Senate Floor Session — Regular Session

The Senate will come to order. I ask everyone to please rise and recite the Pledge of Allegiance. (Whereupon, the assemblage recited the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.)

Reading of the Journal.

May we have order in the chamber, please.

Without objection, the Journal stands approved as read. Presentation of petitions. Messages from the Assembly. Messages from the Governor. Reports of standing committees. Reports of select committees. Communications and reports from state officers. Motions and resolutions. Senator Gianaris.

Good morning.

The amendments are received, and the bills will retain their place on the Third Reading Calendar. Senator Gianaris.

Senator Lanza.

The amendments are received, and the bills will retain their place on the Third Reading Calendar. Senator Gianaris.

There will be an immediate meeting of the Rules Committee in Room 332.

The Senate stands at ease. (Whereupon, the Senate stood at ease at 10:17 a.m.) (Whereupon, the Senate reconvened at 10:21 a.m.)

Madam President, there's a report of the Rules Committee at the desk. Please take that up.

Senator Stewart-Cousins, from the Committee on Rules, reports the following bill: Senate Print 10565, by Senator Serrano, an act making appropriations for the support of government. The bill reports direct to third reading.

All those in favor of accepting the report of the Rules Committee please signify by saying aye. (Response of "Aye.")

The report of the Rules Committee is accepted. Senator Gianaris.

The Secretary will read.

Is there a message of necessity and appropriation at the desk?

I move to accept the message.

Opposed, nay. (Response of "Nay.")

Lay it aside.

Let's move right to the controversial calendar, please.

Calendar Number 1327, Senate Print 10565, by Senator Serrano, an act making appropriations for the support of government.

Thank you, Madam President. Would the sponsor yield for some questions?

Yes.

Good morning, Senator. I hope you had a nice Memorial Day weekend, and everybody else here as well. Here we are on the Tuesday after Memorial Day, on May 26th. The budget was due many weeks ago. Can you -- this is our 15th extender in this budget, and it takes us I believe through Thursday of this week. Do you expect that we will have the remaining budget bills completed by then?

Through you, Madam President, if the Senator will continue to yield.

Yes.

Senator, this extender I believe takes us to a total of authorized spending, since April 1st through Thursday, of $38 billion. Is that about right?

Through you, Madam President, if the Senator will continue to yield.

Yes.

Do you have a final total of what this budget, when finally approved, is going to add up to?

Thank you. Madam President, if the Senator will continue to yield.

Yes.

Senator, we've -- to my knowledge only have currently two of the remaining seven budget bills in print: The Transportation, Economic Development and Environment bill, and the Health and Mental Health bill. Are other ones in print yet, or are they still being finalized?

Through you, Madam President, if the Senator will continue to yield.

Yes.

"In short order." Does that mean that we'll have all of the remaining budget bills in print today?

Thank you. Madam President, if the Senator will continue to yield.

Yes.

Can you tell us what remaining issues there are that are unresolved and still under negotiation?

Thank you. Madam President, if the Senator will continue to yield.

Yes.

Senator, there to date have not been any further joint budget conference committees. Do you expect those conference committees to meet before these bills are finalized?

Through you, Madam President, if the Senator will continue to yield.

Yes.

How is it, Senator, that we can just disregard the requirements in New York State law that we utilize joint budget conference committees in coming to final conclusion on the budget bills?

Thank you. Thank you, Senator. On the bill, Madam President.

Therein lies the problem of this whole process. Yes, it's been a long process. Yes, there's been a lot at stake and a lot of behind-closed-doors discussions. Yet no joint budget conference committees, no involvement in this budget process from the rank-and-file members of this body. It's not the way government was set up to run. We deserve better in this chamber. All of us, our constituents, deserve better. We deserve to have the opportunity to present these final bills to the citizens of New York State to get their feedback, get their feedback during the constitutionally required three-day waiting period to take up any bill on this Senate floor. Yet every budget bill so far has been done with a message of necessity, and I'm assuming all the rest of the budget bills are going to be done with a message of necessity, without waiting the three-day period. We deserve better here in New York State, Madam President.

Section 15. This act shall take effect immediately.

Announce the results.

The bill is passed. Senator Gianaris, that completes the reading of the controversial calendar.

The Secretary will read.

Senator Sanders on the resolution.

Thank you, Senator. The resolution was adopted on May 12th. Senator Gianaris.

The Secretary will read.

Move to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed.

Ayes, 61.

I offer the following amendments.

Please recognize Senator Lanza for a motion.

Thank you, Senator Gianaris. Madam President, I have amendments to a bill recalled from the Assembly. I wish to call up Senator Borrello's bill, 7607C, recalled from the Assembly, which is now at the desk.

Calendar Number 780, Senate Print 7607C, by Senator Borrello, an act to amend the Highway Law.

The Secretary will call the roll on reconsideration. (The Secretary called the roll.)

I now offer the following amendments.

I now offer the following amendments.

Madam President, just to edify my colleagues, we're going to pause to have our Veterans Hall of Fame ceremony at 11:00 o'clock, after which we will return to respective party conferences at 1:30. And then session is expect to resume at 3:00 p.m. So we will stand at ease until 3:00 p.m.

The Senate will return to order. Senator Gianaris.

Good afternoon.

The Secretary will read.

I move to reconsider the vote by which that bill was passed.

Ayes, 63.

I offer the following amendments.

On behalf the following members, amendments are offered to the following Third Reading Calendar bills: By Senator Rivera, page 18, Calendar 556, Senate Print 1911B; Senator Cleare, page 21, Calendar 639, Senate Print 5665A; And Senator Baskin, page 44, Calendar 1079, Senate Print 9538.

Now let's take up previously adopted Resolution 1935, by Senator Cooney, read its title and call on Senator Cooney, please.

Senator Cooney on the resolution.

This body knows that I was adopted from an orphanage in Calcutta, and throughout my life I've always worked hard to maintain a strong connection with India and Indians across New York. That connection continues today as we honor these milestones of Indian independence. So congratulations to the Indians across the world who will be celebrating this year. And thank you to our friends from the Indian Consulate for being here to represent Indians across New York State. Madam President, I vote aye.

Madam President, before we continue on this resolution let's call an immediate meeting of the Finance Committee in Room 332, to operate simultaneously with the ongoing session.

Thank you, Madam President. And thank you to my seatmate Senator Jeremy Cooney for introducing this resolution. I too want to honor the extraordinary contributions of the Indian American community to New York, and of course to my home borough of Queens. And when I think about those contributions, I think about 74th Street in Jackson Heights. I think about the sari shops glowing with color late into the evening, the jewelry stores that generations of families have visited for weddings and celebrations, and of course the smell of fresh chai and pani puri on the corner -- and of course the legendary Jackson Diner, which helped introduce generations of New Yorkers to Indian cuisine and became a cultural institution in its own right. For decades 74th Street has been one of the great gateways of immigrant New York, a place where families built businesses, created community, and transformed Jackson Heights into one of the most vibrant neighborhoods anywhere in the world. And while the Indian community in Jackson Heights may not be as large as it once was, the strength of its cultural and commercial legacy remains unmistakably. You can still feel it in the music, the language, the festivals, the storefronts, and the life of the avenue itself. And I want to especially recognize the 74th Street Merchants Association for helping sustain that corridor and preserve the energy and identity that make it so special. Indian Independence Day reminds us not only of the triumph of self-determination, but also of the enduring contributions of the Indian diaspora across the world, including in Queens. So today we celebrate India's independence, the resilience of immigrant communities, and the generations of Indian New Yorkers who help build Queens and New York today and always. I vote aye.

Thank you, Madam President. I too want to thank Senator Cooney for the resolution recognizing and celebrating India's independence, and to honor the Indian American community in my district in Queens. Queens has one of the largest populations of Indian Americans in the state. And so to my areas of Richmond Hill, South Richmond Hill, Ozone Park, South Ozone Park, I want to say thank you for their contributions there. The India independence is truly a celebration. It's a symbol of freedom and diversity and resilience and opportunity for Indian Americans. Gandhi once said that the future depends on what we do in the present. The future depends on what we do in the present. That message of Gandhi is an inspiration for Indian Americans today, for future generations too. Because, again, them coming here, the Indians coming here and celebrating their independence is truly a sign of them acclimating into our area, becoming part of our community. And I want to thank and welcome our guests, and I vote yes on this resolution. Madam President, thank you.

Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Senator Cooney, for bringing this forward, this resolution recognizing India's Independence Day. And welcome to our honored guests as well. I'm proud to rise in support to recognize so many of the Indian American families who make the 61st District such a vital place to be. The Indian American community is woven into the fabric of our everyday life in the 61st District. At the University at Buffalo, one of the largest public universities in our region, you see students from India studying alongside their peers, along with faculty and professionals who are part of the broader campus community. Across Western New York, in our hospitals, in our schools and small businesses, they are part of the workforce that keeps things moving day to day. And in Amherst, Williamsville and the surrounding communities, they're our neighbors, raising families here, working in critical professions, and helping shape the character of our region. As India marks almost 80 years of independence, it's a moment to reflect on the meaning of that -- freedom, self-determination, and what it takes to build and sustain a democracy. So I want to thank Senator Cooney again. Thank you, Madam President. I vote aye.

Thank you, Madam President. And welcome to our friends who have joined us today. And thank you to Senator Cooney, because there were a number of issues that he brought up. And as I was listening to it and to my colleagues, it hit home. I used to represent 74th Street many years ago when I was first elected to the Senate -- and yes, the Jackson Diner. But it's more than that. It's the culture. It's the exuberance, the small business people. And today I represent many people from India. But I used to represent also Flushing. And I spent many, many hours at the Hindu Temple of North America, because each year they would have a commemoration, about this time of the year, of the relationship not just between our countries, but about the leaders of our nations. And there was always the theme of Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr., and every year -- and I think Nelson Mandela. And the theme is very clear, and that is of nonviolence, of working together, of peace and prosperity. So I welcome our friends. And as I said, I'm proud to represent so many people who have come to the United States, achieved so much, whether it be in science and technology, all of the arts, et cetera. And let us continue our tradition of friendship. What we have in common is more than what separates us, and that is independence from Great Britain. We did it 250 years ago; India did it in 1947. So again, we share so much, and let us continue that relationship. Thank you, Madam President. I vote aye.

Thank you, Madam President. And I want to thank Senator Cooney for bringing forward today's resolution and for it coming to the floor. I thought there was a chance -- Indian Independence Day is August 15th; I thought there was a chance we might still be in session August 15th. Thankfully we're not. But I do want to rise to recognize and celebrate Indian Independence Day and honor the vibrant Indian American community. It's such an important part of the Fifth Senate District. President Ronald Reagan had said the special thing about America is that in America our origins matter less than our destinations. Where we came from matters less than where we're going together. And I think no one represents that better certainly in the Fifth Senate District than the Indian American community. I'm proud to represent a district that is enriched by a dynamic and growing Indian population whose culture, traditions and entrepreneurship and community spirit really strengthen our neighborhoods every single day. And from spectacular cultural celebrations like the annual India Day Parade that draws thousands of Indian Americans and all members of our community to our district on Long Island, to the incredible work of the organizations like the India Association of Long Island, which promotes and celebrates the rich heritage and traditions of India through education and community engagement, the impact of this community is truly extraordinary. And over the four years that I've had the opportunity to represent the 5th Senate District, I've had the privilege of attending Diwali gatherings, holy celebrations, India Day festivities and many other cultural celebrations that showcase the pride, unity and traditions of the Indian American community that embodies the values that resonate deeply with all of us -- the importance of family, of hard work, or perseverance, of individual freedoms, helping one another, and a commitment to making our communities stronger for future generations. Those values are reflected every single day in the countless Indian American business owners, restaurateurs, entrepreneurial titans, professionals, healthcare professionals and community leaders who contribute so much to our local economy and to our civic life. To all those celebrating, I wish you a very happy India Independence Day, and I am proud to report such a vibrant, hardworking and inspiring Indian American community. Thank you, Senator Cooney, again. And I am proud to vote aye.

Thank you, Madam President. You know, we've heard from many of our colleagues regarding this resolution. And certainly there are large Indian American communities throughout New York State. But there cannot be a full discussion of the Indian American communities in New York State without including the North Shore of Nassau County in the 7th Senate District, Madam President. Communities like New Hyde Park, Herricks, Manhasset Hills, where so many have called those communities home. They have become integral to our communities, not only participating as business owners and civic leaders, but also academically excelling in our schools. They truly are the path to the future. So I want to echo many of the sentiments from my colleagues but also recognize that as we are celebrating nearly 80 years of independence for India, it is now the most populous country in the world. And how great is it that when we start to compare democracies and opportunities that exist between our great countries, that it really boils down to an understanding of freedom, self-sufficiency, responsibility. And so how great is it also that we have those ties between New York State and the great country of India as represented through those members of the Indian American community that choose to live here in New York. I am thankful to the sponsor for the resolution, and I am proud to vote aye.

Thank you, Madam President. You know, when you hear that it's the 79th anniversary of the independence of India, people kind of compare it to our independence anniversary, 250 years, India's 79 years. Madam President, India's been around thousands of years. It's been a civilization, it's been a country, it has been a model of democracy for actually a lot longer than our country. But we celebrate the contributions of Indian Americans to our communities right here in New York and in the United States. It's already been said so many times they've contributed so much to the vitality of our communities and our state. Senator Stavisky talked about the Hindu Temple Society of North America, where we annually do celebrate the parallels between what Mahatma Gandhi taught and the teachings of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., as well as Nelson Mandela. So there's a lot to celebrate. But I also want to celebrate one thing here, which is this dude right here. The first Indian American elected to the Legislature outside of the New York City area, Senator Jeremy Cooney. Let's give a hand clap, please. (Applause.)

He represents really the diversity and the strength of the AAPI community in all parts of New York State. And I also remind all of our colleagues here that a couple of years ago we passed legislation that marks Diwali, arguably the most important holiday to many Indian Americans, or many Indians around the world, as a public school holiday in all New York City schools. Senator Cooney says we've got to make that a statewide holiday. And so with that, Madam President, thank you for indulging my outbursts. And thank you, Senator Cooney, for this wonderful resolution. Thank you.

Senator Gianaris.

There is a privileged resolution at the desk. The Secretary will read.

Senator Scarcella-Spanton on the resolution.

Thank you, Senator. Senator Ashby on the resolution.

Thank you, Senator. To our guests, the veterans who are still here, and to the ones who have already left, we thank you for your service. We appreciate the sacrifices that you've made on our behalf that we can all stand here today. I extend to you the privileges and courtesies of this house. Please rise and be recognized again. (Standing ovation.)

Opposed, nay. (No response.)

And now let's move on to previously adopted Resolution 2102, by Senator May, read its title and call on Senator May.

Resolution 2102, by Senator May, commemorating the 50th Anniversary of InterFaith Works of Central New York.

Thank you, Madam President. We are joined here by Chris Foley, the president and CEO of InterFaith Works, and Sonali McIntyre, communications manager, and Jennie Prouty, community engagement manager. InterFaith Works was founded in 1976 as the Syracuse-Area Interreligious Council. It was founded by faith and civil rights leaders who believed that religious communities could bridge racial and religious divides together. This year it celebrates 50 years of its service to the community. And in that time, it has grown into one of Central New York's primary institutions for refugee resettlement, racial equity, elder care, and interfaith dialogue. Through the Center for New Americans, InterFaith Works has resettled hundreds of refugees annually and provided post-settlement services to nearly 2,000 new Americans per year, including employment, housing, English language classes, medical case management, mental health services, and immigration assistance. The Trump administration's restrictions on refugee admissions have halted new arrivals for now, but the people already here still need employment support, legal assistance, and community connection. Because InterFaith Works continued such work during the first Trump administration, Syracuse was first in line to receive refugees when our country came back to its roots in 2021 and began admitting refugees once again. Thanks to InterFaith Works, we had the infrastructure, we had the muscle memory to be welcoming to newcomers, and this was a key reason why our population has grown in recent years, because we were accepting refugees right along. In addition to refugee resettlement, InterFaith Works is the umbrella to multiple other efforts, including the El-Hindi Center for Dialogue & Action, the longest-standing community-wide dialogue on racism in the country; the Center for Healthy Aging; and the Roundtable of Faith Leaders. InterFaith Works' model is not charity, it is civic infrastructure. It treats religious and moral communities as active partners in governance and public life, and it models this principle in its own structure. The 72 employees are every bit as diverse in their experience and backgrounds as the populations they serve. Fifty years in, this organization represents what local institutions can do when they take seriously both the diversity and the dignity of the people they serve. That is worth not just commemorating, but protecting and supporting. I ask everyone here to join me in congratulating InterFaith Works on 50 years of making Central New York and our whole society a better place. Thank you.

The resolution was adopted on May 19th. Also, Resolution 1935 was adopted on April 28th. Senator Gianaris.

The Secretary will read.

I move to accept the report of the Finance Committee.

Opposed, nay. (Response of "Nay.")

Please take up the reading of the supplemental calendar.

Senator Krueger moves to discharge, from the Committee on Finance, Assembly Bill Number 10008C and substitute it for the identical Senate bill 9008C, Third Reading Calendar 1328.

Calendar Number 1328, Assembly Bill Number 10008C, Budget Bill, an act to amend Part U1 of Chapter 62 of the Laws of 2003.

There is a message of necessity at the desk.

All those in favor of accepting the message please signify by saying aye. (Response of "Aye.")

The message is accepted, and the bill is before the house.

The bill is laid aside. Senator Gianaris, that completes the reading of the supplemental calendar.

The Secretary will ring the bell. The Secretary will read.

Senator Walczyk --

Senator Walczyk, why do you rise?

Part S would be Senator Harckham.

Yes.

Through you, Madam President. So currently if a municipality buys one of Elon Musk's Teslas they can get a $7500 rebate from New York State. What does this proposal increase that rebate amount to?

Through you, Madam President, would the sponsor continue to yield.

Yes.

That new increase of a $30,000 dollar rebate for an electric vehicle that's purchased by a municipality, is that paid out of the EPF, the Environmental Protection Fund?

Through you, Madam President, would the sponsor continue to yield?

Yes.

Which fund is that paid out of?

Madam President, would the sponsor continue to yield?

Yes.

Through you, Madam President. So that would be ratepayers paying for rebates up to top $30,000 in order for municipalities to buy the litany of electric vehicles that you've described?

Thank you. Madam President, briefly on the bill.

We have enough costs built into ratepayers' bills already. New Yorkers can't afford their energy bills today. They don't need to be paying $30,000 for some municipalities that for some reason want to go out and buy electric vehicles. If you happen to live in one of those municipalities that loves to tax people in order to buy EVs, congratulations. They don't have to do so on the backs of ratepayers that already can't afford their bills. And with that, Madam President, I would ask someone to yield on Part III.

Senator Parker, do you yield?

The Senator yields.

Through you, Madam President, yes.

Does the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Madam President, through you. Currently there is an appropriation of $33 million, which then turns into that $25 per month payment to each ratepayer.

Does the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Madam President, through you. It's through each locality's -- it hasn't become live yet, so you haven't -- that's why you haven't seen it yet.

Does the sponsor yield?

The Senator yields.

Madam President, it's going to be defined by DPS via a proceeding.

Does the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Madam President, they will consider all of those factors in the context of the proceeding. They've already done a percentage on extreme heat, and so that certainly could be used as data within the context of the decisions they make going forward.

What part is that? Is that PP?

That is still Senator Parker.

I do yield, Madam President.

Through you, Madam President. Is Micron building a natural gas turbine?

And through you, Madam President, would the sponsor continue to yield.

Yes.

What's the purpose of this section?

Through you, Madam President, would the sponsor continue to yield?

The sponsor yields.

Through you, Madam President, diesel.

Does the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Madam President, through you. There already exists an exemption for this purpose. However, the particular generation that Micron is doing exceeds the limit. And so this is essentially to create essentially a variance to allow them to opt into the existing -- the existing exemption that exists.

Will the sponsor yield?

The Senator yields.

Madam President, through you, 295 megawatts combined.

Does the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Madam President, through you, correct.

That's one P this time? Also Senator Parker.

Yes, Madam President, I yield.

Through you, Madam President. In this section you're asking utilities to collect data on people's incomes to determine what they can afford to pay. Is that right?

Through you, Madam President, would the sponsor continue to yield?

I do yield.

And through you, Madam President. You're appointing a special monitor through the Public Service Commission in order to determine income eligibility and index incomes based on an affordability index to be considered in rate cases, as I understand it. Am I reading your language correctly?

Through you, Madam President, would the sponsor continue to yield?

I do yield.

Through you, Madam President, what happens here?

Madam President, would the sponsor continue to yield?

Yes.

So through you, Madam President. So this doesn't require utilities in any way to collect people's income? (Pause.)

Madam President, would the sponsor continue to yield?

I do yield.

Thank you. Through you, Madam President. Yeah, and that's -- I appreciate the clarification. So will that be census tract data that they're pulling down from somewhere else? Or will the utilities be expected, under this monitor, to collect income data from specific customers?

Thank you. Madam President, would someone yield on Part W?

Oh, I'm sorry, Part VV, which looks like a W the way that I wrote it down.

Does the Senator yield?

The Senator yields.

Through you, Madam President. I don't know that there was necessarily as much science as there was a desire to get out from under a lawsuit. So we have not seen the scientific calculations on this.

Does the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Through you, Madam President. As widely publicly reported, the Governor was sued by a group of environmental organizations for not having followed a law that was passed in the '22 budget on cap-and-invest. The Governor lost that lawsuit and then has publicly said she needed relief from the lawsuit. And so this is largely a response to that. I would say that it was probably realistic to say that some of the emissions targets might not have been met in the short term. Other targets were ahead of schedule. For instance, the solar target was well ahead of schedule. But no, there was no scientific calculation that we have seen to result in the 10-year change.

Does the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Through you, Madam President. First, with all due respect, I reject the premise of the NYSERDA memo as the Holy Grail. The NYSERDA memo was not a policy document. The NYSERDA memo was a political document designed to scare people. If you look at the numbers that were used in the NYSERDA memo, they used a price per carbon that was five times higher than the price in California. So California is about $37 per ton. The NYSERDA memo quoted a price of over $175 per ton. Nowhere in anyone's wildest imagination was it foreseen that New York would implement a program five times higher than the cost of California's. So I just want to -- through you, Madam President -- make the record clear that there are many of us who pushed back on the so-called NYSERDA memo that others have sort of hung their hat on but many of us reject the validity of.

Does the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Well, through you, Madam President, there is no cap-and-invest program right now. Under this legislation, the cap-and-invest regulations will be promulgated in 2028. And so that is the time when the regulations will be promulgated. There will be a cost analysis that will go along with that. But what should be kept in mind for a cap-and-invest program, especially a well-designed cap-and-invest program, is there will be a cap on the cap price. That is reasonable to hold costs down. There will be rebates to low- and moderate-income ratepayers. There will be industries who will be protected. So for instance, energy-intensive industries like the steel industry, where there are no -- not yet commercially viable non-carbon-based smelters. I believe there's one in the world, in Europe, that just first came online. But we want to protect those jobs. We want to keep the aluminum industry and the steel industry here in New York State. Those folks will be protected as well. However, it's up to NYSERDA and DEC between now and 2028 to promulgate those rules, and that was what the lawsuit was over. So this is giving them three more years' time to do the calculations, to come up with the least impactful plan, but then also plan that we can begin having revenue to invest into our economy to decarbonize the economy and create good-paying jobs as well.

Does the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Through you, Madam President. The Climate Action Task Force did calculations this will be saving New Yorkers $130 billion over the life of the program, compared to not doing anything. The public health costs are real and significant. The infrastructure costs are real and significant. I use the example of just one intersection in my district. And forgive me, but I've said this on the floor before. The Annsville Circle was just raised at a cost of $25 million. It had to be raised 8 feet because the Hudson River at high tide constantly floods there as a result of sea level rise. That's one intersection in one Senate district in one community. So the costs we are paying are real. The home insurance costs are primarily driven by catastrophic losses and storm damage -- mostly in other states, some in New York State. So we are paying costs right now. So to pretend that investing in improving our health and our economy is somehow a burden as opposed to a benefit, depends on which side of the aisle you are on.

Does the sponsor yield?

The Senator yields.

Well, through you, Madam President. Thank you for the question. I would suggest a few things. One, through energy efficiency programs, when we use less energy we are paying for less energy. When we're using electric vehicles, which you disparaged in our previous discussion, you are saving money. All right? Senator May and I were just talking about how we are paying, with our electric vehicles, less than a third of what we did to gas our vehicles. And that was before the Strait of Hormuz closed and prices skyrocketed. So I'm probably paying a quarter of what I used to spend on gasoline in my car. That is a real savings that other folks will have. Heat pumps are far more efficient and cost-effective than propane or oil or natural gas. So there are real savings. Secondly, by investing in clean energy -- as we've discussed before, Madam President -- a kilowatt of clean energy, especially solar, is less expensive than a kilowatt of fossil fuel energy. And part of what we talk about, and I'm sure there will be some questions later in this debate, elements of the ASAP Act have been in there. There is a group that did an analysis of the ASAP Act that says if New York gets up to 20 gigs of distributed solar, we will be saving ratepayers a billion dollars annually. That's a real, comprehensive, concrete savings that our ratepayers in New York State will see. And that's just from this one aspect of solar, just from distributed solar, not from the utility-scale solar.

Does the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Through you, Madam President. I will be voting for this bill today. But my job here today is to answer questions Senators may have on the legislation before us, as opposed to what I favor or what I don't favor. But I will be voting for this legislation today.

Senator Walczyk on the bill.

Senator Harckham on the bill.

Thank you, Senator. Senator Mattera, why do you rise?

VV is still Senator Harckham.

He still yields.

Senator, who has the appointments on the commission right now with the Blue Ribbon Commission? Who will be doing the appointments?

I'm sorry, Part TT. I'm sorry about that.

Senator Parker.

Of course I yield for Senator Mattera.

Sorry about that. The Blue Ribbon Commission, who has the appointments on this commission?

And through you, Madam President, would the sponsor continue to yield, please?

I do yield.

Is there a reason why, Senator, that the minority leaders of the Senate and the Assembly do not have any appointments at all?

Through you, Madam President, would the sponsor still continue to yield?

Yes.

And that wasn't negotiated at all? That means that in other words, that we have a minority leader and we have -- in both houses. And do you feel that that is right that we do not have any kind of -- anybody that is there that's going to be responsible for any kind of interviews, resumes to move forward?

Through you, Madam President, would the sponsor continue to yield, please?

Yes, Madam President.

This bill creates a nine-member rates commission task force to study skyrocketing utility costs and names the Long Island Power Authority as an entity that must turn over data. You know, looking at the appointment structure, the Governor gets five picks, the Senate gets two, and the Assembly gets two, with zero requirements for the several members who actually live on, represent and understand the unique captive ratepayer structure of Long Island, where I live. Given that Long Islanders historically pay some of the highest electricity bills in the entire country, how can the sponsor justify creating a so-called blue ribbon panel that completely shuts out guaranteed, dedicated seats for Long Island consumer advocates like union leaders of utility unions? Just like, you know, not-for-profit energy companies like IPPNY and New York Affordable Energy? These people, they're experts. So what kind of -- again, what kind of people that we -- what kind of members that are going to be part of this commission are going to be qualified? And again, nobody on our side, the Minority is not going to get a look at it. We have experts that can't be part of any kind of organization. So where are we finding these people?

Through you, Madam President, can I have the sponsor for VV now, please.

I do.

Thank you so much. Senator, why is it that this is extending the deadline to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent from 2030 to 2040?

Through you, Madam President, would the sponsor continue to yield.

Yes.

Senator, why are affordability protections only being emphasized now instead of when the original CLCPA law was passed? Will this bill lower our ratepayer bills right away? You know, right now, you know, since the CLCPA has been passed, our rates have gone up over 100 percent in certain areas in New York State. And everybody can sit there and say, Senator, like you said before, it's part of doing business. What are we doing to help our ratepayers? And how is the -- right now, this change that everybody's blaming the Governor, so that means that this side of the aisle had no say at all? Everything's with the Governor, picks for appointments?

No.

No, response, please. I want to hear a response.

Through you, Madam President, would the sponsor continue to yield?

Yes.

Senator, the sponsor yields.

Through you, Madam President, we have not spent anywhere near trillions of dollars in New York State on --

-- on clean energy. That's just simply a fabrication. Our wind, all of our wind, with the exception of one project, has been put on hold because of the president. Much of battery storage has been stymied by local opposition. The one successful area has been solar. The CLCPA called for 6 gigs of distributed solar. We have created well beyond 8 now, which was why the push to go for 20. That was the one thing that is working. It's the one thing that is creating jobs.

Will the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Through you, Madam Pipeline -- (Laughter.)

Thanks for breaking the tension, Senator.

Will the sponsor yield?

The Senator yields.

Through you, Madam President, I do not. But this is not a full repeal. What this bill does -- and a lot of talk about it, but let's just be very clear. What this does is it eliminates the 2030 target, replaces it with a slightly more stringent target for 2040, up to 60 percent in emissions reduction. And then the normal -- the normal in 2050. So this is a modification of the CLCPA. This is not a wholesale repeal, as was suggested.

Senator Mattera on the bill.

Thank you, Senator. Senator Borrello, why do you rise?

Senator Harckham, do you yield?

The sponsor yields.

Through you, Madam President. Personally I do, yes.

Will the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Through you, Madam --

Through you, Madam President. The CLCPA is quite honestly about -- as much about public health as it is about carbon or methane. You know, because carbon and methane are co-pollutants. And for instance, in New York 1200 New Yorkers die prematurely every year from respiratory ailments due to air pollution. Tens of thousands of our children have unnecessary asthma and respiratory and developmental difficulties due to their proximity to the burning of extensive amounts of fossil fuel. People think of the counties I represent -- Westchester, Rockland, Putnam -- as bucolic places. Our counties get an F from the American Lung Association for air quality. So the CLCPA is as much about public health as it is about air quality.

Does the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Through you, Madam President. It's interesting to hear, because we have heard in prior debates from the other side of the aisle where we've been criticized, or the policies have been criticized that we were counting and accounting for out-of-state emissions as opposed to in-state emissions. However, having said that, the ultimate goal, Senator, to your point is we want to produce as much as we can in-state. And that's where wind, when we can get back to a reasonable national wind policy, and solar contribute. Because we are not dependent upon other states and their fossil fuels. We're not dependent upon geopolitical events and wars, either in Ukraine or the Persian Gulf. And so the more renewables that we can generate here in New York, the more energy independence we will have from those other states, to your very point.

Does the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Through you, Madam President. We do. Because we are not exempting greenhouse gases for power generation. It's the other forms that we are exempting from the calculation. But from -- for utility generation, for electrical generation, we are not exempting that.

Does the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Thank you. If I may, Madam President, paragraph 13, line 8 (reading): Statewide greenhouse gas emissions means the total amount of emissions of greenhouse gases produced within the state from anthropogenic sources and greenhouse gases produced outside of the state that are associated with the generation of electricity imported into the state. Statewide emissions shall be expressed in tons of carbon dioxide equivalents.

Does the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Through you, Madam President. That is the plan to generate cleaner renewable energy right here in the state. That's exactly the plan.

Does the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Through you, Madam President. We have economic realities where we have a certain level of power that we need to make. In fact, you know, the New York Independent System Operator, in one of their power projections, was talking about a potential shortfall for New York City as early as this summer. And so hydropower was contracted from Canada. A cable called the CHPE pipeline came down through the Hudson, came ashore in Rockland County, through my district, Senator Weber's district, and then went back into the Hudson. And that just recently connected into the grid full power, and that will address some of New York City's reliability concerns for the next several years out. So -- so we're doing exactly what you're talking about, Senator.

Does the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Through you, Madam President. With all due respect, Senator, we have not seen numbers like that for Texas. So I --

No, I appreciate that. I appreciate the numbers. But the -- you know, the facts are that's what NYSERDA, that's what the New York Independent System Operator are reporting. And because, you know, they also -- for instance, Texas has domestic sources of gas. We're buying power on the spot market. We don't have natural gas here in New York. So we are paying more of a commodity price than Texas is.

Does the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Senator, are you on the bill.

Through you, Madam President. With respect to my friend, I'd be happy to discuss over a cup of coffee the Marcellus Shale and fracking policy. That is not contemplated in this legislation before us today. And I would like to confine our discussion to what's in the bill, but would be happy to discuss that at another time.

Senator Borrello on the bill.

Thank you. Senator Palumbo, why do you rise?

Thank you, Senator Palumbo. That would be Senator Bailey.

Through you, Madam President, I will yield on questions related to Jalen Brunson and the New York Knicks. (Laughter.)

Also Part EE, Senator Palumbo.

Sure.

Through you, Madam President, the Senator is correct about the subsection that he named in reference to the definition of "serious injury."

Yes.

Thank you, Madam President. And through you, this section here strikes the final, quote, "serious injury" manner in which you can prove damages in an automobile case. And it's basically when it's medically determined that your injury or impairment is of a non-permanent nature, but it prevents the injured person from performing substantially all the material acts which constitute such person's usual and customary daily activities for not less than 90 days of the 180 days following the accident. And that is stricken and no longer a cause of action as a result of this bill. Is that true?

Thank you. Will the sponsor yield?

I yield.

Thank you, Senator. And do we know, are there any empirical or is there any empirical data or have we attributed any dollar amount to those specific claims that would be saved in the event we strike that and reform the law with respect to proving serious physical injury or serious injury in an automobile accident?

Does the sponsor yield, continue to yield?

Absolutely.

Thank you. And of course, Senator, any plaintiff may also plead their injury through the rest of the statute. That still will exist, of course, if there's death, dismemberment, significant disfigurement, a fracture, loss of a fetus, permanent loss of use of a bodily organ, member, function or system, or permanent consequential limitation of use of a body organ or member, or significant limitation of use of a body function or system. But what is being stricken here is that if it's -- those are all essentially permanent injuries. And my -- just for clarification, I guess, and legislative intent, that now if there's a nonpermanent injury that impairs this person from their regular duties for at least 90 days of the 180 days following the accident, they cannot recover. Is that accurate? (Pause.)

Will the sponsor yield?

I do.

Thank you, Senator. And if we could move on to the next section. Section 2 makes a change to a little bit different section of the Insurance Law, 5104, and it adds language at the end. And this statute is basically you cannot recover -- and let me break it down a little bit so we can -- our non-lawyer friends, as I said before, can follow along. It addresses non-economic losses. And can we agree non-economic losses are pain and suffering losses, not specific out-of-pocket losses. Is that accurate?

Oh, sorry, Subsection 2. It's on page 1, line 30, is where it begins. And then it adds some language at line 42. But it's essentially just reciting the current 5104 statute.

Thank you. Will the sponsor continue to yield?

The sponsor yields.

Through you, Madam President. Senator Palumbo is correct on the order of liability. But I would proffer that -- and I think I know where you're going to go, but I guess I should let you ask the question. But you're wondering, I imagine, why the order is changed. Would that be accurate, Senator Palumbo?

Trying to figure it out can improve judicial efficiency. We can figure out earlier whether the threshold question about the nature of a serious injury has been met so as to not waste precious judicial resources. I know that dockets are clogged where you are; they certainly are clogged where I'm at. And we want to make sure that while first and foremost we respect the victim's rights -- I want to be very clear about that, that we respect and need to make sure that if you are involved in a crash or an accident that we're respecting your rights. I want to be very clear about that, that at the baseline you deserve the right to have your day. But we also want to have a modicum of judicial efficiency, and this is what this change is predicated upon.

Will the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

As related to comparative negligence, Senator Palumbo, that would be correct, Senator Palumbo.

Will the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Senator Palumbo, that was a great portion of legislative intent, but I would just ask that you -- that you I would say Shepardize that, so to speak, and give me a little bit more of a distilled question, if you don't mind.

Absolutely.

Through you, Madam President. As a great lawyer, as Senator Palumbo would be, that there is no yes-or-no response to that. It merely refers to, as you know, the order of operations, so to speak. Serious injury first, then liability.

Senator Palumbo on the bill.

-- so you're a professional. But that's good to know. And that's why I'm hoping that at least we would have an order of verdict sheet that if we do get a -- if there is a unified trial in an automobile case, it's very, very important that that still be permitted because it's extremely important to plaintiffs so they can get a fair trial in the State of New York. So if we can -- if we do have a unified trial, I hope that we can just be clear that the order of operation will be "if and then" type of verdict sheet where we would find a verdict -- if you find more than, according to the second half of this, or less than 51 percent liability of the plaintiff, then you can proceed to the serious injury question in one trial. So thank you, Senator. Would you continue to yield for another question in another area of that bill?

Absolutely.

Thank you, Senator. Now we'll move on to the -- that was 2(a). This is Section 2(d), as in "dog." And this is the one that has to do with a limitation on non-economic loss recoveries to those claimants or operators of motor vehicles who are operating uninsured, operating while impaired, or operating by way -- during the commission or flight from a felony. So my question is -- and this is really, I guess -- we'll hone in. There are a couple of different questions I have here. But look on line 7, if you don't mind, as far as -- let's do one section at a time, please. Operating an uninsured motor vehicle and responsible under Article 6. So regarding the insured question or uninsured question, does it have to be an owner?

Thank you. Will the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Senator Palumbo, you're saying if somebody is not aware of the insurance lapse past 30 days?

Well, in that case, if it would be beyond 30 days, there would be a reasonable expectation that you knew or should have known that the car, the motor vehicle, whatever vehicle it may be, was in fact uninsured.

I yield.

So in that hypothetical the driver would be restricted to $100,000 in damages only?

Okay, thank you. And Senator, would -- could you -- would you continue to yield?

The sponsor yields.

Through you, Madam President. If they qualify in those categories as you enumerated and they are at fault at all, Madam President, that would be accurate.

I yield.

Thank you. And I appreciate you indulging -- through you, Madam President, Senator Bailey indulging these hypotheticals. Because there are thousands and thousands of automobile cases with just about every scenario in New York State every year. And this is one that I've encountered many times in my own practice over the years, where someone is drinking or impaired by drugs and they're at a red light and they have zero percent fault, and someone strikes them and seriously and badly injures them, are those individuals able to recover in excess of $100,000 of non-economic damages? Or are they limited by this statute? (Pause.)

Will the sponsor continue to yield?

The sponsor yields.

Through you, Madam President. Under current law, that hypothetical would be accurate.

I yield, yes.

Thank you, Senator. And so now we have these -- the claimant conduct. And it uses the word "claimant." And I'll read it again: "In any action to recover damages for personal injury subject to Article 51 of the Insurance Law, the culpable conduct attributable to the claimant shall bar recovery if the culpable conduct attributable to the claimant is greater than the culpable conduct of the person against whom recovery is sought or is greater than the combined culpable conduct of the persons against whom recovery is sought." So that's that 51 percent rule. Just to make it easy, we'll talk about two individuals. So they get zero non-economic damages of they're 51 percent or greater, is that accurate?

Thank you. Will the sponsor continue to yield?

The sponsor yields.

Senator Palumbo, repeat that one more time?

That is correct. Through you, Madam President.

I yield.

So, Senator -- through you, Madam President -- when I see the word "claimant" here, that applies to all claimants, not just drivers of automobiles -- pedestrians, bicyclists, and so forth. Is that accurate? (Pause.)

Will the sponsor continue to yield?

The sponsor yields.

Through you -- through you, Madam President. Let's bifurcate that. As far as the child goes, I would think that a reasonable judge, a trier of facts, would consider the child's age in that hypothetical. On the bicyclist one, in the event that that fault would happen -- which is highly unlikely -- then that would likely be accurate. Through you, Madam President.

Does the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

There was not any discussion, to my -- from my understanding, about changing that date. Through you, Madam President.

Certainly.

Absolutely.

Thank you, Senator. Was there any study regarding the backlog? Because the way I almost see this is that when there's proportionate liability concerns, you usually can settle that case. Do you have any concerns that now that we have this new rule that it will actually be litigated more? That in really more significant catastrophic injury cases the insurance company may take a shot at it and be unreasonable and not settle those cases? Where in the comparative-negligence state that we are as of this moment -- and it's about to change -- that might be a case that would settle, that this might actually be counterintuitive to reducing backlog.

Thank you. Would the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Through you, Madam President. Before I answer the question, I just want to say -- like stating for the record, also legislative intent -- that we value the crash victim, the injured individual, and anybody that's involved in this. And I just want to make sure that we state that clearly for the record. As far as your actual question goes, we have to get back to you, because that is an interesting technical question that I want to be absolutely certain with you on.

That would be me, and I yield.

Thank you, Senator. This is with -- regarding anticipated underwriting profits and some obligations of insurance carriers to provide some relief to the ratepayers. At least that's what it says. I'm on the section regarding about the underwriting gain and anticipated underwriting profits. Can you explain to us what that is?

Would the sponsor continue to yield.

I yield.

Are those gains based upon only the gains that that insurance carrier realizes in the State of New York? Or are those nationwide?

Does the sponsor yield?

I yield.

In that regard, Senator, it looks like it's a three-year average, the way I'm reading this. And in the event that the underwriting sees an increase in profits that exceed that 5 percent, can't they just anticipate in Year 2, you know, a 20 percent increase in profits? And that would be an anticipated underwriting profit versus an unanticipated underwriting profit and would not require them to provide the ratepayer with a rebate. (Pause.)

Will the Senator continue to yield?

I do.

Thank you, Senator. And I think it's just -- I'm thrown off by the word "anticipated" underwriting profit. I think that's where when we say "anticipated," there clearly is some sort of predetermination made by someone. Is that just kind of a term of art? Am I missing that?

Thank you, Senator. And I'll wrap up pretty quick. I know we have other speakers. Would you yield for another couple of questions or two?

Sure.

Thank you. Later on, further down that bill in Part KK, there's certain notice that needs to be provided. And line 30, "The insurer shall provide notice to the policyholders of this credit and indicate that the credit was due to the reforms enacted in the state fiscal year 2026-2027 budget. This notification shall be made at the time the credit is distributed." That unusual language that I see there, is there any precedent for that kind of language?

Sure. Is there any precedent for that? Because I see, you know, that basically they need to say that this is due to the budget reforms. And my next question will be do they have to also say that when the rates go up, that this is due to the '26-'27 budget?

Will the sponsor yield?

I do.

Senator, from your lips to God's ears. I hope it works, I really do. Would this information produced to DFS, I guess, and the underwriting information from the insurance carriers, would that be publicly available information? (Pause.)

Thank you, Senator Bailey. On the bill, please, Madam President.

Madam President, this is -- like most budget bills in my 13 years in this town, there is a mixed bag. Some of it's good, some of it's not so good. I think we really need to revisit the automobile negligence reform. This is going to have very, very impactful unintended consequences that will bar people from recovering in a catastrophic situation, people who are not intended to be captured in this net. We get it, drunk and impaired drivers, people who are not insuring their vehicles. We all pay a lot of money in insurance. I totally get it that you need to insure your vehicle. You need to not be fleeing a felony or committing a felony during the operation of that vehicle. I'm with you. I get it. But the real concern is when you have the innocent bystander or you have a situation where someone is in an uninsured vehicle that they've borrowed from their friend that's been uninsured for two months and you're sitting at a red light and someone cripples you, the fact that you could be limited in recovery I don't think is what we want in this body. So we do have some work to do on that. We have some work to do -- I hope this insurance, quote, unquote, transparency, Section KK, really works. But we'll wait and see. And I would appreciate it, if the rates go up, that we can also say that it was my friends on that side of the aisle who caused them to go up. Because I don't know if this is going to do anything. I hope it does. But I do appreciate your indulgence, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President. I certainly don't want Senator Bailey to sit for far too long, I don't want him stiffening up. So if you'll just yield to one more question on Part VV.

Absolutely.

Thank you. Through you, Madam President. Was any consideration given in trials that are bifurcated or trials that are unified to the reason why liability is tried first and the concern that if you try damages first it would improperly influence the jury in terms of sympathy if there is a serious injury?

Thank you, Senator Bailey. Through you, Madam President, will the sponsor yield to one additional question?

Yes.

The concern is that if you do have a traumatic injury, if you have a serious injury, and the jury hears about the seriousness of the injury first, that they may be influenced in terms of their decisional liability -- because of the seriousness of the injury, that they want to find someone else responsible. (Pause.)

Thank you, Senator Bailey. Will the -- I just need a couple of questions on Part M, as in Mary.

I do, Madam President.

Thank you, Senator Parker. Through you, Madam President. If you can, what is the purpose of the annual NYSERDA special assessment? What is the purpose of the NYSERDA special assessment? (Pause.)

Will the sponsor continue to yield?

I do.

Through you, Madam President. Obviously the overall goal is to reduce utility costs for consumers, is that not correct?

Thank you, Senator Parker. Through you, Madam President, will the sponsor continue to yield?

I do.

I was referring more, Senator -- through you, Madam President -- to this package of -- this portion of the legislation is designed to impact utility rates that have become so high. Correct? (Pause.)

I think I follow you.

Will the sponsor continue to yield?

Yes.

Thank you. Through you, Madam President. I notice that Part N limits expenses that a utility, a gas and electric company may be able to claim as part of a rate case. Is the special -- is the special assessment for NYSERDA one of the elements that a utility will not be able to claim as part of a rate case? (Pause.)

On the bill, Madam President.

Briefly on the bill. Thank you, Senator Parker. Part of the reason why utility rates are so expensive is the fact that we continue to pile on surcharges, taxes, fees onto our utilities. One is the NYSERDA special assessment. That is a $28.7 million fee that is going to be charged to utilities that ultimately will be passed along to ratepayers. The reason that I referenced Part N for Affordable Utilities Omnibus Legislation, as it was titled, is that there's a bunch of fees that are exempt, but this special assessment is not one of them. The end result of this is going to be to increase rates as it is ultimately the ratepayer, as is so often the case, that is going to have to pay the burdens that this body continues to seek to impose on utilities. Those burdens are ultimately paid by ratepayers. I would just like to ask a question on Part P, which I think is also Senator Parker.

Yes, Madam President.

Thank you. Through you, Madam President. This legislation refers to differentiated income tiers. Can you explain what those are? (Pause.)

Through you, will the sponsor yield to another question?

Yes, Madam President.

Through you, Madam President. Senator Parker, you'd been asked earlier, I believe by Senator Walczyk, with regard to -- with regard to whether these income tiers would be considered by the Public Service Commission and how it was that the Public Service Commission would determine the economic impact upon income in terms of utility rates. And I believe that the answer was that we don't require the methodology in the legislation as to how they're supposed to do that. Do we know exactly how the Public Service Commission is supposed to determine what income is of the individual users or a category of users in determining whether the utility rates for that category are overly onerous?

Through you, Madam President, will the sponsor yield to another question?

Yes, Madam President.

Since the legislation is silent as to how that is to be done, would the Public Service Commission be able to require that individual ratepayers submit their personal income taxes?

Through you, Madam President, will the sponsor continue to yield?

Yes, Madam President.

I understand your earlier comment -- through you, Madam President, of course -- your earlier comment that it doesn't spell out the methodology in the legislation. My concern is that the absence of any instruction to the Public Service Commission leaves it open to them to determine income by whatever means they see fit. Are there any protections within the legislation to prevent them from requiring that there's income information for individual neighbors or individual ratepayers that has to be submitted to the Public Service Commission for the purpose of what's attempting to be accomplished in the legislation?

Thank you, Senator Parker. I certainly would hope not. Switching to Part U.

I apologize.

The Senate will stand at ease. (Whereupon, the Senate stood at ease at 6:56 p.m.) (Whereupon, the Senate reconvened at 6:58 p.m.)

Thank you, Madam President. We're ready to resume. Senator Kavanagh will be answering any questions on this part.

I do, thank you. And apologies for the delay.

Through you, Madam President, there's nothing in this bill that overrides local zoning. So yeah. The short answer is as far as we know, yes.

Thank you, Senator. Senator O'Mara, why do you rise?

Madam President, that will be Senator Jackson.

Yes, Madam President, I yield.

Senator, what is the fiscal impact to the state and local governments as a result of these changes to Tier 6 here?

Thank you, Senator. Madam President, if the Senator will continue to yield.

Yes.

Senator, the figures that I've reviewed relative to this section estimate the total cost impact of this to both the state and all local governments and school districts to be about $557 million a year.

Okay, so -- through you, Madam President, if the Senator --

Through you, Madam President, if the Senator will continue to yield.

Yes, I yield.

Thank you. Senator, of that $546 million figure, how much of that is to be paid by New York State as opposed to local governments?

Okay. Through you, Madam President, if the Senator will continue to yield.

Yes.

Senator, so if basically we take the 546 and subtract the 105, then the impact to the rest of the local governments and school districts in this state is an aggregate of $441 million.

Through you, Madam President, if the Senator will continue to yield.

Yes, I yield.

Senator, what was the involvement in the negotiations of this Tier 6 with our local governments and school districts in making these changes? (Pause.)

Thank you, Madam President. If the Senator will continue to yield.

The Senator yields.

Based on the information that I have, it would be good for the recruitment and retention of employees that are being hired by the municipalities, and all done within the context of the unions.

Does the Senator yield?

The sponsor yields.

I'm not at the table, so I can't speak on that.

Will the sponsor yield?

The Senator yields.

Madam President, can I remind Senator O'Mara that his comments should be directed through you, not directly to Senator Jackson. Thank you.

Will the Senator yield?

The Senator yields.

I don't know that information. But they are the ones that make the decisions about whether or not they're going to be involved in the part as far as how much money is there available.

Does the Senator yield?

The Senator yields.

I don't believe so.

Does the Senator yield?

The Senator yields.

Those decisions are made at the level of the location with respect to what's good for the people of their district and for their children.

Does the Senator yield?

The Senator yields.

The localities and schools will make decisions about their budget. That's why they're there. But if in fact it does go over 2 percent, that's with their knowledge, because they're -- when they agree to something, it's like you have a contract and you know what it's going to cost.

Senator O'Mara on the bill.

Senator Parker, do you yield?

The sponsor yields.

Yes, Madam President.

Does the Senator yield?

The Senator yields.

Madam President, through you, no. That seems to be a previous draft that's been changed.

Does the Senator yield?

The sponsor yields.

Madam President, through you. The makeup of the board are five voting members that are designated by the Governor; two voting members each by each majority of the Legislature; and two additional nonvoting members that are designated by the Governor.

Does the Senator yield?

The Senator yields.

Madam President, through you, they are not designated in that manner in the legislation.

Does the Senator yield?

The Senator yields.

I'm sorry?

Two things. Mr. President, first, I'd like to strike my last answer. I am corrected that they in fact are designated, Senator O'Mara, as the president of the Public Service Commission and -- and -- Mr. President, through you, it's the president of the PSC and the president of NYSERDA. Sorry, the chair of the PSC. So through you, Mr. President, the chair of the PSC, of the Public Service Commission, and the president of NYSERDA are in fact designated in the legislation as the two nonvoting appointments.

Will the sponsor yield?

The Senator yields.

Mr. President, through you. That is not what the parties involved in negotiating it thought that they should be included in that way. Now, that does not preclude them from being involved if one of the parties that make a designation decide that somebody from the ISO should be the appointee to the board. So they're not excluded, but they're not specifically included.

Will the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Mr. President, through you. They would be excluded because the language excludes those who are representing the industry.

Thank you, Senator O'Mara. Senator Helming, why do you rise?

Senator Helming on the bill.

Thank you, Senator Helming. Very timely, as the two-hour debate limit has concluded. Are there any other Senators wishing to be heard? Seeing and hearing none, debate is closed. The Secretary will ring the bell. Read the last section.

Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)

Thank you, Mr. President. I rise today at the end of a long and difficult road. After days of intense negotiations, we are called to vote on a budget that carries both progress and disappointment. I cast my vote not with ease, but with conscious effort, while harboring serious concerns about portions of this legislation. There are meaningful gains. As chair of the Civil Service and Pensions Committee, I welcome the progress we fought for alongside labor, long-overdue Tier 6 reform for teachers and improved benefits for firefighters, correction officers, sanitation workers, police officers and other public servants whose labor sustains this state every single day. And several of these provisions come directly from legislation championed by my team. And I want to particularly recognize the Didarul Islam Police Recruitment Act, which allows Tier 3 NYPD members to receive pension credit for prior service as correction officers, traffic enforcement agents, school safety agents, and police cadets. We named this bill in honor of the police officer that was killed, Didarul Islam, so that his service, sacrifice and commitment to the people of New York continues to live on not only in memory, but in law. Because public service must mean something, the people who have dedicated decades of their lives in this state deserve every bit of a retirement system that recognizes the full value of their sacrifice. But Mr. President, I must also speak to my concern regarding the climate provisions in this bill. When we debated the Climate Act in 2019, one of the principles was early and meaningful actions -- not delays, not proponent postponements, but action. And as we move forward the Legislature must push the Department of Environmental Conservation to set and enforce periodic emissions targets by regulations, ideally annual targets --

I vote yes.

Thank you, Mr. President. I was told today we have to save the planet by bumping this timeline out a decade so that we don't get sued by the green energy people that say that we're not saving the planet fast enough and that there is no science involved in the decision whatsoever. But everybody knows there is a giant cost involved here, and people cannot afford it. Pushing the targets back may avoid a suit from dark money, but every program still exists. You closed Indian Point, a 2-gigawatt facility, built out of that three natural gas facilities to actually make less power than that one nuclear power facility. You spent $88.7 billion on green energy projects; taxed, assessed, fee'd and surcharged utility bills; sprawled solar panels all over New York and added batteries everywhere; built a power line to Canada. And after seven years of this experiment, people's prices are 70 percent higher than the national average. And that is because you're inflating demand and you're reducing supply. And here's the solutions that were offered up today on energy cost. You're not -- you're not creating serious power production, not removing any of the fees, and not eliminating baked-in subsidies. But your solution is a nine-member commission of all appointed Democrats to identify the problems. I'll save them a year before their report: Stop. Your other solution: Appoint a monitor to determine what people's incomes are. Well, I got news for you. New Yorkers can't afford their energy bills. And your final solution, a program to give utilities control over people's thermostats. Wow. In the words of C.S. Lewis: We all want progress ... but if you're on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn. In that case, the man who turns back soonest --

-- is the most progressive. It's time to turn around. I vote no.

Thank you, Mr. President. I want to mention a part of the bill that hasn't been mentioned today, Part R, reforming our State Environmental Quality Review process. This is a tremendous win for New York State, and I'm grateful to our Majority Leader and to our amazing staff who worked so hard to get this policy right. SEQR reform removes a barrier to building housing more quickly, more affordably, and in places where it is most needed. With this policy we continue to protect the environment from harm while also stopping environmental law from being weaponized by wealthy litigants who just don't want new housing built in their communities. That weaponization drives up construction costs more than 10 percent, blocks many projects altogether, and results in pushing new housing out of town centers and into sprawling developments. On behalf of young families, retirees, and workers who want walkable, vibrant neighborhoods, varied housing types at attainable costs, and short commutes, I vote aye.

Thank you, Mr. President. I want to rise in support of this important legislation, and I also want to highlight a couple of measures that I believe are included that will make a real difference to New Yorkers. Number one, very, very pleased to see the significant action taken to address rising utility costs. Families across my district and across the state have opened their monthly bills and wondered why and how they're supposed to keep up. This budget bill includes reforms that increase transparency, limit unjustified rate increases, crack down on improper utility spending, and put greater focus on affordability. These are commonsense steps. Number two, I want to talk about real-long-overdue reforms to Tier 6 -- teachers, first responders, public employees who dedicate decades of their lives. Lowering contribution rates, adjusting retirement provisions, and modernizing overtime caps will not help retain our current workforce, but will also attract the next generation of town, village, county and state employees. I want to also highlight these reforms and the pension and the benefit increases to our friends in corrections, NYSCOPBA; also our Police Benevolent Association of New York State. They need help, we're helping them, and it's about time we help them even more in their pocketbooks. So these provisions reflect a budget that responds to their real concerns for every day. I support this, and I vote aye.

Thank you, Mr. President. Back in 2022 my district was ravaged by Hurricane Ida. I believe it was Governor Hochul's first or at least one of her first days in her new charge. She came back to East Elmhurst three days in a row. She saw how so many of my neighbors drowned, others almost drowned. Many lost their cancer medication, mementos and pictures that were special to their family. And so I thought that maybe this year we would really push the pedal to the metal on the improvements we need to see in our climate law implementation, which would lead to the lower bills that our constituents are looking for. And so despite this grave disappointment to my neighbors in East Elmhurst and in the surrounding areas, I am voting aye because there are big wins for working people in this budget bill, particularly on Tier 6 reform. I know that many union members have been vocal about how necessary that reform is to recruiting and retaining talent to our state agencies and our city agencies back home. So I am thankful, above all, to Majority Leader Andrea Stewart-Cousins. I know it hasn't been an easy process this year. This bill has many flaws, as do others. But I know my coworkers and I are steadfast in our journey to ensure that this state works for everyone. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. President. I rise in support of this bill. This is a large and complex agreement, but the through line for me is pretty clear: Affordability and accountability. Across this state people are feeling the pressure of rising costs, especially when it comes to utilities, housing, insurance and everyday expenses. This bill takes steps to address that by putting more focus on ratepayer protections, transparency, and how costs are set, and in cutting red tape so people are not paying more than they should. Just as important, it moves us towards a system where there's more clarity, where families can actually understand what's driving their bills and whether there's real accountability when decisions are made that affect affordability. For my community, we're working hard to grow the economy and strengthen our neighborhoods. But none of that works if people can't afford to stay here. Affordability is what determines whether progress is sustainable. That's why I'm voting aye on this bill. Thanks, Mr. President.

I rise to support this legislation. And like most complex pieces of legislation, I'm not happy with every part of it. But I'm very happy with some parts of it that we did not discuss today, Part N and Part O. Real changes to the ratemaking process by which the Public Service Commission determines the rates that are the cause of so many of our constituents' complaints here, and have come up repeatedly without discussion of the process. Credit to this conference for leading the way on reform of the ratemaking process. And so many of the bills that are included, in whole or in part, in this budget reflect a commitment to changing that process and making the process work for ratepayers and not for utility companies. There are multiple bills which were included here that would not have been included had not the constituents that we represent spoken up and made clear they want a change that puts their interests ahead of the utility companies. So for that reason and many others, I'm proud to be voting aye.

Thank you, Mr. President. In the four years that I've had the honor of being in this chamber, and for -- since 2019, when the CLCPA was passed, the Republican Conference has been warning that the CLCPA and the provisions of the CLCPA would drive up utility costs. And now we're seeing it. The proof is in the pudding. Utility rates in New York are 70 percent higher than the national average. And the reason that we're hearing so much from our constituents about the fact that their bills continue to go higher and higher is a reflection of that reality. As much as my colleagues on the other side try to find excuses for why that may be the case, this bill says the quiet part out loud and tells the story. NYSERDA, the energy experts, are the ones that said that the deadlines couldn't be met, are the ones that said that it would drive up the cost of utilities for the average family within the next five years by $4100 above what's already been done. And this bill says the quiet part out loud because my colleagues on the other side of the aisle secretly know it too. We've now pushed back deadlines. We are now no longer considering electricity, gas and oil that's produced from other states in our carbon footprint. It's time for us to acknowledge the simple reality that it does not work. The only way that the CLCPA is going to work as it's presently constituted is if, just like the million New Yorkers that have already left New York over the course of the last five years, the 19.5 million that are left follow behind them to North Carolina and Florida and Texas. And when New York has zero population, we will have zero carbon footprint. Mr. President, I vote in the affirmative.

Thank you, Mr. President. So as my -- some of my colleagues have previously just pointed out the negative aspects of this particular bill, particularly the unrealistic goals of the CLCPA, which we need a lot of time, a lot more time to complete. So I'm all for green energy, but my colleagues also pointed out -- I'm being redundant. My then 10-year-old daughter, in the year 2020, in her award-winning science project, said that -- warned everybody that their electrical rates are going to skyrocket if we shut down IPEC. But the part about this bill that I want to speak about is about New York's finest, New York's bravest, New York's strongest, and our teachers. All the civil service workers who are vital to our community, people that we love so dearly in our neighborhood. I walked this path before. I'm there, I'm home, and now I'm paying it forward. So I'm going to vote aye on this bill on behalf of them. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This has been a long-awaited budget. I rise today to vote aye as well. But we are beginning to tackle the worst affordability crisis since 2008. I think SEQR, the SEQR reforms that have not been talked about as much tonight but are truly important and really moving us in addressing the worst housing crisis in modern history. It will help to address the demand in terms of trying to build 800,000 new housing units over the next decade or so. That as well as many compromises, if you've heard tonight, have been made with regard to our climate goals. But we will hear more this week on other budgets about investments, critical investments that will continue to build us toward energy investment and climate resiliency, given all the extreme weather patterns that we have seen. So we've got to continue to do more, to build more. And at that, I also support a number of the utility pieces that have gone in here for utility relief, with some commonsense safeguards against future rate increases. We have a lot more work to do, but we think we have some safeguards to minimize those rate increases and put profits back into ratepayers. I'm also very pleased with the Tier 6 changes. I represent a very large state workforce, and I think this will help with our long-term stability and competitive benefits. With that, Mr. Speaker, I vote aye. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. President. I join my colleagues who have already spoken about the good provisions in this bill, particularly around utility reform and SEQR reform and Tier Six reform. And I share a lot of the concerns that I know my colleagues have around some of the climate provisions of this budget bill. I want to speak about two pieces of this bill that didn't get much attention during the debate that I want to lift up. The first is Part Y, which is a version of my Stop Online Predators Act. The internet today isn't a place where kids just visit anymore. In many ways it's a place where they live. They learn there, they play there, and they make friends there. And for far too long the same games and applications that our kids open every single day have become hunting grounds for predators. Now, this is not just speculation. On Roblox alone, last year more than 13,000 -- there were more than 13,000 reported incidents of child exploitation and more than 1300 requests for law enforcement. Big Tech has had every chance to fix this, but they have not. We are taking steps in this bill to protect kids from the worst of online predators and shutting off the conveyor belt that delivers kids on these online platforms to predators seeking to do them harm. I also want to lift up Part D, the super-speeders provision of this bill to require super-speeder installation -- speed-limiting device installation in the vehicles of the worst of the worst or the worst drivers in New York City. This is a measure that I know will help save lives. And if there's anything we can say we do in this chamber, what a gift it is to be knowing that we're going to save someone's life from being killed in a car crash because we have taken measures to curb the worst of the worst of reckless driving in our communities. And for those reasons and many other, Mr. President, I vote aye. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. President. You know, I appreciate the Tier 6 reforms that we have in this bill. I've often said that we should eliminate Tier 5 and Tier 6 and move everyone back to Tier 4. But I do think that these Tier 6 reforms will make a meaningful difference to our state workers, our local workers, our police officers, correction officers and teachers. I appreciate the rollback of the CLCPA -- you know, the commitment to the environment while still giving time to get it right. Because I still don't think we've gotten it right, but I do appreciate the fact that we're going to give time before we enforce all of our local communities and residents to have to absorb the impacts of the CLCPA -- especially for us who live on an island, Mr. President. I appreciate the housing that's going to be built on Long Island, the jobs that means to our building trades. I have concerns about the SEQR reforms, but I count on our local governments to look out for the welfare of their local communities even though I know that this is undermining their ability to take a hard look at the environmental impacts for projects in their communities. And, Mr. President, I have concerns about the insurance reforms insofar as there has been no showing that it's actually going to reduce the cost of insurance premiums for people who are paying the highest insurance rates in the country. But I'm willing to go along because I understand that we have to move the process forward and we have to make sure that we provide real relief. I'll be voting aye.

Mr. President, I just want to take a moment to point out that Senator Martins and all Republican colleagues who were here at the time voted for Tier 6 when the Democrats walked out of the chamber in protest. So I should just like to say that he's welcome that we're fixing his horrible mistake and glad that he's supporting what we're doing today. Thank you, Mr. President.

Senator Parker to explain his vote.

Let me say this, Mr. President, and explain my vote. I proudly vote yes on this bill. It's not perfect. There's a lot of issues that are being dealt with in the context of this legislation. I want to thank the leader and the staff of the Democratic Conference of the State Senate for their intrepid work to make sure that we get a budget of the 12st largest economy in the world done in a way that looks out for all New Yorkers. In the context of this debate, we should understand that we again, you know, we can have our own opinions, we can't have our own facts. The reality is the cost of utility prices that relates to energy is dictated by the global cost of natural gas, period. No matter what else that you like to say. By the way, just so my colleagues know, the CLCPA hasn't even been properly implemented yet. So like the notion of this $88 billion -- you know, I don't know where they're getting this number from. But, you know, people just spewing things and not having to relate it to reality is not real. Right? And not to talk about, you know -- well, not to not talk about it, let's talk about the fact that Trump has started this illegal war with Iran that has closed the Strait of Hormuz. The strait didn't close on its own, it closed because we're in an unsanctioned war. Right? And because we failed our responsibility as a nation to deal with Russia and its encroachment on Ukraine. Those are the things that are raising energy prices. Right? And let's -- you know, let's talk about the fact that your president, Donald Trump, stopped our offshore wind projects. That's what's raising prices here. So let's be very, very clear about what's going on. We're trying to save the nation and the state on energy prices, and we've done more than really almost any other state. Lastly --

I vote yes because Tier 6 had to go.

And this is a good first step.

Of course I go after Senator Parker. I want to thank the Majority Leader and the staff for the work they've done on this budget. This was a very difficult vote to take, given the rollbacks to the CLCPA. And I want to be very clear. It's not only disappointing, but we are essentially making the work that we aimed to address with that legislation even more difficult with regard to ensuring that we are protecting the health and well-being of our communities. And so it is my hope that what we will do as a body, that we will continue to address issues around climate change even more intentionally, as we do most certainly as a conference. The reason why I voted yes for this bill is because of the reforms that are needed, still that are needed to Tier 6. We know in our communities that we are often struggling with recruiting individuals to work in the public sector. But one of the greatest draws to public sector jobs was the benefits, and Tier 6 has created nothing but barriers to many folks who are in Tier 6. A number of us in this chamber are in Tier 6, myself included. And so it is my hope that with this vote that we are taking today to try to repair the harm that Tier 6 has created, that we will create much more opportunities for individuals in public service to have benefits. And with that, Mr. President, I vote aye.

Thank you very much, Mr. President. I want to thank colleagues on both sides of the aisle for an interesting debate here today. Just want to focus on Part VV and some of the climate things for a moment. This is not necessarily the way many of us in the Majority would have gone about addressing challenges with the climate law. I've got to say this has been the most complicated, intense negotiation I've been a part of in the eight years I've been here. I want to thank our Majority Leader and our staff for truly mitigating what could have been a lot worse, better. And to fight for some meaningful programs that will have a direct result on utility rates moving forward. It was our leadership that went to the mat to include the New York ASAP Act in here. It was our leadership that went to the mat to include $200 million to restart the NY-Sun program. It was our leadership that went to the mat to get another billion dollars in Sustainable Futures and climate mitigation projects. All of these -- and it was our leadership that went to the mat to talk about the utility issues and addresses what Senator Mayer brought up -- bills by Senator Hinchey, Senator Parker, Senator Mayer and others to truly address how the PSC does business and how our rates are addressed. All of this will have a direct impact on the ratepayers of the State of New York. But I want to address one thing about the CLCPA as I close, Mr. President -- and I will be voting yes on this if I get cut off by the orchestra playing -- which is in this conference we take very seriously environmental justice. And that's what's the core of the CLCPA. And many of the folks who talk about and criticize the CLCPA don't have massive fossil fuel infrastructure in your districts. Unfortunately, it's the kids in other districts that are dealing with the particulate matter, the fumes and the pollution. And so we take that very seriously. So the CLCPA is not just about accounting. It's not just about carbon and methane. It's about public health for children. And we should never apologize for taking that seriously, and we should never apologize for fighting to address that in every way we can. I vote yes.

In relation to Calendar 1328, voting in the negative are Senators Borrello, Gallivan, Griffo, Helming, Lanza, Oberacker, O'Mara, Ortt, Stec, Tedisco and Walczyk. Ayes, 52. Nays, 11.

Mr. President, I have a couple of motions here. On behalf of Senator Kavanagh, I wish to call up Senate Print 1462, recalled from the Assembly, which is now at the desk.

Calendar Number 583, Senate Print 1462, by Senator Kavanagh, an act to amend the Public Authorities Law.

Call the roll on reconsideration. (The Secretary called the roll.)

The bill is restored to its place on the Third Reading Calendar.

The amendments are received.

The amendments are received, and the bill will retain its place on the Third Reading Calendar. Senator Gianaris.

The resolutions are open for cosponsorship. Should you choose not to be a cosponsor, please notify the desk. Senator Gianaris.

There is no further business at the desk.

On motion, the Senate stands adjourned until Wednesday, May 27th, at 12:00 p.m. (Whereupon, at 7:46 p.m., the Senate adjourned.)