>> From WXXI News.

This is Connections.

I'm Evan Dawson.

Our connection this hour was made in 2019 when New York State passed the Clcpa.

The climate Leadership and Community Protection Act.

It was hailed as one of the most ambitious state climate laws in the country.

But now Governor Kathy Hochul is saying that maybe the timeline for the Clcpa should be moved back maybe by a decade.

The governor has been citing two main reasons.

First, she says that the Trump administration has made clean energy a lot more difficult for states by gutting offshore wind projects and removing supports for solar.

And second, the governor has been citing a New York State Energy Research and Development Authority report.

A Nyserda report claiming, as the governor says, mandates in the Clcpa will increase annual heating bills by $4,000 for upstate households that use oil and gas, $2,300 in New York City.

So she says she is just trying to protect New Yorkers.

But writing for The New Republic this week, Ilana Cohen says the governor is hiding behind bad math and bad reasons to slow down green energy.

Cohen says, quote, Kathy Hochul has one last chance to do the right thing on climate.

Instead of weakening New York's landmark climate law, Governor Hochul could and should choose to meet its targets, end quote.

Governor Hochul has clearly been persuaded that moving more aggressively away from fossil fuels will be expensive.

But the war in Iran has already driven gas prices up 40%, and it could dramatically affect energy prices in the months to come.

Advocates want New York state that is not so dependent on fossil fuels anymore.

Yesterday, you heard from some entrepreneurs about that making the case this hour about the Clcpa.

Let me welcome our guest in studio, Graham Hughes, director of policy and advocacy at the Climate Solutions Accelerator.

Welcome to the program.

Thanks for being here.

>> Thanks for having me.

>> Kevin Schultz is CEO of Green Spark Solar.

Welcome back to you.

>> Thanks for having me.

>> And joining us on the line, Stephan Edel is the executive director of New York Renews Stephan.

Welcome.

Thanks for being with us.

>> Thank you for having me.

>> Lisa Marshall, director of organizing and advocacy at New Yorkers Clean Power.

Lisa, welcome.

Thanks for being with us.

>> Hey, Evan, it's great to be back on your show.

Thanks for having us.

>> All right.

So briefly here, let's kind of go around the table.

Governor Hochul as you know, Graham has been saying, number one, blame the Trump administration.

They are making it really hard to do wind.

You know, they've gone after wind very specifically, they're removing subsidies and supports for solar.

And states are in a lot harder position than they were.

And the governor says she she believes the nicer to report.

She thinks families are going to really pay more.

If you move too aggressively on Clcpa.

Where is she wrong?

>> Well, we, uh, we think she's wrong in a couple different ways.

Uh, on the Nyserda memo specifically that, uh, that memo, you know, it, it, it paints a picture of a cap and invest program, which is the program the governor has chosen or chosen 2023 to implement and fund our climate law.

It paints a picture of that program that, uh, you know, uh, shows very, very expensive what they call allowances.

So under a cap and invest program, big polluters and businesses have to buy the right to emit carbon and greenhouse gases.

The money that's raised through that, uh, you know, that the purchase of those allowances is then taken and reinvested into the community.

The, the Nyserda memo paints a picture that has really, really high allowance prices.

And it also doesn't talk about any of the benefits that would come from these investments.

So, for example, a recent study on the investment side of Cap and invest shows that households in New York state making $200,000 or less would actually see net savings on their energy bills, because the money that's raised from this program, estimates show 6 to $10 billion a year, uh, in the first year alone would be sent directly back to ratepayers to offset the cost of any, any rise in, uh, in their energy bills that they might see.

So we think that's wrong.

We also know that renewable energy, uh, uh, solar and wind is the most affordable energy that we have right now.

It's the, the quickest to deploy in terms of new generation, um, the, you know, when we look at the costs compared to other forms of energy, it's the cheapest and, uh, you know, given the geopolitical situation we find ourselves in critically, it's the type of energy that we have the most control over here in New York state.

And that's really important because we know that fossil fuel prices are going to continue to rise.

Even before the war in Iran, the New York Independent System Operator put out reports, Nyserda put out reports that suggested that the cost of fossil fuels, in particular natural gas, will continue to rise while the price of renewables will continue to to drop.

>> Before I turn to your colleagues, one other point here.

I want to say we don't have Governor Hochul on the program today.

She has had repeated and ongoing open invitation, and we do hope to talk to her about a range of issues.

This included.

We have not been able to secure that interview, and it's not easy to convince members of the legislature to come on this program and sort of argue with you about this, because, well, I don't want to speculate why, but this is not a case, as you know, where it's well, there's Republicans and Democrats on two sides.

The Republicans are in the minority, and their position is pretty clear on this.

But it's really the Democratic Party that controls the legislature that is more split on this and is, um, there are plenty of of Democrats in Albany who appear to be with the governor.

They don't want to come out and talk about that on this program today, but they'd be welcome to.

Is that how you see the split?

I mean, it's not just sort of a right left political divide.

>> Well, I think there is some truth to that.

But the the reality, I think, is that the governor has been pushing really, really hard on these changes to the Clcpa.

She's trying to push them through during budget negotiations.

We you know, we don't even really know exactly what she's proposing.

There's been no.

>> Can you speculate as to why, though?

I mean, do you think the Nyserda report that you think is flawed is intentionally flawed?

Do you think it's just, you know, sort of ignorant?

Do you think the governor's been led astray?

Do you think she's been affected by campaign contributions from fossil fuels?

As other advocates have said?

I'm curious to know how you describe the reason for this.

>> I'm sure my my colleagues on the phone, uh, and here in studio, I suspect, have their own thoughts.

But but my suspicion is that, um, you know, the governor was, uh, sued in 2025 by a number of climate advocates for not implementing the climate law by in, you know, in the form of not releasing the regulations that would govern it.

>> Right?

Just as a way of background, the law passes in 2019.

By 2024, New York State was supposed to, by law, put forward the regulations that would allow the state to achieve these goals.

So some by 2030, some by 2040.

And they didn't do that.

And so the governor gets sued over that.

Is that the correct way to describe it?

>> Yes.

That's correct.

Specifically over not releasing regulations for the cap and invest program, which was the program that she chose, that nobody really asked her to pursue, uh, to implement the climate law, that that lawsuit is definitely a factor here.

I think there's also a lot of.

>> The lawsuits are factors.

And she's just angry at the activists who've come after her.

>> Yes.

Rather than, you know, try and, you know, settle the lawsuit or, you know, negotiate with the plaintiffs.

Her response, I think, has been to try and change the law that they are suing her under.

>> Okay.

Do you think there's any chance that she's right, that Nyserda is right, that their math is good?

>> Well, I mean, again, they their math is not necessarily, uh, wrong.

It's just doesn't paint an accurate picture of what cap and invest would actually look like in New York and what it would actually do that.

I was talking earlier about the allowance price.

I think the allowance price, the memo, uh, you know, points out, points to is something like 110 or $120 per, you know, per metric ton of carbon programs across the country that have implemented similar cap and invest programs like California and Oregon see their allowance prices even still to this day, hover around 30 or $40 per metric ton of carbon.

So it just doesn't, you know, the, the, the picture that that memo paints is very one sided in terms of costs and, and, uh, makes it look like the program is going to cost way more than, than it actually realistically would.

Um.

>> Okay, so one other point on this, and then I'll let everyone else jump in Ilana Cohen's framing in the New Republic, I think is, is a little hyperbolic.

She described it as one last chance for Governor Hochul to do the right thing.

There's not one last chance for anything in climate.

There's an ongoing discussion of policy and response, and there's going to be for decades or hundreds of years, so long as we have a livable planet.

But she clearly feels like this is the line the governor has to choose this year.

Do you see it that way?

Does this feel something final to you?

>> Uh, yeah, it does.

You know, I think, uh, for myself and a lot of my colleagues around the Finger Lakes region and across the state, this feels pretty existential.

You know, our climate law, the clcpa created a very powerful framework for transitioning our state's economy off of fossil fuels and affirmatively benefiting disadvantaged communities, marginalized peoples in the process.

And it remains the kind of the main, uh, enforcement mechanism for ensuring that transition happens.

And in light of the changes that we've seen at the federal level in, you know, in light of all of the, the various pressures from the fossil fuel industry without a law that forces the state to, to make these changes happen, I, I really worry that they just won't happen to the scale that they need to, to both combat climate change and also, you know, benefit those communities and ensure that the transition that we that we need to go through builds an economy in a, in a state that really works for all of its people and meets all the needs of New Yorkers.

>> Let's go across the panel.

Kevin Schulte, the CEO of Green Spark Solar Governor Hochul, says, you got to partially blame the Trump administration that they have gone after wind aggressively and that they've cut supports for solar.

And that makes this kind of untenable for states.

Is that fair >>?

>> I think no, it is fair that to say that it.

>> That the.

>> Trump administration made it.

>> Harder, okay.

That he has not a a supporter of these energy forms.

>> The problem that we have right now is, you know, in the campaign leading up to 2024 and since then, like it's been become not okay to be green because that campaign and the language since has listed us as more expensive, slower, whatever those things are.

>> Yeah.

>> And so like, for some reason, she's the first governor since Pataki to not step up in the absence of federal support.

Instead to step back.

And that, to me is just truly sad, right?

Like, I don't understand what's going on in her head.

Like, I would have expected this maneuver more if she had a viable if there was a viable Republican alternative running against her in the fall.

But because everybody's dropped out of the race like she's going to win in a landslide, there's no reason for her to sprint to the political center, which is what this feels like.

>> So do you feel like this is a political move in an election year?

>> 1,000%.

I mean, my you know, I'm going to say things that are maybe more macro, but I feel like we are losing both the messaging and political contributions.

Uh, campaigns to the utilities and to the fossil fuel industries.

I mean, the reality is because the climate movement doesn't have the money that the fossil fuels industry does, instead of saying, here's some money to support your campaign, we sue her.

So like, that's just not the way that the American political system works.

So unfortunately, her response to that is, well, if you guys are going to sue me, then I'm just going to do what the other guys are telling me.

>> That is not how she would characterize it.

>> Well, sure, sure it isn't.

But she also wouldn't stand on a podium and say, I'm saying this because the natural gas industry gave me money.

I mean, the report she cites from Nyserda alone uses $4,000 a year.

It's based on 2024 data.

Well, since 2024.

In 2025, gas prices rose 120% and then were succeeded by another 40% increase just since the start of the war in Iran.

What are we talking about?

The numbers are wrong on the merits because they're old at this point.

So, I mean, her numbers are her math is wrong and flawed in so many ways.

It's not, you know, if I get into my own area of expertise.

Right, solar and storage, recent reports say $1 billion is saved in ten years.

If she meets a. If we meet the goal of 20GW of distributed solar and storage.

And yet for two years she sat on the ASAP bill, which would unlock six gigawatts almost instantaneously, of distributed solar and storage into the market.

At the same time, she took $271 million and moved it to other programs.

And.

And instead of putting money towards the most successful portion of the clcpa.

So I just don't think her priorities are aligned with.

When this bill was signed.

And, you know, I do think that the utilities and the fossil fuel industry have her ears and are are are putting their thumb on the scale.

>> Stephan how do you see the governor's comments and what they sort of portend for not only what's happening this week, next week, this month, but the reasons for it?

>> Yeah, I mean, I think I'll start by saying we're one of the groups that worked on research about her campaign contributions.

And I think just to agree with the other speakers, I think it's very hard to look at the substantive material she's put out and see good faith conversation.

I don't know whether the governor believes it or not, but it certainly demonstrates a lack of interest in really understanding any of the nuances.

Um, I'll add to the, the litany of reasons.

The Nyserda study is not a reasonable one, along with the fact it uses undercounted costs for natural gas and overcounted price for emissions and fails to include any of the benefits of this or the investments that would come from it.

Um, additionally, the memo itself says that this is not the only scenario.

Um, it is not the only scenario that could happen.

And in fact says that if we did it right in the Nyserda memo that she claims proves her point, that she won't release the data for or the analysis or the map that it says that we could decarbonize the economy and save every household more than $1,000.

And so I just want to be really clear that like, as we talk about the policy, we're not speculating based on sorry, as we talk about the politics, we're not speculating just based on rumor.

We're looking at what the governor has said and done and put out.

And it's only understandable in one way.

Um, and, and really it comes down to, yes, the Trump administration is a huge problem.

But what we've seen, and even as recently as 3 or 4 years ago, this administration could push forward and advance these policies and do a tremendous amount.

But what we've seen since then is the governor actively undermining climate efforts, um, whether intentionally or not, um, buying into and then pushing aggressively the narrative that climate policy undermines jobs and affordability.

While we know that her own agencies and government offices have done plenty of analysis that show exactly the opposite, right?

For example, we put out some facts just last week, and, you know, it should be really clear when we talk about her leaving out these benefits as she drags her feet and fails to push her agencies to act and pushes back her own proposed cap and invest program that has real, concrete impacts on communities, right?

It means taking money out of households who would be saving money right now if they'd gotten support for energy efficiency or renewables.

It means hundreds of thousands of jobs that we could be at if we were investing the billions of dollars a year that, again, she as recently as 2023, 2024, was saying we needed to invest.

And it means people's lives are actually impacted, right?

This is not just about greenhouse gases in the abstract.

These pollutants have, particularly in black and brown minority communities, poor communities, frontline and working communities all over the state.

A huge impact on local health.

And so rather than focusing on how we move forward.

The governor has chosen aggressively to to blame the affordability crisis on climate policy and to attack climate policy.

And I don't think there's any way to understand that.

>> Well, let me just let me let me just kind of press on that political point there, because the panel really thinks that Governor Hochul is number one in an election year.

Number two, buying the nyserda math and maybe politicizing the issue.

And I do take Kevin Schultz's point that if this math is from 2024, before a lot changed last year, to say nothing of the Iran war this year, you know, I think anybody would want better or more updated math, for sure.

But if this is just about politics, Stephan.

Um, and the governor is trying to sell herself to the political middle, don't you think she could say she could come out and say, look, a year ago I thought we needed to slow down.

Clcpa because number one, I'm about cost for New Yorkers.

And I was worried about that.

But now we've got one of the most unpopular wars in American history blowing up fossil fuel energy prices around the world.

And we are not going to be beholden to that anymore.

We can't control what Washington does.

We can control what we do.

And the math has changed.

And we're going to do this to protect ourselves.

And we're going to be, you know, sort of New York first.

Doesn't that sell to the middle better than, you know, here's the 2024 math on this.

>> I think, you know, I can't speculate what's in the governor's head, right?

I think there is a really strong political case you're making.

I think the other argument and what I find more compelling personally, is that she doubled down and she has continued to double down.

And that whether that is because she genuinely believes in contravention to the evidence, including, again, the evidence that is laid out in the Nyserda memo, she claims says something that it doesn't right with all its faults.

You know, she could and should know better.

So if she's doing this, maybe she really believes it.

But at the end of the day, you know, whether she's intentionally, you know, fighting this fight because she really doesn't like green energy or whether she thinks this is a selling political message, the outcome of that is to make this a political choice for everyone in the legislature, everybody in New York.

And she is clearly chosen to align herself with more with Trump than with her constituents.

In saying that, you know, we can't actually possibly make our legal commitments.

And rather than engaging in a thoughtful discussion, right.

Which would be the follow up of that position, right?

If we're going to rethink this because of the changing landscape, we would be doing that analysis and she would be at the table negotiating with the folks who sued her, talking with the legislature.

Instead, she's secretly meeting with leadership, refusing to share language or any details of her proposal, negotiating in public only by attacking climate policy.

So I just think for me, there is no understandable way to to see her actions as anything other than primarily political in a moment where she's running for office and has made this political calculation and doubled down on it.

>> All right.

Lisa Marshall from New Yorkers for Clean Power.

Um, what do you see here?

>> I couldn't agree more with everything that's been said.

You know, if the governor's primarily primary goal is to lower energy bills for New Yorkers, we have been offering her many ways to do that, both in and out of the budget that she has been pushing back on.

For her to blame Trump.

Let's remember she tried to weaken our climate law in 2023.

Trump was not president.

Then.

President Biden was president then.

Um, and let's talk about the federal government.

Yes.

They're not being helpful in this moment.

But Governor Hochul in this moment is ready to walk away from three gigawatts of shovel ready renewable projects that would get $5 billion in federal tax credits.

She's just letting that die on the vine.

So she's full of excuses.

But it's it's really just nonsense.

She herself has had to admit that rolling back the climate law has nothing to do with lowering our energy bills.

And she had to publicly admit that because it's true.

Look, if she was serious about having a real debate about what, um, the concerns that she has about meeting the targets, and let's be clear, it's a lot more than getting an extension on the deadline that she's asking for here.

She really wants to strip the guts out of the whole law so that it basically will mean nothing and won't drive policy.

Um, in the moment that where fossil fuel prices are through the roof, she's basically saying, yeah, let's do fossil fuels, let's do more for the next couple of decades.

And that's just bonkers.

Um, so she could be working with us in good faith with the legislature, in good faith on energy affordability policies that will help people right now and into the future.

And she's just not doing that.

So we are really calling on the legislature to call her out.

One of the words that the legislators kept using after her memo came out, and let's not memo.

Yes, after the Nyserda memo came out, was disingenuous.

It's all disingenuous.

This is not good faith.

If she was in good faith, she would have put this proposal in her written budget proposal in January so that we could all see it and talk about it.

She would have produced the numbers behind the Nyserda memo.

Let's be clear, Nyserda works for her.

She asked for a memo that made the climate law look as expensive as possible for her political agenda, and they sheepishly produced it.

Um, that is not good faith at all.

And we nobody would propose that she design a captain Invest program that raises costs for New Yorkers the way that memo, um, lays out, nobody is in favor of that.

We would never ask for that.

That would be cuckoo bananas.

Well.

>> Let me ask.

>> I can I just say that, you know, since this, you know, climate advocates for years have been saying fossil fuels puts us in a very dangerous, precarious position vis a vis global political, um, situations that we cannot control.

And this past month has shown that other countries and even states listen to what Jared Polis, governor of Colorado, said last week, they are saying, this is the moment we should be embracing renewables, getting as quickly as possible off of fossil fuels and instead, Governor Hochul says, yeah, let's let's do more fossil fuels.

>> But but is it the.

>> Whole undercurrent is that they're trying to say it for cost, solar and storage at scale, $76 a megawatt hour natural new natural gas not available for five years, $102 a megawatt hour.

Uh, it's not even it's not even like they're not even making sense because it's more expensive than clean alternatives that are more dispatchable and ready to go today.

Like, and there are so many things they could be doing in the alternative to open grid access, to allow renewables to change, permitting rules that aren't even budgetary.

We don't even have to change the budget.

We just have to change laws.

So like, I, I'm sorry, but it's like so on the merits, the argument is so wrong because they're, they, they talk about change.

We talk about changing the law.

We'll talk about changing the law.

That's politics, policy and politics.

Fine.

The reality on the ground is what's the suitable alternative?

We have to do this from a cost perspective.

We don't even have to like above and beyond the clean piece.

It's it's a remarkable to me how bad this conversation has gotten twisted by money and politics because on the merits, fossil fuels lose right now, with or without this law.

>> And a couple of things here.

I want to get some listener emails in which we have just briefly, Graham Hughes, director of policy and advocacy at the Climate Solutions Accelerator, do you agree with Lisa Marshall that if this were a good faith proposal from the governor to slow down the climate goals based on her legitimate concerns over math, she would have put it directly in the budget, let everybody see it, talk about it for months, convene discussions, do it openly, as opposed to what might end up getting done at the last minute behind closed doors before the final budget's out.

>> Uh, yeah, I do.

Um, yeah, it just seems very, um, it seems very undemocratic of her to, to, to push through this, you know, this change to the clcpa in this way.

And from what I'm hearing, it's not just that she is trying to, you know, make these negotiations happen behind closed doors.

It's that she's willing to hold up the budget over this.

Uh, she's really, she's really going all out to try and weaken the clcpa.

And, you know, the only, the only information that we've been able to gather about what she's actually proposing is through, you know, kind of informal conversations with, uh, with legislators who have, have learned about this in, in some form or fashion.

And the only, you know, kind of public information that we've gotten was an interview she did maybe a few weeks ago that basically referenced a couple of these things for, for her to be trying to make such massive policy change in this way with such little input from, you know, from legislators across the state, not to mention climate advocates, it just really feels it feels disingenuous and that she's not acting in good faith.

>> And certainly, again, I'll say we would love to have the governor on this program.

Um, she's invited any time.

She hasn't taken us up on that.

I did figure coming into this conversation, maybe somewhere she sat down with somebody at length and talked about this, and we could at least pull sound from that.

And there's only a few very short comments from the governor at all on this.

And so that's what I referenced at the start of the program.

But there's not, you know, a half hour, half an hour sit down with somebody where she goes deep on this, that doesn't exist.

And I would love, uh, if it does, I'm not aware of it.

And I would love for her to be on this program whenever she wants to talk about this on the other side of her only break, we're going to take your phone calls and emails on this subject.

We've got Graham Hughes from the Climate Solutions Accelerator, Kevin Schulte from Green Spark Solar in studio, Lisa Marshall from New Yorkers for Clean Power and Stephan from New York renews with us talking about this decision that New York is facing.

On whether to put off climate goals as Governor Hochul says she thinks we must.

We'll come right back and talk about it on Connections.

Coming up in our second hour, it is our Friday news roundup with our colleagues from WXXI, starting with WXXI Jeremy Moule, who has a story about the lessened birdsong.

If you're hearing fewer birds singing this spring could be tied to the recent Canadian wildfires of the last few years, and we're going to talk about it.

We'll have tax tips for last minute filers and more.

It's all next hour.

>> Support for your public radio station comes from our members and from Mary Cariola center, supporting residents to become active members of the community from developing life skills to gaining independence.

Mary Cariola, center.

Transforming lives of people with disabilities.

More online at.

Mary Cariola.

Org.. >> This is Connections.

I'm Evan Dawson.

All right to your your feedback we go Andrew emails to say Evan, the problem is you're talking to activists.

How many of them have ever built anything?

Okay, so Graham, you want to start from the Climate Solutions Accelerator.

What would you say to Andrew?

>> Well, the Climate Solutions Accelerator is a nonprofit and we don't build anything per se.

But a big part of what we do is help people around the nine county region get access to the various programs that support the clean energy transition.

You know, the some of the big ones include mPOWER plus, um, basically we help people participate in the transition.

And I think we've served hundreds of people over the last few years and gotten them access to, you know, uh, heat pumps and new insulation.

And these, you know, these people are saving money on their energy bills.

Uh, they're getting better quality housing, improving the, the air quality in their homes.

Um, while participating in the clean energy transition.

And, you know, it's from that experience that, that I can say that, you know, a transition really does benefit, uh, people.

So no, I haven't built anything, but, um, we're, we're out there in the community doing the work and getting people, uh, access to these programs.

>> All right.

Kevin Schulte, Andrew says the problem is I'm only talking to activists who haven't built anything.

>> I'm the largest solar contractor in the state of New York.

We employ 150 people here in Rochester, and typically another 2 to 300 union workers around the state on any given day.

So we've built about 10% of all the solar in New York.

Uh, so yeah, I've built some things.

>> Okay.

Are you an activist?

>> I spend enough time in Albany.

Some might call me that, but I mean, we we are a believer that clean energy will improve the economic condition of our community.

And so, yes, we advocate strongly because clean energy is an economic tool for this community, both for job creation, lowering costs for consumers, clean, clean energy.

For all of those reasons, it is a benefit to this community.

And so that's why, yes, we do go to Albany and advocate for ourselves and for our community in that way.

But ultimately, my company, we build what do we build?

We build energy.

We do it as a team.

So that's, that's who we are.

>> Okay.

Lisa Marshall, anything you want to add to Andrew's email?

>> Yeah, I mean, I've worked closely with a lot of green energy contractors and helped connect homeowners and municipalities to their services and helped projects get underway.

Um, if you want to call that an activist, I guess, but I am, I have gotten my hands dirty and been part of projects.

Um, you know, Kevin is so right.

And just last summer, you might remember when we had that horrible heat wave and the price of electricity went through the roof?

Well, Nyserda calculated that the, um, distributed solar that we have in New York saved us all.

I think it's $90 million or something.

Or maybe it was 9 million.

Let me just check the number.

But save millions and millions of dollars in just two day time period.

Um um because of that, because we had that energy to put online when we needed it.

And imagine if we actually were building out the solar wind and battery storage and the transmission that we had set plan to here in New York.

Um, speaking of Governor Hochul blaming other people and whining, I mean, she herself canceled a major clean energy transmission project that would have brought those green electrons from upstate where we're producing them downstate, where they need more energy.

I mean, this is all her.

Nobody made her do that.

Um, so this is the kind of thing we need to fight for.

Um, and it does save money.

And these projects really benefit, um, communities all across the state.

>> Anything to add?

Stephan Edel.

>> Um, you know, I think for folks who want to dismiss the reality because activists are the ones, you know, or folks they call activists are the ones raising it.

I think there's not much we can say, but I can say personally, you know, I've done energy efficiency work on my house and it brought my bills down.

My colleagues around the state at different organizations are doing concrete work in their community, building solar projects, building workforce centers, energy efficiency.

You know, we represent groups all across the state who are doing the actual construction and where their members are seeing the benefits.

And these are not activists.

They're working people in every community in the state who see that this is going to actually benefit them.

>> All right, let's get to your phone calls, Alex and Kristen first.

So let's start with Alex in Rochester.

Hey, Alex, go ahead.

>> Uh, building on what Steve had said, just looking at this from a, a budget perspective, um, for someone who positions herself as a very fiscally minded, uh, Democrat, it kind of beggars understanding for me that Hochul isn't looking to increase production of renewables in New York state because I mean, um, you had the CEO of R, G and E on a few weeks ago, Patricia Nielsen.

She talks about, uh, the cost of buying energy.

We import a lot of energy.

The delivery costs are where we're really hurting.

And if we build all of that production in the state, then that's our that's our power.

You know, we, we are, uh, using what we produce.

And if I am looking at my budget and seeing, oh, well, you know, I'm getting fleeced by this one company, I financed my car loan through.

I'm going to try and find a lower percent interest, you know, to lower my monthly payment.

And, you know, maybe there might be a steeper upfront cost to wood.

There would be a steeper upfront cost to build renewables, but it would solve things in the long term.

And I just don't understand why, uh, the governor lacks vision in this when it seems I mean, I'm just an idiot citizen.

And, you know, in 15 minutes, I have a pretty clear idea of what to do next.

>> Alex.

Thank you.

Uh, let's see here.

Let me kick that over to Lisa and Stefan if they want to jump in on that.

Lisa Marshall, anything you want to add to what Alex says?

>> Yeah, I just want to say I verified the number.

It was $90 million that all of us saved on our energy bills in just a 48 hour period because of solar energy that we had on the grid.

So I just wanted to make sure that I got the number right.

Yeah.

I mean, the, you know, um, sometimes to get good things, we have to invest upfront for a long term payoff.

And a lot of renewable energy is like that.

So, you know, building offshore wind, for example, is pretty pricey or like geothermal for heating homes or buildings.

Um, but it's a one time upfront cost that pays dividends for decades to come.

And anybody who maybe has invested in an electric vehicle recently can tell you that maybe they paid a little more to buy that car, but the savings in fuel and maintenance over the years, um, pay you back in spades.

So you do have to think about what to invest to get to build the future that we want and to save money.

And let's remember that, you know, you asked about Partizanship.

I mean, Texas is a red state, has more renewable energy on its grid, I think, than any other state.

This should not be a partisan issue.

This should be a dollars and cents issue for the governor to make the political calculation that this is a good moment to walk away from renewable energy is is bonkers.

>> Okay, Stefan, anything to add there?

>> Yeah, I mean, I would just say, you know, I, I encourage everybody to ask the governor, right?

Like I agree, just this approach doesn't make sense.

And if you actually care about affordability and bringing costs down, as folks have laid out more eloquently than me, you know, solar renewables are actually cheaper, but also there are tons of other things the governor could and can and may do that would actually bring down costs.

But she's now admitted that, at least in the short term.

This action, while devastating to our long term progress, wouldn't help reduce costs at all.

>> Again, I would love to talk to the governor about this.

Alex, thank you for the phone call.

Let me get Kristen in Rochester.

Hi, Kristen.

Go ahead.

>> Hi.

Thanks for taking my call.

I've seen some recent stuff in the news from the local chamber that's arguing that climate policy is hurting local business.

And I was wondering if your panel could speak to that.

>> Graham, do you want to start?

>> Uh, I mean, you know, we've seen, uh, the president of the Chamber of Commerce, Bob Duffy, come out with a few statements.

Um, I think, you know, I'm not remembering exactly what he pointed to in those statements, but there are claims that, you know, the drive to electrification is too expensive for businesses, that it prevents new housing development.

And I, you know, I just don't see any evidence to, to back that up.

Um, you know, especially since, uh, this past fall when the 100 foot rule was repealed, which was a subsidy for expanding the gas system to, to new housing developments.

Um, the, the cost of building a new electric building versus a new gas building are virtually the same, if not cheaper for, uh, for an all electric building.

So I, you know, I just, people make that claim a lot.

And frankly, I haven't seen any, any evidence to support it.

And to the contrary, cutting, uh, investment in renewables, um, preventing, uh, the, you know, or rolling back the clcpa, as we've seen from the, you know, the decisions of the Trump administration actually hurt local businesses.

I, you know, Kevin can speak to this more than I can, but the number of layoffs that renewable developers, solar and wind developers have faced since the start of 2025, uh, is staggering in New York State.

Um, so I see the, the, the, you know, the, the efforts to delay climate action is doing a lot more to hurt local business than, um, you know, than the opposite.

>> Okay.

Kevin Schultz, anything to add that.

>> I think the scariest and saddest part of this entire dialog is when local economic developers, local politicians, local utility executives talk that way.

Right?

And even on this just recently, Lisa said, you know, we talk about the high upfront costs.

There is a multi hundred billion dollar industry in the United States for financing renewable energy projects to wash away and make them long term costs competitive with anything.

It isn't as steep upfront cost.

It is a long term investment that makes more sense than the alternatives that are significantly more expensive.

So that the I go back like so.

So Bob Duffy published an article just before the start of the Iraq War that took the same Nyserda study that Governor Hochul put out and then pulled back and said, it's costing businesses money.

It's just not true.

The study on the merits is wrong.

I'm pretty sure that's why it got pulled down.

And she hasn't shared the data with it because they recognized it was flawed.

We talked to to Bob Duffy about it, and we said, at least, could you say, you know, solar and storage are cheaper, if not just not common on this?

What did he say?

And he said, well, we'll consider that or something to that effect.

I mean, it was it.

I just am am am dumbfounded by this argument because I, I cannot find a source and I offer anybody the opportunity to find a source that says one of two things, either there are cheaper alternatives out there, as dirty as they might be, there are cheaper alternatives out there.

Can we find any data that supports that statement?

Secondarily, we have a rising demand crisis in the electricity market in New York state.

The second part of it is, is there anything that's faster to deploy?

If you can find the data?

I would love to see it.

That data, I haven't found the data.

I think because there aren't alternatives.

Therefore, why are we slowing down the deployment of the cheapest, fastest deploy, deploy form of energy?

Governor Hochul is an active participant in slowing it down.

So I sound like I'm befuddled by that.

>> It was Kristen's phone call.

Chris, anything you want to add to that?

>> Uh, I just don't understand what the like, sort of what the chamber has to gain by making such an argument.

Then.

>> Yeah, I Kristen, it's a good question.

And again, as the person who is the not, I am not an expert in any of this.

And so I just want to put out there, you know, maybe the governor's right or maybe the governor's not right on every penny of it, but maybe the governor's right, that this would be a short term cost, an expense that would rise, you know, that would raise the cost of energy for households across the state, as the governor claims.

Uh, you know, I'm listening to the guests and I understand the points they're making about why they think that is a very flawed, outdated and, you know, sort of backward argument.

But why do why does the business community believe it?

You know, um, I, there's a lot there.

Inertia is powerful.

That's one thing.

Um, you know, so, so there's that and I don't know how interconnected everything is in the business community that I, you know, I, I don't know if Stephan if you think there's some sort of plot to keep fossil fuels winning.

Um, but what would you say to Kristen?

She says, well, if everything you're saying is right, then why does the business community not get behind it?

>> No, I think it's a really good question.

And one thing I'll say is also back to the prior question, right?

Is like activists and political motives exist, right?

Business organizations, some of them are.

In fact, I will point out in favor of this transition and fighting the governor right now, right?

Not just the solar Energy Installers Association, but a whole host of trade associations and business organizations.

But the chambers and the Business Council in New York, and most of those structures are in fact, political entities that have an activist agenda.

And that activist agenda is driven, like any other group, by the most active folks in it.

So, for example, we don't see those groups coming out and saying New York State shouldn't spend money on plenty of things that will cost those businesses far more than renewable energy.

But their choice to act and to engage around this is, is part of not a secret conspiracy, but a long term plan.

And we've seen press releases from the New York State Business Council, from the utility Council, from the other trade associations, talking about how much they are spending in the millions of dollars to share this information.

And so I don't think I don't like there's often when we talk about these things, it's, you know, it sounds like conspiracy theory, but I just want to take a step back and say, like, they're saying that because this is a common thread that we see thrown out there, that climate and energy policy, environmental policy, anything progressive is hurting businesses is something people have been hearing for decades.

And in this moment, there is an active funded effort to push that line.

And so it's not a conspiracy theory, and it's not a surprise that folks who are primed to support particular positions when they get, you know, information from who they think of as credible sources, follow that information.

And I can't personally say why our businesses in those leadership positions more swayed by, you know, utilities and fossil fuel company activists than they are by solar developers and other activists making the counterargument.

But one part of it is that there is literally millions of dollars being spent to convince them.

>> All right, some more feedback from viewer on YouTube.

Watch it on the WXXI News YouTube channel.

Says New York should be a leader on addressing climate change, but it seems our governor wants to follow the lead of Trump and the fossil fuel industries IRL.

In West, Irondequoit writes in to say Evan Kevin Schulte is a builder.

He's absolutely right.

Since my Greenspark residential installation went operational in February of 2023, I've not paid a single penny for electricity from our PG&E.

Is that how that works?

Kevin?

>> Sometimes.

>> Okay.

>> That's what we try and do.

>> Um, that is from IRL.

Uh, this is from, uh, Rick who says he wants to offer a note of praise for activists.

He says in response to your caller who complained that your guests are activists, I would simply say that activism is the point of a participatory democracy.

So unless the caller is against participatory democracy, I say we should be grateful for the activists who take the time to inform themselves, and then the rest of us about issues that matter.

That comes from Rick.

Tom wants to know, will the war in Iran make solar and wind more viable?

Um, Tom, it's a good question.

Kevin Schulte And the solar industry does the Iran war change anything for your industry?

You think.

>> Our.

Yeah.

Yes.

I mean, we are at this is the second time this year we're at war for oil.

I mean, I don't understand it.

It shouldn't be hard to connect the dots.

The energy prices have gone up.

Gas prices have gone up.

You know, petroleum product prices have gone up because of the war and oil.

And so the alternatives become it's not that we get any cheaper, but we are cheaper by comparison to those alternatives.

So, um, yeah, I mean, it it's not it's not bad for my business other than the macroeconomic conditions that it creates.

>> Okay.

Uh, Graham, what have we missed this hour that you feel like you want to make sure the audience understands from your perspective?

>> Um, I mean, I feel like we've hit on most of the big points.

Uh, the, the only other thing I would point to is that, uh, the, the impacts of a fossil fuel driven economy, uh, and the impacts of climate change are very real and very felt here in the Rochester and Finger Lakes region.

Just to, you know, paint a bit of a picture about why, why investing in climate matters for Rochester, you know, Kevin and Greenspark represent one of the businesses that employ people making good money.

Um, that, you know, as an example of, um, the good jobs that are created by this transition, but, uh, you know, Rochester is also an asthma capital of the country.

It ranks in the top five in terms of the number of people per capita that are dealing with asthma.

That is a direct, in some cases, a direct result of exposure to to gases like methane and other fossil fuels.

Um, you know, we, we have experienced wildfire smoke.

The finger Lakes are dealing with more and more harmful algal blooms that May 1st day come to affect the water supply for the city of Rochester.

You know, we get our water from the Finger Lakes.

Um, you know, energy prices are going up.

We Rochester continues to experience very high energy burdens.

People paying more than 6% of their income on, on utilities.

Um, you know, and the other thing that we've missed is that like climate change is going to continue to affect us all.

It's going to affect our kids.

And if New York does not continue to lead as it has, that will have ripple effects throughout the throughout the United States.

Um, so we, you know, Rochester needs climate investments.

We need to transition our, our community off of fossil fuels.

Um, and the urgency of, of taking climate action grows more and more intense every day.

>> Uh, Kevin Schultz, do you want to take about 30s final thoughts from you?

>> I think, you know, I agree with a lot of what Graham and other folks have said.

I would just say this, um, the, the grossest part of this is that it's not being done through legislative proceeding.

It's being done in this portion of the New York state process where the governor kind of becomes the budget czar and does, you know, kind of whatever she wants.

And so to me, that's like the scariest part.

This if we want to change the goals in the clcpa, um, or change the timelines or, or alter the mechanisms by which we accomplish what our New York's legislated in law stated climate goals.

That's a good conversation to have.

I just don't understand why this is in a closed door setting and that and, and that part to me is, is, is again, challenging, uh, to accept.

I mean, you know, I think from our perspective, we'll keep doing what we're doing as fast as we can.

And there are really easy opportunities politically in New York for the governor and others to, uh, outside of renegotiating the Clcpa to offer the opportunity to get more solar, more storage, more wind, uh, deployed more quickly.

And I think that that is the sort of economically the fast, cheap case and, and the direction we should be headed.

>> Uh, by the way, Graham, the local delegation to the state legislature, are they generally with you on this or with the governor?

>> They have been with us on this.

They've been great.

We're we're very, uh, very grateful to have, uh, for.

>> Any votes that would move the clcpa in a different direction would come from different parts of the state.

>> I mean, I can't speak to exactly where they are, but, you know, Harry Bronson, as an example, joined us at a press conference a few weeks ago.

I know Assemblymember Lunsford, Senator Brooke, uh, you know, and others are are putting in work to to defend the clcpa.

And we're grateful for that.

>> Uh, and Stefan, I'll give you the last word about 25 seconds.

What do you want to leave with folks.

>> Very quickly?

You know, as others have said, this is a moment where if the governor really was, you know, trying to have a reason, thoughtful debate and be practical, she could be doing that.

But instead she's trying to use every trick in the book to make the legislature let her off the hook for losing a lawsuit.

And so that's the fact.

>> Uh, Stefan is the executive director of New York Renews.

Come back sometime, Stefan.

I know in the next few weeks there will be news one way or another.

We'll talk to you soon, I hope.

Thank you.

Lisa Marshall Same, the director of ongoing and advocacy at New Yorkers for Clean Power.

Thanks for sharing your time with us this hour.

Lisa.

>> Thanks, Evan.

Thanks for having us.

Great conversation.

>> Kevin Schulte is a builder.

He's the CEO of Queen's Park Solar.

You never thought that.

That's just put that right on the business card.

Thank you for taking the time as well.

Nice.

>> Thank you for having me.

>> And thank you to Graham Hughes, director of policy and advocacy at the Climate Solutions Accelerator.

Nice having you.

>> Thanks for.

>> Having us again.

The governor is welcome any time, and we really hope to talk to her or her team about this issue and others.

See if we can make that happen.

More Connections coming up in a moment.

>> This program is a production of WXXI Public Radio.

The views expressed do not necessarily represent those of this station.

Its staff, management or underwriters.

The broadcast is meant for the private use of our audience.

Any rebroadcast or use in another medium without expressed written consent of WXXI is strictly prohibited.

Connections with Evan Dawson is available as a podcast.

Just click on the Connections link at wxxinews.org.