June 1, 2026 · 31,500 words · 15 speakers · 204 segments
Mr. Dias to explain his vote. On the bill, Madam Speaker. To explain your vote.
First, I want to say thank you to the chair of Agriculture, to the rancor of Agriculture, to the majority leader, and to the chair of Economic Development for working together on this anti-inversion cannabis bill. I started working in the industry in 2018, and now seeing its full fruition, What I do know is this bill is shoring up and closing some loopholes to ensure that the industry itself can be its best version. The anti-inversion bill is ensuring that the cannabis farmers of New York, who are New York farmers, are protected. This is making sure the cannabis manufacturers of New York, New York manufacturers, are protected. This is making sure that the cannabis retailers, New York retailers, are protected. More importantly, it is ensuring that the product within New York State is the product that's going to be tested and safe. This has become an economic engine across the state between blue and red areas, but more importantly, it's created thousands of jobs. This bill is going to ensure that we have economic integrity, we have supply chain integrity, and more importantly, we are making sure that the farmers of New York are protected from who are doing the right things. We're making sure that their products are safe, tested, and are not contaminated. and they're not gonna reward those who've been buying products from outside the state, from Oklahoma and Ohio and Oregon, which is quite common, especially between the months of September and December when the outdoor growth season ends. So I wanna thank all my colleagues for jumping on board with this bill, and I wanna thank everyone who's worked on it. Thank you kindly, and we'll be voting in the affirmative.
Thank you. Mr. Dias in the affirmative. Thank you. Are there any other votes? Announce the results. Ayes, 139, noes, at zero. The bill is passed. Assembly number 10744A, Rules Report 320, Mrs. People Stokes, an act to amend Chapter 108 of the Laws of 2016. Home rule message is at the desk. read the last section. This act shall take effect immediately. The clerk will record the vote. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Are there any other votes? Announce the results. Ayes 138, nays 1. The bill is passed. Assembly number 10757, Rules Report 321, Ms. Tapia. An act to amend the general business law. This bill is laid aside. Assembly number 10885B, Rules Report 322, Mr. Stern. an act to amend a real property tax law. Read the last section. This act shall take effect January 1st. The clerk will record the vote. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Are there any other votes? Announce the results. Ayes, 139, noes, 0. The bill is passed. Assembly number 10890, Rules Report 323, Ms. Glick, an act to amend the alcoholic beverage control law. On a motion by Ms. Glick, the Senate bill is before the House. The Senate bill is advanced. Read the last section. This act shall take effect immediately. The clerk will record the vote.
Mr. Morinello, to explain his vote. To explain my vote, I spoke on this concept either last week or yesterday or recently. And one of the things I said was that this is attacking what's known as the three-tier system. It employs thousands and thousands of Teamsters, individuals. The taxes that these distributors pay are enormous. And I predicted that eventually they're going to start nipping away at it for special interests. This is another special interest that is going to have a devastating negative effect on the economy of New York State for a couple of small individual special interests Thank you very much I urge my colleagues to vote no
Mr. Morinello in the negative. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any other votes? Announce the results. Ayes 117, nays 22. The bill is passed. Assembly number 11249, Rules Report 324, Mr. Egas, an act to repeal section 2 of chapter 316 of the laws of 2025. On a motion by Mr. Ikes, the Senate bill is before the House. The Senate bill is advanced. Home rule message is at the desk. Read the last section. This act shall take effect immediately. The clerk will record the vote. Thank you. Thank you. . Thank you. Are there any other votes? Announce the results. Ayes 139, noes at zero. The bill is passed. Assembly number 111338, Rules Report 325, Committee on Rules, Ms. Callis. An act to amend the tax law. On a motion by Ms. Callis, the Senate bill is before the House. The Senate bill is advanced. Home rule message is at the desk. Read the last section. This act shall take effect immediately. The clerk will record the vote. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Rules Report 326, Committee on Rules, Ms. Buttonshine. An act to amend a real property tax law. On a motion by Ms. Buttonshine, the Senate bill is before the House. The Senate bill is advanced. Read the last section. This act shall take effect immediately. The clerk will record the vote.
Ms. Buttonshine to explain her vote. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I hear from many seniors that are on their, shall we say, very fixed incomes and want to remain in their homes. Property tax is always an issue. So this bill will ensure the first time that they apply for Enhanced Star Program that they will be granted an extension. and this is due to possible life situations, whether clearly they have spent time for medical reasons or any other family reasons.
So I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and I will be voting in the affirmative. Ms. Button-Shone in the affirmative. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any other votes? Announce the results. Ayes 139, noes 0. The bill is passed. Assembly number 11411, Rules Report 327, Committee on Rules, Ms. Hunter, an act to amend the insurance law. Read the last section. This act shall take effect on the 90th day. The clerk will record the vote. Mr Gandolfo to explain his vote Thank you Madam Speaker First I would like to commend the sponsor of this bill for bringing it back this year For those who don know this bill was vetoed by the governor last year but what it does is modernizes New York's approach to travel insurance. Travel insurance is a product that millions of consumers purchase every year to protect them as they travel. For any of the unexpected events that life might throw at you and you need to cancel your trip or your trip is interrupted and you need to get some of your money back. This bill aligns New York with model legislation that was put forth by the National Council of Insurance Legislators and the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, and it was also adopted in 43 other states, and it creates uniform standards for disclosure, licensing, and consumer protections. What this will do is ensure that travel insurance providers operate under clear rules with appropriate oversight from DFS. It's a balanced approach that protects consumers and supports a competitive marketplace here in New York. So I would encourage the governor to sign this bill this year. I read her veto memo from last year, and I don't exactly agree with it. This would be good for the travel insurance industry in New York, as well as for consumers. So I will be voting in the affirmative. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Thank you, Mr. Gandolfo, in the affirmative. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any other votes? Announce the results. Ayes 139, noes 0. The bill is passed. Assembly number 11447, Rules Report 328, Committee on Rules, Mr. Stern, an act in relation to authorizing the town of Huntington to alienate and discontinue the use of certain parklands. On a motion by Mr. Stern, the Senate bill is before the House. The Senate bill is advanced. Home rule message is at the desk. Read the last section. This act shall take effect immediately. The clerk will record the vote. . Thank you. Thank you. Are there any other votes? Announce the results. Ayes 139, nos 0. The bill is passed. Assembly number 11487, Rules Report 329, Committee on Rules, Mr. Levine. and act to amend Chapter 401 of the Laws of 2002. Read the last section. This act shall take effect immediately. The Clerk will record the vote. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Madam Speaker, if we can now go to a couple bills on debate. We'll start off with a Rules Report 295 on page 4 by Ms. Cruz, followed by Rules Report 302 by Mr. Magna-Rally on page 5. Thank you. Page 4, Calendar 295. Clerk will read. Assembly number 6950, Rules Report 295, Ms. Cruz, an act to amend the Labor Law. An explanation has been requested. Ms. Cruz. Thank you, Madam Speaker. This bill would require construction workers to be paid a number of hours at their regular rate under two specific situations. First, when a worker reports for a shift, and when a shift is canceled within 12 hours. Mr. Sapolensky. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Will the sponsor yield for some questions? Will the sponsor yield? Yes. yields. I thank the sponsor for yielding. So could you please walk through who this bill would apply to? So this bill would apply to construction workers. Okay, just broadly all construction workers? Yes, the bill applies to all projects covered by prevailing wage. Okay. Yes. And, sorry, I'm not done. Both public work and projects done under private contracts subject to prevailing wage. So I want to make sure that that part is clear. Gotcha. So not merely public, all prevailing wage projects, if that's what has been agreed to? Yes. Okay. And how many hours would folks be paid if they are called in and then are sent home? So when the shift begins and the employer in a public works project would be required to pay no less than four hours at the prevailing rate, while the general employers would be required to pay either the number of scheduled hours or four hours, whichever is less. And when the shift is canceled within 12 hours, the employer in a public works project would be required to pay two hours at the prevailing rate, while general employers would be required to pay two hours. So if someone comes in and they're sent home ten minutes later, they still get paid four hours of prevailing wage? That's correct. Alright, and am I correct that under current DOL regulations, if someone was in that situation, they would get paid four hours, but they would be paid minimum wage for four hours rather than prevailing wage under current regulation? I don't think so, but we're gonna double check. My understanding is since 2017 that's been the case. If there was call-in pay, it would just be at a lower rate than what your bill would prescribe Yes Okay And the amount of time for a canceled shift is 12 hours before So if the person, let's make sure I have it right, if it is called off less than 12 hours before the shift was supposed to start, the person doesn't arrive, in that case they would be paid two hours of prevailing wage. That's correct. Okay. 12 hours seems like a long time because that's probably going to be the previous day. where did the 12 hours come from? Well, the 12 hours came from the experience that a lot of the advocates, the advocates being the unions here, have seen on the field as what would be considered fair for the workers who would have to show up and not be paid the prevailing wage that they otherwise would have gotten if the shift had not been canceled. Now, I could maybe understand something like one or two or three hours where you're within a reasonable commute. I wouldn't imagine a lot of people are regularly commuting to a job site every day, 12 hours. Can you repeat your question? Well, it was more of a comment if you want to respond to it. Just 12 hours is very long. There is a lot can change within a 12-hour window, and it's beyond what I would imagine a daily commute would be for a worker. If it was an hour, obviously you might be in the car driving or two hours, you might be in a car driving. Twelve hours just doesn't, the math doesn't matter, that would be a daily commute. I'm still not understanding if you're asking me a question or a comment. I'm asking whether you think twelve hours is appropriate given it's far longer than anyone would be commuting. I think it's appropriate. Okay. Okay. So does your bill have any exceptions if somebody is called off or their shift is canceled? No. So no exceptions if the weather changes within a 12-hour period? You mean if it changes and all of a sudden gets better and the worker gets called back? No. What I'm saying is if it's sunny at 6 p.m. on one day and the shift is going to start at 6 a.m. the next day and it's a torrential downpour and something changed overnight. There's no exception for that. Am I correct? I mean, I think it's the whole point for the bill. So if you're in a situation where suddenly the weather has deteriorated, you would then be paid even though no work was done. I would say with technology as good as it's gotten and everybody having access to apps where you can see the weather, There should be plenty of time for the folks at the construction site to be able to make a plan on whether to cancel a shift or not, depending on what they're seeing. So I think they have more than sufficient time to be able to figure that piece out. A lot can change in 12 hours, and I wish the weather was that accurate. I'm assuming if there's no exception for weather, there's also no exception for unsafe temperatures. Unsafe temperatures? No. It's the same thing. Yeah, it would be the same thing. Okay. And there's no exception for some sort of supply chain issue that's beyond the control of the contractor. Say, what the folks are going to work on isn't present because of some other subcontractor's mistake. No exception for that? No. Okay. Okay. So it basically, if you could have a multitude of situations that are beyond the employer's control, and no exceptions for those situations are contemplated in the bill. Thank you. Well, you know, in many of the situations, you can have an employer who still figure out how to reshift some of those costs to something else, maybe move the construction to another day, or even pass down the cost to the supply chain for failing to meet their end of the bargain, and the worker should not be held to have a negative impact because of that. But the employer would be. They would be held to a negative impact because they're paying for work that never happened. It's often the price of doing business. Well, it's going to be, and it's the price of doing business in New York. Yep, once we sign it into law. So you mentioned in your sponsor's memo, and I'm reading from your sponsor's memo, purpose. This bill seeks to protect and instruct workers by requiring employers to provide four hours of pay at the employee's regular hourly rate when a worker comes to a job site and is sent home without cause. there is no exception for cause in the bill. So it's just sent home, right? Yes. Okay. So that would be a mistake then in the sponsor's memo? I'm not sure. I think it probably is a mistake on the memo, not necessarily because it's not in the language of the bill. Right. And that's what I wanted to clarify was the statute does not differentiate between cause without cause. It just says if you show up, you're getting four hours. Okay. I have a concern, I wanted to get your reaction to it, that this would disincentivize employee safety, where if I have an unsafe situation due to temperature or weather or some other condition and folks are already on the site, isn't there now a financial incentive to sort of push it and have people work when under other circumstances they might be sent home for unsafe working conditions. I mean, I would certainly hope that two hours of pay for workers is not going to incentivize an employer to force people to work under unsafe conditions. Two or four. You're talking about you could have a situation develop when people are already on site. Two or four still seems like a lot less than someone's health or life. I couldn't agree with you more, which is why I wouldn't want to produce that perverse incentive. But those are all my questions. I'm going to go on the bill. On the bill. So as I mentioned, I have the one concern regarding worker safety, where you're setting up a situation where you have now a financial incentive to, if people are on the site, to continue working, regardless of the situation that may be happening on the site. That may have created an unsafe work environment. I'm also concerned that this will increase costs on public, in some cases, public works, where those costs will, of course, be passed on to the taxpayer because now you have increased labor costs. But my fundamental reason for being concerned about this bill and the reason I will vote against it and urge others to do so is an issue of fairness. I think people should be paid fairly for a fair day's work. I'm all for that, and I think they should work in safe working conditions and be treated with respect. Where I have a problem is making it statutory that you're going to get paid for not working, especially in the case of where there's already protections under labor regulation where people would get at least the minimum wage for that time. But the idea of people getting paid for half of a regular day work when they only work a couple minutes I think is unfair to the employer and fundamentally if it a public works project unfair to the taxpayers of the state of New York So therefore I will be voting against this bill, and I would be much more inclined to consider it if there were any exceptions at all in the bill, then I might be willing to take another look at it. But since there are absolutely no exceptions at all, I'm compelled to vote no. Thank you. Ms. Giglio? Thank you, Madam Speaker. Will the sponsor yield? Will the sponsor yield? Sure. Sponsor yields. Thank you. So you said that when it comes to unions, that this would be part of the unions also, correct? What do you mean it's part of the unions? You said in your previous statement when you were talking to my colleague that unions, anybody that's paying prevailing wage. Yes. Okay. So what about collective bargaining agreements? I'm not sure I am understanding your question. So my union and my boys have to be at work at 7 a.m. in the morning if they might get a text at 8 or 9 o'clock at night saying, don't come in tomorrow, the equipment's broken, don't come in. And we have a collective bargaining agreement with all the contractors, local 138 operating engineers. So you're telling me that because they didn't get the phone call at 7 o'clock when they have to be at work at 7 in the morning, that they would automatically get that pay? Yes. So you're usurping collective bargaining agreements. Well, this is actually a bill that was brought to us by the unions. Not by my union. By the unions. So it sounds like the unions themselves would be in support of it. So you're usurping collective bargaining agreements. I guess it would be the unions that would be usurping it because we are bringing this at the request of the union. No, the unions have agreements with the contractors, and this is what it says. It says you have to give 10 hours notice, 8 hours notice. I'm sorry. Go ahead. I think you were asking a question. Collective bargaining agreements dictate what time the contractor has to tell the employee that they should not come into work. Well, I think we could probably all agree that if we are passing laws that give the union workers further benefits than their collective bargaining agreement is providing them, it's probably a good thing. Well, the union workers actually elect the board of directors who negotiates those union contracts. So I disagree with you, and I'll be voting negative on the bill. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Thank you to the sponsor. Thank you. Act shall take effect on the 90th day. The clerk will record the vote. Thank you Mr. Schiaffone to explain his vote. Thank you, Madam Speaker. And I just want to say to the Assembly today, I want to thank the sponsor for this bill. This kind of call-in scheduling is completely inappropriate for our labor force. I think that this bill goes a long way to protect the workers that we employ here in the state of New York. I've been a plumber for over 30 years, and it's only common courtesy to give somebody a call 12 hours in advance before they're not going to be able to show up on the next day. And I can guarantee you there's always something to do on these jobs. So, you know what, I will be voting in the affirmative. I think on-call scheduling is completely inappropriate. and this bill is entirely the right thing to do. Thank you. Mr. Scafone in the affirmative. Ms. Cruz to explain her vote. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I want to thank Liyuna for bringing this bill forward. What we've seen too often are construction workers that show up and get sent home only to be given much less pay than they should if the job had been completed for the day. They are getting the kinds of wages that, yes, their contract has fought for, but we are giving them protections now that actually go beyond what their contract has called for. And, you know, earlier there was a comment made about the cost of doing business. What we have to remember is that many of these projects come through contracts that can build in the cost of possible weather-related delays or other delays into what gets paid, and therefore build it into the cost of doing business and not on the backs of workers who could actually be hurt on the work side or make less money to support their families. So again, I just want to thank Laiuna and its affiliated unions for bringing this bill forward, and I'm going to be voting in the affirmative. Ms. Cruz in the affirmative. Thank you. Thank you Are there any other votes Announce the results Ayes 128, nays 11. The bill is passed. Page 5, calendar 302. Clerk will read. Assembly number 8773, rules report number 302, Mr. Magnarelli. an act to amend the vehicle and traffic law. An explanation has been requested. Mr. Magnarelli. Yes, Madam Speaker. This bill would clarify provisions of law regarding the fulfillment of warranty agreements by motor vehicle franchisors and the compensation of dealers for related time, parts, and labor in the performance of warranty work. Mr. Gandolfo. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Would the sponsor please yield for some questions? Will the sponsor yield? Yes. The sponsor yields. I appreciate that. So first, can you, I guess, explain in a little more detail what this bill is doing and what problem it is looking to solve? Well, I guess we passed two years ago a bill that took care of a situation where dealers weren't being paid for warranty work that was being done for manufacturers. But it seems that since that time, there has been some of the manufacturers have done things to skirt that law. And so this is why this came into play. Okay, and what are some of the ways that manufacturers are skirting the wall we passed two years ago? Well, let me get it out here. No, you tell me. For example, they might call warranty work something else and not warranty work and therefore not have to pay the costs that were in that bill. Okay, so I think in my reading about this bill, like a recall campaign, they might not specifically refer to it as warranty work, so they wouldn't have to pay the correct reimbursement rate. I'm sorry, I didn't even hear. Oh, okay. In my reading about this bill a little bit, I think I saw that in some instances the manufacturers might have a recall campaign where they don't specifically call it any kind of warranty claim, so they're able to get around paying the reimbursement rate. Is that what's occurring? I think that's part of what was occurring, yes. Okay, so in order to solve that, what does this bill do? Does it require that in more instances they have to pay that reimbursement rate? Yes. And it looks like it does a little bit more, though. I got to, there's one point here where we're talking about the use of third-party repair guides versus manufacturer repair guides. and there is a 1.5 multiplier when certain information isn't available in the guide. Can you explain the 1.5 multiplier and in what instances that would apply? Well, that means when there isn't a manufacturer's guide or a third-party guide, that's kind of like the default measure that would have to be paid by the franchisor. Okay, so that's only when there's not a manufacturer's guide or a third-party guide. Yeah. Build class, okay. This bill clarifies, okay, that reasonable compensation would equal the franchisor's time allowance for the repair multiplied by 1.5 if one of the following occurs. The third-party guide isn't available. The third-party guide doesn't contain a particular repair. The third-party guide doesn't contain a new vehicle. A dealer is otherwise unable to use the third-party guide. Those are the reasons. and then if that guide is now requiring a higher payment and it's being multiplied, that it could substantially increase costs? You're basically asking me if I think this bill is unfair. Well, yeah, that's what you're asking me. No, not necessarily unfair. Do you have any concern? I don't think it's unfair. Okay. I think that people working on the vehicles should be compensated properly. I think everyone hopes for that, but there are some ramifications that I don't think they're intended by this bill, but I have some more questions on that. Now, let's say when you get to commercial vehicles, they might be highly specialized vehicles with no third-party guide available for them. In that situation, where is that? Wouldn't the enhanced reimbursement rate at 1.5% kind of automatically apply to those commercial vehicles? Well, I think that could, sir, it could. But on the other hand, there are medium and heavy-duty third-party labor guides that are in existence. The major heavy-duty guides include Mitchell One truck series, motor, diesel laptops, and full bay. So there are other guides out there that could be used. Well, they could be, but if there's a highly specialized medium-duty vehicle, it might not have that kind of guide available to it based on how it was customized for the particular application. So my worry is that they would always be subject to this 1.5 multiplier, which could substantially increase costs that get passed along to the consumer, especially in certain freight operations? You know, I'm not going to argue that point with you from the standpoint that that could happen. Okay. All right. Thank you. I appreciate you answering my questions. Madam Speaker, on the bill briefly. On the bill. Again, I thank the sponsor for answering my questions. I don't think there's a single person who doesn't want to see people be paid fairly for the work that they're doing. However I am concerned about a potential blind spot in this bill whereby you have medium and heavy duty commercial applications and the repairs done on those vehicles automatically become subject to that 1 multiplier which will substantially increase the warranty repair costs and then those costs will get passed on to consumers as a result so i would suggest that hopefully the governor takes a look at this and we send back some chapter amendments to address that concern thank you madam speaker thank you Read the last section. This act shall take effect immediately. The clerk will record the vote. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Are there any other votes? Announce the results. Ayes, 137. Nays, 2. The bill is passed. Mr. Fall. Madam Speaker, if we could take on several more bills on debate, starting with Calendar 442 on page 39 by Ms. Szilagyi, Calendar 65 on page 18 by Mr. Weprin, Calendar 144, page 25 by Ms. Kellis, Calendar 160, page 26 by Mr. Bronson, followed by Rules Report 158 on page 7 by Ms. Kay. Thank you. On the main calendar, page 39, calendar number 442, clerk will read. Assembly number 73B, calendar number 442, Ms. Solage, an act to amend the general business law. On a motion by Ms Solage the Senate bill is before the House The Senate bill is advanced An explanation has been requested Ms Solange Thank you Madam Speaker This would require the display of certain labels and warnings on gas stoves sold displayed for sale or offered for sale at retail to a consumer in the state and it authorizes the Department of State to adopt regulations regarding the placement and format of such labels. provide for the penalty is the authorization of the Attorney General to enforce such provisions. Ms. Walsh. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Will the sponsor yield? Will the sponsor yield? Yes. The sponsor yields. Okay, I guess my first question is, why do we want to do this? So, as you know, the kitchen is the centerpiece of different houses. I know for my house alone, when I cook or when my significant other cooks, we sit around and we watch them cook. And I do have a gas stove. So when I was doing a lot of research, I was finding out that the emissions from the gas stove can be harmful if not properly vented. And so this bill is about making sure that we have transparency, allow people to understand that there are chemicals that are coming out of this stove, and that if they want to change, whether they get proper venting or move on to another source of cooking, they just have the knowledge and information beforehand.
So I have a gas stove too. I've cooked with one for a number of years. To me, it just seems like kind of a Captain Obvious thing that you vent the stove. I mean, you don't have an unvented gas stove in your home. Who is an unvented gas stove?
Madam Speaker, you would be surprised that there are many people who have gas stoves within their house that don't have proper ventilation. So they may have a vent that is antiquated. They may have a vent that just is a fan, and it doesn't properly vent to the outside. There are apartment buildings that, you know, are tightly enclosed that don't have proper venting. So, you know, there are dynamics that exist across this state where people are not cognizant or understand that they need to properly vent their homes in order to lessen this. So, again, this is about public health because, as you see in New York State, we have some of the highest asthma rates. And also it's about consumer choice. So when purchasing a gas stove, seeing a label, it might make them think, hey, I need to make sure that I have proper venting. And so we wanna make sure that consumers have the choice and they understand the implications of their purchase.
Well, I mean, considering that under the CLCPA, gas stoves are gonna be banned starting in 2029, why do we need to do this now?
Well, people are-
Is that gonna be a moot point pretty soon?
Well, people are actively purchasing gas stoves right now and 2029 is some time from now. And so it's important that we are giving knowledge to the consumer now so that they understand. And as this law is implemented, I know more and more people I know are on Long Island are purchasing gas stoves. And so, you know, they should know that they need proper ventilation because at the end of the day, we don't want unsafe levels. I know that since carrying this bill, we actually have been going into people's homes testing the amount of air pollutants. And you'll be surprised how much of these chemicals are swirling in the air. And it gives you pause because at the end of the day, I have young children, and I want to make sure that my home is the healthiest that it can be.
You know, I was interested. You were talking about studies and stuff. I was looking at the – it was almost like a preamble to the bill.
there's one, two, three like I don't know, a good two and a half pages of just legislative findings that have been put at the top of the bill before we actually get into what the bill requires Where did that come from We like to do our homework here You know I want to make sure that folks understand that this is not just a bill about emotions. It's backed by science, information, backed by just you know best practices that exist here. And when I said study before I met actual an individual coming into homes with you know devices and testing people's pollutants in their in their house so it's not just antidotes from researchers far away but actually looking at New Yorkers homes traveling across the state and seeing that the emissions are coming from the gas stoves particularly the combustion emissions you know are at an unsafe level and you know I know when you cook you're standing right in front of your stove you know it's not like you're standing five feet away. Yeah but mine's vented to the
outside and when and any responsible installer of a stove is is gonna vent it I just to me it just seems... You'll be very surprised so I am very surprised.
Actually my home was not vented to the outside once I put this I had this knowledge I was able to reconfigure my kitchen so it's vented to the outside.
You had a gas stove that was not vented to the outside?
Not a... like I said this this this dynamic it's across the state where it's not properly vented. People have fans, people have vents that shoot out. And so that's why it's important that consumers understand, because not everyone is knowledgeable about construction, not everyone is knowledgeable about kitchen dynamics. And so it's important that when you receive that gas stove, you can say, oh, wow, look, I have to vent to the outside, let me do so.
So who is required to affix this warning label to the stove? Is it the manufacturer?
It would be the manufacturer. And this was a conversation that we've had. You know, we've had different iterations of this legislation. We've talked to different people. And, you know, we made many changes in the amendment. So we have a removable affixed label on the gas stove and as well as a affixed and printed on the packaging. And so this was a state of compromise that we had.
Okay. So, but the bill?
Okay, so the bill requires a warning label to be affixed to any new gas stove that is manufactured, distributed, assembled, sold, or offered for sale in New York. So in the instance where the stove itself is being manufactured outside of the state of New York, is the manufacturer still required to put the warning label on, or does that fall to somebody within New York State to do that? So if it's sold in New York, yes, they would have to put it.
Pardon me?
As long as the product is sold in New York, it would have to adhere to this bill. So, for example, just take like a small appliance store. You know, I've got a number of them in my district. I'm sure you do, too. So they want to sell a stove, and that stove is manufactured outside of New York.
Would the seller of the stove be required to affix this morning?
morning? Yes, and there is a model that small business owners can use to put it on there. Okay, why I mean why should that one of the I'm looking at NFIB which has opposed the bill I don't know if they've that was on the original print in 2025 I know you said that there were some amendments. We made changes and I appreciate the minority for coming to us we've had conversations with many members on your side of the aisle and we made changes as well and so some of the changes that include what was mentioned before okay which is
The NFIB said the burden should not fall on the small appliance store owner. The manufacturer is responsible for the label.
If it's sold in New York.
Yeah.
If it's going to be sold in New York.
Yes. Okay. Are there any other states that are requiring this?
Well, you know, again, New York is a special place, and so I'm focused on New York. There are other places that are either thinking about doing this or have done this, but for me, I want to protect New Yorkers, so I'm focused on New Yorkers right now. Okay.
So is that a, I mean, I know New York's special. I agree with you there. But does that mean, are you saying that this has not been something that's been adopted by other states?
Like I said, we've seen some other states do other things. I'm particularly focused on New Yorkers, especially here in New York. We have very antiquated housing stock. And so there are places, you know, houses that were built very long time ago that the configuration may not lend to outdoor outside venting. And so, you know, our state is very different, and so, you know, we want to apply for that. We want to make sure that we're looking at the bill state-specific, New York state-specific.
Okay. All right. No, I was just wondering, because as I mentioned before, you had several pages in the bill of legislative findings. I just didn't know if that would have been in there. I didn't have a chance to read it all, because we just found out that this was being debated. Okay. Okay, and the Department of State is going to be tasked with promulgating regulations?
Correct.
As far as that, but, okay. But this is, the warning is going to be, I'm just going to read it.
Gas stoves can emit health-harming pollutants such as nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, benzene, and formaldehyde, and those substances are put in caps at potentially unsafe levels inside homes. The presence of these pollutants can affect your health and may exacerbate or contribute to the development of respiratory illnesses. properly installed and operating ventilation to the outdoors can reduce but not eliminate emissions.
As far as that last statement, if there's inadequate ventilation, if there's adequate ventilation to the outdoors, are you saying that there's still potential harm from those things inside the home?
So there's always some little admittance, So we're just making sure that people are just cognizant and knowledgeable about that. And just to go back to your question, when we talked about the dialogue that we had, that we changed the bill, we removed the requirement for stores to put up a sign, and we also made sure that it's the manufacturer and the importer that has to put the label on the stove and the box. So the importer has to do it.
Okay. Do you have any idea how many stoves are sold in New York State in a given year?
Oh, plenty of stoves.
How many of these warning labels are going to have to get fixed?
I could probably look for the exact number, but, you know, even if there's one stove sold in New York State, it's important that that individual knows that proper ventilation is important, and they are just knowledgeable about what's happening. You know, at the end of the day, there's still some potential for harm if there's proper ventilation. So people should just be cognizant that this is happening and adapt so that they understand.
I mean, you've spoken a number of times just during this debate about the potential harm to people, and yet this act doesn't take effect until one year after it shall have become a law. If this is so dangerous why isn this being done faster At the end of the day we want to give folks time to comply and be able to implement this And so in conversations people said they needed time
And so, again, this bill process is about compromise, about conversation. It's about collaboration. And that's what we were trying to do in this bill. At the end of the day, we want to make sure we work with folks so that the consumer has a choice and that we're protecting the public health of individuals.
Okay, well thank you very much for answering my questions. Madam Speaker, on the bill?
On the bill.
I thought that was interesting. I mean, I did not realize that it was not necessarily required that these be vented. I thought that was common practice. I mean, I've cooked with gas stoves for decades, and mine has always been vented to the outside. And I just think that this is just another layer of government. You know, I don't know. I just think that gas shows under the CLCPA are supposed to get banned by 2028. And this isn't even going to take effect until, I don't know, depending on when the governor signs it. I don't know. Has it gone through the Senate yet? It did? Yeah, it did. Earlier in May. Yeah, it passed the Senate. So we don't know when it'll hit the governor's desk, when it'll be signed, but then you've got a year from then. They're going to be banned by 2029, unless that, too, is recognized as an error and is rolled back as another piece of the CLCPA that the governor or somebody else decides that we shouldn't be keeping in place. I would be one of those people. So, I mean, I'm not going to support this. I think that if you want to have general information at the sales level that this is something that you should consider doing, but to require that a store actually affix this to a new gas stove, I don't know. I just think that I can't imagine that this is something that we need here in New York. So I'll be voting no. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Thank you. Mr. Palmisano.
Yes, thank you, Madam Speaker. Will the sponsor yield for some questions? Will the sponsor yield?
Of course.
Thank you. I appreciate it. A few questions. First, a federal judge recently placed an injunction on Colorado gas label law. Why would New York's law also not violate the First Amendment, which that judge cited? shouldn't we wait until the court rules on whether or not this is a compelling speech or is it a violation of the First Amendment? So won't that affect this, what we're doing here?
I don't see any effect on this piece of legislation.
Okay. Do we know why, I know it's California, but why Governor Newsom beat a similar legislation?
So that bill is very different. It has completely different bill language, and it's a completely different bill than our bill.
Okay.
It's dealing with the same subject, but again, it was completely different. Here, as I said, this is about just consumer choice, transparency, information, and our bill does not adhere to anything that the California bill did.
Okay, because it seems to me like, why are we only leaving gas stoves? Electric stoves also emit harmful fumes, don't they? Why are we just favoring electric stoves over gas stoves? Why are we not addressing electric skills?
Well, cooking creates emissions. So like even when we were in the caves, you know, and cooking over the wood you know that creates emissions Every sort of cooking surface creates emissions but when you talk about combustible emissions that is far worse on the public health. And so what we're doing is making sure that we're focused on protecting public health and protecting people's health, so that's why we label the gas stoves.
Okay, the proposed label, I think, like Iai brought up, says warning gas stoves could emit health-harming pollutants such as nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, benzene, formohyd, at potentially unsafe levels inside homes, right? That's the label?
Yes.
All right. Now, the U.S. EPA does not specifically list gas stoves as significant contributors to indoor air quality or health hazards, correct? Has the EPA stated that fine particulates pose the greatest risk but don't specifically lay out gas stoves?
The EPA is also rolling back some of the emerging contaminants and PFAS regulations as well. So I'm laser focused on New York State policy as a New York State legislator. And so I'm looking at this as a means to ensure that people are making not only an educated decision when they're purchasing gas stoves, but also making sure they're configuring their kitchens so that those harmful emissions, the combustibles, particularly the combustibles that come from it, are properly vented. And so all we're saying is that we just want a little bit of transparency for folks so that they understand, so they can protect their public health. You know, we have grandmas cooking over gas stoves. We have children watching their parents cook in the gas stoves. You know, there are households, as I said, with antiquated stock of households that don't have proper ventilation. The windows may not open all the way. And so folks should understand that if they are purchasing a gas stove, that there needs to be more work done. So we're not saying no to gas stove. We're just saying that consumers have a choice.
Also on the proposed label, it says the presence of these pollutants can affect your health. and may exacerbate or contribute to the development of respiratory illness, correct?
Yes.
So didn't a recent health organization, 2024-funded study, found that compared with electricity, using gas for cooking or heating did not result in a higher risk estimate for asthma in children nor in adults?
Are you referring to the Lancet study?
The World Health Organization, 2024. So it's also referred to the Lancet study.
So I'm just double checking. I want to make sure that we are on it. First of all, the study calls into question because the lead author of the study also worked for Global LPG Partnership, who is financed both by the propane and butane organizations. So, you know, I call into question. This one paper is contradicted by a bunch of the science around asthma attribution. So I have other studies that support the link between gas stoves and asthma that we could submit into the record. But really, again, this is about just making sure that folks understand that the emissions coming from the gas stove may, if their home is not properly vented, may come into dangerous levels. levels and so you know it's important that we're just giving people facts and knowledge so that they can understand the implications because many people may not know you know you don think about what coming out of the gas stove All you want to do is just cook to eat you know And so this is just making sure that we are educating people on the potential health harms and pollutants that may be present if they don't properly vent. But again, we're just labeling gas stoves. We're not labeling electric stoves. And even though there's evidence that there's problems with electric stoves.
Yes sir, I mean that's another bill that we can collaborate on if you're interested in. Yeah, it just seems like we're singling out gas stoves like we do on a lot of our energy policy. But like I said, it's about the emissions.
I understand. So when you talk about the other methods of cooking, they're not combustible. And so my concern is that respiratory illness, already prevalent in our state, like I said, we have some of the highest asthma rates in the country. bill would at least allow folks to understand that. And so that study that you mentioned also failed to talk about the comparison with electricity. So gas significantly also increases pneumonia and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Excuse me, I have a little allergy. They also failed to admit that electricity might ultimately be a priority option for clean cooking.
So if people have asthma or have respiratory illness or have heart disease and they see this label, they might make an educated decision because they have health conditions and say, hey, maybe this option of cooking is not for me.
And I think in New York, we would want to just educate folks. And so, like I said, there's over 140 studies. And we have support memos from different medical associations and health care associations that say that people should have just an educated choice on their cooking.
And it's your opinion that international standards and building code safeguards don't protect the consumers based on what they have.
I'm sorry, could you just speak louder? My apologies. Sure, no problem.
And is your position that the international safety standards and building code standards don't safeguard consumers when it comes to this issue?
So I was just talking about how there is not a law that mandates outdoor venting for gas stoves. And so I'm not here to present that legislation. As I said, I love my gas stove, but I just want folks to be educated that the fact that there are harmful chemicals coming out. And it's about consumer choice and transparency.
And again, you said the World Health Organization funded study, you said it is not realistic or not practical.
I just call it into question because, number one, it doesn't answer many of the questions that we have. And then also, you know, the study was commissioned in a questionable way. So, like I said, if we're talking about the same study, which is the World Health Organization, but it's also called the Lancet study, you know, I feel that this is not a – there's better studies out there and there's better conversations that we could have.
Can you feel like gas cells are unvented by default? I mean, they're just not being vented? Do people need to know about it more than they don't should?
There are hundreds of thousands of homes across New York State, so I haven't gone into all of them.
If you're cooking well, I'll try to go into yours. Sure.
But if you – I want to make sure, because there are New Yorkers who may not know, and so it's important that they understand that proper venting or just maybe another option is best for them.
And just to go back, the responsibility of the labeling falls on the manufacturer. But what if it's the manufacturer – they're dealing with 50 different states, so for New York they can have to label specifically for New York. or is it on the small appliance dealer that's selling the material?
So again, we, this bill is a result of compromise and conversation. So we've actually had a conversation folks in this chamber who didn't want the onus to fall on small businesses, and I 100% agree. So there's no requirement from the business to put it. It falls on the importer and the manufacturer.
Okay. Thank you very much for your time. I appreciate your answering my questions. Madam Speaker, on the bill?
On the bill.
I understand the intentions of the sponsor. I just think this is problematic for a number of reasons. First of all, we obviously have a federal lawsuit that's going on in Colorado that was from a federal appointed judge by former President Biden, by the way. It wasn't President Trump. I mean, if that's some of the concerns people. I mean, looking at this, I just think before we move forward with some of these things, let's see how the lawsuit plays out. I think this bill specifically is just targeting gas stoves. I mean, I think the policies in this House have targeted gas stoves. Electric stoves aren't impacted by this. I don't understand why that's not the place. I think we have a study that basically made that differential that said that there's no significant increase in risk for children with asthma or adults. I think the federal guidelines with the international studies standards will help guide this. We should continue to work through that because I think when you have a patchwork of regulations or different laws when it comes to these things, I think that can become more problematic as well. I just, from my perspective, again, I think it's just some of the policies we continue to see that really wants to see more people have electric. Heat your home with electric. Cook your food with electric. Not cook your food with gas. When 60% of New Yorkers heat their home with natural gas, you know, 60% of New Yorkers use gas stoves. Or 40% of our generation comes from that. I just think, again, this is just part of that whole, you know, anti-gas platform that's out there. And I just think there's precautions in the law, guidelines that we can use from a federal perspective, a streamlined perspective. But I just think this is targeting one industry, one type of stove, not electric. This and a number of reasons, I will be voting in a negative and urging my colleagues to do the same. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Thank you. Mr. Ari Brown.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. Will the sponsor yield? Will the sponsor yield?
Of course, for the gentlemen of Long Island.
Thank you, my partner, local government committee. When you say stove, what do you mean by that? You're talking about a range or stove top?
So, again, this was about the conversation. So we initially had a broader definition of stove, but we actually limited it. So your outdoor stove is safe because that's properly invented. It's outside. As far as indoors, what are we referring to? The indoor, for the purposes of this section, gas stove means a stove or range that utilizes natural gas or propane and is used for indoor food preparation, which in a commercial or residential setting, and provides at least one of the following, surface cooking, oven cooking, or boiling.
Thank you. With exception to a downdraft range top, do you know of any range or stove in the entire world that can be vented outside?
So like I said, there's no requirement for, there's no law in New York State for outdoor venting.
Thank you. I wasn't referring to that. Mechanically speaking, unlike a gas dryer, is there any range or stove in the entire universe that has the ability to be vented outside?
So there so learning from this bill there many different dynamics And so they and like I said there are homes that exist that don have the outdoor venting And so there are some homes that have the outdoor venting capability. They configure their kitchen to do so.
I apologize. Maybe it's me. We have a range or a cooktop. We buy it from the store. is there any physicality to it or mechanization when we spin it around that allows for this range
to vent outside? Are you referring to the hood above it? Correct. We're referring to the hood
above it. And I appreciate the clarification. So the stovetop surface is the bottom and the venting is the top. So an individual would have to actually have a venting mechanism. So they would have to take the extra step to make sure that there's proper ventilation. So if I can understand correctly, so is what you're suggesting or proposing that when someone buys a range, a gas range, the label on the gas range will say you should go and buy a hood that can exhaust out? Is that what you're saying?
So my point about the consumer choice, so when the consumer sees that this label and they see that, you know, the chemicals coming out of it, they will say, oh, well, if I want this gas stove, how do I prevent these chemicals from, you know, expanding and emitting through my home at dangerous levels? And they will take the next step to make sure that there's proper ventilation. So it is a two-step process. And again, we wanted to make the burden very low for the consumer and also for the small businesses and manufacturers. So when someone reads a label, they can make an educated decision on venting.
Thank you. Are you familiar with the section of State Code 505.2? I actually just gave expert witness on that in the Supreme Court, specifically on this issue.
Are you familiar with that regarding? I would love to be educated and we can put it on the legislative record.
It specifically says you do not have to exhaust outside. And there's a very, very specific reason why you can recirculate, whether it's through a charcoal filter or other mechanizations, because let's take your typical apartment, which makes up most of our housing stock in New York City. What do you think the amperage is in a typical apartment building? It's typically 30 or 40 amps. The reason why most apartments in New York City have a gas stove is because if they were to put an electric stove, that would immediately draw 50 amps, and there would be no power anywhere else. That's why in most apartments, they have to have a gas stove. But there is no mechanization for exhausting that because what do you do on an internal kitchen to exhaust outside? Could you imagine on every apartment building, have a hundred different little flaps? That's why state code specifically says 505.2. You absolutely do not have to exhaust outside. I mean, the governor won't sign this thing because it just can't possibly work. You'd be precluding every single apartment in Manhattan from ever getting a stove ever again. So what I just want to do for the legislative, I want to put on the legislative record, this does not ban anything.
This is just simple transparency because at the end of the day, the consumer should have a choice. But I'm glad that you put in the legislative record, and hopefully for our viewers who are watching, all three of them, they can determine that they can vent out or they could use these other venting mechanisms to protect their public health. So it all about transparency As we talk about this bill we learn more and more about how we can make sure that we protecting the public health and that we giving consumers a greater choice when it comes to the purchasing of their cooking device And so at the end of the day venting is very important It not going to reduce all emissions It going to I sorry it going to reduce but it not going to prevent all emissions But the more education a consumer has, the better choice they can make for their family and for their home.
So just to be clear, thank you, Madam Sponsor. So what you're suggesting is this is a suggestive label that's going to go onto the stove that if you want to vent it outside, you can. and you're not suggesting changing state code or telling them that it's even required in any way, shape, or form. Because state code specifically says this isn't a danger of emissions. It's in the code 20 different places. This is just a suggestion by New York State.
Is that what I'm understanding? Exactly. All we're saying is that the consumer can make a choice. And if they would like to – there are some individuals who, you know, they will just continue as they are, and then others will adapt their homes so that they can reduce any emissions that are created. Because at the end of the day, I think that you don't want to live in a home with bentin and formaldehyde, carbon monoxide spewing out. You want to live in a home that has cleaner air. I appreciate your answers to all the questions. And like I said, if we can just put on this bill, maybe it will come in a chapter amendment, that it's just suggestive. We don't want to put a scare into people as far as when they go into an apartment that they'll never be able to cook again. I think that would be helpful. The label is a suggestion. Perfect. It's a requirement. There's a requirement for the label, but it doesn't ban or prevent people from purchasing gas stoves or requiring people to do this, that, and a third. So there's no change to the venting requirement. This is really a health education bill. Just providing people with basic information. because some people may not know. You know, we have busy lives. You have expertise, I see. And so some of that hopefully will be displayed to New Yorkers so they can make an educated choice. Thank you, Madam Sponsor, for answering the question. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Thank you. Mr. Morinello? On the bill. On the bill, sir. I find the timing of this bill very suspect. We lose the, they passed the 100-foot rule, which bans the gas companies from putting in that first 100 feet, which has been traditionally done throughout the country and especially in New York State. Number two, they're trying to ban gas. They will not allow drilling. They will not allow fracking. We've got the Marcellus Shale, which has got the natural gas that we would use. However, we're buying it from Pennsylvania because of the restrictions. It appears that everything is being done to stop natural gas, which has been proven to be not as dangerous as that, not even dangerous. But what's more important is this. By putting this label on, it's a backdoor way of telling people to not buy gas stoves. Can you imagine going in a store and seeing a warning label telling you that the item you're going to buy is dangerous and could kill you? It could cause illnesses to you. So again, this is just another move to move forward their agenda and its death by a thousand cuts. I urge my colleagues to not vote for this. Thank you very much. Thank you. Read the last section This act shall take effect on the 365th day A party vote has been requested Ms. Walsh? Thank you, Madam Speaker. The Republican Conference will not be supporting this legislation, but if there are exceptions, members can vote differently at their desks now. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Paul? Thank you, Madam Speaker. The majority conference will support this bill. For those that would like to vote in a different direction, they could do so here in the chamber. Thank you. The clerk will record the vote. Mr. Scafone, to explain his vote. Thank you, Chair. On September 17, 1994, in Southampton, New York, a very famous tennis player unfortunately lost his life due to poisoning caused by gas. Unfortunately, that was Vetus Gerolitis, and what had happened was that somebody actually had cut the chimney of the pool heater that was underneath the room that he was staying in. And the building was being worked on, and they had actually taken the door off of the plenum chamber of the air system. The plenum chamber sucked the carbon monoxide up into the home, and that's what was the culprit. Gas has carbon monoxide, and if you get enough of it, it will kill you. 100 percent absolutely. This is a warning label. Now, I am not comparing what happened in Southampton in 1994 to an oven. I have one. I like it. We're talking about a warning label for low levels of carbon monoxide and other chemicals that come out of gas. People should be aware of this. Thank you, Chair. I will be voting in the affirmative. Mr. Schiavone, in the affirmative. Ms. Solange to explain her vote. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise today in support of the Healthy Homes Right to Know Act because this bill is simple. New Yorkers deserve to know what they are bringing into their homes. A stove is not a small purchase. It's something that everyone is familiar with. We often use it. It's the heart of the home. It's where children gather. It's where meals are prepared. And so we just want to make sure that people know that this product may emit pollutants like nitrous dioxide, carbon monoxide, benzene, and formaldehyde. And consumers should make a clear decision on it and other decisions after buying it. And so this bill does not ban gas stoves. It does not take away anyone's choice. It's a fact that it strengthens consumer choice by giving people the information they need to make a decision for themselves and their family. I appreciate all the individuals who helped pass this, all the many organizations that submitted sponsorship memos. I give thanks to Tim who helped us galvanize some of the support. And so, again, we put warning labels on tobacco, alcohol, GLP-1s, other household products, and people still consume and use them. But they understand the implications. of it. And so all we want to do is make sure that New Yorkers have the information because at the end of the day, public health is important, transparency is important, and everyone has the right to know. So I vote in the affirmative and I encourage my colleagues to do so. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Szilagyi, in the affirmative. Thank you. Thank you. announce the results. Ayes 94, nays 45. The bill is passed. Page 18, calendar number 65. Clerk will read. Assembly number 1673, calendar 65. Mr. Weprin, an act to amend the vehicle and traffic law. An explanation has been requested. Mr. Weprin. Thank you, Madam Speaker. This bill amends section 398 of the vehicle and traffic law to require that motor vehicle repair shops that were found to have committed certain violations pay restitution to consumers when ordered to do so by the Department of Motor Vehicles at a hearing upon a finding of financial loss to the consumer. This bill also calls for an increase in any civil penalty imposed for violations if a repair shop fails to pay Department of Motor Vehicle ordered restitution and allows the waiver of a civil penalty and or suspension upon payment of restitution. Mr. Durstown. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Would the sponsor yield for some questions? Will the sponsor yield? Absolutely. Sponsor yield. Thank you, Mr. Weprin. So just to try and understand this, so what is the law currently now when it comes to paying any type of fine or restitution to the consumers at a repair shop, if there is any? Yes, they can order restitution. And if they choose to accept a fine restitution, it can possibly win. Muppets. They can order restitution now, and if it's decided that they don't want to pay the restitution, they can waive the penalty. So who decides upon that restitution now? Well, there's generally an administrative hearing when there's a dispute, and it would come out at the administrative hearing. So that's through the DMV? Through the Department of Motor Vehicles, yeah. Okay And now what we doing with this piece of legislation is also putting a fine onto that also if the repair shop does not pay the restitution to the consumer Is it or up to It's up to $500. Up to $500. It's an additional amount. Additional amount on top of whatever the DMV was to say you'd have to pay to the consumer currently? On top of the fee? if they fail to pay the restitution. If they fail to pay the restitution, yes. Okay, so maybe it's better to backtrack. What is restitution? Can you give me an example of paying restitution to a consumer in this case? When there's financial loss by the consumer because of the grossly overcharging. If they can establish a financial loss to the consumer because of overcharging. So this is strictly for overcharging? Or for failure to repair the vehicle. Or failure to repair the vehicle. Okay. So now, what would be a financial loss? What would be considered a financial loss? In other words, if I was to bring my car into a repair shop and I didn't get it back for two weeks, right? And now I obviously had to rent a car. I had to do stuff like that. In the meantime, who's deciding that the repair shop, it didn't take two weeks to do that or it didn't take two weeks to get a part? So is that something that would have to be worked out in that hearing? That's something that would be discussed at that hearing and decided at that hearing. So basically anybody can bring that case to the DMV for a hearing if I feel as the customer that I lost money. Or I could say I was without my car for a day. I could bring that repair shop to a hearing because I feel like I deserve restitution. There's no limit on this, essentially. Well, DMV would make that decision whether there was a loss or not. Got it. So anybody could file asking for a decision to be made by the DMV, but the DMV ultimately decides whether or not there was a loss. Then you would go to a hearing, and in that hearing, the customer and or repair shop would have the opportunity to plead their case, and then the DMV would make a decision upon if you deserve restitution or not? Yes, that's correct. Okay. So once again, I ask just for the record, anybody at any point, if you go to a repair shop, and I feel that I either paid too much, the job took too long, anything like that could ask for a hearing, and then the DMV would decide whether or not that hearing is eligible to be heard, to happen. They would have to look at the facts of the case. Yeah, they would look at the facts of the case and make a decision on that basis. Okay, and now who within the DMV decides all these cases? Because I bet there's going to be a lot after this. There are administrative law judges in the department. That work within the DMV? Correct. Okay, and how many are there? I don't know. Does it go by county, by town, by jurisdiction, by county? I don't know. You would need a lot. Because there's how many repair shops in New York State? and basically anybody could say, I want to bring this person to DMV court because I feel like it took too long to fix my car. It just seems like a very broad piece of legislation Yeah it current law now so you know there may be short offices I don know and that may result in a delay But I think, like, for New York City, there's one, you know, all five boroughs, there's one. One? No, no, not one. There's a process with judges. Each county may have their own, you know, set of administrative law judges. Understood. So under the current legislation, right, that's currently in statute, you said they could still bring that case to the DMV and ask for a hearing, correct? Yes. This is just adding a financial component to it. No, it's adding an ability for a restitutionist order of the consumer to actually receive it. Yeah, it's adding if it's ordered that restitution should take place, that the consumer be made whole. But the DMV or the judge in that case would decide what makes that person whole, up to $500. It's the case to go over. It cannot go over $500, correct? No, that $500 is not going to be real. It's the amount necessary to repair the vehicle or to address any overcharge. It has nothing to do, it's not a particular amount. It's how much it would take to repair the vehicle. Oh, so this is just the additional amount to not exceed $500? Correct. Okay, so the judgment on this would be, could be an additional $500 on top of what it would take to fix the vehicle? That's correct. Okay. So now if the repair shop or dealership in this case was to fix the vehicle, right, and it's no cost to the consumer, you could still bring up charges, right, ask for a hearing through the DMV, and either the small repair shop or the large dealership and that may still have to pay $500, even though the repair itself was paid for, done, no issue. to the state for failure to pay. It's two separate pieces. Two separate. The $500 is a fine to the state. Oh. So it has nothing to do with the... So the state gets the money. No, it's a fine to the state, right? It's a fine, but they can avoid it if they also pay the restitution. It's a fine to the state, but they can avoid it if they pay the restitution to the consumer. Well, that's my question, sir. So you're saying pay the restitution to the customer. The restitution would be the cost of the repair. Yes, or the amount of the overcharge. Or the amount of the overcharge. Right. So if there's an overcharge, they have to pay that back. Right. And or if the repair was $200 or it was $2,000, the dealership and or repair shop would have to pay that. Right. What the person came in for to get fixed. Correct. Correct. I'm just trying to understand it. And then there could be an additional $500 fine that goes to the state. It doesn't go to the consumer. No, it goes to the state. Why does the state need an extra $500? Why isn't that going to the consumer? If this is a consumer protection bill and we're protecting the consumer, it sounds like we're protecting the state. It's like another tax. Why isn't it going to the consumer? It supposed to result in payment to the consumer or as an alternative if they don pay it then they have a fine Understood. So if they don't pay it and the consumer's not made whole, the state gets $500. It's a penalty to failure to pay the restitution. Right, I understand that. So if they don't pay the restitution, in other words, they don't make you whole as the consumer and you're going to get your car fixed or repaired, and they still don't make you whole, the state's whole, because they get their $500. Why aren't we giving that $500 to the consumer? If this bill is to protect consumers, they don't get protected if the repair shop, and I'll get to the unregistered repair shops in a second, but if the repair shop doesn't pay the consumer, the state gets $500. How does that help the consumer? Can the consumer go after the state for that restitution? I think so. I think it's just, it's too, it's like any other penalty. Oh, I might need another 15. The penalty to the state is to encourage them to make the payment to the consumer. I understand what it says. I'm just questioning why. I mean, the purpose of the bill, I would assume, is to make sure that the consumer is made whole. If the repair shop does not make the consumer whole, the state gets a $500 fee from the repair shop. The consumer gets nothing. Shouldn't that $500 go towards the consumer who wants to get their car repaired? This just seems like a way that what's going to happen is people are going to make complaints, ask for hearings. The state's going to say, you've been compensated, but we're going to charge you $500. which is going to go to the state. It doesn't go to the consumer. So where is the consumer protection? Well, the idea is to encourage repair shops to do the right thing. What if they did the right thing? Then they wouldn't have to pay the extra money. But that's not true because you said it's up to the DMV to decide. So the DMV could decide that it wasn't done in a timely manner. Maybe they overcharged. Maybe it took too long. It is wide open in this legislation, and the state's going to get their $500. My question is, and I understand the intention of it, my question is, shouldn't that $500 be going to the consumer? Literally, this bill is saying New York State is going to take your money, the consumer's money, the one that deserves the restitution, and keep it for ourselves. From the business that's fixing your car, maybe they did it well, maybe not. but the state's taking their money, the consumer can still be left without the repair. So why would the state tax the repair shop if the consumer still doesn't have their car fixed? Well, right now that's existing law. We're just increasing the penalty in this particular case. What's the penalty as of now? What's the penalty? It is a, not more than $1,000. Up to $750 for the first violation. Up to $750 for the first violation. Up to $1,000 for a second or so. And up to $1,000 for the second violation. But none of that goes to the consumer, right? That still just goes to the state? Yes, because that includes everything, whether there's a financial loss or not. Yeah, because that would even include cases where there's no financial loss. Understood. Okay, Mr. Weprin, so I just want to get back to one part of this. It says if registered or unregistered repair shop fails to comply with an order to pay restitution, what's considered an unregistered repair shop? It would be a repair shop that's not licensed by New York State. So, in other words, if I am working in my driveway and I tell my friends to come over, I'll fix your car, am I an unlicensed repair shop? No. There are definitions of what that is and you'd have to be in the business of it. That would be a private transaction, but there are specific people that are licensed as a repair shop and those that are in the business of being a repair shop without being licensed. Right. So basically anybody who's doing work without a license. So if I'm doing it in my garage at home or I'm doing it in a commercial garage, I'm still an unlicensed repair shop. Who for compensation is engaged in the business of repairing and diagnosing? It would have to be considered being engaged in the business. If it was just a one-off with a friend, I don't think that would count as being in the business of repairing. So who would make that determination if I'm an unlicensed repair shop? Because, again, if I – and, you know, people do this all the time, right? You know, you could have went to BOCES for small engine repair. You could have did anything. I'm fixing lawnmowers on the side. I'm fixing cars on the side. You know, I'm charging you. You know, come on over. I'll do an oil change for $50. If I do three of them, am I an unlicensed repair shop? And the reason why I ask this, and I'll get to the broader point, is once again, New York State could then say anybody is an unlicensed repair shop. And if my friend or somebody that comes to my house and says, oh, you do oil changes? Oh, you know how to change a tire? Oh, you know how to do whatever repairs there are? They could say that I took too long and bring a judgment against me with the DMV where I can get fined because the DMV will— There's a specific definition in the vehicle and traffic law. What is that definition, sir, of an unlicensed repair shop? What section is that? It's section 398-B. Section 398-B, subdivision 2 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law. Do you happen to have that handy? Or if you could give me a definition, you know. Right there. I'm sorry. As used in this article, the term motor vehicle repair shop means any person who, for compensation, is wholly or partially engaged in the business of repairing or diagnosing motor vehicle malfunctions or repairing motor vehicle bodies, fenders, or other components damaged by accident or otherwise, except that such term does not include an employee of a motor vehicle repair shop who engages in the business of repairing motor vehicles solely by reason of his employment or any person who is solely engaged in the business of repairing the motor vehicles of a single commercial or industrial establishment, or of the federal, state, or a local government, or any agency thereof. Want me to continue? No, no, no, I got it. You said it in the first sentence. So anybody who engages in fixing or repairing vehicles. No, but exempt oil changes and tire changes. There are exemptions for oil change and tire changes. Got it. So if I was changing the spark plug in someone's car or fixing their window or doing some, any type of work. I mean, there's a million things you could do to your car. You could have a judgment against you from the DMV as an unlicensed repair shop, correct? If someone wanted to bring charges against you. I'm doing work out of my garage. I'm an unlicensed repair shop. If you meet that definition and DMV finds out, then yes. I guess in theory, yes. Yeah, okay. I understand that. I'm not saying that portion of it's wrong. My question is, if I'm doing work on someone's car or I have a neighbor or someone that does it on the side, essentially they're going to be treated the same as a licensed repair shop. The fine isn't any different. All the hoops that a repair shop has to jump through to get their license, keep their license up, have insurance, everything else. The fine is the same for someone doing that at a garage or on the street as it is for a licensed repair shop that pays thousands of dollars in taxes, thousands of dollars in fees and licensing. And New York State's going to get their money. Well, there will also be additional penalties if you're unregistered. But this penalty is the same for unregistered and registered. Correct. Okay. Let me just see if I have any other questions for you, sir. No. That's all I have for you, Mr. Weprin. I appreciate you answering my questions. On the bill, Madam Speaker? Mr. Speaker, excuse me. Sorry, I didn't see the change. On the bill. Thank you. So I thank the sponsors for answering my questions. Again, this legislation, I understand the intent of it, is for consumer protection and making sure that people are getting their car fixed, are able to do it in a timely manner, making sure they're not overcharged, and making sure that you don't have unscrupulous repair shops doing the work. The problem is with the legislation, the way I see it, is it's a little too broad. It's really lumping everybody together, and any charge can be brought against anybody who does any type of work, even if it's for a friend. If I'm doing the spark plugs in my friend's car and he says I'm taking too long because he didn't want to do it or pay someone else to do it, he could bring charges against me up to $1,000 plus an extra $500 fine. Which, by the way, my biggest problem with this is it goes to the state. Once again, if this is a consumer protection bill, right, and I understand it's already in current law, but we're making a new law where we could have changed it and fixed it. None of this goes to the consumer, which we are trying to protect and help. The consumer, according to this legislation, may not get their car fixed at all. You could have upwards of, I mean, I just had a $6,000 transmission job done on my car. I could have no car, could be out $6,000, but the state's going to get an extra $500, and the consumer gets nothing. It's not a consumer protection bill. This is another tax on consumers, so I'll be voting against it. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr Bologna Thank you Mr Speaker With the sponsor yield for a few quick questions Will the sponsor yield Yes Sponsor yields Thank you, Mr. Weprin. So would you be able to identify any other professions regulated by a state agency where the agency itself can determine a customer's financial loss, order restitution, and then impose an additional monetary penalty on the business with regard to that dispute? Is there any other place in state government where the agency itself is basically able to be judge, jury, and execution? Well, I don't know about the restitution part, but state DOT has administrative law judges, and those are very time familiar with. I understand state DOT does as well. Okay, but let's talk, I mean, in terms of service industry, are there any service professions, whether it's regulated under the Office of Professions and State Ed, like if you're a barber, a cosmetologist, anything like that, in the service industry, is there any place where the state, you know, can ultimately make these decisions unilaterally? We don't know, but again, that's current law with the Department of Motor Vehicles. To my colleague from Massapequa's point, the $500 here up to, in the state basically being able to generate another revenue source, is a little concerning here because I think that we're kind of opening a door. So if we're starting on a slippery slope, what I'm concerned about is if I get a haircut that I don't like, am I able to file a dispute with my barber and then there's some type of penalty with them and ultimately the state gets the benefit of that money? What I'm concerned of here is that we're opening a door for the state to generate revenue through kind of frivolous disputes. Would you not agree that that is a concern and that you're opening the door for that to happen? Currently, the incentive is the penalty can be put in place. You can pay the restitution and avoid the penalty. All we're doing is adding an extra amount to encourage that payment. That's law now, and we're just adding an additional penalty in this particular case. Okay, so under current law, it already allows the DMV to suspend or revoke registrations and assesses civil penalties against repair shops that violate the law. That's correct. What evidence is there that DMV lacks sufficient enforcement or authority today to address bad actors? What issue has been brought to us, or why is this a thing to where DMV needs extra teeth? It's about the restitution. They cannot force the restitution. It's about the restitution, that they can't force the restitution. But haven't we made the determination that the restitution is ultimately going to the state, not the consumer? No, no, the restitution goes to the consumer. The restitution actually goes to the consumer. That's not what we said just a few minutes ago here. Yes, it is. The $500 is an additional penalty to encourage the payment to the consumer. Okay. I'm still confused at how that all works. This is still a way for the state to generate revenue, is it not? Let me rephrase The state in some circumstance here will be able to generate revenue in some circumstances Is that a factual statement Well if the restitution is done then it Yes, the answer is yes, right? The penalties would be waived. The penalty could be waived if the restitution is done. Okay, but if the restitution is not, the penalty will be enforced and the state will collect revenue, correct? Yes, the answer to that question is yes. I think the answer is yes. Thank you very much, Mr. Weppman. I appreciate it. No further questions. Thank you. Thank you. Read the last section. This act shall take effect November 1st. A party vote has been requested. Mr. Gandolfo? Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Republican conference will generally be opposed to this bill. However, anyone who wants to vote for it may do so at their desk. Mr. Hall. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The majority conference will support this bill. For those that would like to vote differently, they could do so here at their desk. The clerk will recur the vote. Thank you. Thank you. . Thank you. Are there any other votes? Announce the results. Ayes 92, nays 47. The bill is passed. Page 25, calendar number 144. The clerk will read. Senate 4574B, calendar 144, Senator May, an act to amend the environmental conservation law. An explanation has been requested. Ms. Kellis. Absolutely. So the purpose of this bill is to expand testing for toxic PFAS chemicals in discharge in the New York's lakes, rivers, and groundwater. Improved testing would provide greater transparency to the public and policymakers about the extent of PFAS pollution entering our water, aiding the development of effective regulations to eliminate the introduction of these forever chemicals. I will note, however, this doesn't require regulations like putting in interventions or reducing PFAS levels. This is specifically a monitoring and reporting bill. Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Would the bill sponsor yield? Will the sponsor yield? Of course. The sponsor yields? Okay, I want to start with your explanation. You mentioned that you would like to test the discharge waters that are currently required under speedies permits, correct? So industrial speedies permits, correct. And some of the multi-sector general speedies permits. I will note, though, it is only the ones that DEC suspects do have PFAS levels that they would want to have monitored. It does not cover all, every single speedies permit. I think there's 24,000 of them in the state. Well, that's good. I'm glad you understand there are many different conditions under the speedies permit. Indeed. And that leads me to let's focus on municipal wastewater, which they're going to be covered under this bill. they going to be required to do PFAS testing The POTWs yes Publicly owned treatment Excuse me The POTWs publicly owned treatment Okay, so is there any, is that all municipal wastewater? There's no size requirement, no information that led to requiring a certain wastewater facility to test? These are, I think there's about 165 of them in the state, so they all would be required when they have a new permit, a renewing permit. But it's really important that we do this because this is the way that we will be able to test, For example, if there's any interventions upstream to reduce point source or source PFAS levels, we will be able to tell whether that intervention had any effect, but we also will be able to track PFAS going into waterways from all sources, all potential sources that go to a POTW. Okay, I've got a couple of points I want to follow up on. Sure. But I want to go back to, you know, every municipal wastewater facility, POTW, that regardless of size or regardless of, you know, I'm looking at the difference between municipal wastewater facilities that I've seen in my district. I've seen very small with very few users. I don't know. I knew you weren't listening. No, no, no. Yes, it doesn't. So I've seen very small. You're asking of different sizes. I've seen very small, and I've seen very large that have 30, 40,000 connections that are all funneling through their system. Yes. Now that 200 user facility is going to be required to do testing, even though they may not have any industry whatsoever, only residential hookups. Yeah, that's the important point. Yeah, the important point that I think that is missing from that is that if it is true, if it is true. I wasn't making a point, I was asking a question. Sure, but let me answer your question. If it is true that the smaller ones are less likely to have PFAS in their water, when they do an initial, let's say, their first opening, their first permit, and they do their quarterly testing for that first year, and they do not have PFAS levels to the level that the DEC has determined above which they need to continue to test, then they would not need to test again until they are doing their renewal. At that point, they would provide the additional PFAS testing at least six months prior to that renewal application being due. So it wouldn't require that they do it consistently all the way through. So if you have a facility that does not because of its nature being small, then it wouldn't need to continue quarterly for the entire program. Thank you for clarifying that. That was exactly what I wanted to hear. Fantastic. So this also encapsulates or captures any businesses anyone an industrial user a small laundromat in a community that discharging water So are you saying that the POTW would capture that So it is specific to speedies permits industrial speedies permits right You have an individual one because those individual speedies permits are given by the DEC specifically to that facility. That is what the individual industrial speedies permit is. Then, of course, there's the general speedies permits. and those are set by statewide by the DEC, and some of those, we've captured one of those categories, and that is the multi-sector general speedies permits. And even within that category, the DEC would identify which ones of those users they feel would be most likely to have PFAS levels that they would want to monitor. Those would be the ones that they would identify. And then for the POTWs, as we've talked about, they would monitor. And industrial users that send their wastewater to the POTW would also need to test. Okay. Do we know how many speedies permits that are going to be covered under this legislation in New York State? It would be a subsection of, let's see, there are 1,365 individual industrial speedies permits and 1,677 industrial multi-sector general permits. And what would be covered by this is a subsection of those two, depending on the list that the DEC creates or updates at any point in time of what they determine would be those speedies permit holders that would be most likely to have PFAS levels that they would want to monitor. Okay. So do you know if DEC is testing any of these permit holders now? They are. For PFAS? They are. They are. Are they testing all of them? No. Why not? because they have identified a list right now of speedy's permit holders that they want to monitor. And so those are the ones that they are monitoring. If you want to know what the difference is between the two, which ones they're monitoring or not, they are not monitoring industrial users that are sending their waste to the POTWs. and they are also not testing proactively any industrial user that has an expired speedies permit or that has been renewed administratively. And that's a great follow-up to my next question. I was reading your minds, so I figured you'd ask. Why would we require testing of a wastewater treatment system that's the end of the line for PFAS and not test industrial users that may or may not be putting the PFAS into the system? That is exactly the right question, and that's exactly why we're doing this bill. But you said that we're not going to test industrial users that are going into the system. No, we are with this bill. So what you asked was what is the DEC currently doing? The DEC currently is not requiring testing of the industrial users that send to the POTW So if we do find PFAS levels in the POTW we don know where it came from necessarily Now if there is a review required of that POTW DEC can require that they do an investigation to identify, but it is not required proactively. This bill would require that it is done proactively and regularly by the industrial users that are upstream from the POTW so that we would have that data, but also because we are collecting it from the POTW, if there are any changes upstream, we could easily identify what the impact of those changes were because we could evaluate the longitudinal data from the POTW to evaluate changes over time in the PFAS levels from the POTW. And it would not be more efficient to test every single connection to the POTW before it enters public infrastructure? So we are testing all of the industrial, by this bill, we are testing all of the industrial users that we believe could be at risk of, for lack of a better phrase, for releasing or sending PFAS that we would be concerned about to the POTW. If we were testing every single entity, regardless of whether we believed that they could potentially be sending PFAS levels that we would be concerned about, that would be excessive. And that is what we are avoiding. We are, by this bill, being as targeted and pointed as possible, and that's part of the beauty of the bill. How much do these, do you know how much these tests cost? A few hundred dollars. You're sure it's a few hundred dollars? Okay. So if a POTW has a test and they find PFAS contamination over a period of time, What will or will not be the impact to the municipalities, ultimately the water district taxpayers, on the responsibility of the PFAS that's being tested in their system? The only thing that is required by this bill is that we do monitoring and reporting. So if they do find consistently, let's say they do the quarterly testing in that first year following a new permit, for example, and they find that the PFAS levels are consistently above the threshold that the DEC has identified, the only additional requirement as a result of that identification would be continued testing throughout the length of that five-year speedies permit. So that is the only requirement of this law. Now the benefit, of course, is that they would have the data. And as we all know, PFAS are extremely toxic to the human body. and it would be a tremendous benefit for everyone to know that they exist and that's the whole entire point of this bill. I don't disagree with you, but I'm trying to wrap my arms around a test that's going to happen as part of a speedies permit. It's a snapshot in time. I don't imagine for $200 there's going to be continuous monitor over a long period of time to establish the amount of gallons that are coming into a system and what the actual equivalent of PFAS per whatever measurement that somebody would prescribe to in testing. It's going to be a yes, there's PFAS, or no, there's PFAS for $200. So this uses and requires the 1633 standard of the 40 PFAS chemicals that we are currently able to identify. It is the gold standard right now. So previous to 1633, which is the EPA gold standard, what we used and what we tracked in New York State by DEC was PFOA, PFOS, and 1,4-dioxane. So there were only three chemicals that we tested. They have shifted to, and it is the same gold standard, national gold standard, federal government gold standard test. switch to that, that's the 1633 standard, and that tests 40 different PFAS chemicals. The reason it's only 40, we know that there are thousands of them, is because tests have been established for them and gold standards have been created. So this is literally the best that we can do, gold standard that exists. And testing repeatedly in a year gives longitudinal data, and that's what's important. So yes, although you're getting a snapshot in time, in that one point in time, the fact that it is done quarterly during that year is what gives the longitudinal data, and that increases, of course, the value of the data to decrease the likelihood of potential erroneous positive data or erroneous negative data missing or not capturing proper data or accurate data. So that's the purpose of the quarterly. So that's some of the concern as well. You're going to have a positive test, potentially, hypothetically. You could have a positive test in a public water treatment facility owned by the residents of that municipality community. That data is going to go to DEC. Mr. Simpson, your second 15. Thank you. Sure. I would assume that's going to be public data posted. Yes, my wastewater treatment facility has tested positive in their speedies permit for PFAS. Exactly. That data is already public. There's no testing going on. There is testing. So if we're testing already, why do we need this bill? Because the testing that is being done isn't as consistent and is not as thorough as what this bill would require. That it is doing it in a standard. It's doing that as a standard for all facilities throughout the entire state. It's requiring the quarterly. Those are the criteria that creates a statewide standard. So there are several improvements here. There's the statewide standard. There's also what I mentioned earlier, which is the fact that we proactively will be requiring the testing of the industrial users upstream from the POTW. And the third very important piece of this bill that is currently not done is the fact that there are many facilities and this is a current loophole in the system there are many facilities that continue on an expired license or what they call administratively renewed license and wouldn be required to do what we require in this which is every five years when they have a renewal they will have to do that retesting to make sure that the results that they reported in that first pass five years earlier is consistent and continuing. Would this bill, as amended, require paper facilities, paper-making facilities, forestry products such as lumber mills? So they already do. The DEC has on their website a list of facilities that they have identified as being at high risk of releasing PFAS into waterways, and paper mills are already on that list. Okay. Just make sure I've covered. So it sounds very convoluted that we have some facilities that we're testing, some we're not. I think you were actually present when we had a hearing on this subject, and we asked questions about testing, and DEC said they were, this was three years ago, testing industrial users, suspected contributors to the PFAS issue. Do we have any reports on that? Do you have any data? Yes, those are public. that points in the direction that we need to test at the wastewater treatment facilities? So as I said earlier, they are already testing. They are already requiring the POTWs to test. So that component of this bill is just putting it into statute. That is not new. What is new in this is that it's requiring the industrial users upstream to also proactively test, not only when there is a positive finding or consistent finding at the POTW during a review that then requires an investigation by the POTW. So I want to make sure that we are clear that the POTWs are already required to test. So that's first. And second, I agree with you there is inconsistencies, and that is why we're requiring the upstream, But the other piece of this that is so important about the POTWs is that they get wastewater from many different sources. So if we are doing an intervention upstream that we are aware of, we can evaluate the impact of that over time. That's one. So that's the waste going into the facility. but we also can evaluate consistently over time, because that is the final endpoint of water going into our open water in our rivers, into our lakes, then we can evaluate what the levels of PFAS that are going into the lake from all sources combined. And that is really important data as well. So it evaluates both and it captures that endpoint. That where you lost me is when you talk about levels When you start talking about specifics this test is not going to give you specifics And I give you an example You identified business A upstream from where you're testing that is contributing PFAS, and you test with this test for a couple hundred dollars, you said, that's at a moment. It's not really measuring parts per, you know billion it's it's that sample but if we know that that sample is out of the system in a second and there's more samples coming in so how would you establish you know if you've identified the source and you've ended that contribution but not there's no way to measure unless let me finish unless it's a zero net, like there's no PFAS or there is, without a much more scientific test? Well, first of all, the test is very scientific. That's really important for us to know. And secondly, what you're describing is the current situation we have, which is why precisely you literally just gave the best argument for this bill. That is why we're doing the bill, because As a result of this bill, we actually would proactively require that the industrial users upstream would be providing that data to the POTW and the DEC, so we would have systematic data on the industrial users that are sending potential PFAS to that facility. So we would have source data, and the source data, consistent source data, is what we're looking for. And you have to think about it also. They are cumulative. PFAS would be cumulative. They are setting a threshold. So with each individual user, they may not be exceeding that threshold. But collectively, they actually may be exceeding the threshold. And that differential in and of itself is truly important. So if you have, for example, individual industrial users upstream that don't reach that threshold, after that first year they will not be required to continue to collect that data. But we will see at the POTW, because they get from multiple sources, they actually may exceed that threshold and you would require that they continue to provide that data for those five years. it would start to give you a matrix of where the greatest causes of that PFAS levels are coming from. And that's, in and of itself, really important. And you would start to be able to triangulate. One of those, an important fact came out of that hearing. And we heard, I believe it was DEC, that confirmed that residential contributions are probably the largest amount of contributor to PFAS through the products that we buy and we consume and we down the drain. So that's why we're pointed towards industrial contributors, but there wasn't any testing from households. Well, but there is because you're testing the POTW. That's why the DEC already requires the POTW, because that gets all of those residential. So if you are imagined, then it's just mathematical equation, right? You have the baseline, and that is the cumulative of all residential. Now you requiring proactively all of the upstream from the industrial users You can now identify from that total remove all of those industrial you can mathematically minus them out subtract them out You would have consistent data on that baseline of what is that residential, what is the remainder. So that's really important data in and of itself, which you would not have if you did not also collect data consistently from the POTW. Wouldn't it be easier to go after the known products that... Well, we don't know all of them. That is literally the entire point. Okay. All right. Well, thank you for answering my questions. I always love the discussions with you. Absolutely. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you. Read the last section. This act shall take effect on the 365th day. A party vote has been requested. Ms. Walsh. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Republican conference will not be supporting this legislation, but if there are exceptions, members can vote differently at their desks now. Thank you. Mr. Fall. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The majority conference will support this bill. For those that would like to vote differently, they could do so here in the chamber. The clerk will record the vote. Thank you. Thank you. . Thank you. Thank you. Are there any other votes Announce the results Ayes 102 nays 37 The bill is passed. Page 26, calendar number 160. Clerk will read. Senate 372A, Calendar 160, Senator Gianaris, an act to amend the labor law. An explanation has been requested, Mr. Ronson. Yes, Mr. Speaker. This bill would establish requirements for any employer seeking to offer employees or former employees severance agreements. Under these requirements, employers would have to provide employees with a period to consider the agreement. a period when they can revoke the agreement after signing, and notice to the employee that they have a right to seek counsel. Mr. Gandolfo? Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Would the sponsor please yield for some questions? Will the sponsor yield? Yes, I will, Mr. Speaker. Sponsor yields. Appreciate that, and thank you for the explanation. So there's a number of requirements here and protections as it relates to severance agreements. Are any of these currently provided for in law? And is this just a new notification requirement? Yes, that's a very good question. This bill actually tracks the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act that was signed into law by Congress in 1990. and in that law it requires for employees who are 40 or older who are presented with a severance agreement that would require them to waive any rights they may have as an employee or past employee the same thing they would have to have notice of the right to seek counsel they would have to have a 21 calendar day period to review the agreement and once signed they would have the right of revocation within seven calendar days of signing the agreement. This bill tracks the exact same thing, but it says not only for employees who are 40 or older, it will apply to all employees notwithstanding the age of the employee. Okay, so that was under federal law. Federal law is 40 and older. If this legislation is signed into law, it would apply to all employees, notwithstanding their age. Is there anything similar under general obligations law in the state? Not that I'm aware of. Okay. So for workers under 40, this is all new rights provided to them. Correct. Is that a good understanding of it? Okay. And I might say, as a person who practiced in this area for several decades, many employers already do this with all severance agreements, even if it's not related to someone older or related to an age discrimination potential claim. Okay. Is there a certain event or trend that you're seeing that, even though, as you said, a lot of employers already are providing for this, is there any reason why we're going to codify it into law, or is it just looking at it? We're codifying it into law because it's the right policy. Remember in a severance agreement what it requesting is employer will pay you money at the time of your termination or post in exchange for the employer giving up all their rights of potential action against the employer So in that exchange we having the idea that we want to make sure the employee is making an informed decision. So we're saying go talk to an attorney and you've got 21 days to consider this, consult with your family, take into consideration these things. But then we're also like we do in other situations, there could be quote-unquote buyer's remorse. You have seven days to revoke. Okay, and is that the time period, is that 21 calendar days or business days? Calendar days. So it's calendar days. Okay. Now, in terms of the employer, what is considered an employer for the purposes? Employer is defined under, I believe, it's section 190, which is private employers. That's only employers, but then under this legislation, we also include governmental entities. Okay. And there seems to be a, I guess I would call it a carve-out for any severance agreement that acknowledges the requirements but is negotiated pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement. Am I understanding that? That's correct. And what's the reason for that exemption there? It's similar to a debate we heard earlier with people on your side raising the importance of collective bargaining agreement and acknowledge those collective bargaining agreements. So what would a severance, I guess my question would be, what would a severance agreement look like that acknowledges these requirements but might differ from them and therefore be exempt? I think that scenario would be extremely unlikely, but we have it in the legislation, again, to recognize the importance of collective bargaining. Okay, so this would be severance agreements moving forward. Is that correct? It's not? That is correct. It's severance agreements that would be entered into after the effective date, which is immediate. Okay, so is there any issue if you have a collective bargaining agreement that was agreed to, let's say, last week, the governor signs this next week, and they offer a severance agreement? Would that be in conflict with this at all, since it kind of spans pre and post-pandemic? I don't believe so. Okay. All right. I believe that answers all my questions. Thank you, Mr. Bronson. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Thank you. Read the last section. This act shall take effect immediately. A party vote has been requested. Ms. Walsh. Thank you, Madam Speaker. The Republican conference will be in the negative on this piece of legislation, but if there are any exceptions, they may be noted now at members' desks. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Fall. Thank you, Madam Speaker. The majority conference will support this bill. for those that would like to vote, no, they could do so here in the chamber. Thank you. The clerk will record the vote. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Bronson to explain his vote. Yes, Madam Speaker. I abstain for the purposes of explaining my vote. And I would just like to point out on this particular measure, What we're trying to do is when an employer is letting somebody go and they're offering severance, but in connection with that severance payment, they're saying we need you to waive your rights that you might have or might not have. In exchange for the waiver of those rights, we're saying, one, you need to give the employee the opportunity and put them on notice that they can consult with an attorney. You give them 21 days. They don't have to use the 21 days. They can voluntarily not use the 21 days. And they get a seven-day period for buyer's remorse once they sign the severance agreement. This is in federal law for people who are 40 years and older. What this law would do is put it in state law, but it would apply to all employees in that scenario, notwithstanding their age. So I think it's a good thing. Many employers already do this, but it's a good thing to make sure that employees are making an informed decision with counsel before they waive their rights. So for those reasons, I vote in the affirmative, and I ask my colleagues to also vote in the affirmative. And with that, I withdraw my request. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Thank you, Mr. Bronson, in the affirmative. Thank you. Are there any other votes? Announce the results. Ayes 105, nos 33. The bill is passed. Page 7, Rules Report 158. Clerk will read. Assembly number 107638, Rules Report 158, Ms. Kaye, an act to amend the public service law. An explanation has been requested. Ms. Kaye. Thank you, Madam Speaker. This bill amends Section 66 of the public service law. The purpose of this bill is to ensure prompt response to downed wires and to protect the time of our volunteer emergency responders. This bill puts our first responders first. Nothing is more valuable than their time. Several fire companies, fire chiefs, and commissioners came to me because our first responders, our volunteers, are spending too much time at scenes involving downed power lines in non-emergent situations. They are forced to wait hours until paid utility workers arrive. and we need to change this. Thank you. Mr. Gray. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Will the sponsor yield? Will the sponsor yield? Of course. Sponsor yields. Thank you very much, Ms. Kay. So first of all, I just want to clarify some of the language in the bill, if you will. So first of all, it says including developing plans. They already have those plans. Is that correct? We have those plans in emergent situations where there's a system-wide emergency, but we're talking about an everyday occurrence like today, where the sky is blue, there's no storm, and a wire comes down. And what happens is our first responders, again, volunteers, often in very small rural districts, are forced to go out for hours and sit and wait for the paid utility workers to come out and relieve them and de-energize the line. This cannot continue. Okay, so you, that's correct. So you have de-energized the lines within two hours of notification of such downed lines from a municipal emergency responder. Does that say emergency or non-emergency? It says, the bill says in non-emergency situations where there is not a system-wide emergency. It says, it doesn't, I, where do you see non-emergency situations? I'm not seeing that in the bill. Because of where it is in the law. Okay. In the existing law. Okay. So it's not in the amended, what you're amending here then? Correct. So just, I guess, briefly talk about what do we mean between de-energize and secure down lines. Well, the first thing that they need to do is de-energize the line, take the power out of it, and the first responders don't have the jurisdiction to do that. So they have to wait until the utility company comes out, takes care of the line, and then moves it into a safe and secure location. Okay, so what is the difference? So you have de the power lines within two hours of notification by emergency responder and then you have six hours if it is not considered emergencies pursuant to a subdivision 21 So you distinguish non-emergencies in the six-hour time frame, but you're not necessarily distinguishing non-emergencies in the two-hour time frame. They're both non-emergent situations. And again, first they need to, and again, this is the utility company, when their paid workers come out to relieve the unpaid volunteer firefighters, they need to de-energize the line and then they need to fix it, move it, fix it, and get the power back on for all of the customers who are without power. Okay, so what is the current situation or what is the current, so first of all, let me just back up and say I think everybody in this chamber that's well established that we value our volunteer firefighters. We value their time, we value the fact that they're volunteers and they are responding to these situations. So we'll establish that right now. This is not against the firefighters that we so value in our communities. Of course not. Correct. So what is the current situation under PSC regulations or PSC safety emergency plans right now that are required by the power companies right now? There's no plan for non-emergent situations. There is a plan where there is a system-wide emergency. But again, in a non-emergent situation, there isn't a plan. This would establish such a plan, a plan for notification and to make sure that there's better communication between the utility workers and, again, the unpaid volunteers who often in these small rural districts, they just don't have the people to cover these lines for hours upon hours upon hours waiting for the paid utility workers to get out there. Sure. And so, but right now, the current requirement, I believe, is 36 hours and then 72 hours. 36 hours right now. And can you imagine, you know, your volunteer fireman sitting out there for 36 hours waiting for you to... No, I can't. And I agree that that could be a problem. But I'm just saying what it is currently. Currently, it's 36 hours, and it's 72 hours. Is that correct? I believe so. Yes. And so, again, that is just, and I'm sure we can all agree that that does not make sense. And we have to amend that. We have to do the right thing by all of our volunteers, because we are trying to recruit and retain volunteer firefighters across the state. and the fact that instead of working a brush fire or going to their child's Little League game or going to their job or they're getting paid or, you know, gosh, maybe taking, you know, getting a full night's sleep, they're out there babysitting these wires. Yes, and I understand that. And I'm not, so I'm not devaluing anything that goes along with the volunteer firefighters. I say that repeatedly And I do perhaps agree with you that maybe 36 and 72 is maybe too long but that is what it is right now So all I doing is establishing the fact that we going from 36 to 2 and 72 to 6 correct That's for a widespread emergency, a system-wide emergency. Widespread emergency, yes. Okay, so essentially what you're talking about here are just one-off situations. Exactly. And when something like that happens, obviously there's two impacts. One, again, to our volunteers, and two, to the customers who are impacted by a down wire on a day where they don't understand why they don't have power. It doesn't make sense to them. Maybe there was an accident. Maybe there was a burst of wind. But in any event, we need to get the paid utility workers there a little sooner and take the burden off of our volunteers. Sure. So this is an A print. What was the original print? What was the time frame in the original print? I'm sorry, the original? The original version of this bill. What was the time frame that was established in the original bill? It was one hour. One hour, that's correct. We're trying to give a reasonable amount of time for the utility to get out there without, again, burdening the volunteers too much. And that's where we landed. And I understand. And so it was one hour and it also had a fine attached to it, right? $100,000 fine? There was a fine to be established by the PSC. This bill does not have fines in it. We can all agree to disagree on that. And I guess that's what I'm getting at. There's no fines in this piece of legislation. There's no fines in this bill, right? In this version, in the amended version, there are no fines. That is correct. Is that correct? Okay. Okay. So would you say meeting a two-hour time standard, and again, we understand that we can establish, it is fact right now, it's 36. We can establish maybe 36 is too long. But meeting a two-hour time frame anywhere in a service territory, all hours, could be weather, all kinds of weather. Would you say you need a crew on standby for that all the time? I would say that's a reasonable amount of time, and it's also a reasonable amount of time to establish communication with the volunteer firefighters so that they know when someone's going to arrive to relieve them, and that customers, again, aren't without power on, as you called it, on a one-off situation for a very large period of time. So you've got a one-off situation. You have to call people into work, right, to respond to the one-off situation. It may take them, could take them an hour to get there to work. I would imagine. Let me just, if I just may finish. I'm sorry. It may take them an hour to get there. And in service territories upstate, it could take them an hour to get to there. It could be a lease. That's best case scenario, where if they're moving quickly and if you have multiple situations, I mean, they have to have standby crews. Is that correct? I would imagine they have those crews ready to go And again these are paid workers and we are relieving the volunteers And as you said this could be in the middle of the night And we don't want our volunteers out in the middle of the night for hours and hours waiting for utility crews who are paid. We're not debating that, and I agree with that. We're not debating. Do you say they're paid workers? And I agree with you. And they're replacing volunteers. And I agree with you there. Who's paying these workers? They are currently, we're not calling for any sort of overtime. These utilities are staffed and what's interesting is if you look around the state that some companies handle these situations better than others. And so they are staffed, they are able to do it and it's a matter of again communication so that the volunteer firefighters know when their relief is about to arrive. Right. And so have we talked to the utilities in terms of implementation of something like this? In fact, I've had several meetings with utilities on this very issue because, as I said at the outset, that this bill was brought to me by my often rural fire companies who have been struggling with this issue. We've had meetings with utilities about the time that it is taking for them to get relief in these situations. And so this became the means to helping our volunteers out of a hole that they don't seem to be able to get out of. In Sullivan County, we've actually done a study. Our Bureau of Emergency Management did a study of how many down-wire calls that they have been called to between 2022, 2023, and 2024. The number has gone up pretty high and it's actually just about 12% of the number of calls that our volunteers in Sullivan County have gone to are for down wires, for sitting on down wires. And we all know that they have a better use of their time. That is correct. So I'll go back to my original question. Who is paying for those workers to be on standby and to have this rapid response? I believe, well, obviously it is the utility companies, and they already have the workers available. So have the utility companies expressed that to you, that this is just routine for them? Two hours would be routine? There's no memo in opposition from utility companies, and when I met with one utility company, I got promises that they would do better, but we need to make sure that statewide that they do do better. We need to ensure that our volunteers get the backup that they need. We need to make sure that they are respected for their time and the energy that they put in to making sure we are all safe at night. So when a utility takes on these rapid response scenarios, and these are one-offs, so we're not really, they may or may not, we don't know that, whether they have crews that are just sitting around waiting for a call to come in. You're asking for new operating costs to be... These are existing crews. There's no new operating costs. We just need them to be more efficient. and I know that they can do this. Because they do. So you say there are existing crews, the feedback I get, that's not the case. These are going to be additional costs or this rapid response type of scenario? This is not a rapid response. It is a, this is a reasonable and rational response to a report of a downed wire. It should not take 36 hours or 72 hours or 15 hours or 6 hours to come to the scene of a downed wire. That is the responsibility of the utility company. They have the crews and they can do the job. And it should not be the responsibility of our volunteers to sit there until the crews can get there for, again, more than two hours. Just that's not rational and that's not the best use of our volunteers' time. Okay, so let's go back to the emergency, non-emergency. What is the difference in how does this exclude emergency situations? This bill does not address emergency situations at all. Okay, but if you've got a downed power line, it's down no matter what, if it's emergency or non-emergency. Is that correct? It doesn't say there's another time frame for emergency situations. Is that correct? There are emergency plans for longer-term outages and for system-wide outages. Okay, so what you're saying is that this bill will be in addition to the... So if there's an emergency situation, we automatically reset the clock to 36 and 72. There's an entire plan for emergency situations that this bill does not address. Do you want your second 15, Mr. Gray? Sure. Thank you, Madam Speaker. So there are exceptions for storm for emergency situations that are already current. It's going to default to the current emergency plans. Is that correct? This bill does not address emergency situations. Okay. Okay. So the cost, and we can agree or disagree on the cost, but if there are costs associated with this type of response, are those costs recoverable? I don't believe there will be a cost. I believe these are down. That wasn't my, with due respect, that wasn't my question. Okay, I'm sorry. Are they recoverable if there's additional costs? Again, there are not additional costs. This is the ordinary course of business for utilities to come and de-energize downed wires. That's what they do. Okay. Well, you say there's not going to be any cost. Utilities are telling us that there's going to be substantial costs. Substantial is what they put. Extraordinary costs. So my question, whatever degree of costs that are going to be associated, is it recoverable? Are costs for downwires recoverable in rate cases? Respectfully, I believe that this is a cost of business that's already covered by the utilities. Okay, so it is recoverable then. That's I won't say it's a cost that is already sure I would imagine included in all of their business plans Yes, so it's recoverable. It's recoverable in the In their rate cases so let me just say is there any is there any consideration for geography right Whether we in a densely populated area or we are upstate New York in say the Adirondack Park where it may take a long time for these trucks to get through winding roads, and the response time might not even be within two hours. Is there any geographical consideration for this? Again, respectfully, the purpose of this is it's a plan. It's to establish communication between the utility company and the volunteers who, as we've established, are sitting out there for extraordinary amounts of time. and we want to have that open line of communication so that the first responders know when and where they will be relieved and the utility company can go and do their job. Okay. So let me ask you one other question. Where did two hours come from? Where did two and six come from? And why is there a difference between emergency responder and the public? Are the public just six hours? I mean, where do those numbers come from? These were reasonable time frames to get the correct qualified utility employees to the site. And again, the communication component of the bill is critical here. where utilities need to coordinate with the volunteers is actually even more important. They need to know what's happening next. Currently, the volunteers are just waiting and hoping that somebody shows up. Yeah, I understand. Reasonable as in, like, how did we establish? Did we establish these talking to the utility companies? Did we establish these just talking to, I mean, not just talking to first responders, but considering first responders and considering the utilities, so there's some sort of mutual agreement here? Well, again, as I said at the outset, I've had several meetings with first responders and utility companies together in a room trying to work this out and come up with these numbers, and this is a reasonable, common-sense period of time in order to establish communication and get the utility companies out there. And so those meetings that you had with these joint volunteers and utilities companies came up with two and six, because the original bill was one hour, and this is two and six. So are you saying that they established this time frame? We were trying to come up with a mutually agreeable time frame. And from the first responder's point of view, as I'm sure you would agree, the less time, the better. and we're trying to come up with a time that, again, our first responders have a way to, it's a time and a communication value here so that everyone knows where they stand. And again, this is the utility's job. When there's a down wire, they have people available to respond to that down wire because that is what they do. Yes, and I understand that. And I certainly, and again, I'll say it one more time. This is not anything against, and we value volunteer first responders, most certainly. And I think that was shown earlier this year. But we also value rate payers And would you say I mean you already know that some New Yorkers are paying some of the highest utility costs in the country right now And when we start mandating performance standards such as this like two you know two hours may be not too reasonable but two hours and six hours we start mandating that I mean we could be possibly facing even higher cost for people who are overburdened by their utility rates as we speak? I receive phone calls in my office every day from people whose utility rates are too high. And there's a lot of reasons why their rates are too high. But the mere fact that utility companies are going to go out and do their job and pick up and de-energize down wires, If you are telling me that rates are going to increase because the utilities are going to simply do their job, then that is stunning to me. Utilities should not raise their rates and will not be raising their rates for this purpose. This is simply to put a plan together to communicate with first responders and make sure that downed wires, which can be dangerous and also problematic to all of our rate payers and our constituents, who, as you said, are already paying very high rates, should get the service that they need, that that service should be delivered, and they shouldn't be sitting there. without power for hours upon hours either, and paying the rates that they're paying. And I don't want to, you know, I don't think we should be painting the picture on the utilities here that they just are, you know, nonchalant about downed wire lines. I mean, I think they don't say, well, we got 36 hours, let's just wait till we do it tomorrow and leave the first responders out there. Do you sense that that's what utilities are doing? Of course not. Okay. But I also do not want to give any credence to the fact that if the utility companies are responsive to our first responders, that rates will go up because that doesn't make sense. Well, we're going to have to agree to disagree on that one because when we start mandating service, because that's really what PSC does. They take their emergency response plans. they take into consideration these scenarios when they're dealing with their rate cases and what is reasonable for recovering expenses and what is reasonable for service to the public in terms of restoration of power. All that is considered in the rate case. And when we start legislating mandated response times, I think, in fact, you're going to see costs go up considerably, potentially. And I don't think you agree with that. No, I don't. I respectfully, again, that this is the job of the utility, fix the down wire in a reasonable amount of time. And I think that our public has the right to believe that that will happen And our first responders have the right to believe that they will be sent home at some point from a downed wire situation And I also think that there's another cost we haven't really touched on here, which is all of us in upstate New York really are facing a scarcity of volunteers. And it is very difficult to keep volunteers if what they are doing seems maybe disrespected and that they are spending inordinate amounts of time in the middle of the night, in the middle of the day, when, as we said, they could be doing other things, sitting next to a car, on a road, waiting for a utility company. We want to, and we want to, no pun intended, energize our volunteers, bring in new volunteers, and I believe that this bill will give them some of that respect back and show them that we all, as a group care. Sure, sure. And I, you know, I'm not going to stay here for a minute and believe that utility companies have a total disregard for first responders. They work with them every emergency situation. Utilities, whether it's a motor vehicle accident, whether it's just simply down power lines, utilities go hand in hand with first responders. And I think there's mutual respect and I think there is no disregard where the utilities are saying, we'll just leave our first responders hanging out someplace on the side road. So thank you very much, Madam Sponsor. I appreciate that. So Madam Speaker, on the bill. On the bill. So, as I said, we all, nobody wants to see these power lines sitting on the side of a road or across the road or anything along that line. And we may say 36 hours is too long, and we may say 72 hours is too long in some cases. However, I think it is a little overambitious to believe that two hours is reasonable without being substantial cost to the ratepayers. We already know ratepayers are heavily burdened in New York State. And when we start mandating versus letting the PSC decide when and how it's all going to be paid for and what the response is appropriately, when we start mandating that, we are going to have, utilities are going to have no choice but to go in front of the PSC and say, here is the cost for what is legislated for mandated for downed power lines. So we will continue to drive utility rates higher with legislation like this. As I say, affordability is a death by a thousand cuts, and this is precisely a bill that could lead to unaffordable utility rates, continued unaffordable rates in New York State. Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Thank you. Mr. Palmisano. Yes, thank you, Madam Speaker. Here, will the sponsor yield for some questions? Will the sponsor yield? Of course. The sponsor yields. Thank you, Ms. Kay. A couple questions I wanted to ask. I know you said you talked to the utilities. Did you ever sit down with the PSC to discuss this legislation, the need for it or the non-need for it? No, I did not. Given the fact that the PSC has jurisdiction over our utilities, wouldn't that have been a good idea? In my role as a legislator, I took into account the cries for help that were coming from my community, from my volunteer firefighters who really needed some relief. And again, as I said in the earlier discussion, met directly with them and utility company to try and resolve this without legislative. Sure, I can appreciate that, trying to solve a problem. We try to do that all the time. But given a lot of changes happen with the PSC through a proceeding, when they have a proceeding, as you may know, the PSC brings all the stakeholders, so they would bring the volunteers in, they would bring in the utilities to say, if this is a problem that needs to be addressed, we could work through a formal proceeding process with input, dialogue, and discussion to try to resolve this issue. Wouldn't that be something that could be looked at from this perspective rather than just trying to legislate it directly? To have the input from everyone, even the experts? I think the first responders are the experts here. Well, I'm just talking about the agency, the PSC, oversees our utilities as far as the law, as far as penalties, as far as whatever it may be, what time frames, requirements, and things of that nature. when we want to make a change that benefits everyone, it's good to go through a proceeding. And I've talked about that in other issues that have come through this House on legislation that try to legislate it rather than work it through the PSC where you can make changes. If the PSC deemed a change needed to be made right now on this issue, the PSC could address that right now correctly. They could say, hey, we need to make a change, this isn't working, we feel something needs to be done. They could do that right now, correct? I would love it if they did, but here we are, and I have my fire companies and my Bureau of Emergency Management coming to me, asking me to resolve this situation, and this is what we're doing. And I understand it, and I appreciate that, and hopefully this may be formulated for those conversations moving forward. And I will say with you, one thing I agree 100% is our volunteers are scarce, especially in upstate New York. We need to do everything we can to protect them, preserve them. The other thing we know, our rates are going sky high in our communities as well. We need to make sure we're protecting the rate payers as well. You've said throughout this discussion this is for non-emergency events. Is that correct? That's correct. Then, as my understanding as drafted, this specifically amends a law that deals with the emergency response plans of the utilities. So if you're, as the language reads from what I'm being told, if you're affecting their emergency response plans, so this is going to take into account the entire plan. Is it not? It's a different section of the law. Okay, that's just not what I'm being told, so I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree, and we'll find out later. From that perspective, who makes the determination whether something's an emergency or not, a non-emergency? I know it says within notifications that they have to do something that's considered a non-emergency. Who makes that determination if it non How is that determined There a defined term in the law of an emergency situation and a system emergency which this is not Okay And I know there were some questions about penalties that came out Was there any issue, there's no issue of penalties, there's nothing like that? There's no penalties in this legislation. And given the fact that, obviously what I'm being told, you might disagree, that this is affecting their existing emergency response plans, if the PSC found deficiencies in their plans right now, they can make changes in those plans and say it needs to be addressed this way or that way to account for those changes to move forward. Wouldn't that be the case? They certainly can, and I encourage the PSC to look at that. But again, this bill does not address emergency situations. And the PSC in that process right now, the plans that are in place have to deal with securing and repairing downed wires in the emergency plans they submit right now. But again, you disagree that this doesn't affect your emergency plans, but again, I'm being told otherwise, so obviously that's something that's going to be able to iron out here through the process as well. Correct? Correct. This is not, we're not talking about sustained outage, system-wide situations, we're talking about one wire down in a selected location. Okay. Is there any concern with relative to, again, I'm getting into the time frame of the emergency plan, so I think there's going to be some disagreement there on that front. I'm worried about from the perspective of when cost, if they're sending staff to areas that might be needed in other areas, and if you're wrapping up emergency situations into this, I know you say it doesn't. Isn't that something that's going to add cost? Do you disagree with that?
No, because, again, this is not for an emergency situation. We talked about it a little earlier. We're calling it a one-off. And so it would not impact an emergency or a storm situation or anything of that nature.
How might this legislation affect mutual aid agreements and emergency resource sharing arrangements among utilities?
Again, it won't because this is a one wire, one location, one day, one situation.
Okay. Ms. Kaye, I appreciate your time at this point. I'll just go on the bill for a little bit. Thank you for your time. Thank you so much.
Thank you, Madam Speaker, my colleagues. I appreciate the intention of the sponsor and what she's trying to do. I 100% agree we need to do everything we can to help our volunteers, make sure we're protecting them. That's certainly a scarcity of volunteers is something that is a true situation going on, especially in upstate New York. But the other situation that's going on in upstate New York is our ratepayers continue to see rising and shocking rates. I think the point I wanted to try to make of several, if the PSC, you know, the sponsor admitted that they haven't talked to the PSC, which has jurisdiction over our utilities, the PSC has the ability, if they feel something's not being addressed, they can create, address deficiencies, they can order changes. That's what they do all the time. They have penalized utilities. They have made utilities change plans and operations when they deemed as necessary. And I understand my colleague wanted to solve a problem. I mean, we all try to solve problems. But it might be better in this situation to go through a proceeding where we get all the stakeholders at the table get the utilities at the table get the volunteers at the table bring the PSC bring the emergency sector into those discussions have a discussion on what we need to do. We need to make a change here. If everyone agrees the change needs to be made, then they can work towards a reasonable change rather than us just dictating to them. And I think, unfortunately, I've talked about this issue time and time again on the floor here, when we constantly see legislation saying we've got to mandate this, we've got to mandate that, because we seem to know better, but let those experts come together through a proceeding process and do that. I think that would be great. I mean, right now, the other thing we're being told, I'm being told, is although the sponsor continues to say during his discussion, this is a non-emergency event. From what I'm being told based on the language is that this is not how the bill is drafted. The way this bill is drafted, it amends their emergency response plans. And if that's the case, that changes this whole argument a little bit upside down. And under that same guidelines, we know that utilities are already required to establish these plans and how they deal with downed trees and downed wires and things of that nature. The PSC can regulate a utility to fix deficiencies, so there's already a process that's in place to make the changes to the plan if necessary. I think furthermore, the timeframes established in this bill, given how it impacts their emergency response plans, could, I think, put the utilities in a difficult situation when it comes to emergency events and how they deploy resources. Again, the sponsor is talking about not emergency events, but again, I'm being told this affects emergency response plans, which changes this parameter all around. I think that leaves too many questions that need to be answered before I can support this legislation, although I think, again, the sponsor has good intentions. I think we want to help our volunteers. And I think what I'm concerned about, too, is given the fact that we're looking at this, there could be an increased cost to rate payers if we had to have more employees go to these down wires and just act around the wires, act as wire guards around the wires, and then they have services there instead of going to deployments in emergency situations. Again, because from what I'm being told, this affects emergency response plans. I think from that perspective, I think there's a lot to be addressed here, a lot to be cleared out here, because when there are emergency response plans, which I believe are being impacted by this, These plans must already identify staff. They must already identify outreach plans, communication. They have to deal with how to fix down wires and make sure notifications be done in the communication. I would think that communication is being done on a regular basis with our volunteers, and hopefully that process can be addressed as we move forward. But given, I think, some of the gray area in this bill and my differences of opinion with the sponsor on what this language of this bill actually does and what we're being told that, although the intention of the sponsor is to deal with non-emergency events, it appears that the language of this bill affects those emergency response plans. And again, if that's the case, that raises a lot more questions than it does answers. And I think that's why it really makes sense for us to bring all the stakeholders together get that expertise from the PSC who has to regulate our utilities now from the volunteers from the emergency responders from the experts on the emergency side say these are our needs Again, we don't want our volunteers just out there, but let's have that discussion to come to a reasonable solution instead of just picking an arbitrary time of two hours or six hours. That just doesn't make sense to me. I think that's why I think when we want to see changes in the public service law, which just is changing public service law, these proceedings, these operations seem to work better because you get all the stakeholders at the table who have the expertise and the concerns that need to be raised. So based on that, Madam Speaker, my colleagues, although I do appreciate the intention to the sponsor, I appreciate where the conversation is going. Hopefully, maybe that will lead to those conversations from a proceeding perspective to get everyone at the table to have an honest discussion about what can be done, what can't be done, what needs to be done, what should be done, and try to understand the concerns on all sides and what we need to do working together to find a solution instead of trying to pass legislation that will have unintended consequences that could lead to increased rates for ratepayers and lead to complications of dealing with emergency situations. So based on that, Madam Speaker, I'm going to be voting in the negative, and I would ask some of my colleagues to join me in that vote, and I appreciate the time. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Thank you. Ms. Walsh.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. Will the sponsor yield? Will the sponsor yield?
Of course.
The sponsor yields.
Thank you. I just have a couple of questions. You said that in preparation for this bill, you obviously listened to your local firefighters who brought the concerns to you. You said that you talked to the utility companies. In the course of researching and preparing this legislation, did you determine what the average time is for de-energizing downed wires as it exists right now? How long does it generally take?
So in my county, we have firefighters out there for more than three or four or five or six hours at a time.
Okay. But I know, and you represent, is it Sullivan County?
I represent most of Sullivan County and parts of Orange County.
Okay. Do you happen to know any data from, like, the rest of the state, if that's a similar situation, or if maybe Sullivan County just is unfortunate and it's taking longer where you are?
I believe this is statewide, and rural upstate is going to feel it the hardest.
Okay. And is that just based on, what is that based on, your feelings?
No, we have support from FASNA on this bill because firefighters from throughout the state have been affected.
Okay. All right. And who would do the work, who does the work of restoring, you know, de-energizing the wires and then restoring after there's been downed wires? Is it a lineman that would do that work?
Yes, it would be a paid employee from the utility company that responds to the volunteer who's been pinged out to sit there and wait.
Sure. Are you aware that New York utilities are experiencing a significant systemic lineman shortage? Were you aware of that?
Yes, I am. And it's unfortunate. And I'm certain that... that just like in many segments of employment throughout the state, we have these issues.
But are you aware that when we talk about a significant systemic lineman shortage, we're talking about, through retirements, a loss of approximately 85 percent of previously serving linemen are retiring and will be retired within the next five years? We're not just talking about a couple, you know, a few people. And we're talking about the same issue with our volunteer firefighters?
Oh, yeah, no, my question is, you've made that point so many times I wouldn't even think about going back down that road. And I totally value, as we all do, our volunteer firefighters for sure.
But doesn't the energy company or the utility company, don't they have a vested interest in trying to get those wires de-energized and then things restored within as quickly as they can? I mean, that's their interest, right?
Absolutely, and I would have thought that we wouldn't be here today discussing this because the energy companies do have a vested interest in doing that. But unfortunately, it's not happening in a reasonable amount of time, So that's why we're here.
Okay. And are you familiar with any of the efforts that the utility companies have made to try to hire enough linemen to be able to restore power, to de-energize wires, and to do all of this work in a reasonable amount of time? Are you familiar with that?
I'm not familiar with the employment practices of the utility companies, but I certainly understand what the parameters of what the utility companies are supposed to be providing their customers, all of us. And it is unfortunate that they are experiencing, again, like many sectors of New York State employers, a problem with finding linesmen. I know a few myself, and it is a very demanding, difficult job, and they're out at times that none of us want to be outside in weather, none of us want to be in, and I really applaud the Lions people for the work that they do because it is difficult. Yeah, my dad was one, as a matter of fact. My dad was a phone company guy for pretty much a good, decent part of his career. So I was a phone company brat. I knew that life that my dad had.
So in thinking about what happens in a community, and I'm an upstate representative myself, it's not just the fire service that responds when there's downed wires though, correct? I mean, we also have police service that often respond to a downed wire situation as well, don't they?
In more emergency situations, yes. But in the event that a wire is down and there's no fire, it's not across the road. And in more rural areas, it's usually the firefighters in my circumstances. Because I've been told that in many cases,
The volunteer fire service might be even first on the scene and secure that scene make sure that it safe But then when the police respond they getting paid where the volunteer firefighters are not So very often I'm told what will happen is that it's the police that will stick around and wait for the utility companies to appropriately respond once the firefighters have come to secure the spot. So I don't know if that. I was just curious if that's true in your area because that is true in mine.
We don't see that. You don't do that. Okay. We don't see that. Okay.
Well, thank you very much for answering my questions. Madam Speaker, on the bill.
On the bill.
Yeah, so I think, you know, there's been a lot said, and certainly I value the service that our volunteer firefighters provide. But I also think that if you look at the situation, there's not a utility company out there that wants to see a down wire longer than it has to be. And I think we need to at least be aware of the fact that before we go really reducing the amount of response time that's going to be mandated, that we ought to at least understand what the utility companies are facing. And what they are facing, as I brought up on debate, was upwards of 85 percent of the current linemen, they're calling it the retirement cliff. The boomers, all the boomers are all retiring. And it's very difficult to replace them. And it's not that there aren't efforts being made to do so. I know locally Hudson Valley Community College is having a program specifically to try to really encourage and help put linemen, get them trained up and get them out there. One of the problems is that they're a very long apprenticeship, so the pipeline to replace these linemen is slow. unfortunately. And so I think that while I believe that the legislation is very well-intentioned, nobody wants to be wasting the valuable time of our volunteer firefighters, I think that taking the amount of time that we already have and cutting it down so much is perhaps not wise. I think that, you know, defining what a reasonable amount of time is in legislation and saying that it's going to be two hours or four hours, depending upon the task that we're asking them to complete, might just not be something that is achievable given the current workforce constraints within the utilities. So I do appreciate the sponsor's desire to help provide some relief to our volunteer firefighters, but I do think that the unintended consequence is going to be mandating or creating a situation that is just not going to be able to be achieved under current employment pressures that the utility companies are facing. So for that reason, I won't be able to support the bill today. Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.
Thank you. Mr. Cashman.
Would the sponsor yield for a question? Will the sponsor yield?
Of course.
Sponsor yields.
Would you say that the heart of this is inspired because of health and safety?
Absolutely, I would.
Would you say that it is inspired because you heard directly from your constituents?
Yes.
Would you say that you talked to colleagues around the state if they're having similar issues?
I certainly have.
Madam Speaker, on the bill.
On the bill.
In the North Country, I've had conversations with individuals that are experiencing similar things. The reality of it is the PSC does not have the best guardrails Members on both sides of the aisle complain about what the PSC is doing and isn doing What this bill is seeking to do is to create a framework for health and safety for our volunteer firefighters. Like everything, there is no perfect bill. But this framework begins to help expedite something on their behalf. The utility companies are at a record profit right now. That is just the reality. They could be reinvesting into the health and safety of our own communities and first responders because the truth of the matter is, if the first responders weren't being there, they would have to come up with another way to secure the lines. That's the reality. So as we look at this from a hiring perspective, there are many ways that they could address this. They could work with municipalities that have a MLD to work with other municipalities within the region in a public-private partnership. Something that I believe that we talk about often is finding ways to create smaller costs, up-train individuals. We can also be working in concert with our community colleges and our four-year institutions to create more workforce. Sometimes a framework like this puts the onus back where it belongs to make sure that they're making the appropriate investment right from the beginning, getting to the quick of things, which is health and safety. And for that, Madam Speaker, I'll be on the bill in the affirmative.
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chang.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. but this is on the bill.
On the bill.
I understand the sponsor is trying to do its best, trying to alleviate problems with constituents with a downed power line. Even though I'm not a lineman, but I've been called to active duty half a dozen times for national emergency in the state and work with them with alignment with the military. I've been experienced with kitchen top or tabletop exercises on EOC, Emergency Operations Center, power lines or sewer pump, all those situations itself. How can you legislate manpower and logistic? It's very difficult. We can put all the policies and all that, but it may not work in terms of manpower. Now, we excuse the timeframe because of emergency, understand. But there may be local emergencies that pull away personnel because a lot of utilities company, they don't have manpower that's already on the spot to fulfill roles that power lines or other matters because they also do maintenance work as well. Power companies have MOUs, memorandum understanding, with different utility companies across state lines for surges of people, surges of manpower, because these are trained linemen, trained operators, how to repair. What the military does and what the first responder does is secure the area, clear the area for the linemen to actually put the lines together. That's what the expertise does. How can we legislate that just for a certain time frame to address those issues? Even for me, trying to get a TV set to repair or a mechanic to do a certain time frame to repair a car, is very uneven in terms of time schedule I don think this bill can fly effectively The real solution to this absolute real solution about these down power line is to be in Manhattan, bury those lines underground. That is the only way to solve that problem, but that's a very expensive solution and that's the only way and
that's all I have. Thank you very much. Thank you. Mr. Bologna.
Are you kidding me?
Madam Speaker, on the bill.
On the bill. You know, this bill really does a wonderful thing. There's just something I want to address real fast. I understand that we're talking about safety here, but in the past few weeks, this body has taken a particular interest in the revenue and the profits of utility companies, even regulating it so much so in the budget and talking about profits and revenue and making investments in safety. And while I understand that we should be expecting utility companies to invest in safety, that's what the PSC is literally there for. That's what we have them do. So by trying to micromanage the PSC, we're acknowledging the fact that they're not actually doing their job in the first place in this regard. In addition to which, when we talk about investment, when we talk about requiring utilities to do something, we are actually requiring utilities to fully electrify this state, which is why we roll back to CLCPA, because we can't physically do it. So I just find it rich, again, that we're talking about profits and revenue of utility companies when we continue to force them to make investments but then lose our collective minds when rates go up and when they ask the PSC for higher rate cases. So if we want rates to go down, I don't know, maybe we should look into expanding our energy portfolio, and maybe we should look into lifting some of the burdens on utility companies so they're actually able to lower rates and make things more affordable, as opposed to throwing countless mandates on utility and energy companies. It's absolutely asinine to me. So with that, I mean, I'm going to be voting no on this, but thank you for the time, Madam Speaker, and thank you for my colleagues for giving me 30 seconds to explain something on a bill.
Thank you. Read the last section.
This act shall take effect immediately.
A party vote has been requested. Ms. Walsh.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. The Republican Conference will not be supporting this legislation generally, but if there are any yes votes, now would be the time to cast them at member seats. Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Peoples-Stokes.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. The majority conference is going to be in favor of this piece of legislation. However, should there be a few that would desire to be an exception, they should feel free to do so at their seats.
Thank you. The clerk will record the vote. Ms. Kaye to explain her vote.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. Despite much discussion, this is a very simple bill. This bill will help our first responders across the state to have communication with utility companies, to have expectations of when they can be relieved from a volunteer duty, and the job of the utility in this case is the most basic thing that they do, which is restore alignment. That's all we're talking about. Thank you.
Ms. Kay in the affirmative. Mr. Gray to explain his vote.
Thank you, Madam Speaker, to explain my vote. I just want to reiterate the fact that a no vote on this bill is not anything to do with first responders. We certainly value first responders. It is in consideration of reasonable expectations for the utility companies. That's number one. Number two is the concern of rate payers. When we talk about perhaps maybe multiple incidences in a given night, whether it's a motor vehicle accident, whether it's down power lines that are one end of the county to the other, I think somewhere between two hours is a little unreasonable. We're at 36 and 72. That may be a little too much, but we've swung it all the other way when we start saying you have to mandate a response time of two hours. And to say that we don't expect that to raise rates is, I think, unreasonable. So we certainly value the first responders and their response to emergency scenes like this. but we also have to consider rate payers as well. So I vote in the negative on this. Thank you.
Mr. Gray, in the negative. Are there any other votes? Announce the results.
Ayes 104, nays 35.
The bill is passed on the main calendar. Page 3, resolutions. Clerk will read.
Assembly number 1525, rules at the request of Ms. Levenberg. Legislative resolution memorializing Governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim May 31, 2026 as No Tobacco Day in the state of New York.
On the resolution, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed. No, the resolution is adopted. Assembly number 1526 rules at the request of Ms. Forrest.
Legislative resolution memorializing Governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim June 20, 2026 as World Refugee Day in the state of New York.
On the resolution, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed, no. The resolution is adopted. Assembly number 1527 rules at the request of Ms. Jackson.
Legislative resolution memorializing Governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim June 26, 2026 as Take Your Dog Today Work Day in the state of New York.
On the resolution, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed, no. The resolution is adopted. Assembly number 1528, Rules at the Request of Ms. Glick.
Legislative resolution memorializing Governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim June 2026 as Gay Pride Month in the State of New York.
Mr. Bronson on the resolution.
Ms Glick on the resolution Thank you Madam Speaker This bill recognizes June and calls on the governor to recognize June as Gay Pride Month in the state of New York In 1969, the Stonewall Uprising really was the result of gay people, many of whom were cross-dressing transvestites at the time. Today, perhaps they would be the demonized transgender folks. Why did they have an uprising? because their lives, they were forced to socialize in bars. They couldn't live openly because they could lose their job. They could lose their housing. They had to hide from their friends, from their families, who they were. And so they went and socialized in bars that were basically controlled by the mob. And every now and then, the police would raid. And why would they raid? Because it was a sport. and people would be very fearful because if they were arrested and it became public, they would lose everything. And at a certain point, people just said, we've had enough and we're not taking it anymore. And for three days, there was a pitch battle on Christopher Street. This body, first time in 1993, I arrived in 1991 as the first out member of the legislature. And in 1993, this House passed the first statewide gay rights bill. It didn't pass the full, it wasn't signed into law until 2002. I had served in this House for 11 years without my rights being fully represented and respected. across this state. I didn't think that I would be here to vote for marriage equality in 2011 or see a national monument, the Stonewall National Monument, signed into law in 2016 under President Obama, or the respect for marriage equality in 2022, signed by President Biden. which was a reciprocal recognition across the states that people in every state had their marriage respected in the same way everybody else's was. But we see a determination to turn the clock back on lots of rights, including LGBTQ rights, and ban books. Ban books. 25% of the books that are banned in this country have LGBT content. What century are we in? How insecure are straight people when they have to ban books simply because it has gay content? Who are these people? Demonstration that there is not enough mental health services in this country. But here, I want to point out how pernicious homophobia can be. Ten years ago the second most horrific mass murder was the killing of people at the Pulse nightclub in Florida. 49 people were killed. 58 people were wounded. That is what negative rhetoric that inspires fear and hate can do. So why do we want to celebrate Pride Month when we've had so many successes? To ensure that we don't go back. And we see many, many communities facing the same issue, where the rights that we assumed would be protected forever are eroding. So I call on the governor to proclaim June as Gay Pride Month so that young kids, kids are just kids. My parents were straight. They didn't think they were raising a gay kid, but they were. Youngsters should know that they are okay, whoever they are. And that's why it's important every year to have Gay Pride Month recognized in the state.
Thank you, Ms. Cliff.
Thank you very much.
Thank you. Mr. Bronson?
This is the last time I'll be speaking on a resolution of this nature. And so I thank you for your attention.
Thank you, Mr. Bronson. On the resolution.
Madam Speaker, I rise to speak on this resolution, and I do it with pride. And I do it to thank the sponsor for her leadership in not only introducing this resolution, but also for the many issues she has taken the lead on in support and for protections of our LGBTQ plus community. I stand on her shoulders and on those of past Assemblymember Danny O'Donnell, as well as my late friend, Councilmember Tim O'Maines, for paving the way for other openly gay elected officials like me to serve the citizens of New York State, all the citizens of New York State. New York has a unique and incredible history when it comes to advancing human rights. From abolition to civil rights, from Seneca Falls to Stonewall, New Yorkers have always pushed the boundaries and led in the fight for equity, justice, and opportunities for all. and in recognizing the inherent dignity we all possess, no matter who you are. Through Pride Month, we remember Stonewall, which has been mentioned as referred to as the beginning of the gay liberation movement here in the United States. Many of us have been subjected to discrimination, whether it's a slur, anti-gay comments, or having stones thrown at you for merely walking out of a gay bar or for holding the hand of someone you love. We thought the bigotry and hate toward our community had ended in many ways. But today as we face a federal government who wants to try to erase us and has taken steps to limit our human rights Pride Month is even more important Through Pride Month, we say and we shout out loud that we are here and we are proud. Gay Pride is a positive stance against the historical discrimination and violence toward the LGBTQ plus people. We celebrate gay pride to promote our self-affirmation, our dignity, our call for equity, our call for full equal rights. Gay pride increases our visibility, and it allows us to celebrate not only our inclusion in the wider community, but also our diversity. Pride allows us to say we are here. It allows us to ask our society to see us for who we are. And it allows us to fight back against bigotry and hatred. Madam Speaker, I proudly support this resolution, and I proudly stand on the shoulders of my colleague, Deborah Glick. Thank you.
Thank you. On the resolution, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed. No, the resolution is adopted. Assembly number 1529 rules at the request of Mr. DeStefano.
Legislative resolution memorializing Governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim June 2026 as Great Outdoors Month in the state of New York.
On the resolution, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed. No, the resolution is adopted. Assembly number 1530 rules at the request of Ms. Rosenthal. Legislative resolution memorializing Governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim June 2026 as cytomegalovirus awareness month in the state of New York. On the resolution, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed. No, the resolution is adopted. Assembly number 1531 rules at the request of Mr. Ra. Legislative resolution memorializing Governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim June 2026 as aphasia awareness month in the state of New York. On the resolution, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed. No, the resolution is adopted. Assembly number 1532 rules at the request of Ms. Rajkumar. Legislative resolution memorializing Governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim September 1, 2026 as Uzbekistan Independence Day in the state of New York. Mr. Novikov on the resolution.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. First of all, I would like to thank the sponsor of this resolution and to recognize and celebrate Uzbekistan Independence Day and to honor the vibrant Uzbek, American, and Bukharian Jews community here in New York and in my assembly district since gaining independence in 1991. the nation of Uzbekistan has made significant strides in economic development, education, and international cooperation. New York is proud to be home to many Uzbek Americans who have enriched our communities through their hard work, entrepreneurship, cultural traditions, and commitment to family values. As we commemorate this important occasion, we extend our best wishes to the people of Uzbekistan and celebrating the enduring friendship between our nations. And also encourage everyone to try It is truly unique. Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.
Thank you. On the resolution, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed. No, the resolution is adopted. Assembly number 1533 rules at the request of Ms. Solange. Legislative resolution memorializing Governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim July 26, 2026 as inaugural COMPO Day in the state of New York. On the resolution, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed. No, the resolution is adopted. Assembly number 1534, rules at the request of Mr. Gandolfo. Legislative resolution memorializing Governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim August 2026 as a mode of sports awareness month in the state of New York. On the resolution, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed. No, the resolution is adopted. Assembly number 1535, rules at the request of Mr. Magnarelli. legislative resolution memorializing Governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim September 14th through the 20th, 2026 as Diaper Need Awareness Week in the State of New York. On the resolution, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed. No, the resolution is adopted. Assembly number 1536 rules at the request of Ms. Roszak legislative resolution memorializing Governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim September 21st through the 27th, 2026 as Surgical Technologist Week in the state of New York. On the resolution, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed. No, the resolution is adopted. Assembly number 1537 rules at the request of Ms. Bichotte Hermelin. Legislative resolution memorializing Governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim September 2026 as Prostate Cancer Awareness Month in the state of New York. On the resolution, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed. No, the resolution is adopted. Assembly number 1538 rules at the request of Ms. Callas. Legislative resolution memorializing Governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim October 2026 as ADHD Awareness Month in the state of New York. The resolution, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed. No, the resolution is adopted. Assembly number 1539 rules at the request of Mr. McDonald. legislative resolution memorializing Governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim October 2026 as Pharmacists Month in the state of New York On the resolution all those in favor signify by saying aye Opposed No the resolution is adopted
Ms. People Stokes. Madam Speaker, do you have any further housekeeping or resolutions?
Yes, we have many pieces of housekeeping and some resolutions. At the request of Ms. Hooks, the following bill is recommitted back as follows. Calendar number 179, number A6868, Committee on Codes. On a motion by Ms. People Stokes, page 8, Rules Report number 183, bill number A9622B, the amendments are received and adopted. On a motion by Ms. Paulin, page 35, calendar number 379, bill number A10307A, the amendments are received and adopted. On a motion by Mr. Hevesy, page 40, calendar number 471, bill number A9244, the amendments are received and adopted. Bill number A, 11385. On behalf of Ms. Chandler Waterman, Assembly Bill recalled from Senate. Clerk will read the title of the bill. An act to amend Chapter 192 of the laws of 2011. Motion to reconsider the vote by which the bill passed the House. Clerk will record the vote. Clerk will announce the results. Ayes 139, nos 0. The bill is before the House, and the amendments are received and adopted. Bill number A2321 on behalf of Mr. McDonald. Assembly bill recalled from Senate. Clerk will read the title of the bill. An act to amend the public officer's law. Motion to reconsider the vote by which the bill passed the House. Clerk will record the vote. Clerk will announce the results. Ayes 139, notes 0. The bill is before the House and the amendments are received and adopted. Bill number A-2605 on behalf of Mr. Sayesh. Assembly bill recalled from Senate. Clerk will read the title of the bill. An act to amend the public officer's law and the public authority's law. Motion to reconsider the vote by which the bill passed the House. Clerk will record the vote. Clerk will announce the results. Ayes 139, News 0. The bill is before the House and the amendments are received and adopted. A resolution by Ms People Stokes Clerk will read Assembly number 1548 Mrs People Stokes Legislative resolution commemorating the 50th annual Juneteenth Day celebration in Buffalo New York
Ms. People Stokes on the resolution. Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on this resolution. Many of us may recall a few years ago, Juneteenth was made a national holiday. And in fact, it was the first time that many people had actually heard of Juneteenth or even why people celebrate it and why it's such a heralded kind of opportunity to go through it culturally in your community. And for Buffalo to now be in the next coming week celebrating its 50th anniversary of Juneteenth speaks volumes of the black community and the culture that we carry in the great city of Buffalo. So I thought it important that people should understand that while there are some who are trying to deny history, some of us want to make sure that history is always put front and center so that folks don't forget where they came from and how things happened. It was in 1975 that as America prepared to celebrate its bicentennial, many African Americans questioned whether the promises made of freedom and equality truly included them in it at all. And so in Buffalo, people organized. They put civil rights organizations together, a political organization called BUILD organization, BUILD Unity, Independence, Liberty, and Dignity. And under the leadership of the late William Gator, then the executive director of the BUILD organization, began this process of celebrating our history and our culture through the celebration of Juneteenth. Many people worked on it for years, including my own family. The parade used to go down Jefferson. We used to do a little vending, selling sodas and things like that for people to cool themselves. And so it's a phenomenal opportunity for people to celebrate their culture. And I'm super honored to be a part of a community that understands the value of our history and who we are. Even if it's not all pretty, it's still ours. And we are the result of what it brought forth in this country. So again, thank you for the opportunity to explain the resolution. And I hope that people will join me in honoring not just the history of Juneteenth and the people who brought it, but the city of Buffalo and its community for honor for 50 years in a row. Thank you.
Thank 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 People
Madam Speaker, for the purposes of an announcement, the majority conference should be aware that there will be a need for conference first thing in the morning at 9.30 in the Speaker's Conference Room. 9.30 a.m. Majority Conference, Speaker's Conference Room. I now move that the assembly stand adjourned and that we reconvene at 9.30 a.m. Tuesday, June the 2nd. Tomorrow will be in the session day.
Ms. People Stokes' motion, the House stands adjourned.
Thank you. Thank you.