IN THE SUMMER OF 2019, NEW YORK STATE ADOPTED DRAMATIC GOALS FOR REDUCING OUR GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS AND INCREASING OUR UTILIZATION OF RENEWABLE ENERGY.

AFTER NEARLY FOUR YEARS LATER, WE'LL EXAMINE WHERE WE ARE ON THAT JOURNEY AND WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN NEXT TO ACHIEVE THAT FUTURE.

ALL THAT - COMING UP NEXT - ON CONNECT: NEW YORK.

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ >> WELCOME TO CONNECT-NEW YORK, I'M DAVID LOMBARDO - HOST OF WCNY'S THE CAPITOL PRESSROOM, A DAILY PUBLIC RADIO SHOW, BROADCASTING FROM THE STATE CAPITOL.

ON TODAY'S SHOW WE'RE GOING TO TALK WITH A PANEL OF POLICYMAKERS AND MEMBERS OF THE STATE'S CLIMATE ACTION COUNCIL, ABOUT ACHIEVING THE GOALS OF THE 2019 - CLIMATE LEADERSHIP AND COMMUNITY PROTECTION ACT - WHICH REQUIRES NEW YORK TO REALIZE A CARBON-FREE ELECTRIC GRID BY 2040 AND REDUCE ITS GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS AT LEAST 85 PERCENT BY 2050.

BUT BEFORE WE DO THAT, WCNY SENIOR PRODUCER KEVIN MILLER HAS A STORY FROM THE FINGER LAKES ON SOME OF THE DAMAGE THAT CAN BE CAUSED BY CLIMATE CHANGE, WHICH IS WHY NEW YORK IS ON THIS JOURNEY TO REDUCE ITS CARBON FOOTPRINT.

HERE IS AN EXCERPT FROM WCNY'S UPCOMING DOCUMENTARY "BLOOM" - THAT HIGHLIGHTS THE RECENT DAMAGE WROUGHT BY FLOODING ALONGSIDE SKANEATELES LAKE.

>> AUGUST 2021, WE HAD BACK-TO-BACK STORMS, TWO SEPARATE FLOODING EVENTS.

I WAS OUT OF TOWN.

WE HAD ACTUALLY FLOWN TO VISIT A CHILD WHO IS LIVING IN CHICAGO.

AND AS WE ARRIVED, I'M GETTING PHONE CALLS AND PICTURES FROM MY NEIGHBORS ABOUT A FLOOD.

SO I WASN'T ACTUALLY HERE FOR THE EVENT BUT I WAS CERTAINLY HERE FOR THE AFTERMATH.

AS HAPPENED IN 2017, SO MUCH WATER CAME DOWN, THAT THE WATER BROUGHT DOWN TREE TRUNKS AND LIMBS AND ROCKS AND ALL SORTS OF DEBRIS, WHICH AGAIN, JAMMED UP THE BRIDGE OVER THE ROAD AND AS SOON AS THE BRIDGE JAMMED UP, WATER WENT EVERYWHERE.

A LOT OF YARDS WERE RIPPED OUT AND DESTROYED.

ACTUALLY A LOT OF THAT HASN'T BEEN REPAIRED YET.

(SOUND OF RUSHING WATER) OUR REAL TRAUMA FROM THE 2017 FLOOD WAS IN THE FLOOD CONTROL MEASURES WE PUT IN.

A FLOOD WALL AROUND THE OUTSIDE OF OUR HOUSE TO, AGAIN, HOPEFULLY CATCH THE WATER IN THE EVENT OF A MAJOR FLOOD.

THAT WAS PRETTY PRICEY AND FLOOD INSURANCE DOESN'T COVER THAT KIND OF A LOSS, SO IT WAS BASICALLY ON OUR DIME THAT WE DID ALL THAT.

>> HOW MUCH ARE WE TALKING?

>> HONESTLY, ABOUT $80,000.

>> THE FINGER LAKES IS A SMALL REGION COMPARED TO THE GLOBE BUT ACTUALLY THE FINGER LAKES REALLY KIND OF MIRRORS THE TYPES OF IMPACTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE, THE CHANGES IN CLIMATE THAT MOST PLACES AROUND THE EARTH HAVE SEEN.

I WOULD PUT THE FIRST THING ON THERE IS JUST THE WARMING OF AVERAGE TEMPERATURES, PARTICULARLY THE WARMING OF AVERAGE TEMPERATURES IN THE WINTER.

I THINK THE OTHER THING IS ON THE PRECIPITATION SIDE OF THINGS.

REALLY BEEN AN INCREASE IN EXTREME RAINFALL.

YOU KNOW, IF WE LOOK AT OUR AVERAGE RAINFALL ACROSS THE YEAR, IT'S GONE UP BY GIVE OR TAKE A FEW PERCENTAGES.

WHAT HAS CHANGED IS THE CHARACTER IN WHICH THAT RAINFALL COMES.

BUT WE ARE ALSO SEEING HIGHER RAINFALL INTENSITIES.

SO IT'S THE FACT THAT WHEN IT RAINS ON A PARTICULAR DAY, IT RAINS MORE ON THOSE DAYS THAN IT DID IF WE SPREAD THAT OUGHT OVER A LOT OF DAYS.

>> STORMS ABSOLUTELY HAVE GOTTEN WORSE OVER MY LIFETIME.

WE DON'T HAVE AS MUCH SNOW AS WE DID WHEN I WAS A KID AND WE NEVER GOT FOUR INCHES OF RAIN IN AN HOUR OR TWO.

HURRICANE AGNES IN 1972 WAS FLOODING IN THE AREA BUT WE HAVE NOT HAD THINGS LIKE WE HAVE HAD THE LAST FEW YEARS.

>> LAST TIME IT MADE A PEER PIER GOING OUT INTO THE WATER 40 OR 50 FEET LONG AND THE DOCK WAS UNDERNEATH AND WASHED INTO THE LAKE.

>> BACK IN 2021, AS WE LOOK AT THE WATER GAUGE OF THE LAKE, IT ROSE MORE THAN TWO FEET.

IT WAS ALMOST UP TO 715 FEET ABOVE SEA LEVEL.

I APPROACHED OUR HIGHWAY SUPERINTENDENT OF THE DOLLAR AMOUNTS THAT OUR ASSOCIATED WITH FIXING THE MESS AFTER A FLOOD.

WITH ONE SITE, IT WAS $32,000 JUST TO FIX ONE AREA THAT GOT WASHED OUT FROM THE RAIN BOMB EVENT THAT WE HAD IN 2021.

>> IF WE LOOK AT THE EFFECT OF CLIMATE ON THE FINGER LAKES ON THE BACTERIA, IF THERE ARE CONTAMINANTS IN THE LANDSCAPE, RUNOFF IS ONE MECHANISM WHERE THE CONTAMINANTS CAN MAKE IT INTO OTHER WATER BODIES.

THE WATER CAN'T SOAK INTO THE GROUND AND THEREFORE IT RUNS ACROSS THE SURFACE AND CARRIES THE NUTRIENTS WITH IT.

THE BACTERIA DO BETTER IN WARMER WATER CONDITIONS.

AS WE WARM THE LAKES, THERE IS MORE OPPORTUNITY FOR THEM TO DEVELOP AND GO THROUGH THEIR LIFE CYCLE IN BLOOM.

THE OTHER ASPECT IS THE OVERTURNING OF LAKES.

LAKES AND THE FINGER LAKES WILL OVERTURN TWICE A YEAR IN THE SPRING AND THE FALL AND THAT MIXES UP THE LAKES AND THINGS ALONG THOSE LINES.

STRATIFIES THE SURFACE THAT KEEPS THE NUTRIENTS CONCENTRATED WHERE THE CY TO BACTERIA WOULD NEED THEM.

>> THE FLOODING IN THE PAST FEW YEARS AND THE PROBABILITY OF MORE FLOODING EVENTS AS THE FUTURE UNFOLDS, WE CERTAINLY HAVE THOUGHT ABOUT JUST BAILING OUT, LITERALLY BAILING OUT AND GOING ELSEWHERE.

BUT THIS PLACE IS TOO CLOSE TO MY HEART.

( SOUND OF WATER PREP.

( >> AND NOW TO OUR GUESTS, WHICH INCLUDES STATE SENATOR RACHEL MAY - A SYRACUSE DEMOCRAT - WHO CARRIES LEGISLATION ON CLEAN DRINKING WATER AND EXPANDING NEW YORK'S BOTTLE BILL, CORNELL UNIVERSITY'S ROBERT HOWARTH, A MEMBER OF NEW YORK'S CLIMATE ACTION COUNCIL, ENERGY CONSULTANT DENNIS ELSENBECK, ANOTHER MEMBER OF THE CLIMATE ACTION COUNCIL, AND JESSICA AZULAY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE ALLIANCE FOR A GREEN ECONOMY.

SO I THINK IT MAKES SENSE TO START WITH KIND OF GETTING A BASELINE OF WHAT EVERYBODY THINKS ABOUT THE CLIMATE LEADERSHIP AND COMMUNITY PROTECTION ACT.

AND WE WILL GO AROUND THE TABLE AND START WITH SORT OF A RAPID FIRE SEGMENT OPPOSED TO ENDING WITH ONE, AND BASICALLY I'M CURIOUS.

DO THE GREEN ENERGY AND EMISSION GOALS OF THE CLIMATE LEADERSHIP AND COMMUNITY PROTECTION ACT, THE CLAPS FROM CLCPA FROM HERE ON OUT, DO THEY MAKE SENSE AS SOMEONE WHO VOTED FOR THIS.

>> I DIDN'T JUST VOTE FOR IT BUT I WAS AT THE TABLE HAMMERING OUT THE DETAILS OF THE LEGISLATION AND I'M VERY PROUD OF IT AMEND WE SAW AS THEY ATTEMPTED TO ROLL BACK THE EMISSION GOALS THAT WE PUT IN PLACE FOUR YEARS AGO WAS REALLY IMPORTANT AND UNUSUAL IN THE SCHEME OF THINGS AROUND THE COUNTRY.

SO IT MADE ME EVEN MORE PROUD OF WHAT WE HAD DONE.

>> DENNIS, DOES IT MAKE SENSE, ACHIEVABLE?

>> I THINK THEY'RE EXTREMELY ASPIRATIONAL, AGGRESSIVE, BUT THE BEAUTY OF THEM IS THEY'RE CODIFIED IN STATE LAW.

SO WE ARE NOW NOT TALKING ABOUT GOALS IN THE THEORETICAL SENSE.

WE ARE LOOKING AT GOALS THAT ARE CODIFIED IN LAW.

>> JESSICA.

>> SO FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE, THE CLCPA IS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY.

IT'S, AS YOU JUST MENTIONED, IT'S IMPORTANT THAT THE MANDATES ARE NOW CODIFIED INTO LAW AND THAT NOW REQUIRES ALL OF THE STATE AGENCIES AND EVERYBODY TO WORK TO IMPLEMENT A PLAN TO ACTUALLY ACHIEVE THOSE GOALS.

AND I DO THINK THE GOALS ARE ACHIEVABLE.

THEY'RE AGGRESSIVE.

BUT THEY'RE WHAT WE NEED TO DO IN ORDER TO COMBAT THE CLIMATE CRISIS.

>> BOB.

>> I AGREE COMPLETELY THAT THE CLIMATE CRISIS IS REAL.

THE.

>> GOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE TELLS US THIS IS THE DECADE.

WE REALLY NEED TO REVERSE OUR USE OF FOSSIL FUELS GLOBALLY.

THE CLCPA LEADS THE WAY INTERNATIONALLY AS AN EXAMPLE HOW TO DO THAT.

THE GOALS ARE ACHIEVABLE.

I THINK IT WILL BE GREAT FOR THE STATE ECONOMY AND THE CITIZENS OF THE STATE AS WE IMPLEMENT IT.

>> SPEAKING OF THE IMPLEMENTATION, BOB, WE ARE INTOERLY FOUR YEARS INTO THE ANNIVERSARY OF THE CLCPA BEING SIGNED.

WHERE DO YOU THINK WE ARE IN TERMS OF IMPLEMENTING THIS, FOR EXAMPLE, ARE WE ON TRACK WITH MAYBE THE PACE THAT WE WANT TO SEE TO ACHIEVE SOME OF THESE GOALS?

>> THE LAW SPECIFIED THE CLIMATE ACTION COUNCIL IN WHICH DENNIS AND I SIT AND OTHERS, 22 OF US ALL TOGETHER, HAD TO DEVELOP A BLUEPRINT FOR AGENCIES TO FOLLOW.

THE LAW SPECIFIED THAT WE HAD THREE YEARS TO DO THAT.

WE HAD TO FINISH IT BY DECEMBER OF THIS PAST YEAR, DECEMBER OF 2022.

IN THAT SENSE WE CAME UP WITH A VERY GOOD STRONG BLUEPRINT FOR THE STATE TO FOLLOW BUT THE STATE AGENCIES WERE NOT ABLE TO START TO IMPLEMENT IT UNTIL WE CAME UP WITH A BLUEPRINT.

THEY NEED TO MOVE AGGRESSIVELY NOW IF WE ARE GOING TO REACH THE TARGETS BUT I'M HOPEFUL THEY WILL.

>> DO YOU THINK THERE WAS A WAITING PERIOD ESSENTIALLY BEFORE THE CLIMATE ACTION COUNCIL FINISHED THEIR WORK IN DECEMBER OR HAS THERE BEEN ACTION THAT HAS BEEN MEANINGFUL IN TERMS OF MEETING THE GOALS OF THE CLCPA?

>> I WOULD SAY BOTH.

WE DEFINITELY HAD TO WAIT FOR THE SCOPING PLAN TO COME OUT.

BUT WE WERE ALSO DOING A LOT OF WORK IN THE MEANTIME.

TEEING UP A LOT OF BILLS, FOR EXAMPLE, ON ALL ELECTRIC BUILDINGS AND ELECTRIC SCHOOL BUSES.

WE DID THAT LAST YEAR.

SO IT CERTAINLY, IN PREVIOUS YEARS, WE HAVE DONE THINGS IN THE BUDGET AND IN LEGISLATION THAT MOVES THE NEEDLE.

BUT WE REALLY NEEDED THE BIG PICTURE TO FOLLOW.

>> JESSICA, WE'VE GOT THE PLAN NOW.

BOB AND DENNIS DID THEIR WORK ALONG WITH THEIR 20 OTHER NEW FRIENDS.

WHAT SHOULD WE BE THINKING ABOUT NOW IN 2023 ABOUT IMPLEMENTING THAT ROAD MAP?

WHERE SHOULD WE BE HEADING RIGHT NOW?

>> SO FIRST OF ALL, I JUST WANT TO SAY THE PLAN IS TREMENDOUS.

THE AMOUNT OF WORK THAT WENT INTO IT, THE AMOUNT OF PUBLIC COMMENT, THE AMOUNT OF EXPERT ADVISEMENT THAT WENT INTO IT, IT REALLY IS, I THINK, REFLECTS A CONSENSUS ABOUT WHERE WE NEED TO GO AS A STATE.

AND IT DOES GIVE US A ROAD MAP, AS ADVOCATES, AS AGENCIES, AS LEGISLATORS, POLICY MAKERS, FOR NOW, YOU KNOW, WHAT ARE THE PIECES THAT WE THEY'D TO PUT INTO PLACE.

AND THERE ARE SOME VERY CLEAR IMMEDIATE THINGS THAT WE NEED TO DO.

FOR INSTANCE, SENATOR MAY MENTIONED THE ALL ELECTRIC BUILDING ACT.

THAT WOULD REQUIRE THAT NEW CONSTRUCTION GOES IN WITHOUT FOSSIL FUELS.

THAT'S A LOW HANGING FRUIT POLICY BUT WE NEED THE LEGISLATURE TO ACT AND PASS IT.

THERE ARE CERTAIN THINGS WE NEED THE LEGISLATURE TO DO.

THERE ARE CERTAIN CONPOLITICS IN OUR CURRENT PUBLIC SERVICE LAW THAT ARE PREVENTING UTILITIES AND THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION FROM BEING ABLE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH PIECES OF THE PLAN, SO THERE IS STILL WORK FOR THE LEGISLATURE TO DO.

BUT THERE IS CERTAINLY WORK AS WELL FOR OUR AGENCIES LIKE THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, TO NOW DIRECT THE UTILITIES THAT DELIVER A LOT OF THE ENERGY IN NEW YORK TO OUR HOMES, TO NO TO NOW ALIGN THEIR LONG-TERM PLANS WITH THE MANDATES AND THE CLIMATE LAW.

THERE ARE THINGS THAT EVERY PERSON IN EVERY COMMUNITY CAN DO.

WE CAN START LOOKING AT THE AMAZING TECHNOLOGIES THAT ARE THERE THAT CAN HELP US MOVE OFF OF FOSSIL FUELS IN OUR HOMES AND OUR CARS.

THERE ARE INCENTIVES THE STATE IS OFFERING AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS OFFERING TO HELP GET PEOPLE INTO THOSE TECHNOLOGIES AND CHANGE THEIR ENERGY USE AND SAVE ENERGY AND SAVE MONEY.

WE NEED TO LOOK AT THOSE INCENTIVES AND PROBABLY INCREASE THEM IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO MEET THE GOALS SET OUT IN THE CLCPA.

SO THERE IS AN INCREDIBLE AMOUNT OF WORK TO DO, BUT WE REALLY HAVE A GREAT ROAD MAP NOW TO FOLLOW.

>> DENNIS, WE HAVE HAD THE ALL ELECTRIC BUILDINGS ACT MENTIONED HERE A COUPLE OF TIMES.

WHAT DID YOU AND YOUR BUDDIES AT THE CLIMATE ACTION COUNCIL WANT TO US DO ON THE BUILDING ACT BECAUSE THERE HAS BEEN DEBATE AT THE CAPITOL WHAT IT MEANS TO IMPLEMENT SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

WHAT SHOULD WE BE DOING?

>> I'M GLAD THIS QUESTION COMES UP BECAUSE AS YOU LOOK AT EVOLVING FROM A FOSSIL-BASED SYSTEM TO AN ELECTRIC-BASED SYSTEM, WE HAVE TO WATCH OUT FOR SOME OF THE UNINTEND THE CONSEQUENCES THAT WHEN PELLCY-- WHEN POLICY DIRECTS YOU TOWARDS A GOAL AND YOU START ABOUT IMPLEMENTING THEM, IF I SHIFT FROM ONE FUEL SOURCE TO ANOTHER FUEL SOURCE FROM A TRANSITIONAL POINT OF VIEW, IS WHAT I'M SHIFTING TO INCAPABLE OF BEING ABLE TO WITH STAND THE LOAD THAT I'LL PUT ON IT?

IF YOU LOOK AT THE MANNER IN WHICH WE HAVE GONE FORWARD WITH RENEWABLE ENERGY SUPPLY, RENEWABLE ENERGY SUPPLY HAS BEEN BUILT UP ON PROJECTS AND QUEUES FOR PREVIOUS THREE TO FIVE YEARS.

WHAT WE ARE DISCOVERING, HOWEVER, IS MOST OF THOSE PROJECTS ARE NOT NEAR TRANSMISSION CAPACITY.

THEY'RE NOT NEAR LOAD CENTERS LIKE CITIES, MANUFACTURERS, HOMES AND BUSINESSES.

SO WHAT ARE WE DOING NOW?

WE HAVE GOT, THROUGH ANOTHER POLICY THROUGH THE REGULATORY PROCESS, HAVE TO OVERCOME THAT UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE, THE P.S.C.

ISSUED AN ORDER IN 2021 THAT HAVE TO REDO THE TRANSMISSION PLAN IN ORDER TO CONNECT ALL OF THESE DISCONNECTED RENEWABLE ENERGY SUPPLY SOURCES.

SO WHAT WE ARE DOING IS WE ARE CROOY EIGHTING A COST THAT WE SHOULD HAVE AVOIDED BY THINKING ABOUT THE IMPLEMENTATION FIRST.

YOU DON'T FILL MORE WATER IN THE SWIMMING POOL UNLESS YOU KNOW THE SWIMMING POOL CAN TAKE THAT LEVEL OF WATER.

AND I THINK WE DO THIS TOO OFTEN WITH OUR ENERGY POLICY, IS THAT WE AIM TOWARDS THE GOALS.

WE DON'T REALLY INVESTIGATE WHETHER OR NOT WHAT WE ARE TRANSITIONING INTO CAN ABSORB IT.

ALMOST LIKE THE FIRST OR SECOND MEETING THAT WE HAD UNDER THE CLIMATE ACTION COUNCIL, WE HAD A PRESENTATION BY THE CONSULTANT FOR THE COUNCIL.

IT INDICATED THAT AS WE TRANSITION TO AN ELECTRIC ECONOMY, ELECTRIC DEMAND COULD INCREASE 65 TO 85%.

THAT'S SINCE BEEN CHANGED TO OVER 50%.

BUT THE BOTTOM LINE IS WE'VE GOT TO UNDERSTAND THAT THE ELECTRIC SYSTEM HAS TO BE PREPARED FOR IT.

AND I THINK THAT'S WHERE OUR OPPORTUNITY IS.

DON'T JUST LOOK AT CONVERTING A BUILDING.

THINK ABOUT HOW DO WE ENGAGE THE MARKET AND SOLVING FOR THE LACK OF INFRASTRUCTURE SO THAT WE ARE DOING IT AT THE SAME TIME.

>> IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU ARE SKEPTICAL OF THE IDEA OF SETTING THE GOALS THEMSELVES CAN GET ALL THE PIECES IN MOTION TO ACHIEVE THAT OUTCOME.

BECAUSE I THINK OF J.F.K.

AT THE START OF THINKS ADMINISTRATION SAYING WE ARE GOING TO GO TO THE MOON EVEN THOUGH NOBODY HAD ANY IDEA HOW THEY WERE GOING TO GET THERE BUT THE SUMMER OF '69, WE ALL REMEMBER BECAUSE WE WERE ALL THERE, WATCHING NEIL ARMSTRONG WALK ON THE MOON.

WHY ISN'T THERE A REASON TO BELIEVE THAT SETTING THE GOAL IS THE FIRST STEP IN ACHIEVING THAT?

AND BY TRYING TO BE MORE FOCUSED ON HOW WE GET THERE IS ALMOST SHORT SIGHTED?

>> NO, I ACTUALLY LIKE THAT WE SET THE GOALS THE WAY WE DO BECAUSE WE DREW ATTENTION TO IT.

BUT THE GOALS IN AND OF THEMSELVES WITHOUT AN IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY, WHICH IS WHAT WE ARE DOING UNDER THE SCOPING DOCUMENT MISSED THE POINT AT THAT TIME WE HAVE TO TRANSITION INTO SOMETHING.

WHY IS THAT AN OPPORTUNITY IS BECAUSE IF I KNOW WHAT I'M TRANSITIONING INTO AND I KNOW THERE IS A COST OF TRADITIONAL REGULATORY AND UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT, I'LL GO TO THE MARKET AND SAY INSTEAD OF GOING UNDER OUR TRADITIONAL PROCESS, LET'S LET THE MARKET BE MORE INNOVATIVE AND THINK ABOUT HOW WE ELECTRIFY OUR ECONOMY, BUT AVOID HAVING TO EITHER UPGRADE THE DISTRIBUTION NETWORKS THAT WE WILL HAVE TO DO.

THAT ACTUALLY ALLOWS US TO ALIGN ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND PLACE THEM IN BALANCE.

>> I AGREE WITH WHAT DENNIS IS SAYING AND I DISAGREE IN PARTS.

YES, BY 2050 WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO INCREASE OUR ELECTRIC PRODUCTION MAYBE BY 50%, SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

BUT THAT'S A LONG WAY OFF.

THE SCOPING PLAN HAS A DETAILED PLAN FOR GETTING THERE.

ARE THERE CHALLENGES ALONG THE WAY?

FOR SURE.

BUT LET'S KEEP IN MIND THE NUMBER ONE SOURCE OF GROWTION GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS IN THE STATE ARE FROM BUILDINGS, HOMES AND HEATING THOSE.

IF WE ARE GOING TO MEET THE CLIMATE ACTION COUNCIL PLAN, THE CLCPA GOALS, THE FIRST OF WHICH IS TO REDUCE OUR GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ACROSS ALL ECONOMIC SECTORS BY 40% WITHIN THE NEXT SEVEN YEARS, 2030, WE HAVE GOT TO ATTACK THE EMISSIONS FROM HOMES AND BUILDINGS.

NOW IN TERMS OF NEW BUILDINGS, I'M DISAPPOINTED QUITE FRANKLY, THAT WE HAVEN'T ALREADY MADE THE RULE THAT WE WILL GO ALL ELECTRIC IN NEW BUILDINGS.

OUR DRAFT SCOPING PLAN FROM A YEAR AGO DECEMBER CALLED FOR THAT.

AT THE TIME WE SAID FOR SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES, LET'S DO IT BY 2024.

OUR FINAL SCOPING PLAN POSTPONED THAT TO 2025.

THERE IS DEBATE ABOUT POSTPONING THAT FURTHER.

I THINK WE SHOULD DO IT IMMEDIATELY.

AND I WOULD LIKE TO EMPHASIZE THAT IT IS COST EFFECTIVE FOR THE OWNERS OF NEW HOMES TO DO SO.

IT IS LESS EXPENSIVE TO BUILD A NEW HOME THAT IS ALL ELECTRIC THAN IT IS TO USE FOSSIL FUELS IN TERMS OF CONSTRUCTION.

AND THEN FROM DAY ONE, THE SFUL COST, THE ENERGY COSTS ARE LESS.

IN TERMS OF THE ECONOMICS, THERE IS NO REASON TO POSTPONE THIS.

WILL IT REQUIRE INCREASED ELECTRIC DEMAND OVER TIME?

YEAH, BUT IT'S GOING TO BE GRADUAL.

WE CAN MANAGE THAT.

>> YEAH, LET ME ALSO ADD FROM THE POLICY STANDPOINT, WHEN WE WERE PUTTING TOGETHER THE CLCPA, ONE OF THE FIRST THINGS WE WERE THINKING IS NEW YORK IS NOT JUST A BIG STATE.

IT'S A BIG MARKET.

AND IF WE CAN SEND THE MESSAGE THAT WE ARE MOVING TO ALL ELECTRIC BUILDINGS OR ELECTRIC CARS, THAT'S GOING TO SEND A MESSAGE TO THE COMPANIES THAT MAKE THOSE COMPONENTS, MAKE THE CARS, MAKE THE HEAT PUMPS, WHATEVER IT IS, IT IS GOING TO SHIFT THE MARKET AND THAT IS HAPPENING.

AND I DON'T KNOW TO WHAT EXTENT NEW YORK IS THE REASON FOR THAT, BUT THESE KINDS OF POLICIES ARE MAKING IT COST EFFECTIVE TO DEVELOP NEW WHATEVER ELECTRIC PICKUP TRUCKS AND ALL OF THOSE KINDS OF THINGS.

AND ALSO I THINK WE SHOULDN'T LOSE TRACK OF THE KNOCK ON EFFECTS.

SO PEOPLE, YOU DO ALL ELECTRIC BUILDINGS.

PEOPLE START EXPERIENCING WHAT IT IS LIKE TO LIVE WITH A HEAT PUMP AND THEY DISCOVER THAT LIFE IS BETTER WITH A HEAT PUMP.

IT'S QUIET, IT'S-- YOU ARE NOT HAVING.

YOU KNOW, CARBON MONOXIDE ISSUE.

PEOPLE LOVE THEM.

>> IS IT RELIABLE WHEN IT'S REALLY COLD?

WHAT WE HEARD IN THE HEARING WAS YES.

SO YOU KNOW, A LOT OF THE FEARS PEOPLE HAVE OF NEW TECHNOLOGY SUDDENLY-- ALSO WITH ELECTRIC CARS, PEOPLE LOVE DRIVING ELECTRIC CARS.

ONCE YOU GET THEM INTO THEM, THEY LOVE THEM.

SO, YOU KNOW, ONCE YOU CAN GET PAST THE FEAR OF SOMETHING NEW, A LOT OF THESE TECHNOLOGIES ARE A WIN-WIN FOR PEOPLE.

AND SO THEN YOU START TO GET MORE AND MORE PICKUP OF PEOPLE WANTING THEM MORE DEMAND AND THEN MORE SUPPLY.

SO, YOU KNOW, WE ARE TRYING TO DRIVING THE MARKETS AND I THINK WE HAVE A GOOD FORMULA FOR DOING THAT.

>> ON RELIABILITY OF THE HEAT PUMPS.

WE HEARD A LOT ABOUT THAT THROUGH THE CLIMATE ACTION COUNCIL.

THERE IS A FAIR BIT OF MISINFORMATION OUT THERE.

FOR PERSONAL CONTEXT, I LIVE IN AN 1890 FARM HOUSE.

WE CONVERTED FROM OIL TO HEAT PUMP IN 2014, I'VE HEATED WITH FOR THE LAST EIGHT WINTERS WITH NOTHING BUT MY HEAT PUMP.

GROUND SOURCE HEAT PUMP, NO INFLUENCE OF THE SEASONALITY AT ALL.

IT WORKS ANYWHERE IN THE STATE.

THEY'RE LESS EXPENSIVE TO INSTALL, MORE INFLUENCED BY THE OUTSIDE TEMPERATURE.

BUT MODERN HEAT PUMPS, AIR SOURCE HEAT PUMPS WORK JUST FINE AT ANY TEMPERATURE YOU WILL FIND IN NEW YORK STATE.

>> SO I'M NOT FIGHTING THE ISSUE OF MOVING TO AN ELECTRIC ELECTRIFIED ECONOMY.

MY POINT IS THAT WE'VE GOT TO STOP CREATING PROBLEMS BY THOSE KIND OF POLICIES BECAUSE WE TURN EVERYTHING INTO A REACTIONARY RESPONSE.

REACTIONARY RESPONSE ARE MUCH MORE COSTLY THAN, LET'S SAY IF I WAS PLANNING ON HOW TO DO IT, SO I WOULD DO IT TOGETHER.

I WOULD NOT-- WE CANNOT KEEP-- I WANT TO ELECTRIFY-- I RUN INTO A PROBLEM AND I DON'T HAVE INFRASTRUCTURE.

I WANT 40% OF MY SPEND TO BENEFIT DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES.

WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?

WHAT ARE THOSE METRICS?

AND BY THE WAY, INFRASTRUCTURE AND CAPACITY IN THOSE COMMUNITIES ARE ALSO BAD.

SO YOU CANNOT REVITALIZE THOSE COMMUNITIES, NOR CAN YOU ELECTRIFY THOSE COMMUNITIES UNLESS YOU SOLVE THE INFRASTRUCTURE ISSUE.

THAT'S MY POINT.

AND IN TERMS OF SUPPLY CHAIN AND SPURRING ON THE ECONOMY.

THAT'S ANOTHER AREA THAT WE SHOULD HAVE THOUGHT THROUGH MORE.

I WANTED TO SEE MORE INCENTIVES THAT BRING SUPPLY CHAINS TO NEW YORK, SPECIFICALLY TO OUR DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES.

SO THAT WE ACTUALLY CREATED A TRUE GREEN ECONOMY WHERE WE ARE MOVING BUSINESSES, MAINLY MANUFACTURING.

NEW YORK HAS GOT TO STOP PAYING THROUGH RATE PAYERS AND TAXPAYERS TO BENEFIT OTHER STATES AND OTHER COUNTRIES BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE THE PRODUCTS ARE ACTUALLY PRODUCED.

LET'S SET UP A SYSTEM THAT INNOVATES NEW YORK, BUILDS NEW YORK, HIRES NEW YORK, PURCHASES NEW YORK.

AND THEN I'LL TELL YOU IT'S GOING TO BE A MUCH MORE SUSTAINABLE MODEL.

AND I WILL GUARANTEE IT WILL HAVE A MUCH DEEPER PENETRATION TOWARDS OUR GREEN HOUSE GAS GOALS THAN TRYING TO TREAT COMERKS AND ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY IF THEY'RE SEPARATE ISSUES BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT.

>> I THINK ONE THING THAT IS REALLY CLEAR IS THAT WE ARE NOT DONE, RIGHT?

I THINK THE CLCPA WAS A MOMENT WHERE WE ALL CAME TOGETHER AND SAID OKAY, WE ARE GOING TO DO THIS, RIGHT?

WE ARE GOING TO SET THESE GOALS.

WE ARE GOING TO PUT NEW YORK ON THE PATH.

WE JUST GOT THROUGH THE NEXT MOMENT, WHICH IS GETTING A SCOPING PLAN THAT'S FINALIZED.

AND NOW WE HAVE DECADES OF WORK TO DO, ALL OF US, TO NOW IMPLEMENT THIS PLAN.

I WANT TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHY WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ELECTRIFYING THE IMHE BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW IF PEOPLE REALIZE WAS WE ARE TALKING ABOUT HERE.

BUT YOU KNOW, THE PATHWAY FOR REDUCING AND ELIMINATING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS FROM EVERY PART OF OUR ECONOMY IS WE HAVE TO LOOK AT WHERE WE ARE BURNING FOSSIL FUELS AND WE ARE BURNING THEM AS BOB JUST SAID, A BIG SOURCE OF BURNING OF FOSSIL FUELS IS IN OUR BUILDINGS.

ANOTHER BIG SOURCE IS IN OUR TRANSPORTATION AND VEHICLES.

SO WE HAVE TO LOOK AT THOSE AND FIGURE OUT HOW DO WE STOP COMBUSTING FOSSIL FUELS IN OUR FURNACES, WATER HEATERS, STOVES AND CARS AND OUR TRUCKS AND HOW DO WE MAKE THAT RENEWABLE.

HOW DO WE GET RENEWABLE ENERGY TO FUEL THOSE ENERGY NEEDS?

AND THE WAY TO DO THAT IS BY ADOPTING ELECTRIC APPLIANCES.

LIKE HEAT PUMPS, LIKE ELECTRIC VEHICLES, LIKE INDUCTION AND ELECTRIC STOVES BECAUSE THEN YOU CAN SUPPLY THAT ELECTRICITY WITH RENEWABLE ENERGY LIKE WIND AND SOLAR.

THAT'S WHY WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ELECTRIFYING THE ECONOMY, ELECTRIFYING BUILDINGS AND TRANSPORTATION.

IT'S A WAY TO FUEL THE ENERGY NEEDS WITH RENEWABLE ENERGY.

>> AND EVEN IN ADDITION TO THAT, WE ARE MOVING TO RENEWABLE ELECTRICITY BASE, BUT THOSE APPLIANCES ARE FAR MORE EFFICIENT THAN THE FOSSIL FUEL ALIGNS PLIENSES THEY'RE-- THE APPLIANCES.

>> THERE IS ALSO INCREDIBLE HEALTH BENEFITS FROM DOING THIS BECAUSE WE ARE FEELING THE AIR POLLUTION AND THE HEALTH IMPACTS OF ALL OF THE EMISSIONS THAT COME WITHIN OUR BUILDINGS AND OUTSIDE OF OUR BUILDINGS, FROM COMBUSTING FOSSIL FUELS IN OUR BUILDINGS AND FROM THE COMCOMBUSTION OF FOSSIL FUELS IN OUR VEHICLES HAS A HUGE IMPACT ON OUR HEALTH.

ELECTRIC ELECTRIFYING THIS AND GETTING THAT ENERGY THROUGH WIND AND SOLAR, WE ARE GOING TO SEE AMAZING HEALTH BENEFITS IN NEW YORK.

AND I THINK THERE IS REALLY WONDERFUL INFORMATION IN THE CLIMATE PLAN ABOUT ALL OF THESE COST SAVINGS THAT WE GET FROM BEING MORE EFFICIENT, ALL OF THE COMFORT BENEFITS THAT WE GET FROM USING BETTER TECHNOLOGIES AND THE HEALTH BENEFITS FROM STOPPING ALL OF THIS AIR POLLUTION.

>> BUT ARE WE GETTING THE BENEFIT OF, SAY, AN INDUCTION OPPOSED TO THE GAS OVEN, MOVING AWAY FROM A GAS WATER HEATER, IF WE ARE STILL RELIANT ON FOSSIL FUELS FOR OUR ELECTRICITY?

BECAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE RIGHT NOW ONLY A SMALL FRACTION OF THE POWER WE GET IN NEW YORK COMES FROM RENEWABLE SOURCES.

WE DON'T HAVE THE OFFSHORE WIND CAPACITY THAT WE ARE ENVISIONING IN THE FUTURE RIGHT NOW.

SO AT WHAT POINT DO WE BEGIN TO REALLY REALIZE THE BENEFITS OF THE ELECTRIC APPLIANCES AND TRANSITION?

>> WE REALIZE THEM NOW IMMEDIATELY BECAUSE THOSE APPLIANCES ARE MORE EFFICIENT.

THEY USE LESS ENERGY.

SO WE REALIZE IT NOW AND THEN WE ARE FUTURE PROOFING.

SO WHAT WE ARE DOING IS, BY ADOPTING THESE ELECTRIC TECHNOLOGIES, AS WE GO THROUGH THE PLAN AND WE PUT ALL OF THE RENEWABLE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY IN PLACE, THAT'S GOING TO GET CLEANER AND CLEANER AND CLEANER OVER TIME.

IF YOU PUT A FOSSIL FUEL FURNACE IN YOUR HOUSE RIGHT NOW, IT'S ALWAYS GOING TO EMIT GREENHOUSE GASES AND EMISSIONS AND WILL GET WORSE BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO BE LESS EFFICIENT OVER TIME.

IF YOU ELECTRIFY YOUR MEETING, YOU ARE CLEANER NOW AND YOU ARE GOING TO BE CLEANER AND CLEANER AND CLEANER INTO THE FUTURE AS WE ADOPT RENEWABLE ELECTRICITY.

>> I LIKE TO THINK OF IT RIGHT NOW WE HAVE MILLIONS OF TINY FOSSIL FUELS POWER PLANTS IN OUR CARS, IN OUR HOUSES.

YOU CAN'T DO THE KINDS OF ECONOMIES OF SCALE THAT YOU GET IN A LARGE FOSSIL FUEL POWER PLANT, SO OR THE ABILITY TO FILTER THE AIR OR SCRUB-- THERE IS NOTHING LIKE THAT IN YOUR CAR OR IN YOUR HOUSE.

AND SO GETTING AWAY FROM THAT IDEA THAT THE WAY WE HAVE ENERGY IS BY THESE PERSONAL FOSSIL FUEL POWER PLANTS IS REALLY-- PEOPLE HAVE A HARD TIME THINKING ABOUT IT THAT WAY, BUT IT IS A MASSIVE SHIFT FOR THE BETTER.

>> AND TO JUST RESTATE THAT, IN YET ONE MORE WAY TO EMPHASIZE IT.

EVEN IF ALL OF OUR ELECTRICITY CAME FROM FOSSIL FUELS IN NEW YORK, WHICH IT DOES NOT, THE OVERALL EMISSIONS FROM GOING TO HEAT PUMPS WOULD BE LESS THAN HAVING THESE IN-HOME FOSSIL FUELS SOURCES.

AS IT TURNS OUT, NEW YORK RIGHT NOW, ONLY ABOUT HALF OF OUR ELECTRICITY IS COMING FROM FOSSIL FUELS SOURCES.

UPSTATE IT'S ONLY 10% ACTUALLY.

>> I WOULD JUST NOTE THAT EVERY PRODUCT THAT YOU MENTIONED, THE LEADING EXPORTER OF THAT IS CHINA AND INDIA, ALL COUNTRIES THAT DO NOT BUY INTO THE PARIS ACCORD THAT PREDOMINANTLY THEIR MANUFACTURING IS DRIVEN BY COAL FIRE GENERATION, 1100 COAL FIRE PLANTS IN CHINA AND GROWING.

I THINK THE CLOSEST SECOND OR U.S. IS AT MAYBE 250 AND SHRINKING.

SO IF THIS TRULY IS A GLOBAL ENERGY CLIMATE THAT WE ARE DEALING WITH, WE HAVE TO RESOLVE THAT.

AND THAT'S WHY I KEEP POINTING OUT, IF I DREW IN SUPPLY CHAINS WHERE I KNEW I WAS DEVELOPING THOSE PRODUCTS, DRIVEN BY RENEWABLE ENERGY, I WOULD ACTUALLY AGREE WITH ALL OF THIS.

WE GOT TO STOP SKIPPING STEPS.

WE HAVE TO CREATE THE SUPPLY CHAINS THAT DEVELOP THOSE TYPE OF PRODUCTS THAT HELP OUR ECONOMY.

>> DOES IT NEED TO BE THE IS THAT IT DOING THAT?

WE TRIED THAT IN WESTERN NEW YORK WITH ELON MISK AND SOLAR PANELS TO, YOU KNOW, MIXED RESULTS.

SHOULD WE BE MAKING ALL THIS OTHER STUFF?

>> DID WE COMMIT TO A VOLUME PURCHASE TO HELP... WE FORGOT THAT ONE.

IF WE DRAW PEOPLE INTO WESTERN-- YOU GOT TO THINK ABOUT THIS MORE FROM AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT POINT OF VIEW, NOT SO MUCH BY A CLIMATE POINT OF VIEW.

IF YOU ARE GOING TO CREATE A SUSTAINABLE ECONOMY, YOU'VE GOT TO LOOK AT, ARE WE DEVELOPING THOSE PRODUCTS HERE?

EQUITY IN OUR DISADVANTAGE THE COMMUNITIES, ONE OF THE BENEFITS WE SHOULD HAVE DEFINED IS JOBS, OPPORTUNITY, HOPE IN THOSE COMMUNITIES, NOT BUILDING SOLAR FIELDS OR WIND FARMS OUTSIDE OF THEIR COMMUNITIES.

MOST OF THE ENERGY INTENSITY, WHEN WE AS A RESULT TO ELECTRIFY, WILL OCCUR IN OUR CITIES.

THIS IS WHERE WE SHOULD BE TALKING ABOUT MINORITY-OWNED BUSINESSES.

WE SHOULD TALK ABOUT ATTRACTING SUPPLY CHAINS HERE.

WE SHOULD ACTUALLY BE SOLVING OUR CLIMATE FOR THE LONG-TERM TO ENSURE ECONOMICALLY DEEP PENETRATION INTO OUR GREENHOUSE GAS GOALS.

TO ME THERE IS NO SHORTCUT.

PUTTING IN ELECTRIC APPLIANCE, PUTTING IN IN A HEAT PUMP.

WHO DID I BENEFIT ECONOMICALLY THAT COST NEW YORKERS A DOLLAR.

IS THAT DOLLAR AN INVESTMENT OR A DOLLAR A COST?

WE TREAT RATE PAYERS AND TAXPAYERS LIKE THEY'RE COST CENTERS.

LET'S TREAT THEM LIKE THEY'RE INVESTORS FOR ONCE.

>> WELL, IN TERMS OF BUILDING IN NEW YORK, I AGREE WITH YOU.

AND IN FACT, AS YOU KNOW, THE CLIMATE ACTION COUNCIL, THE SCOPING PLAN SAYS THAT.

>> I PUT IT IN THERE.

>> IT'S THERE BECAUSE YOU PUSHED FOR IT.

AND I BACKED YOU UP.

>> AND I APPRECIATE IT.

>> WHETHER THE STATE WILL DO IT OR NOT, I DON'T KNOW.

WE ARE GOING TO HAVE MILLIONS OF HEAT PUMPS IN NEW YORK.

WHY DON'T WE BUILD SOME OF THEM IN NEW YORK, RIGHT?

>> I AGREEY WITH THAT.

>> THAT REMINDS US THE CLIMATE ACTION SCOPING PLAN IS A PLAN, RECOMMENDATIONS.

IT'S GOING TO TAKE THIS LADY AND THE OTHER LAWMAKERS TO ACTUALLY IMPLEMENT IT.

SO WHEN YOU HEAR SOMETHING LIKE WHAT DENNIS IS PITCHING, SENATOR MAY, DOES THAT SEEM IT SHOULD BE A PRIORITY IN TERMS OF OUR GREEN TRANSITION OR IS THAT THE CHERRY ON TOP AND IF WE GET TO IT, WE GET IT TO?

>> I THINK LOCAL SOURCING OF A LOT OF THESE TECHNOLOGIES AND MATERIALS IS CRITICAL AND I DO THINK IN THE LEGISLATURE THERE IS A LOT OF SUPPORT FOR THAT.

IN SOME-- YOU SAID THIS COMES TO LEGISLATION.

A LOT OF IT IS ABOUT IMPLEMENTATION AT AGENCY LEVELS.

AND THAT WAS PART OF WHAT WE DID WAS WE SAID THESE ARE THE GOALS.

YOU GUYS FIGURE OUT HOW TO DO IT.

GET EXPERTS TOGETHER, FIGURE OUT HOW TO DO IT AND THEN WHAT THEY'RE DOING IS TELLING THE ADMINISTRATION WHAT TO DO.

AND THE AGENCIES WHAT TO DO.

SO WE SHOULDN'T BE MICROMANAGING THAT PROCESS.

>> WHY NOT?

THE REGULATORY PROCESS THOUGH IS BASICALLY GOING TO BE AT THE WHIM OF WHATEVER GOVERNOR THOUGH IS IN CHARGE.

AND MAYBE WHOEVER IS SERVING IN 2040 MIGHT NOT HAVE THE SAME PRIORITIES, SASS GOVERNOR RIGHT NOW.

WHY SHOULD THAT NOT BE CODIFIED THE WAY THE CLCPA IS?

>> SOME OF IT WILL BE.

ALL ELECTRIC BUILDINGS, FOR EXAMPLE, BUTS EVEN THERE YOU DON'T GET TO THE ABSOLUTE DETAILS OF HOW IT GETS DONE.

YOU LEAVE SOME OF THAT TO THE AGENCIES THAT IMPLEMENT THEM.

>> WELL, STICKING WITH THE IDEA OF REGULATORY POWERS, JESSICA, RIGHT NOW POLICY MAKERS IN ALBANY ARE TRYING TO COME UP WITH THE BEST WAY TO FORMULATE A CAP AND INVEST STRATEGY, ESSENTIALLY CREATING A LIMIT ON HOW MUCH EMISSIONS LARGE POLLUTERS CAN SEND OUT AND MAKING A PLAN FOR DRASTICALLY LOWERING THAT CAP MOVING FORWARD AS WELL AS INVESTING RESOURCES.

ANY SENSE OF WHAT THAT PLAN SHOULD LOOK LIKE?

DO YOU HAVE ANY PRIORITIES?

DO YOU HAVE A DID RG IN THAT FIGHT?

>> SO, YOU KNOW, WE HAVEN'T SEEN A LOT OF DETAILS ABOUT THIS.

BUT FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, IT'S VERY IMPORTANT THAT WE, HOWEVER WE DO THIS, THAT WE REALLY LOOK AT THE IMPACT ON DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES IN THE STATE AND MAKE SURE-- AS THE CLIMATE ACT SAYS, AND AS THE CLIMATE PLAN SAYS, WE NEED TO BE REDUCING POLLUTION, ESPECIALLY IN THE COMMUNITIES THAT ARE ALREADY OVERBURDENED WITH POLLUTION.

AND SO YOU KNOW, AS WE ARE THINKING ABOUT WHERE WE ARE REDUCING POLLUTION.

WE REALLY NEED TO-- AND WHERE WE ARE PRIORITIZING THE REDUCTION OF POLLUTION, WE NEED TO LOOK AT COMMUNITIES THAT ARE REALLY SUFFERING FROM BAD AIR QUALITY, BECAUSE OF OUR ENERGY SYSTEM AND BECAUSE OF OTHER TOXIC SOURCES.

SO THAT'S ONE BIG PRIORITY FOR US IN ANY POLICY.

AND THEN I THINK THE OTHER THING THAT WE ARE REALLY LOOKING AT, WHETHER IT'S FROM CAP AND INVEST OR-- THERE ARE A LOT OF OTHER PROPOSALS HOW TO DO THIS, WE REALLY NEED TO FUND THE SOLUTIONS.

WE KNOW WHERE WE NEED TO GO.

THERE IS GREAT IDEAS ABOUT HOW TO BRING ALL THIS ECONOMY INTO OUR STATE.

WE NEED THE FUNDING FOR IT.

WE CAN'T JUST PASS THE PLAN AND SAY OKAY, WE ARE DONE MUCH WE NOW TO NEED TO ACTUALLY FUND IT.

AND AS WE LOOK AT WHERE WE THEY'D TO GO AND WHAT WE NEED PEOPLE TO DO IN THEIR OWN HOMES AND OWN CARS, THERE ARE BARRIERS BECAUSE THESE TECHNOLOGIES A LOT OF TIMES THEY DO PAY FOR THEMSELVES OVER TIME BUT THERE IS THE UP FRONT COST THAT PEOPLE NEED HELP WITH TO GET OVER AND SO IN ANY CAP AND INVEST, HOPEFULLY IN THE BUDGET WE ARE GOING TO BE ABLE TO PUT REAL MONEY INTO THIS.

RIGHT NOW A LOT OF THE FUNDING FOR OUR CLIMATE ACTION IS COMING FROM OUR UTILITY BILLS.

>> BUILT INTO OUR BILLS: THAT'S THE WAY IT HAS BEEN AND WE HAVE GOTTEN SOME STUFF DONE BUT THAT IS A REALLY REGRESSIVE WAY TO DO IT BECAUSE LOW INCOME PEOPLE PAY MORE OF THEIR INCOME ON THEIR ENERGY BILLS.

AND SO WE CAN'T JUST KEEP GOING BACK TO RATE PAYERS TO FUND THIS TRANSITION.

WE REALLY NEED FUNDING IN THE BUDGET AND TO FIND OTHER SOURCES OF MONEY AND FIGURING OUT HOW TO MAKE THE CORPORATIONS THAT ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS CLIMATE CRISIS NOW HELP PICK UP THE BILL TO SOLVE THE CRISIS MAKES A LOT OF SENSE TO ME.

>> JUST MY CONCERN, WHEN WE USE THE TERM INVEST, THERE MUST BE A RETURN SOMEWHERE.

I NEVER HEAR THAT.

IT'S JUST WHO FUNDS IT.

WHO FUNDS IT IS YOU AND I. I DON'T CARE IF YOU CALL ME A RATE PAYER, A STATE TAXPAYER OR A FEDERAL PAIR, WHEN WE SAY WE NEED SOMEONE TO FUND THIS, WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT IS HOW MUCH DO I HAVE TO CONTRIBUTE IN THOSE THREE ELEMENTS.

AIF WE STARTED TO THINK ABOUT THIS FROM A BUSINESS OPPORTUNITY POINT OF VIEW MARKET PARTICIPANTS WOULD LOOK AT IT FROM THE POINT OF VIEW, IS THERE A RETURN IF I LOCATE MY BUSINESS IN NEW YORK?

I HAVE SOME SURETY OF WHAT VOLUME NEW YORK IS WILLING TO COMMIT TO.

I'LL LOWER THE PRICE OF THOSE ELECTRIFIED PRODUCTS SO THAT IT'S MUCH MORE AFFORDABLE TO INDIVIDUAL BECAUSE THAT WILL BE PART OF MY COMMERCIALIZATION STRATEGY.

BUT THESE ARE BUSINESS MODELS, SO THEY'RE GOING TO LOOK AT IT FROM AN INVESTMENT POINT OF VIEW BECAUSE THERE IS AN ACTUAL RETURN TO BE PART OF CLIMATE CHANGE.

AND IF BEE KEEP TREATING IT LIKE IT'S A COST, WHAT'S THE COST AND WHO PAYS?

LOOK IN THE MIRROR.

THAT'S WHO IS GOING TO PAY.

BUT HOW DO WE ENGAGE THE CORPORATE AMERICA?

PEOPLE ARE LOOKING AND I GIVE THE SENATOR HIGH PRAISE.

PEOPLE ARE LOOKING AT NEW YORK.

ARE THEY LOOKING AT OUR SUBSIDIES OR ARE THEY LOOKING AT OPENING A BUSINESS HERE?

THAT IS UP TO US TO DECIDE.

AND GOOD POLICY DRIVES SUPPLY CHAINS.

I'M NOT WORRIED ABOUT WHO PAYS.

SUBSIDIZING.

CAP AND INVEST PROGRAM, IF I START TO THINK ABOUT SOME OF THE RHETORIC I'VE HEARD AROUND THAT, ALL OF A SUDDEN IT'S LIKE NO, WE ARE GOING TO SEND PEOPLE CHECKS.

WE ARE GOING TO CREATE A FUND, SEND THEM CHECKS OFFSET THE POTENTIAL IMPACT ON THEIR ELECTRIC BILL.

OH, SO IS ME THE TAXPAYER, I'M PAYING IN AND THEN ME THE RATE PAYER WILL GET SOMETHING IN RETURN LESS ADMINISTRATIVE COST?

SEE I JUST THINK WE HAVE TO THINK ABOUT INVESTMENT GRADE STRATEGIES BECAUSE I I THINK THAT'S WHY PEOPLE ARE LOOKING AT NEW YORK.

>> ISN'T THAT WE ARE GETTING A BENEFIT FROM DRASTICALLY LOWERED EMISSIONS AND IF THERE IS GOING TO BE AN INCREASED COST TO THEIR BILLS, THE PRICE THAT PEOPLE ARE PAYING TO POLLUTE IS GOING TO BE WHAT ENDS UP OFFSETTING THE ADDITIONAL COST?

>> ABSOLUTELY.

THERE ARE TWO PARTS TO CAP AND INVEST.

ONE, IT SENDS MARKET SIGNALS THERE IS A REAL COST TO THE ENVIRONMENT, TO OUR HEALTH IN USING FOSSIL FUELS AND SO IT ENTERS INTO THAT DECISION MAKING BY CUSTOMERS AND THEN IT PROVIDES MONEY TO HELP PEOPLE PUT IN HEAT PUMPS, HELP PEOPLE BUY ELECTRIC VEHICLES AND WE DO NEED-- THE DEVIL IS IN THE DETAILS AND THERE IS A LOT MORE I THINK THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE QUITE FRANKLY BUT WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT THE MOST ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED OF US ARE NOT HAMMERED BY IT.

THAT'S REALLY CRITICAL.

LET ME THROW WITHOUT ONE OTHER MECHANISM WE DISCUSSED SOME IN THE COUNCIL.

I DON'T THINK IT HAS GOTTEN ENOUGH ATTENTION.

RETROFITTING OUR HOMES.

WE HAVE SIX MILLION SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES THAT RELY ON FOSSIL FUELS HERE.

WE NEED TO RETRO FIT WITH HEAT PUMPS OVER TIME.

>> AND THE GOAL OF CONVERTING TWO MILLION HOMES TO ALL ELECTRIC BY 2030.

>> ALL OF THEM BY 2040 AND 2045.

SO THAT'S, FROM THE STANDPOINT OF THE HOMEOWNER, THE COST OF DOING THAT IS IN THE RANGE OF 20,000 TO $30,000, IT DEPENDS ON THE HOME.

BIG MONEY.

FOR ANYONE IN NEW YORK, IF THEY DO THAT, THEY WILL PAY THAT BACK IN TERMS OF LOWER ENERGY COSTS AND LOWER MAINTENANCE COSTS ON A PERIOD OF FIVE TO SIX YEARS IF YOU ARE HEATING WITH OIL OR PROPANE.

MORE IN THE TIME PERIOD OF 12 TO 15 YEARS IF YOU ARE HEATING WITH NATURAL GAS.

THE PAYBACK IS THERE BUT HOW DO YOU DO IT IN TERMS OF UP FRONT COST.

ONE MODEL IS TO HAVE THE UTILITIES PAY FOR THAT.

THEY CAN GET REALLY LOW INTEREST BONDING COMPARED TO WHAT THE GOVERNMENT CAN GET.

AND THE HOMEOWNER PAYS NO MORE THAN THEY HAVE BEEN PAYING ALREADY FOR THEIR HEATING BILLS.

THEY CONTINUE TO DO THAT AND PAY OFF THE COST BACK TO THE UTILITY.

I SEE NO LOSERS IN THAT WHATSOEVER AND THE UTILITIES IN FACT, MAKE A PROFIT ON IT, SMALL BUT REAL.

EVERYONE ELSE GAINS.

THE TAXPAYERS ARE NOT CONTRIBUTING ANYTHING.

>> AND RIGHT NOW THE STATE HAS A PILOT PROGRAM WHERE THEY'RE SPENDING $250 MILLION OF RATE PAYER MONEY TO CONVERT LOW INCOME HOMES.

DID YOU WANT TO SAY SOMETHING ABOUT THE CAP AND INVEST IN THE CONVERSATION.

>> I HAVE A BILL TO REQUIRE ALL GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS TO MEET THE TARGETS FASTER.

AND ONE OF THE REASONS FOR DOING THAT IS YOU CREATE A VERY CLEAR MARKET FOR THE EQUIPMENT.

SO THAT WOULD BE A WAY TO SEND THAT SIGNAL TO INVESTORS, OR TO BUSINESSES THAT THIS IS WE ARE WILLING TO INVEST IN YOU.

BUT I ALSO WANT TO SAY, THE VIDEO WE SAW, THERE WAS A GUY WHO HAD TO PUT $80,000 INTO PRODUCTING HIS HOME FROM A FLOOD AND FRANKLY IT DIDN'T LOOK LIKE IT WAS REALLY GOING TO DO THE CRICK.

AND, YOU KNOW, IF WE HAVE MILLIONS OF HOMEOWNERS WHO ARE HAVING TO PROTECT THEMSELVES FROM THE IMPACTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE AT THAT KIND OF LEVEL, THEN THIS IS AN INVESTMENT IN SAVING MONEY FOR PEOPLE WHO MIGHT OTHERWISE HAVE TO DO, YOU KNOW, RESPOND TO CATASTROPHES.

THAT'S PART OF THE IDEA HERE.

SO THE RETURN ON INVESTMENT, WHEN IT'S A PUBLIC INVESTMENT, IT ISN'T ALWAYS, YOU KNOW, SOMEBODY'S BOTTOM LINE IN THEIR BUSINESS.

SOMETIMES IT'S US AS A SOCIETY HELPING PEOPLE HAVE A MORE AFFORDABLE LIFE IN GENERAL.

AND I DO SEE THIS AS AN INVESTMENT THAT WAY.

>> AND I WISH I SAW MORE OPPORTUNITY COST DISCUSSION IN ENERGY.

IT JUST DOES NOT OCCUR.

I FULLY BELIEVE THAT.

BUT I LOVE THE IDEA OF PORTABLE HOLES.

IT EMPHASIZES THE POINTED.

WE TALK ABOUT AFFORDABLE HOMES AS IF IT'S SOMEBODY HAS GOT TO DESCRIBE WHAT AN AFFORDABLE HOME IS.

TO ME, WINDOWS AND DOORS, BATTERY STORAGE SYSTEMS, HEAT PUMPS, ROOF TOPS SOLAR, BUILDING ENVELOPE, DESIGN.

OH ALL GREAT OPPORTUNITIES FOR LOCATION-BASED SUPPLY CHAINS.

UNTIL WE START THINKING THAT WAY, YOU ARE NOT GOING TO SUSTAIN THE AMOUNT OF HOMES THAT NEED TO ACTUALLY BE FIXED.

AND I'M TELLING YOU, SOME OF THE HOUSING STOCK NEW YORK STATE AND I CAN SPEAK TO BUFFALO, WE ARE STILL OR DEALING WITH LEAD PAINT AND ASBESTOS.

>> HERE, TOO.

>> AM I GO FOR EXAMPLE TO WEATHERIZE THAT HOME?

AM I GOING TO PUT A HEAT PUMP IN THAT HOME?

WE GOT TO START-- IT'S, TO ME, I LOVE THE IDEA OF THESE CONVERSATIONS.

BUT THERE HAS TO BE A TECHNICAL RESPONSE.

A TECHNICAL RESPONSE THAT UNDERSTANDS THAT WE CAN CREATE NEW BUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES BUT WE HAVE TO BE PURPOSEFUL.

WE HAVE TO DRAW THE LINE IN THE SAND, NOT SAY COME AND TAKE ADVANTAGE OF ALL MY SUBSIDIES BECAUSE I WANT TO LEAD THE NATION IN SETTING A GOAL.

IF WE ARE NOT CREATING AN ECONOMIC BALANCE AND MAYBE I'LL PUT IT ON RECORD THAT THAT LAW WILL BE REVERSED BECAUSE COSTS AT ONE POINT WILL START OVERCOMING THIS IDEA OF NET BENEFITED.

IT'S A CONCERN.

>> IF I COULD TALK ABOUT ANOTHER WAY TO THINK ABOUT THIS AND THIS SPEAKS A LITTLE BIT TO WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.

ONE OF THE TRANSITIONS THAT WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT IS WHO TO CONVERT PEOPLE'S HOMES OFF OF FOSSIL FUELS AND ON TO HEAT PUMPS.

WE SPEND BILLIONS OF DOLLARS ON GAS INFRASTRUCTURE.

THE CLIMATE ACTION PLAN TALKS ABOUT A STRATEGIC DOWNSIZING OF THAT GAS INFRASTRUCTURE AS WE ARE ELECTRIFYING BUILDINGS AND I THINK THIS IS REALLY IMPORTANT THERE IS A BILL IN THE LEGISLATURE, THE NEW YORK HEAT ACT THAT ENABLES THIS TRANSITION.

IT REMOVES THE BARRIERS BUT IT HELPS US GET OUT OF THIS KIND OF HOUSE BY HOUSE APPROACH AND START TO THINK AND THINK ON A NEIGHBORHOOD SCALE BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT GAS UTILITIES DO.

THEY SERVE ENTIRE NEIGHBORHOODS WITH INFRASTRUCTURE.

AND WHEN THEY EXPAND, THEY EXPAND INTO A NEIGHBORHOOD.

AND SO WE NEED TO THINK ABOUT OUR TRANSITION THAT WAY GETTING OUT OF THE HOUSE BY HOUSE APPROACH AND GOING TO A NEIGHBORHOOD SCALE TRANSITION.

THERE ARE A LOT OF WAYS TO DO THAT AND ONE OF THE WAYS TO DO THAT IS TO LOOK AT WHERE ARE THE EXPENSIVE GAS INFRASTRUCTURE VECHS THAT WE ARE FACING RIGHT NOW THAT WE CAN AVOID?

AND THEN TAKE THAT MONEY AND PUT IT INTO SOLUTIONS.

THERE ARE A LOT OF THESE RIGHT NOW.

THERE IS GAS EXPANSION PROJECTS BECAUSE BELIEVE IT OR NOT, EVEN WITH THE CLIMATE LAW, WE STILL HAVE GAS UTILITIES EXPANDING AND ADDING NEW CUSTOMERS TO THEIR SYSTEM AND THAT'S A HUGE COST TO RATE PAYERS AND THERE IS ALSO ALL THIS OLD GAS PIPE CALLED LEAK PRONE PIPE, AN OLD MATERIAL.

IT'S GOING TO COST US BILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO REPLACE WITH NEW PIPE THAT IS SAFER.

INSTEAD OF DOING THAT, WE CAN LOOK AT THOSE NEIGHBORHOODS AND THINK ABOUT HOW TO MOVE AN ENTIRE BLOCK OFF OF THE GAS SYSTEM.

>> TO WHAT?

>> SO ONE OF THE SOLUTIONS IS A THERMAL ENERGY NETWORK AND THE LEGISLATURE PASSED THE BILL, THE UTILITY THERMAL ENERGY NETWORK AND JOBS ACT LAST YEAR THAT WAS SUPPORTED BY LABOR UNIONS AND ENVIRONMENTALISTS ALIKE, AND THIS IS UTILITY SCALE INFRASTRUCTURE.

IT'S STILL PIPES BUT INSTEAD OF GAS IN THE PIPES, IT'S WATER.

AND THAT WATER IS KEPT AT AN AMBIENT TEMPERATURE AND IT CONNECTS MULTIPLE BUILDINGS TOGETHER, HEAT PUMPS IN THE BUILDINGS EXCHANGE THERMAL ENERGY WITH THE WATER FOR HEATING AND COOLING.

SIGHTS A REALLY FISH EFFICIENT WAY TO HEAT AND COOL HOMES BECAUSE IF YOU HAVE A DIVERSIFIED HEATING STOCK, YOU CAN SHARE HEATING AND COOLING BETWEEN BUILDINGS AND WE ARE SEEING UTILITIES START TO PILOT THIS NOW BECAUSE OF THAT BILL THAT WAS PASSED LAST YEAR.

AND SO WE REALLY NEED TO THINK ABOUT THIS AT A NEIGHBORHOOD SCALE AND I AGREE WITH YOU, WE NEED TO LOOK AT THE SYSTEM THAT WE HAVE TODAY AND WHAT ARE THE INVESTMENTS THAT RIGHT NOW WE ARE FACING IN THAT SYSTEM AND HOW DO WE STRATEGICALLY MOVE THOSE INVESTMENTS INTO CLEAN ENERGY.

>> INSTEAD OF SPENDING BILLIONS OF NATURAL GAS WE ARE GOING TO BE SPENDING BILLIONS IF NOT MORE ON ELECTRIC SYSTEMS.

THAT'S THE POINT.

YOU ARE NOT GOING TO GET RID OF THE COST.

HAVE YOU TO THINK ABOUT HOW DO I MITIGATE OR MINIMIZE THE COST THAT ACTUALLY COULD HELP ME PAY FOR THIS ELECTRIFIED ECONOMY?

SO UTILITIES REFER TO THAT AS NON-WIRES ALTERNATIVES, RIGHT?

SO AS WE ADD ELECTRIC DEMAND TO OUR SYSTEM, YOU HAVE TO REALIZE THE DISTRIBUTION NETWORK IS PROBABLY ABOUT, I DON'T KNOW, MAYBE 45 TO 55% EFFICIENT.

WHY IS THAT?

BECAUSE MOST OF OUR CITIES, ESPECIALLY IN UPSTATE NEW YORK, OPERATE 8-5.

SO REALLY MOST OF THE ENERGY INTENSITY IS DOO UNDERGRADUATE 8-5, RIGHT?

WHAT DO WE DO WITH THE OFF HOURS?

IT'S A GREAT OPPORTUNITY FOR THERMAL, A GREAT OPPORTUNITY FOR BATTERY STORAGE TO FULLY OPTIMIZE AN EXISTING SYSTEM.

SO IF I SAVE MONEY BY UPGRADING AN ELECTRIC DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM, CAN I TURN TO THE COMMUNITY AND SAY I'LL INCENTIVIZE YOU TO AVOID HAVING TO UPGRADE THE ELECTRIC DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM AND I WILL DO THAT THROUGH RATE BASE, NOT THROUGH ANOTHER PROGRAM, NO THE THROUGH ANOTHER INCENTIVE, NOT THROUGH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OR THE STATE GOVERNMENT, BUT BECAUSE IT'S GOOD BUSINESS.

>> ONLY HAVE A KOWAL OF MINUTES AND WE WILL COME BACK TO YOU, SENATOR I'M CURIOUS WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT THE PACE OF BUILDING RENEWABLE ENERGY RIGHT NOW.

ARE WE GOING FAST ENOUGH?

ARE WE SEEING THAT THE CONSTRUCTION IS NOT DEVELOPING AS FAST AS WE WOULD LIKE.

IS SHOULD THE STATE BE AMPING UP ITS RFP PROCESS FOR, YOU KNOW, HOPING TO BUILD NEW RENEWABLE ENERGY PROJECTS?

WHAT DO YOU THINK IN TERMS OF THE CLCPA GOALS.

>> I THINK WE ARE IN PRETTY GOOD SHAPE IN TERMS... >> EVEN THOUGH THINGS ARE BEHIND SCHEDULE RIGHT NOW?

>> BUT THEY'RE IN THE WORKS AND BY 2030, WE ARE SUPPOSED TO BE 70% RENEWABLE.

WE ARE ON TARGET TO MEET THAT BETWEEN THE OFFSHORE WIND.

>> 241 IS THE MOST DIFFICULT GOAL.

>> 2040 WOULD BE 100% FOSSIL FUEL FREE AND INCLUDE IN NUCLEAR.

IF WE MEET THE 2030 GOAL ADD AND WE ARE ON TORGT TO DO SO.

I THINK 2040 WILL BE PRETTY EASY.

THE HARDEST OF THE MAJOR CLIMATE OF CLIMATE GOALS, THE ELECTRIC GOALS.

I THINK WE ARE ON TARGET FOR THERE PRETTY WELL.

WE HAVE THE TRANSPORTATION GOALS, MARKET FORCES ARE MOVING US THAT WAY.

BANNING SALES OF INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE CARS AFTER 2035 IN THE STATE.

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS MOVING AGGRESSIVELY NOW THROUGH THE E.P.A.

TO PUSH ELECTRIC VEHICLES.

THE BIGGEST CHALLENGE WE HAVE IN MEETING THE CLCPA GOALS IS OUR BUILDING STOCK, OUR HOUSING STOCK AND MOVING FOSSIL FUELS OUT OF THOSE.

THERE ARE CHALLENGES ALL ALONG.

WE DO NEED TO IMPROVE THE GRID.

WE NEED STORAGE SYSTEMS AND ALL BUT I'M FAR MORE OPTIMISTIC ABOUT THE ELECTRIC SIDE OF THINGS THAN I AM ON THE HOUSING SIDE, WHICH IS WHERE I THINK WE REALLY NEED A SHARP FOCUS.

>> SENATOR.

>> IT WAS ON THE HOUSING SIDE AND NOT TO SHIFT THE FOCUS, BUT THERE IS ALSO ABAFFORDABLE HOUSING CRISIS IN THIS STATE AND THE GOVERNOR HAS A PROPOSAL FOR BUILDING A LOT MORE HOUSING.

I THINK THE MORE WE CAN THINK ABOUT IT IN TERMS OF DENSE NEIGHBORHOODS WHERE YOU CAN DO THESE VERY EFFICIENT WAYS OF INTRODUCING THE POWER IF YOU CAN GET RID OF SOME OF THE MASSIVE DUCT WORK AND EVERYTHING REQUIRED FOR CURRENT HVAC SIS TERM LIMITS, YOU CAN BUILD MORE AFFORDABLY THERE.

YOU CAN MAKE THEM HIGHLY EFFICIENT ON A SMALLER FOOTPRINT.

YOU KNOW, MORE WALKABLE COMMUNITIES.

THERE ARE A LOT OF ADDITIONAL CLIMATE BENEFITS AS WELL AS BENEFITS TO QUALITY OF LIFE.

I HOPE WE CAN ALL BE SORT OF MOVING THE SAME DIRECTION FOR DENSE AFFORDABLE HOUSING AS THE MORE EFFICIENT ENERGY EFFICIENT BUILDING.

>> JESSICA, DO YOU FEEL OPTIMISTIC SINCE THE FOUR YEARS ADOPTION OF THE CLCPA?

>> I FEEL DETERMINED.

I THINK WE HAVE A LOT OF WORK AHEAD OF US WE HAVE DELAYED TOO LONG.

THE CLIMATE CRISIS IS ACCELERATING FASTER THAN A LOT OF WHAT SCIENTISTS HAVE EXPECTED.

NOW IS THE TIME THAT WE NEED TO CALL TOGETHER.

THERE ARE SO MANY GREAT SOLUTIONS OUT THERE WE NEED TO DO THEM ALL AT THE SAME TIME.

BUT I FEEL, YOU KNOW, I FEEL DETERMINED AND I BELIEVE THAT IF WE PULL TOGETHER WE CAN DO THIS.

WE JUST HAVE TO DECIDE THAT WE ARE GOING TO.

>> AND DENNIS, DO YOU AND OTHER MEMBERS OF THE CLIMATE ACTION COUNCIL HAVE A RESPONSIBLE OR ANYTHING WRITTEN IN STATUTE ABOUT MONITORING THE STATE'S EFFORT TO IMPLEMENT YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS OR ACHIEVE THE CLCPA GOALS?

>> SO THEORETICALLY, WE ARE GOING TO REBAND IN FIVE YEARS.

>> WE ARE SUPPOSED TO REDO THE PLAN EVERY FIVE YEARS.

>> SO YOU LOOK AT THAT, AND THIS IS A GREAT OPPORTUNITY TO DEVELOP DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS, TO REALLY START TO LOOK AT WHAT IS BEING PLACED IN LEGISLATION IN TERMS OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FOR ECONOMIC BALANCE.

IF THAT'S NOT IN THERE, IT'S GOING TO FAIL.

SO THAT WOULD BE-- AND I'M GOING TO PROJECT WHAT MY OBSERVATIONS WILL BE FIVE YEARS FROM NOW IF WE DON'T START THINKING ABOUT HOW DO WE DEVELOP THESE BUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES SO THAT IT'S THE MARKET THAT IS HELPING SOLVE CLIMATE CHANGE, NOT JUST WHAT IS GOVERNMENT GOING TO DO NEXT?

YOU KNOW, GOVERNMENT SETS THE TONE.

THEY SET A GREAT DIRECTION FOR US.

BUT IF BEE DON'T INCLUDE THE MARKET, THEY'RE JUST GOING TO SEE IT AS A COST CENTER AND THEY WILL FIGHT IT.

LET'S GET PEOPLE ON BOARD AND SEE THE ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY TO DO THE RIGHT THING.

THAT'S WHAT WE ARE GOING TO BE LOOKING AT IN FIVE YEARS.

REAL DATA.

NOT ECONOMIC MODELING.

BELIEVE ME, I DON'T MIND FUTURING INPUTS IN THERE AND I'M SURE I CAN CHANGE THE WHOLE OUTLOOK OF THE MODEL BUT WE NEED DATA AND WE NEED THESE DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS.

WE NEED THESE NEIGHBORHOOD PROJECTS IN PLACE.

SO THAT WHEN THE COUNCIL GETS BACK TOGETHER AGAIN, WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT MOTION AND THEORY.

WE ARE TALKING ABOUT REAL DATA AND THEN YOU ACCELERATE THE WINNERS AND YOU GET RID OF THE LOSERS.

>> BOB, ARE YOU LOOKING FORWARD TO SEEING DENNIS IN FIVE YEARS.

>> ABSOLUTELY.

YEAH, ABSOLUTELY.

IT WAS A THREE-YEAR HARD PIECE OF WORK TO COME UP WITH THE SCOPING PLAN WE DID.

WE HAD A LARGE NUMBER OF ADVISORY PANELS THAT DID AN INVEBL JOB, A LOT OF TALENT PEOPLE WORKING HARD.

WE HAD A HUGE AMOUNT OF PUBLIC INPUT.

WE HAD 11 PUBLIC HEARINGS, WELL OVER A THOUSAND PEOPLE CAME.

WE GOT WRITTEN COMMENTS FROM TENS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE.

WE TOOK IT SERIOUSLY.

WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO START REDOING THAT.

OUR NEXT PLAN IS DUE DECEMBER 22.

WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO START WORKING ON THAT IN ANOTHER YEAR OR TWO TO DO THAT.

>> IT'S NEVER TOO LATE.

>> AND ABSOLUTELY LOOKING FORWARD TO WORKING ON IT.

IN THE MEANWHILE, I LOVE THAT WE ARE DETERMINED.

THIS IS A GREAT LAW.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE MUST ALL BE DETERMINED TO SEE IT THROUGH.

I'M CONVINCED IT'S GOING TO BE GOOD FOR THE AVERAGE PERSON IN THE STATE ECONOMICALLY AND EVERY OTHER WAY.

>> I LOOK FORWARD MEETING UNWITH YOU GUYS AGAIN IN 2028 TO ASSESS THE CLIMATE CHANGE WHERE WE ARE IN NEW YORK.

BUT UNFORTUNATELY THAT'S ALL THE TIME WE HAVE TODAY.

MY THANKS TO STATE SENATOR RACHEL MAY - CORNELL UNIVERSITY'S ROBERT HOWARTH - ENERGY CONSULTANT DENNIS ELSENBECK - AND ALLIANCE FOR A GREEN ECONOMY'S JESSICA AZULAY.

IF YOU'D LIKE TO REVISIT THIS EPISODE - OR DIG INTO THE CONNECT NEW YORK ARCHIVES - VISIT WCNY.ORG/CONNECTNEW YORK.

AND BE SURE TO CATCH OUR UPCOMING DOCUMENTARY "BLOOM," WHICH AIRS MAY 11TH AT 8 PM ON WCNY-TV AND ONLINE AT WCNY.ORG.

ON BEHALF OF THE ENTIRE TEAM AT WCNY - I'M DAVID LOMBARDO - THANKS FOR WATCHING.