Assembly Live Stream (partial)

The trauma of gun violence and domestic violence have a severe impact on families and communities. We have to ensure we support survivors in a real way. We must also focus on survivors of violence who deal with the trauma long after their loved one is buried. This session we need to take significant steps to ensure that there is expansion of support of Office of Victim Services to assist survivors with recovering from trauma and rebuild their lives. Barriers have prevented the families of the victims of violence from receiving necessary claims and support. is not just burial reimbursement, but mental health support, victim compensation programs to help survivors pay for costs, medical bills, mental health and family counsel, crime scene cleanup and so much more. No family after dealing with tragedy of losing a loved one should be further traumatized by having to figure out funds to bury their loved one or being denied because they are told their loved ones contributed to their death or being denied because of GoFundMe account that helps cover funeral costs. Millions of Americans struggle with mental health challenges every day and are subject to stigma, systematic barriers to care, insurance issues, a shortage of providers, discrimination, expensive treatment, so much more issues we won't even know about because these individuals feel they do not have a voice. And this is the reality of many New Yorkers and communities of colors. I vote in the affirmative and we have so much work to do but we have done so much great steps in the state. So I encourage my colleagues to do the same. Thank you to the spots on this resolution.

Thank you.

Madam Speaker, do we have any further housekeeping or resolutions?

Assembly number 1457, Mr. Fitzpatrick, legislative resolution mourning the untimely death and paying tribute to the life and heroic service of Nassau County Police Officer Patricia Espinosa, who died on Saturday, January 31st, 2026.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. This legislative resolution mourns the untimely death and pays tribute to the life and heroic service of Nassau County Police Officer Patricia Espinosa, who died on Saturday, January 31, 2026. Police Officer Espinosa tragically died in a car accident on her way to work that morning when she was struck by a truck driven by a young man who was later arrested and charged with drunk driving. Though I did not know Police Officer Espinosa personally, she and her family lived around the block from me. At her funeral mass held at St. Patrick's Church in Smithtown, community support was overwhelming. The outpouring of the law enforcement family and friends who came to honor her life and mourn her death was a tribute to the respect they had for her. A tragedy that never should have happened by a reckless individual who cut her life short in an instant. Police Officer Espinosa was the wife of Nassau County Police Officer Francisco Malaga and the mother of their two-year-old daughter Mia. Police Officer Espinosa emigrated from Quito Ecuador when she was 21 years of age She previously served as a New York State Correctional Officer prior to becoming a police officer in 2017 Police Officer Espinosa Patricia Espinosa worked in the 5th Precinct of the Nassau County Police Department was actively involved with the Nassau County Police Hispanic Society, served as a training officer, and participated in youth mentorship initiatives and community outreach. May this resolution express the sincere condolences of this legislative body to the family of police officer Patricia Espinosa, who served the community and this state with integrity and courage. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Today I rise with a heavy heart to honor Nassau County Police Officer Patricia Espinosa and recognize a life of service that ended far too soon. For me, this resolution is especially personal because Patricia served in the fifth precinct that covered the communities that I know and represent, including Elmont, South Florida Park, Franklin Square, and Valley Stream. In so many ways, she personified what community policing was. She showed up consistently to community members, and for them, they never saw a uniform. They saw a person who cared, who came to community events, who came to school events, who talked to young people in such a beautiful way. She was a mother, a wife, a colleague, a neighbor in spirit to so many families in the fifth precinct and beyond. She was an active member of the Nassau County Police Hispanic Society and did so much work with the Make-A-Wish Foundation, where she really made a difference in so many people's lives. Her work reflected a powerful idea that communities are strongest when people feel seen, respected, and protected. And every day she put on that uniform, she made a decision to serve our community in such a special way. This is why this loss feels so profound. To our family, thank you for sharing her with our community. Public service is something that you never carry alone, and families make a sacrifice too, and we recognize that today. Today's resolution cannot erase the loss, but I want to ensure that Officer Espinoza's legacy endures. May we remember her as someone who embodied service, strengthened community trust, and reminded us that behind the badge is a human committed to making sure that we are all protected in a way that we deserve. May her memory be a blessing to us all, and thank you so much. We will miss you.

On the resolution, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed. No, the resolution is adopted. We have a number of resolutions before the House. Without objection, these resolutions will be taken up together. On the resolutions, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed. No, the resolutions are adopted. Ms. Lunsford.

10 a.m. tomorrow on Ms. Lunsford's motion, the House stands adjourned.

Madam Speaker, will you please call the House to order?

Good morning.

I pledge to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic of America. the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Mr. Fall. Madam Speaker, I move to dispense with the further reading of the Journal of Monday, May 25th, and at the same stand approved. Without objection, so ordered. We have a quote this

our leader with their conference needs. So with that as a general outline, Madam Speaker, let us begin by calling for the Ways and Means Committee to meet in the Speaker's Conference Room. Thank you. Ways and Means Committee members, please make your way to the Speaker's Conference Room. Ways and Means Committee members, Speaker's Conference Room. We have a piece of housekeeping this morning on a motion by Ms. Cruz, page 35, calendar number 262, Bill number A-318.

Good morning, Madam Speaker. How are you today? So it is a great privilege today that I introduce to you a gentleman from my district, His name is Ari Weiss. He's here with his daughter, Giddy Weiss, and I'm sorry, his wife, Giddy, and their daughter, Esther. The reason I brought Mr Weiss here today is because he an outstanding volunteer within my community and actually the entire community of Staten Island He does a lot of work with Hutzala, which is an ambulance corps who serves everyone on Staten Island, regardless of their background or their religion. And he also works with Shuram, which is a safety patrol throughout the borough. And this dawned on me the other day when I was at an event for one of my colleagues that I always see Ari there all the time. And we have 10 elected colleagues. I have 10 electeds on Staten Island, my friends that we work with. And usually I always see him. So as busy as I think I am, he's as busy as I am at least 10 times over. So for that reason, I'm going to be presenting him with this awesome proclamation today. and I would like to ask if you would please extend the courtesy of the floor to my constituents and my friends. Thank you.

Madam Speaker, can you please put the House at ease?

Madam Speaker, can you please call the House back to order?

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It's certainly a special day for me today here in the Capitol. I have some very special guests here that came down from my district, actually from my home. I have my family here today. And my wife of 48 years, Lynn, our daughter, Jackie, our son, Corey, our son-in-law, Jerry, and our three grandsons, Barrett, Cash, and Tate. They're very excited to be here and very impressed with the Capitol building. and our grandson Barrett is currently in the middle of his governmental instruction in his classroom and they're talking about the New York State Capitol and our government here. So it's very fitting for him to be here today. He's learned a lot. They've all told me how excited they were. They've told me how impressed they were with the Capitol and the ornate carvings and etchings and the history, so-called almost finished capital billing that wasn't finished. But anyway, I didn't get them in to see the unfinished part of the Senate, but I told them about it and they were Thoroughly impressed and probably the most impressing thing was my office and what we have up there to take care of the folks at the end of session most days. So please, Madam Speaker, would you please give all the cordialities to the floor and the people's house

Madam Speaker, members have on their desk an A calendar. I now move to advance the A calendar.

Madam Speaker, can we now take up a Rules Report 211 on page 8 by Mr. Pretlow?

Assembly number 11480, Rules Report 211, Committee on Rules, Mr. Pretlow, an act making appropriations for the support of government.

I hereby certify to an immediate vote, Kathy Hochul, Governor.

So, Madam Speaker, this extender would ensure funding for state operations and other programs through May 28th. The bill includes additional funding for institutional payroll, Medicaid payments, unemployment insurance, OPWDD services, veterans programs, and general state charges.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Will the Chairman yield for a few questions? Will the Chair yield? Yeah, absolutely. I will yield for three questions. Maybe one more than that. that. First question, obviously, I won't even ask it. I see it on the board. This goes until May 28th, correct? Correct. Now, this being our 15th extender, what is the total amount of all the appropriations of those 15 bills? Through 15 extenders, it's $36.2 billion. And what is the increase of this extender? $2.5 billion. Okay. I did want to ask you now, I don't know, do you think this will be our last extender or will we have to take up another one on Thursday, do you think, just to get through? I'm hoping to complete the process of passing the budget by Thursday. Okay. And just going back to some of our analogies in the past with the magnet and the metal. Has the metal dropped? Has it all come together? Are we still, is there still some stragglers? Where are we at on the metal? Well, we're using that same analogy. It turns out that the magnet is an electronic magnet. And as we increase the power, the magnet gets stronger, so more shards are coming toward it. But we are getting there. And our other analogy I think we in the third inning Third inning Yes You took my next question So do you have any idea I know we going to do the TED bill next Do you have any idea when the other bills will be introduced? Well, like I said, I hope to have this budget process come to fruition by Thursday. So today's Tuesday. That gives us three days. Well, Mr. Chairman, thank you. I look forward to talking to you in a few minutes.

Madam Speaker, my colleagues, well, this is our 15th extender and hopefully our last one. It's really kind of hard to believe we've had to go this far past the deadline. But that being said, I'm certainly glad this process is starting to move. Budget bills are being printed. Conversations are happening. Votes are moving forward. That's a positive thing, and that's welcome news from where we were last week. But progress is not the same as completion. And until that last budget bill is voted upon, the people we represent are still waiting. And they've waited long enough. As we work through the remaining of the bills, I hope two things stay front and center. Number one, affordability. Because every New Yorker right now is feeling the squeeze. And this budget should be making their lives easier and not harder. And second, safety. because no policy matters more than whether people feel safe in their neighborhoods and in their homes and in their communities. These are the priorities that should guide us that have been left out of the process. I will once again obviously vote for this extender because we need to make sure our dedicated employees who do such a great job for us providing critically important services to New Yorkers get paid, and we will continue to push for a budget that delivers on what matters most to New Yorkers. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I vote yes.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you

Ayes 121, nays 0.

Assembly number 1008C, Rules Report 210, Budget Bill.

I hereby certify to an immediate vote, Kathy Hochul, Governor.

Yes, Madam Speaker. Today, as we continue the process of adopting the budget for state fiscal year 2627, the bill before us contains major components of legislation that are necessary for the implementation of transportation, environment, economic development. This bill includes legislation to reduce utility costs for ratepayers, modify the timeline and implementation of the state's climate change goals, improve retirement benefits for members of Tier 6 and other members, and streamline the state's process for certain environmental reviews.

Yes, thank you, Madam Speaker. Will the chairman yield for some questions? Will the chair yield? Yes, I will. Chair yields. Thank you, Mr. Pratt. Well, I'll start out with the asking committee. This is another budget bill. When can we expect to see the financial plan before we—will we see the financial plan before we vote on any other bills? Mr. Palasama, the reason you haven't seen the financial plan in print now is because all of the bills aren't in print, and in the off chance that one of the bills that we present in budget fails to pass, it would make the financial plan incorrect. So after all of the bills are printed, we will have a financial plan for review. Okay. And then that financial plan will include the all-funds funding, spending, the state operating funds, spending, and the out-year budget caps. Is that correct? Yes, sir. Okay. Regarding the sweeps and transfers, how much does this enacted budget-increased bond caps within the sweeps and transfer section, and how much is this over the governor's proposal? The increase is at $3.5 billion. Okay. And then the liquidity financing measure was put into law to address cash flow needs during COVID-19. Why do we continue to extend this authorization when the state's receipts are coming in higher than forecasted and we continue to see increased spending each year? Can you repeat the question, please? Sure. The liquidity financing measure that was put into law to address cash flow needs during COVID-19, why do we continue to extend this authorization when the state's receipts are coming in higher than forecasted and we continue to increase spending each year? Because there are still outstanding contracts that haven been paid and we still catching up with them Okay I do have one or two brief questions on insurance reforms The governor has claimed that fraud and stage crashes inflate premiums by as much as per year on average Has the State Department of Financial Services provided any statistical specific actuarial data that confirms this $300 figure? No. And is there anything in this budget bill that would ensure that there will be savings for New Yorkers based on these provisions? And how would that be quantified to ensure that they will get actual reductions of premiums? Well, we're judging our experiences with other states and how the moves that we're making in New York are replicating what's done in other states where they have decreased insurance costs. Okay. And if there are, well, are there going to be any steps or mechanism in place for the Department of Financial Services to address this if there are no savings? Well, one of the things that they're required to do is evaluate these reports, and we're going to ensure that there are rate decreases. Okay. And if all else fails, we're also issuing checks to all the rate payers to help with that reduction. Okay. But it's not in this bill. All right. I have maybe one or two quick questions on the pension changes. The first question is, with these enhancements and changes that are being made, what is the, do we have what the overall cost of taxpayers for all the pension enhancements include in this bill, both for the state and for locals? Yes, it's a total of 500. Just for the state, it's $146.3 million. And how about for locals? Do we know how much it's going to cost? $289.9 million. $389.9 bill? $289.9. And as you remember, and I know we brought this up, when we passed Tier 6 back then, we said any additional enhancements, that would be paid for by the state. Is the state going to assume that cost, or is that going to be picked up by the local property taxpayers for these enhancements? I think the section of the law you're referring to was not withstood with the legislation that we had done. Okay. Okay, great. Thank you, Mr. Prowlow. Now I'd like to talk about the CLCPA and some of those changes, if I may. Yes, you may. Okay.

Sure. And we can all agree that I think that the utility rates are sky high for New Yorkers. I know there's rebates of, I think, $200 per family, up to $200 per family. Is there anything, and I know about the rates commissions and evaluations of the utilities, but is there anything actually in this budget bill that will actually reduce rates immediately for New York rate payers? We're going to be evaluating these things over time. Okay, the implementation is going to be done after an evaluation that we're doing over time. Okay. All right. So the $2.4 billion that NYSERDA is sitting in, their surplus funds, that was collected for the rate payer, there's nothing in this budget bill that would relieve that and provide that relief directly back to New Yorkers, correct? Not in this bill? Okay, no, that money is going toward energy efficiency programs. All right. Okay. The taxes, fees, assessments, and surcharges, they add up to about 20, sometimes in some cases, 20% of a utility bill. Is there anything done on this budget bill to provide suspension of those taxes and fees to provide that immediate relief to rate payers right now? All right, we don't have that number of anywhere, the 20% you're referring to. But we are depending on the commissions and the report that they do once they look at the entire situation. Anything in here that will increase or improve the supply of natural gas? No. Anything in this bill that will help relieve the constraints on pipelines to relieve natural gas to get into the system? Not to my knowledge. Now, this bill also, I know, is going to make some changes, but our current law says by 2040, we're supposed to be in a net zero generation, meaning we can't use natural gas for power generation. Does this bill and the changes it made to the CLCPA change that, or does that still stay in statute that by 2040, we're supposed to be a net zero generation, so you cannot use natural gas to generate energy? Do you mind if I refer to Ms. Glick? Sure. Go ahead. That's fine. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Prell. Ms. Glick?

Yes, good to see you.

In this budget bill, I know there's some provisions for credits for EV purchases for municipalities, right? And it's increasing it from $7,500 to $30,000? Yes.

And why was that necessary that we do that increase?

Sure. And who's responsible for paying for that credit?

So all these funds are going to be paid with state dollars? There's no coming from, it's not coming through NYSERDA through assessments on rate payers bills? You're saying this is all going through the EPF and not coming from rate payers?

Is that correct?

Okay. These amendments I know adjust the accounting of methane emissions from 20 years to 100 years, is that correct?

And we seem to be moving away from the original 70 by 30 target

overstated our emission impacts and created unnecessary pressures on energy costs and reliability for New Yorkers?

Okay. So we're losing reporting requirements in some cases and pushing back regulation development too, correct?

Okay. And this kind of goes along with what the changes we need to make to the electrification mandates,

No.

Okay. And that's why the reporting requirement. All right. And I saw in this language of the bill that the DEC has the ability to do some analysis and see, look at the feasibility of the cabinet invest program. So a little bit of analysis.

Is that correct?

Okay. And then also I see that there's language requiring the DEC to assess the affordability, feasibility, and economic growth in the context of the CLCPA mandates. Is that correct?

And does the DEC have to report back any of these fines? How does that work?

So we should have that information if there's affordability problems, feasibility problems, reliability problems. Before we put those regulations in place, we should have a full vetting of this, right?

Wouldn't it be wise, and I mentioned this with the electric school bus mandate, Now that we're trying to push back some of the timelines a little bit, making some modifications, which I appreciate, wouldn't now be the right time to do a thorough full cost-benefit analysis to measure what the true costs are going to be to rate payers for families and also to do a true feasibility study, working with the NISO, working with utilities, working with the Public Service Commission, Department of Public Health to see if this can be done. Shouldn't we do these things first before we go out and fully implement the provisions of the CLCPA? Wouldn't it now be the time to do that, to show the rate payers of the state how much it's going to truly cost them, how feasible this is from a reliability perspective and from a practical perspective? Wouldn't that be the right

How about this? Shouldn't we do a cost-benefit analysis of feasibility study before we implement the CLCP requirements that are necessary to show In my humble opinion when we look at all of the costs that are facing New Yorkers

Sure. And I have no problem with that, but as long as we're telling them what the true dollar cost is. I'd like to pivot to the Blue Ribbon Commission on residents, the rates commission. That would be somebody else. Okay. So I might be bouncing back and forth depending on some of this. But anyway, on that provision, in the one house budget, there was minority appointments. I don't see any minority appointments in this. Is there any reason why there are no minority appointments like this? Because this seems like a significant issue. Even with the CLCPA, we had minority appointments. Mr. Palmas-Somadza, I know you're aware. In our assembly one house budget, we did include minority representation. but in the negotiating process, that part was eliminated. Not that we wanted to eliminate it, but it was eliminated. I certainly believe you on that point, Mr. Farrow. One part in this commission thing kind of stood out to me. It says, any person employed by a utility corporation or employed by a corporation that owns or operates an electric plant or any current consultant, advisor, board member, or any other person similarly affiliated with such corporations shall not be eligible to be appointed to this Blue Ribbon Commission. Why are we not allowing people who own power plants, people who understand transmission, people who understand generation, people understand utilities and pipelines and wires and poles and substations? Why are they not allowed to be part of this commission? Wouldn't it make more sense? As I know you're aware, one of the longstanding criticisms of most of these boards is that they're

Mr. Peralta, I can appreciate your attempt to answer that question from that perspective. But, you know, the CLCPA was loaded with state agency heads, really, who didn't understand energy generation, how the utility system works. We had advocates who were pushing for these green mandates. Why wouldn't we want expertise? If we're going to put this in, if we want to reduce rates for New Yorkers, why would we not include expertise from the industry? And they'd just be one voice. They wouldn't control it because obviously you look from the appointments, they'd be overwhelmed, just like they were on the CLCPA. And my argument is thank God we had those minority appointments and we had people with energy industry expertise on that panel Otherwise the CLCPA would have been much more of a disaster than it already is Shouldn we have energy expertise Why did the majorities and the governors say they don want and almost like it seems like they want a rubber stamp for whatever you want to do

Right. But you can't have power plant owners, people. So where are you going to get the expertise? So I know when I read a little further, there's issues with utilities, but they can't work for them to understand how the system works.

What about the NISO? Could the NISO be on this commission? Obviously they're the ones that deal with making sure the lights stand, the power states on. Can the NISO be a part of this commission?

But they have to be appointed by one of those designees to be on the board, right? Yes. So if they're not, then their voice will be quiet, right? Well, they have to be appointed, yeah. Okay. Relative to, I got one question I want to ask about nuclear, if I may. You know, the governor has expressed support for expanding nuclear power generation in the state by 5 gigawatts of capacity. If we're really serious about meeting our CLC pay goals, it seems, why does this budget seem to ignore any development of nuclear and zero emission nuclear power source, a reliable base load generation? Wouldn't it be better? Shouldn't there be some focus on that, or do you think that's not part of this? Well, that is really in the future. The costs involved with nuclear generation are enormous. Every project, I believe, in this country has always come in over budget by not millions but billions of dollars. And it's something that is on the back burner. Yes, the governor is saying that we should do this within the 10-year period. But as it is right now, we're looking at more conventional methods of power generation. Okay. I want to ask you a question, if I may, to – I'm sure you have some other questions. on the nuclear side, maybe, possibly. On the semiconductor backup power, it seems like the budget provides an exemption from the state's power plant city review process for major electric generating facilities that provide backup power to manufacturing facilities that produce semiconductor chips. Currently, what review must take place for these electric generating facilities under Article 10 of the public service law? I think they've already gotten approval. Okay. Do we know how many manufacturing facilities produce semiconductor chips in New York State? I do not. Is this provision specifically designed to assist the Micron project in central New York? Will they benefit from this project? Yes. They will. Okay. When you talk about, I know one part of the provision deals with utility profits and return on equity. How do you expect, isn't a lot of that already governed by law already? No. I don't believe so. I'm not a lawyer. I know because you talk about creating an affordability index in which how they're going to decide how these utilities make a process, so profit. And the federal government decided long ago to allow utilities to be profitable. If not profitable, why would they be in business then? Okay. As far as I know, we're not interfering with that. Okay. And is your contention that this rates commission, although not having expertise across the board, is going to deliver real rate pay relief to citizens? No, they will have expertise across the board. Okay. But just not people who know generation or work for utility don't tell them? People that aren't currently employed in the industry. Will this commission be able to evaluate the taxes, fees, assessments, and surcharges that are on our bills? Yes. Okay. Mr. Pretlow, thanks for your time. I'm going to use the remainder of my time to go on the bill, if I may.

Yes, Madam Speaker. A few quick things in the provision I didn't talk about I like. I like the fact that we put the death gamble in this legislation to protect our corrections officers. We've been advocating for that. I like the fact that we did the 20-year retirement reinstatement for our New York City corrections officers to match the New York City Police Department and the New York City Fire Department. That will certainly help with recruitment and retention. And I like that we are making some changes to the CLCPA, something we've been talking about, something we've been telling you that needed to be made. The auto insurance thing I'd just like to talk on real quick is that these liabilities, there's changes to liability issues and fraud. We need to make sure, and I haven't seen any quantification on how this will result in actual savings for New Yorkers. We need to make sure that does happen. On the pension system, I understand we are lowering the age group, retirement age for one group, but not everyone else, not the janitor, not the maintenance worker, not the laborer. And the other thing is we made a promise back in 2011 that the state would pick up any enhancement costs for our localities. We made some improvements earlier in 2021-2022. those weren't picked up and those utilities, those rate payers in those local municipalities have already seen that happen. I like the fact that we are changing to a 100-year methodology, which makes sense. I like the fact that we can deal with the cap and invest delays and delaying the CLCPA. And I like the fact that DC can consider affordability, reliability, and feasibility moving forward. And I think these are some of the things that we'll see light. But the fact of the matter is there's still no financial plan. We need a fiscal plan. And I think there are still some things missing. There's no direct ratepayer relief in this budget bill. Yes, there's a $200 rebate, but in and of itself it's not enough. No refund of the $2.4 billion that the ratepayers have already paid for this. Give them some direct relief. Suspend some of these taxes, fees, and surcharge, accompanying about 20% of the bill. People want direct ratepayer relief now They don want to subsidize someone EV purchase someone electric heat pump or electric lawnmower And this budget bill kind of expands upon that from to Really? Are we listening? There's nothing in this bill that expands natural gas or encourages a supply of natural gas, nothing to deal with the pipeline constraints for natural gas, nothing to increase air permits to build new natural gas, nothing to slow down the electrification mandates. And in fact, in 2021, we've had two denials of air permits for new natural gas power plants. I know the natural gas power plants are going up, and you cite that, but it's because of the green mandates that are making it more difficult. The NISOL, who's charged with turning the lights on, making sure the lights stay on, and the power stays on, have said this. We've said this, despite the fact, and we've been telling you this, By 2040, we still now, based on this law, would have to have no generation come from natural gas. Despite the fact that 60% of New Yorkers eat their homes with natural gas, 40% of our generation comes from natural gas. And natural gas has always been referred to as a bridge fuel, and the technology doesn't exist yet to get to where. We talk about advanced nuclear, carbon capture, sequestration, renewable natural gas, those types of things. The technology is not there yet. So why are we just looking to dismantle natural gas? We don't tear down a bridge before you build a new one. I see constantly the blaming of the utilities, but failure to take responsibility for the policies, these green policy mandates that you keep implementing. Like I said, these delays are good. But remember, just recently there was a report coming out saying if we don't make more significant changes, utility prices will go up to over $4,000 for New Yorkers. The price of a pump of gas, a gallon of gas at the pump is going to be $2.23 a gallon, more than what it is. Diesel, $2.41 more than what it is. Small and medium sized commercial businesses, 46% higher and 60% increase in delivery truck operations. This is not sustainable. This is not affordable. And the total cost of this whole program is more than a quarter of a trillion dollars. Some say as much as a half a trillion dollars. That's more than our total state budget. And the fact that we don't have appointments on this committee is mind-blowing to me. The fact that we're going to take out people who have expertise in the industry from power generation, from transmission to understanding how the utilities work, someone understands. I don't understand where we're going for that. We want reliable base load generation. We need to make sure there's people on this commission that really has that. We had that on the CLCPA, but we don't seem to have it now. and we double down on that language not to allow those people with that expert taste, it's almost like you just want a rubber stamp for your failed policies. You don't want someone to come out and voice opposition or an honest discussion of how bad these policies are for affordability, how bad these policies are for reliability. We need to do better. We need to be smarter. And having a broad, diverse opinion would help us make this policy more effective to make sure it's an affordable, reliable, feasible energy plan. So again, just passing it on, we need to look at the feasibility study, the cost-benefit analysis. And I'm glad that D.C. can look at this, but we should be doing an independent agency outside to do a true cost analysis. If this is such a good thing, let's say how much is it going to cost New York seniors, veterans, disabled, and true dollars and cents for our business. Let's do a feasibility study, true feasibility, show that the grid can handle it. Work with the utilities, work with the NISO, work with the Public Service Commission to show that it can work, because it not working The NISO has already set the red flag and we looking at that more and more problematic because the work is not being done It's not being thorough enough. I'm just afraid that we don't have the expertise on there. And I know this is all being done in the name of climate change and global emissions. But I remind my colleagues, New York only contributes 0.4% of global emissions. 0.4%. China's 30%. It has 1,000 coal plants and building more every day. And I remind you, this is not so much green policy. The only thing green about it was it's going to cost increased ratepayer dollars and increased taxes. And it's not so clean. And I've talked about it in the past regarding the EV batteries, the cobalt and the lithium, using child labor from the Democratic Republic of Congo, mining for the cobalt to power the electric vehicle, poisoning water rivers and streams in the lithium triangle of Argentina. It's almost like it's okay if it's not happening here for these disadvantaged communities. They're the ones that are going to pay the brunt of it. We need to move forward because I think the policies in this how continue to look to dismantle the affordable, reliable, natural gas infrastructure supply and delivery system. It's designed to take away consumer choice on how you heat your home, cook your food, power your building. It will jeopardize the reliability of the grid leading to dangerous and deadly blackouts. And it will continue our nation leading out migration of more families, farmers, small businesses and manufacturers leaving the state. I assure you, myself, our conference and more smart New Yorkers will continue to push for a common sense energy policy that prioritizes energy affordability, reliability, feasibility, safety, fuel diversity and energy choice. Madam Speaker, my colleagues, New Yorkers deserve nothing less. I will be voting in the negative on this. I know some of my colleagues may vote yes because of some of their...

But I vote no and urge my colleagues to do the same. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Question. Is this bill on a message of necessity?

Great. Thank you so much. Would the chair yield for some questions? Would the chairman yield?

Chair yields. Well, thank you very much, Chair. Since we're here on a message of necessity, what is the urgency for the policy of the CLCPA provisions that's in the budget?

Well, certainly an expedited manner, but in the absence of hearings, our hearings for this were actually earlier in the year, and the changes that were actually put forth in this body today are actually policy provisions, not budget provisions. They don't have much to do with the budget other than people's family budgets around the state who can't afford to live in New York State. So let's talk a little bit about some of the policy things. Is one of the drivers of these CLCPA changes the fact that New York's electricity prices are some of the highest in the nation?

So it's clean air. It's not actually the fact that people are having to pay for unaffordable electricity rates. Did you know that New York has the fifth highest rates in the nation, 29 cents per kilowatt hour as of today?

Could you repeat the question, please? I did not hear you. Yes Did you know that New York has the fifth highest electricity cost in the nation at 29 cents per kilowatt hour It wouldn surprise me And are those costs are they worth the carbon savings that have been done by the CLCPA

So the utilities raise the rates? Pardon?

Well, don't they do that under the direction of the Public Service Commission?

So how can we bring those rates down?

I see that it's been reduced from 70 to 60. Is that going to help bring down electricity rates?

And why is that?

Wow. Are these new goals, are they achievable?

Okay, and where was the cost-benefit analysis that was done that led to this policy change?

Well, thank you for that admission, because I don't know what the possibilities are, because it's never been a transparent process. And this bill today, this policy in the budget, any changes to the membership of the Climate Action Council?

No. So the chairs are whom?

The commissioner of DEC and the head of NYSERDA?

So in this bill, actually, though, and just reading through it,

Is that true?

So they're going to review the feasibility of a program, the head of a state agency that's appointed by the governor,

Isn't that a conflict of interest?

No? How so not that someone who is making up the rules then has to implement the rules?

Okay, so, you know, DEC has been given this responsibility.

It's been since 2019.

OK, we're not telling them they have to do it.

OK, well, we'll take that suggestion to the state agency

So let's talk a little bit about some more of the provisions that aren't here in the CLCPA. Was there any consideration in the policy ...budget to actually repeal something like the Climate Superfund Act that we passed last year, the $500 million green slush fund.

No, so we're not going to give that. What about the Environmental Bond Act, $5 billion that we're borrowing on behalf of New York State's taxpayers to put towards green initiatives?

Well, the Bond Act raised money for us to implement a lot of the changes that we're looking at.

It does have to be paid back with interest the last time I checked.

Okay. Well, thank you so much, Chair. I appreciate the questions. Madam Speaker, on the bill?

So here we are in 2026, tapping the brakes on a bad bill that was passed in 2019, because reality has caught up with this state and its green mandates. The Green News scam that's been promulgated on New York State's taxpayers, on its businesses, is coming to an end because it's unsustainable. Electricity rates are through the roof. Rates for things like gasoline, for propane, for natural gas, for diesel fuel, are driving small businesses right out of the state. They're driving large businesses out of this state because it's unsustainable. And it's a real shame that this body is now trying to cover its tracks with some revisions eight years later, when in reality, this was a bad deal to start with. And it doesn't go far enough. We ought to repeal the CLCPA. We ought to give back to the citizens, not through gimmicks like this, but give them the real chance to run businesses, to raise their families in the state. Since this bill has been passed, over a million people have left upstate New York. The rural communities that I represent have been decimated by higher costs, and they're going to continue to do so. New York has some of the highest electricity costs in the nation. When in fact we're closing down nuclear plants, we're having to string an electric line from Hydro-Quebec to New York City to replace shuttered nuclear plants. when we're making it more expensive because we're not allowing natural gas to be frapped. We're not allowing pipelines to cross New York State to bring energy to market at reasonable costs. So we wonder why this is happening. Well, there's the reason. It's bad policy. And the bad policy has always been in the budget in this state. Here we are on a message of necessity saying we need to change bad policy that we have put forth But we going to try to do it under the cover of a rushed process where there no public hearings where there no opportunity for the public to be heard where there no opportunity for state commissioners to be questioned by the representatives of the people That is wrong. It's bad policy. And for that reason, I will be voting no on this bad bill. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Will the sponsor yield for some questions? Will the sponsor yield?

Sponsor yield. Thank you very much, Chairman. I appreciate the time. Just some clarifying questions on a couple of aspects of the bill before us today. I just want to confirm, I heard a couple of things about nuclear, nuclear power generation. So the Governor has signaled support for expansion of nuclear power, is there anything in this particular budget bill that speaks to that expansion of nuclear power generation?

Is there anything in this bill that speaks to supporting communities that are going through the decommissioning of nuclear power plants in their community?

Okay. Thank you very much. I appreciate that. And I apologize, I am going to bounce around a little bit on different topics. If we can, I'd like to go over to the SECRA amendments that are being proposed in regards to housing. Yep.

Can you define for me what housing constructions?

Everything else remains the same.

In New York City, it's 250 units or 500 dwelling units in a densely zoned area.

And so when you say zoning, can you maybe be a little bit more specific?

You know, some communities, like where I live, there are commercial zones, three-family zones, and some communities don't have those zoning.

So any type of zoning that a municipality has established, whether it's residential or commercial,

Is that what you're saying? Yes.

And we have a new definition on previously disturbed site.

Yes. Can you explain to us what that definition entails?

has building or improvements two years prior to application, is next to another previously deserved parcel,

Thank you very much. And you also have a new definition for small community water system.

Yes.

And I'm also curious on how we were able to identify the small community water system as part of these reforms. Well, it's a standard definition.

Or maybe not. I'm happy to repeat the question.

Ms. Glick would like to repeat the question.

The question goes to the definition of a small community water system.

DOH oversees drinking water, so I presume that this is about making it consistent with their regulations. Understood.

It's New York City only.

Yes. Do we know why we remove child care facilities?

two years, but it also speaks to some limited extensions. Can you help us define what those

something like that work?

that that gaming of the system.

And who are they applying to?

So it really is about allowing the applicant more time.

But there's no...

applications. You don't get, it's not three strikes and you're out. You don't have three tickets and you use them up. Okay, understood. And does that also apply for after