funding as policymakers aim to reduce consumers’ electricity bills in the short term, worrying advocates who say efficiency improvements lower bills over the long run.

Energy efficiency proponents are expressing concern over the cuts, saying officials are focusing on short-term and not long-term relief. They also point to how much consumers have saved from efficiency programs in recent years.

“These are things that we can actually do to reduce bills, and if we don’t do them, it’s going to be even worse in the future,” said Kyle Murray, state program implementation director at Acadia Center, a nonprofit aiming to lower the Northeast’s carbon emissions by at least half by 2030.

To read the full article from Bloomberg, click here.

The affordability crunch is pushing Democrats to scale back climate ambitions

The Democratic Party’s embrace of affordability politics is pushing what remains of U.S. climate policy to the brink.

In a bid to quickly lower electricity costs, a growing number of Democratic-governed states are pulling money away from programs to save power and boost renewable energy, often by cutting charges on utility bills or redirecting those funds toward customer rebates.

Limiting those programs will have “compounding costs,” said Emily Koo, a senior policy advocate and Rhode Island program director for the Acadia Center, a climate advocacy group based in the Northeast. Energy efficiency spending already has to pass a cost-benefits test, she said, and renewables are the only way to break the state’s costly dependence on gas, which drives up electricity bills every winter.

“It does feel like pulling the rug out,” she said. “What I see the state doing is just kinda giving in and acquiescing [to Trump’s rollbacks], and delivering more blows to the clean energy economy.”

To read the full article from Politico, click here.

Proposed Mass Save cuts are a short-sighted move that will cost ratepayers – and the environment – more in the end

It’s on front pages and in speeches. It’s at dinner tables and in living rooms. The word is “affordability,” and there’s a good reason it’s everywhere. Too many residents of the Commonwealth feel the cost-of-living squeeze and struggle to keep up with tighter family budgets.

Eight out of ten Massachusetts residents are concerned about their utility bills. In fact, energy affordability ranks as the top household concern in the Bay State, where average electricity bills consistently rank among the highest in the country. For families already making trade-offs between groceries, rent, and health care, energy has become another painful expense.

Acadia Center found that energy efficiency programs in Massachusetts delivered $34 billion in lifetime benefits between 2012 and 2023, returning more than $3.50 for every $1 invested. Those savings are more than real—they show up in real-time.

To read the full article from Commonwealth Beacon, click here.

Massachusetts leaders have plans to reduce utility bills. Does their math add up?

Under pressure for months over skyrocketing heating and electricity charges, Massachusetts House lawmakers last month took steps to check some of the nation’s highest utility bills.

And they’re not modest about the result: a whopping $9 billion in potential savings for ratepayers over the next decade, they claim, with immediate savings on the way.

Don’t cash that check just yet.

“There’s a lot of unpredictability in this business. It can be difficult to anticipate with exact precision what some of these changes might actually do,” said Kyle Murray, Massachusetts program director for the advocacy group the Acadia Center.

To read the full article from the Boston Globe, click here.