Assembly Live Stream

Madam Speaker, please call the house to order. The house will come to order. Good afternoon, colleagues. Wonderful to see you all today. In the absence of clergy, let us pause for a moment of silence. Visitors are invited to join members in the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. A quorum being present, the clerk will read the journal of Wednesday, June 3rd. Ms. Peebles-Stokes.

Without objections, I'll order. Thank you so much, colleagues and guests that are in the chambers with us today. I'd like to share a quote with you. This one is from former President John F. Kennedy. His words for us today. Change is the law of life, and those who look only to the past or the present are certainly going to miss the future. Again, these words from former President John F. Kennedy. Madam Speaker, members have on their desk a main calendar. and before any housekeeping or introductions, we're going to take up calling for committees to meet. Ways and Means is meeting right now. Upon their completion, we'll call for rules. These committees are going to produce an eight calendar, which we are going to take up today. We're going to begin our work on the floor today by taking up the following bills on consent. Rules report number 130 by Mr. Magnarelli. Rules report 148 by Ms. Simon. Rule Report 167 by Ms. Chandler Waterman, and Rule Report 321 by Ms. Tapia, Calendar 84 by Mr. McDonnell. We going to start to consent on page 12 with Rule Report 440 and we going to go right through to Rules Report 450 And then we're going to move to Rules Report 458 through 468. In addition, we're going to be taking up Rules Report 469 by Mr. Hastie. We will then take up the following bills on debate. Rules report by Mr. Cunningham, 389. Rules report 468 by Ms. Barrett. Calendar 423 by Ms. Clark. There may be a need for additional floor activity, Madam Speaker. If that is the case, we will announce at that time. However, that's a general outline. We've already called Ways and Means, so we won't need to go there. We'll wait until they finish their work, and we'll call rules. So in the meantime, I would imagine we'll go right to the list that I gave you, or the housekeeping and introductions. Thank you. We have no housekeeping this morning. We have an introduction by Mr. Santa Barbara.

Of course, on behalf of Mr. Santa Barbara, the speaker and all members, a welcome to our wonderful young people from Union College, from the women's ice hockey team. We welcome you to the chamber, extending to you the privileges of the floor. Coach and players, congratulations to you on your successful endeavors, especially being able to go to the Olympics. That's something special. We see your medal. So congratulations on all your successes. Really, it's just wonderful to be able to amplify on an international stage, folks from right here in our local area. So thank you so very much for joining us today and best wishes for your future endeavors Thank you so much Thank you so very much for joining us today and best wishes for your future endeavors Thank you so much Ms. Chandler Waterman for the purpose of an introduction.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Yes, on behalf of Ms. Chandler Waterman, Ms. Romero, the speaker and all members, welcome Ms. Mitchell to the assembly chamber, extending to you the privileges of the floor, hoping you enjoy our proceedings today. It's always wonderful to see sisters in service here in our Assembly Chamber. Greater service, greater progress, exemplifies everything Sigma Gamma Rho does every single day. We hope you enjoy our proceedings again, and thank you so very much for joining us. Madam Speaker, could you please call the Rules Committee to the Speaker's Conference Room? Rules Committee to the Speaker's Conference Room. Rules Committee members, Speaker's Conference Room. Page 3, Rules Report 130. Clerk will read. Assembly Number 10415A, Rules Report Number 130, Mr. Magnarelli. An act to amend the public service law. Read the last section. This act shall take effect immediately. Clerk will record the vote. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any other votes? Announce the results. Ayes, 128. Nays, 0. The bill is passed. Page 4, Rules Report 148. Clerk will read. Senate No. 9907, Rules Report No. 148, Senator Bochner. An act to amend the Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law. Read the last section. This act shall take effect immediately. The clerk will record the vote. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. 167. Clerk will read. Assembly number 11385A, Rules Report number 167, Committee on Rules, Ms. Chandler Waterman. An act to amend Chapter 192 of the Laws of 2011. On a motion by Ms. Chandler Waterman, 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. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any other votes Announce the results Ayes 129 Nays 0 The bill is passed. Page 9, Rules Report 321. Clerk will read. Assembly number 1057, Rules Report number 321, Ms. Tapia, an act to amend the general business law. On a motion by Ms. Tapia 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 Thank you. Thank you. Are there any other votes? Announce the results. Ayes, 129. Nays, 0. The bill is passed. Page 24, calendar number 84. Clerk will read. Assembly number 2321A, calendar number 84, Mr. McDonald, an act to amend the public officer's law. Read the last section. This act shall take effect on the 90th day. The clerk will record the vote. Thank you Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Are there any other votes? Announce the results. Ayes 130, nays 0. The bill is passed. On consent, page 12, Rules Report 440, clerk will read. Assembly number 11550, Rules Report 440, Committee on Rules, Mr. Rivera, an act to amend the judiciary law. This bill is laid aside. Assembly number 11557, Rules Report number 441, Committee on Rules, Ms. Walker, an act to amend the election law. This bill is laid aside. Assembly number 675D, Rules Report number 442, Ms. Cruz, an act to amend the civil rights law. This bill is laid aside. Assembly number 2121A, Rules Report 443, Ms. Walker, an act to amend the election law. This bill is laid aside. Assembly number 3954B, Rules Report number 444, Mr. Raga, an act to amend the election law. This bill is laid aside. Assembly number 5404C, Rules Report number 445, Mr. Stern, an act to amend the general municipal law. 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 Are there any other votes Announce the results. Ayes 133, nays 0. The bill is passed. Assembly number 5846B, Rules Report number 447, Mr. Gibbs, an act to amend the election law. This bill is laid aside. Assembly number 10050A, Rules Report number 450, Ms. Shimsky, an act to amend the transportation law. This bill is laid aside. Assembly number 11538, Rules Report number 458, Ms. Lee, an act to amend the military law. 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 133 Nays 0 The bill is passed Assembly number 11539 Rules Report number 459 Committee on Rules Mr Alvarez An act to amend the education law. Read the last section. This act shall take effect July 1st, 2026. The clerk will record the vote. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any other votes? Announce the results. Ayes, 133. Nays, 0. The bill is passed. Assembly number 11540, Rules Report number 460, Committee on Rules, Mr. Powers. An act to amend the alcoholic beverage control law. 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 132, nays 1. The bill is passed. Assembly number 11547, Rules Report number 462, Committee on Rules, Ms. People Stokes. An act to amend the state finance law. Read the last section. This act shall take effect immediately. The clerk will record the vote. Thank you. Thank you. . Thank you. Thank you. Ayes 134, nays 0. The bill is passed. Assembly number 11555, Rules Report 464, Committee on Rules, Ms. Pfeffer-Amato, an act to amend the general municipal law on the retirement and social security law. Read the last section. This act shall take effect July 1, 2026. The clerk will record the vote. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Are there any other votes Announce the results. Ayes 134, nays 0. The bill is passed. Assembly number 11556, Rules Report 465, Committee on Rules, Mr. Conrad. an act in relation to directing the New York State Energy and Development Authority to establish pilot programs. Read the last action. This act shall take effect immediately. The clerk will record the vote. Mr. Conrad to explain his vote.

I will be voting in the affirmative. Mr. Conrad in the affirmative. Ms. People Stokes to explain her vote.

Ms. Peebles-Stokes in the affirmative. Are there any other votes? Announce the results. Ayes 134, nays 0. The bill is passed. Assembly number 11558, Rules Report 466, Committee on Rules, Mr. Kim. and act to amend Chapter 704 of the Laws of 1991. Read the last section. This act shall take effect immediately. The clerk will record the vote. Thank you Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Are there any other votes? Announce the results. Ayes 134, nays 0. The bill is passed. Assembly number 11559, Rules Report 467, Committee on Rules, Mr. Pretlow, an act to amend the New York State Medical Care Facilities Finance Agency Act. Read the last section. This act shall take effect immediately. The clerk will record the vote. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Are there any other votes? Announce the results. Ayes 134, nays 0. The bill is passed. Assembly number 11560, Rules Report 468, Committee on Rules Miss Barrett, an act to amend the environmental conservation law. This bill is laid aside. Assembly number 11561, Rules Report 469, Committee on Rules Miss Miss Barrett, an act to amend Chapter 747 of the laws of 2023. This bill is laid aside. Page 17, Rules Report 469. Clerk will read. Assembly number 11561, Rules Report 469, Committee on Rules, Mr. Hastie, an act to amend Chapter 747 of the Laws of 2023. Read the last section. This act shall take effect immediately. A party vote's been requested. Ms. Walsh.

Thank you. Mr. Fall.

Mr. Palmisano to explain his vote.

Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Gibbs to explain his vote.

Mr. Gibbs in the affirmative. Thank you. Are there any other votes? Announce the results. Ayes 96, nays 38. The bill is passed. Page 10, Rules Report 389. Clerk will read. Senate 1327A, Rules Report 389. Senator Parker, an act to amend the public service law. An explanation has been requested. Colleagues, we're on debate. Mr. Cunningham.

Mr. Gray.

Will the sponsor yield? For Mr. Gray, the sponsor will yield. Sponsor yields.

Mr. Palmisano.

Will the sponsor yield?

Sponsor yield.

Good afternoon. I lose track of time, so I'm not sure.

There are, yes.

That is correct.

They could do that right now if they wanted to. They certainly can, but this body can also do the same through a legislative process.

Is that right? No, it guarantees a minimum standard that will be determined by the PSE. Again, currently right now, to your point, there are about seven utility companies across the state. They all don't have a minimum standard, so this would create one minimum standard for them to operate and be governed by.

The bill states it could be as low as $10. It doesn't have to be $10.

The PSC will determine that.

It's taken into effect arrears and their current balance and that person's ability to pay based on life circumstances, whether that be income, whether that be lost income or other expenses and obligations.

No, that wouldn't affect other ratepayers that aren't a party agreement. obviously that would be a conversation of what that person's ability to pay is, what the arrears is, and working on a reasonable timeline to get that arrears caught up so that they're fully paid off.

The PSC would have that determination to make that determination.

We are empowering the PSC as well as utilities and customers to make that decision in consultation with each other.

No, because the arrears currently exist, so that debt already exists. So this is trying to get them out of that arrear set and get them caught up.

Are you referring to the PSE?

I think this gives them the flexibility to make a determination what that minimum stand looks like across all utilities.

No.

I don't believe so because, again, we're talking about customers who are currently in arrears. Whether that be arrears for $500 and you mentioned $1,000, that debt currently exists and it has not been passed on to other consumers. But it would help the customer who is in arrears to find a floor in which they can make a predictable amount of a payment every month to get out of arrears and to move forward with their utility service and with closing out their debt.

No, we wouldn't create a tracking system. Under this bill, a customer on a payment plan cannot have a service terminated except in limited circumstances.

Repeat that question one more time just so I'm clear.

No, that doesn't. In fact, as part of the Home Energy Fair Pricing Protection Act, that would actually ensure that that doesn't happen.

I would say that the PSC is going to create that scope of what that agreement looks like in terms of making sure that that individual adheres to the minimum payment that was required to get them out of arrears.

As far as I know, the arrears currently still stands. This is giving them an off-ramp to catch up on those arrears.

What you're doing is you're saying that the debt that is owed, we're going to find a minimum reasonable standard in which one can address that, particularly, again, given the high cost of utilities across the state.

It gives a floor, but it also gives a standard across different utilities so that it's predictable. You can't pick a utility company, but we can certainly have the PSA pick the floor in which we allow folks to get out of arrears.

No, because they're paying for it. They're paying for those services. And this bill only applies to residential customers correct Not commercial That is correct Okay Mr Cunningham I thank you for your time very much

On the bill.

Read the last section.

A party vote has been requested. Ms. Walsh.

Thank you, Mr. Fall.

record the vote Thank you. Thank you. . Thank you. Thank you. Are there any other votes? Announce the results. Ayes 95, nays 40. The bill is passed. Page 16, rules report 468. Clerk will read. Assembly number 11560, Rules Report 468, Committee on Rules, Ms. Barrett, an act to amend the environmental conservation law. An explanation has been requested. Ms. Barrett, can we have quiet in the chamber, please? Thank you.

Mr. Gray?

Will the sponsor yield?

Sponsor yield.

What's that? Oh, yes, the proceeding that the PSC is going through, yes, it's some months ago. Yep, 26-E-0045.

It has the broadest authority and can do things such as requiring utilities to create new service classifications. This does not, our bill does not conflict with the existing proceeding,

Correct. The proceeding will offer more insights while the moratorium is actually in place on what the next steps should be. Ultimately, though, we don't know how long that proceeding is going to take place, and we don't believe that the legislature, since all of us are hearing from our constituents on this issue, should wash our hands of this and wait for the PSC to complete their proceeding before we address this challenging issue of our time.

is this bill doing that that proceeding is not doing? I mean, that proceeding is exactly some of the concerns that are listed in this bill.

But not, they haven't put a pause on, so the pause is a critical piece.

It varies. Some of them have been taking several years. It's a long process.

Could be yours, correct?

Okay, so we already have the time that we need for the PSC to do their work according to that process, correct?

I'm sorry, I was hearing two people talking.

This is a proactive bill that takes action and makes sure that the legislature is reflecting what we're hearing in our communities from our constituents that want, you know, they want to understand, they want to see. We have no control over how long the PSC proceeding takes. We have no control over how long the NISO will take to approve these interconnections. We have communities that are creating their own moratorium, moratoria. This is our opportunity as state leaders to say we want to pause, we want to make sure that we're looking at this in a way that protects rate payers, which is one of our major priorities, protects the environment and looks at the economic ramifications of this.

I can't. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Could you repeat what you're saying?

Which will continue.

Do we know in order to get the connection, actually the physical connection to the grid, what follows that?

the NISO, once they get approval from the NISO.

I mean, it continues to be a long process.

How long does that take? How long does that take? I have no idea.

Right? At least a year. So we have minimum right now, we have

Is that correct?

Okay.

web hosting, streaming. Would the sponsor confirm one megawatt is fairly low threshold? Not what people commonly think of as a data center?

There are a number of different data centers. There are different parts of this bill that impact different data centers.

The intent of the bill is to focus on the largest data centers, which have been shown to use the most energy and water and contribute to most pollution. However, some elements of the bill, including the impact study in energy efficiency and renewable energy requirements, include medium-sized data centers. A one megawatt or more energy efficiency goals are what those impact in our bill. Five megawatt or more renewable energy standards and labor provisions are impacted. And the 20 megawatt or more is the moratorium, the new rate classification, and the host community benefits. So there are different parts of this omnibus bill that impact different size data centers.

It will not be impacted. I would say for the sake of this conversation, the one year is, I would, in my opinion, would say irrelevant at this point because we've already established the process to get connected and operating. That's before construction and procurement

So...

Yeah, no, it's the only thing that can't happen is the DEC approval process. Other things can be developed, things, conversations can be had. It's not, that's the only pause that we're bringing on here at this point.

Yeah, yes they should.

Yeah they can I mean you know the number we were trying to get the current number today And it always in flux because there are different applications happening Yep So let walk through the timeline that you have that you keep speaking of which is the one moratorium that you have

You have an impact study, which is 18 months. Right.

It's not. The moratorium is not the same as a rate case. That's just not accurate. Okay. No, I'm talking about the impact statement that you have in your bill. The impact statement is 18 months to completion. right, and the moratorium is a year. Are they concurrent timeframes? Yes. They're concurrent. Okay. So the department shall, so in the section, I think it's page two, section one, says the department shall not issue any permit certificate registration or other form of approval for a large data center not less than three months before the issuance of such permit. So is that after the one year? So it adds another three months? So it's a hearing requirement. It could happen during the moratorium, or I think the 18 months was put in there. just to have some will room for report and for public hearing, being able to make sure that all of that was able to happen? Right. So you're talking about not issuing a permit. So it's not less than three months from the issue of the permit or certificate. They have to go through a public hearing process, registration process and everything? Right? Public hearing requirement? Yeah. Okay. Is that after the year? So it's, we're talking about 15 months? So from the time that the bill is signed into law from three months forward, you would be required to have a public hearing? Right. So is that during the year moratorium they can have these public hearings? Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Okay. So we're going to go over to Section 310107, the Environmental Impact Report. Right, okay, so that talks about active proposals for new data centers and projections for future growth of data centers. Is that a moving target? No, that's a moment in time. I mean, obviously nobody can... Moment in time, right. And so that's an ever-changing, that's a dynamic situation. Is that correct? I'm sorry, I'm losing some of your words here. That is a dynamic situation, right? Dynamic. It you know this is we looking at this year as an opportunity and part of the outcome of this process may be you know that they want to look at other things or they see oh this is an area that changing quickly or you know I think that part of the whole idea of you know of having a plan and working on a plan like this Right, but all I'm saying is that it is the consideration, and it's listed throughout the bill several times, about new data centers and projections for future growth of data centers. So all I'm saying is that's a dynamic situation that's ever-changing. You had the hearing, how many, when you had the hearing? October. And how many were on the docket at that point? You know, about 50% more. Now than there were back then. Yeah, more than there were nine months ago. So that's my point. And that's why we're doing, that's the urgency of doing this bill right now and making it immediately go into effect because things are happening quickly. Okay. Correct. But all I'm saying is that we will not, we'll capture, we have incomplete data. Right? You want your second 15, Mr. Gray? Yes, please. Okay. Because we'll have a dynamic situation. It's changing. So, future growth of data centers is undefinable. So, also under that section, the statewide report covering electricity use, water use, land use, pollution, electronic waste, it talks about proposed and projected data centers, which is a moving endpoint. We've discussed that. These provisions all talk about the impacts, but are we not talking about any of the economic benefits that come along with this type of development? Absolutely, we are talking about those. Where is it talking in the bill about the impacts? Okay. The positive impacts. My trustee team here will give us the citation in a minute. There's jobs associated with it. Absolutely. We worked with Labor to develop this. I'm going to interject right there. 36I, in consultation with the Empire State Development Corporation and the Authority's Budget Office, the amount of public funds received by data centers, including in the form of state local tax incentives, including but not limited to payment in lieu of tax arrangements, sales and tax incentives, property tax. It's all very much part of the process. So that's talking about what they're going to, how they're going to be incentivized. And we're talking about measuring how they're going to be incentivized. We're still not talking about the positive benefits that these projects can potentially bring, right? There's construction jobs. In labor, I will say, you mentioned labor, but there's labor as opposed to this bill. Many labor organizations are opposed to this bill. So I don't know what kind of consultation you had with them, but they're opposed. But there's jobs that are associated with them. There's a tax base that's associated with them. Local community benefits, I know it's talked about in here, and somebody else will address that, but that is a function commonly done by IDAs and local development agencies. but this bill really doesn't talk about any of the positive impacts of the data centers. I disagree with you completely I think this bill covers all of those things Okay So subsection 2 requires an analysis of impacts on prime farmland Is that correct Analysis of what? Impacts on farmland. The analysis of impacts on prime farm and mineral soil types. Is that correct? Yes. Okay. So, I can certainly appreciate that. I represent a lot of agriculture. But section 19-105 of the same bill pushes data centers toward renewable energy projects. Is that correct? There is a renewable requirement, yes. That's insignificant, I would say. So would the sponsor acknowledge that utility-scale solar, for instance, takes up prime farm land? I can't hear what you just said. Okay, sorry, I couldn't hear your whole sentence there. But yes, this is intended to be on-site or power purchase agreements. Right. So, and what is, like, a megawatt of demand, what does that take for acreage or how many megawatts in solar? I mean, that depends, and that is an issue that I think each project will figure out whether they're going to generate nearby or there's something that they have a renewable source nearby or whether they're going to be a purchase agreement. Right, but if we have to have incremental expansion of solar projects, renewable projects for this bill, that is going to significantly... I think we want to see expansion of renewables. We just don't want to see them on farmland, and I agree with you. I also have a lot of wonderful, beautiful farms in my assembly district, and that's not the only place. We have a lot of places that could be solar projects. Okay. So I think it's Section 4, the rate classifications. I think it goes through section 3, 4, and 5, part 4, I think it is. It says sections 3 through 5 require utilities create a separate rate class for large data centers. Correct? Yes. Okay. And so would we say when we're talking about rate, And we're talking about assigning all the incremental increases in supply costs to data centers through that process. Is that correct? Yes. Right. Okay. But when supply costs go up, they go up accordingly in all rate classes. Is that correct? Usually. Okay, so we're not necessarily going to really offset another rate class because they're all going to go up accordingly. They're all what? I didn't hear that. They're all going to go up accordingly? Well, they will be paying the data centers. We'll be paying the appropriate rates to their new rate class, and that's the whole idea of creating a new rate class. It's not the same as a residential rate class or a current commercial rate class or business rate class. Okay. Let's go to the renewable section. That would be 19-103. So it requires data centers of 5 megawatts or more to procure at least 90% of the electricity through renewable energy by 2040, right? Right, by 2040, there's an interim goal. So would you confirm that that is in fact renewables and not zero emission? The language in the bill is renewables, yes. Okay, so New York State, currently its fuel mix, about 20% of it comes from nuclear power. That is a carbon-free, zero emission source. and as we speak, we're projected to increase with construction, just announced by the governor, by 2032 under this mandate. Would you say that that is not available? Any of that power is not available? No, I actually would not say that because of power purchase agreements. The power purchase agreement would allow a data center to cover all of its electricity demand with renewable energy and still be connected to the grid, which provides power without interruption and can be sourced from other energy sources. But you're requiring a power PPA to be done. A power what? PPA, power purchase agreement. Right. You're requiring a PPA with a renewable energy source, right? So essentially you're financing that makes renewable energy sources bankable. That's actually a goal is to have more renewable energy, yes. I mean, we need baseload energy. So shouldn't we be looking at making nuclear just as bankable, financeable as renewables? There are a number of different ways. I think, what was it, green chips that will allow these power plants to use these data centers, to use nuclear power if that's connected to the grid that they're working with? So the molecules don't know exactly where they're going. Correct, but you're requiring these data centers to do a... So, okay, they don't know where they're coming from. How are we tracking how they're getting their power from renewables? It's in the contract. The contract. So they have to guarantee renewable. They have to have a power purchase agreement with renewable, correct? That's the only way to track it. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So, again, we're making renewables financing. It's not doing anything for our baseload generation, which is what we need right now. We need baseload, not intermittent power that renewables provide. So, again, they're prohibited from doing a power purchase agreement with nuclear? No. They're not forbidden, are they? No, not at all. Okay, your bill says renewable. And I asked you about emission-free. Zero emission. The power purchase agreements are separate from I mean you could be meet your 30 renewable goals and the rest get the rest of your energy through a power purchase agreement which would be from whatever source the grid is getting their energy from Okay, it ramps up to 90% renewables. Right. Okay, so 90% renewables essentially means that you are eliminating zero emission. No. You're not? No. Nothing prevents the data centers from using nuclear power. So a data center, when it gets through this whole moratorium, they can do a power purchase agreement with a nuclear facility for all of their power. Is that correct? 30% needs to be renewables at the beginning, at the outset. And what's it at the end? 90%. Okay, so how much power are they going to be getting from – what kind of power purchase agreement are they going to be doing with a nuclear facility? I'm sorry? What kind of a power purchase agreement are they going to be doing with a nuclear facility? Yeah, and if they're independently generating, it can be 100% nuclear. There's nothing that cuts nuclear out of this. So if they're behind the meter, they can be generating. So this requirement for renewables is not hard and fast? Is that what you're saying? No, it's hard and fast if you're involved. I would characterize it. Okay, so 19-103. So here, let me explain it this way. The data centers are fuel agnostic. You can get your energy through a power purchase agreement from any kind of source. Okay, so why do we have renewables in the bill? Because that's a piece of it. That's not the entire energy source for them. Okay, line 23, number three. At least 90% of electricity consumption is derived from renewable energy sources by 2040 and thereafter. That is not just an inconsequential amount, right? So we're essentially carving out zero emission. Let me just go. So we are incentivizing renewables. That's part of our intention. But you can have any power source that you want. And that's just that percentage of it at the outset. And that's that simple. Yeah, it's essentially. So you said early on that it's renewable and not zero emission. So essentially what we're doing is we are, the governor is embarking on an aggressive nuclear program, and this is walling it off. This is what? Walling it off. No, it's not. So here's how I visualize this, and I'm not a money person in that broadly sense, but it's kind of like carbon offsets. you're buying the offset of using renewables and you're using what you need because of the grid that you're, you know, what's going on at the grid that you're attaching to. But that how does that make more sense to you Not when you say 90 has to be renewable but we cover that Other people will cover that as well I sure

In terms of the community host benefits, how are these benefits that a data center must provide chosen? Were these requested by municipalities or driven by other goals? I'm sorry. Sure. When you put your head down, it's hard to hear. That's okay. I'll repeat. Can you repeat that, please? Yes. In terms of the community host benefits, how are the benefits that a data center must provide chosen? Were these requested by municipalities, or were they driven by other goals? How did they come up with these qualifications?

Okay. So if a municipality, if a data center wanted to come into a municipality, and then they determine that the community doesn't want heat pumps, they want a road, or they're looking for a water and sewer project, the town would have that flexibility to work on any type of host agreement they want, because a lot of times IDAs work in payment and taxes and they work out packages, that that local municipality would have the ability to construct that, it wouldn't be dictated from the state on what that package would look like? That is the intention, yes.

Okay. The benefit fund has no stated cap on scope, cost, or duration. How would that work then as far as a local municipality? Would the state have to determine how much a fund would be available for these projects based on the size and scope of the project, or how would that work exactly? You're asking about the host benefit?

I want to kind of go to a different direction. I did want to touch, I hit the community host benefit, but another I'd rather like to focus on really with some of my time, and I know Mr. Gregg talked about it, the terminology that's talking about renewable energy. And you have those thresholds in here. 30 percent, one-third has to be from renewable energy systems. Then it gets up to 90 percent. Wouldn't it be better to have this language saying zero emission rather than renewable energy? because if it's just renewable energy, that wouldn't even include nuclear, would it?

I can appreciate that. I think my concern with the plan is what the message it's going to send to the private sector that might want to invest in New York if they see there's not just a one-year moratorium, then other delays because of the permitting process that could take two and a half to three years. Why would they want to come to New York and invest here when they can go to a state like Virginia that is welcoming them and thriving there? So that's part of my concern about the plan we have in front of us. You can certainly comment if you want, but I can otherwise.

I'm back to the renewables. So I know you said, okay, wait, we can look at nuclear. Maybe we've got to change the zero emission. I understand that, but as we've discussed on the floor, as I've talked about on the floor, by 2040 we need to be net zero generation. That wasn't changed as far as the Changes we made with the CLCPA, the nuclear technology is not necessarily there to get us to there.

So when it says at least 90% of its electricity consumption is derived from renewable energy systems for 2040 and thereafter, you're saying that doesn't exclude natural gas from being used to power the... It does not.

So on the timeline, just to get back to what my colleague brought up, so we know it's a one year for the moratorium. It can be up to 18 months on the last part of it. So we're basically looking at two and a half to three years before a data center can be sited here in New York State. Is that probably close and accurate?

Okay. Well, I'm just reading where it says, you know, they have to report 18 months. Then you have the other hearings. Okay. If that's what you say, I agree. I did want to talk about if we are using renewable to power these operations, you know, if it's wind or solar. That's not going to really – these technologies aren't going to work for data centers because they need to be powered 24-7, right? So is it really saying renewable resources, unless it's nuclear, a functioning work nuclear facility that powers dispatchable baseload generation 24-7? Is wind and solar really going to be even an option for these companies coming in? Or are they going to look at this and be kind of worried about that opportunity?

And from your perspective, you don't think this policy that we have in here with renewable conflicts with what the governor announced on more nuclear expansion? You think that they go hand-in-hand on this issue?

so if they want to build their own grid, their own power, But instead of saying, OK, you just build what you want, the 500 megawatts, maybe have discussions with them saying you double that capacity, so 1,000 megawatts or 2,000 megawatts to help meet that shortage in the grid. Wouldn't that be a good community host type agreement we should be looking at as an option? Isn't that a feasible option rather than looking at other options like through reclassifications?

All right. Ms. Barrett, as always, I really appreciate your time. I know you put a lot of time and energy in it. No pun intended on this project.

Yes. I have some concerns about this legislation. As was discussed, I know there's a PSC proceeding going on right now. And I believe we should let that play out.

Because you have the stakeholders at the table. You have the PSC, you have the NISO, you have the utilities, you have the data centers, who are all communicating with each other to say, what's the best plan moving forward? I think let the experts come up with a plan instead of the legislature saying, no, moratorium, this is our suggestion for a plan. I mean, I think the legislature could be at the table, but we should be compelling them on what they need to do. We should let the experts work that out. And I think the broader perspective of my problem is what kind of message are we sending to the business community? To me, when you hear moratorium, I think there seems to be a hostility towards data centers. We hear people saying about, what are we sending to the business community? Don't come to New York. Don't invest here. That's not going to help private sector or investment right here in New York State. I'm very concerned about that, but we've got states like Virginia that are growing and welcoming these businesses and bringing tax revenue, bringing good paying jobs, bringing host benefits like increased property taxes and things of that nature. That's what's happening, but this is going to, I think, discourage that, and I think there are other states who aren't using this are going to benefit from it. I am concerned about, and I know we've had a discussion about, I don't think this is an all of the above approach. When you look at 90% generation from renewable, I don't see how natural gas is a part of that discussion. I don't see how nuclear is a part of that discussion, because right now it says renewable. And I think that's something that could be easily corrected on that point. But at the end of the day, a data center needs to operate 24-7. Other operations have to operate 24-7. If we're saying to them they can't use natural gas, they're not going to come here, period. So we can do all this for naught. They're not going to come here because they need reliable base load generation. And maybe that's the ultimate goal is so they don't come here. And I just think that's problematic moving forward. And I think that's something that needs to be considered as we do this because, I mean, look at Micron. If we told Micron they had the power, their energy demands, strictly using renewable resources, they wouldn't be here. You better believe they're going to be using natural gas in a lot of it. So why is it OK for Micron to use natural gas but not data centers where this bill seems to be going in 2040 because we still have a net generation of zero so no natural gas generation by 2040 So I just think there's too many problems with this bill. Obviously, the message is sent to the business community for investment here in New York State. Obviously, the message ascends on what type of power we need to power projects that need reliable baseload generation. It seems like all the policies that come out of this house ignore that we need more reliable baseload generation. Let's build on the generation we have. And that's why I believe the suggestion, I think, is a good idea. I'll keep talking about it. I only speak for myself. Maybe others disagree. If these companies, and I've talked to data centers, if you want to come into a community, you need 500 megawatts, you've got to build out 1,000 megawatts or 2,000 megawatts to meet that shortness, that gap in the grid, because we know the gap in the grid is there, and the NISO has told us, and we can address that. And again, when you talk about businesses, when they talk about energy policy, they care about two things. Is it affordable and reliable? and having to rely on wind and solar, renewable energy to power your operations is going to be a non-starter for this type of business investment. So we can put the moratorium in these things are really going to make it much more difficult. So, Madam Speaker, based on that and another issues, I'm going to be voting in a negative on this bill and urge my colleagues to do the same. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

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

Sponsor yields.

A what portion?

I'm sorry?

Study.

I'm sorry.

Yeah, it's terrible.

A study section?

Okay. That's part of the year long, and that will be a public component and then a report or presentation.

The public.

It'll be released as a report on their website.

Yeah.

Well, we've now been waiting for the PSC to do their proceeding, and we don't have any sense of how long that's going to be. I don't, you know, lots of people wait for the DEC to do things, and it takes a lot longer. So, I mean, I think our feeling is that we as legislators who represent the people at the most grassroots level of the state, that, you know, that we should be stepping forward and doing something to take, you know, to address this issue. So that's why we're doing this one year, starts immediately, pretty straightforward, and a plan. And, you know, we really do, you know, we frequently talk about, oh, I wish we'd thought about this beforehand. And here we are actually thinking about it beforehand and starting to address it. So we have a plan. As we seeing the growth happen here Okay so you saying we have a plan This is our plan this you know taking a year for the DEC to look at and all of the you know, these elements sort of address where the state is. I mean, I, you know, we could let the agencies do this, but I don't know about you, but I feel like I owe my constituents a hands-on role. We hear from them all the time about their concerns about data centers, and, you know, they're concerned about what it's going to cost them as ratepayers. And so this is our opportunity as, you know, as Assembly members and as the legislature, because this is at this point a two-house bill, so the Senate is involved as well, you know, to say, okay, this is what we want to see happen.

But we laid out what we want to see happen.

I mean, did we ask data centers what their thoughts were?

Some combination of all those things. I mean, we did the hearing in last October. We heard, we got input. You know, some of the labor union representatives were part of the conversation in developing this legislation. Yeah, that's been part of what I see my role as chair was to sort of collect a lot of information and help form and develop what we should be doing. I mean, again, as I said in my opening remarks, I mean, we hear constantly from people about data centers, and we've been doing the due diligence and having, as you know, it's supposed to be the last day of session. And so really, it's our time to be able to go back home and say, yes, we are looking at this. We're making sure the state is committed to having a plan and go forward.

This bill, yes. From a lot of, yes, those.

I'm not talking so much about cost. I think there's a $1 million threshold, I believe. The five megawatts.

Five megawatts.

Yes.

No, I mean the large ones are the 20, but these are different sort of thresholds in the process. And they're different. What we're asking for is different parts of this bill that impact different size data centers. So it's really most of the data centers.

it's five megawatts and above, right? And now we do have a number of smaller data centers, but obviously they're not going hit a, maybe not hit a million dollar threshold.

Yes, yes.

because if the moratorium goes away, so does the language in the bill.

It's the separate rate class. That is a bill that I carried. And the host community benefits and the labor protections are all different elements of this. One part doesn't go away.

Yes.

Yes. Yes, if that's the whole point, yes.

You can apply, but DEC is not going to act on them. So do that. You know, the steps go right up until that.

Are you on the bill, sir, or you have a question for me?

No.

No.

Not at all. I think the opposite. I mean, it's a game plan that says, you know, we're working with you here, and, you know, I know that there's concern from, you know, some of the locals that this, you know, this is scary. It sounds like it's a stop, but it's a one-year. As I said earlier, we had a bill that was discussed for three years. that you know might well have been the playbook that you're suggesting but this is one year Thank you Okay and so my last question for you would be in that vein why does the state have to be the one to put the moratorium in

This does not prevent the local municipalities from putting in a moratorium if they want, But it's our approach to having a statewide look at this. And like I keep saying, it's protect our ratepayers plan for the future, but it doesn't keep the local municipalities from doing that if that's what they want to do.

Putting a what?

It's a moratorium.

I'm going to say a pause. You can say a ban.

They are not on a pause.

Yes, those are not affected by the moratorium.

Mr. Bologna?

Would the sponsor yield?

Yes.

Yes. I'm sorry, the last, to do what with the CAP? I didn't.

Yeah, I heard that part.

Got it. Okay. Yeah.

Same, same. So it's great.

what they do.

So it's not, the locals can do what they want to do. This is not going to

for us here in New York State. Oh, I see.

we support local control in some matters

Yeah, I certainly understand that.

No.

I guess I'm not sure what your question is.

No, I mean, data centers are presenting a whole new series of challenges. The water use, which has been problematic in certain parts of the country. Obviously, the cost and the energy use. These are things that we should be looking at. Not that we didn't have data centers coming forward in 20, 40, 30, 40 years ago. So this is the time, at least. Maybe we should have done it sooner, but this is when we're doing it.

This is just, I mean, no. But this is something that could contribute in a huge way. I mean, that's what we came out of the hearing that we had in October, and my own legislation on creating a new rate class was one solution to that. But, of course, it's not the only thing.

I mean, I think the market is going to kind of do its thing in terms of the green chips and if people want to create their own energy sources.

We're not, I mean, I don't think we're putting our thumb on the scale particularly in not allowing the market to do its thing. I mean at least for a year we actually just going to get rid of the scale altogether It a year yeah Okay So then there one last thing I want to get on the utility rate classification portion

I'm sorry you lost me.

Because the feeling was that it was important to look at this data center issue in a little more holistic way. way and you know we said created an omnibus bill that that took three different pieces of maybe four different pieces of legislation and put it in one of them was that the rate classification one of them was addressing the host benefit issues and other one was looking at you know that the renewable energy aspects and then you know our own call to only do this for one year. So that's where the bill came from. Well, I appreciate it. Sounds good. Thank you very

Thank you. Mr. Jensen?

Developers know it. In the moment New York creates uncertainty, the capital that funds that investment will move elsewhere. And when those projects move elsewhere, the capital, when the projects move elsewhere, they're rarely going to come back. Those projects can go to Virginia and Texas and Ohio and North Carolina and overseas to China and other places. The digital economy will not wait for Albany because the digital economy does not take a moratorium and does not take a legislative recess. The globalized digital economy moves at the speed of innovation. For generations, the community I call home in Rochester was one of America's greatest centers of innovation. Kodak and Xerox Bosch and Lomb world research institutions with advanced manufacturing optics imaging technology But my community knows what happens when industries change And unfortunately, we know what happens when innovation moves elsewhere. We know what happens when policymakers fail to recognize where the economy is heading. And because we know that history, we should be very cautious. We should be cautious about erecting any barriers to the next generation of economic development. The truth is artificial intelligence is not going to go away. Cloud computing is not going to go away. Data storage is not going to go away. The demand for digital infrastructure is only increasing, and data centers are expanding across our country and across the world because of the growing demand for AI and those cloud services and a digital commerce. States across the nation are debating how to accommodate that growth while balancing the very important energy environmental concerns that this bill looks to address. And the question before us is not whether or not these data centers are going to be built. The question is whether they will be built here. The question is whether the jobs will be here. The question is whether the tax base will be here, and whether the industries supporting these data centers will be here, whether this ecosystem of technological innovation will be here. We need to ask ourselves, does New York want to simply consume the services while someone else captures that investment? You can't enjoy the benefits of something you've never planted, and you cannot harvest a crop you've never seeded. Government's job is not to stop progress. Government's job is to guide it, to shape it, to regulate it responsibly, but not to freeze it in place. Because while we're waiting for perfect certainty, the rest of the world will keep moving. And I understand the concerns that the sponsor and a lot of advocates for this bill bring up. The questions surrounding energy consumption and grid reliability and environmental impacts, impacts, those are legitimate concerns. They're concerns that I and a lot of the folks that I represent have. And they deserve serious answers. And they deserve serious policy responses. But a moratorium is not a policy. As a state, we've spent years talking about becoming a hub of innovation. We do it in this chamber, in the other place down the hall, and below us in the executive chamber. We've talked about attracting technological investment. We've talked about creating good-paying jobs. We've talked about retaining young talent. We've talked about competing with other states and being an economic leader. We can't stand at a ribbon-cutting celebration that celebrates innovation one day and then impose moratoriums on the infrastructure supporting that innovation the next. That's not a coherent economic strategy. That sends mixed signals. And businesses notice, investors notice, and entrepreneurs notice. Startup founders notice, venture capitalists notice, the people selecting the sites notice. We should build infrastructure while we protect communities. We should attract investment while protecting ratepayers. And we should encourage innovation while maintaining environmental standards. Why would we prefer that investment go to states with weaker standards and less oversight? If our values really do matter then our goal should be to demonstrate that growth and responsibility can be something that coexists not to push development beyond our borders And that what a moratorium will do The future will be built elsewhere while we wait for the moratorium to expire. And the question we need to answer is whether or not New York intends to help build the future, or whether we are content to watch from the sidelines where other states do it. For those reasons, I will be voting in the negative. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Will the sponsor yield for just a couple of questions? Will the sponsor yield?

Didi, how are you? These may be redundant and they may have already been covered, but Is there an exclusion for projects that have already been started and are getting close to breaking ground?

And what is that exclusion?

And does the exclusion take effect when this bill is passed and signed into law?

I'm presuming that's going to happen. Apologies. I'm sorry. Did I... So the effective date is the signing of the legislation if it passes?

And out of curiosity, I'm a firm believer in local control and local direction and decision-making with folks that have as great backgrounds and information and intelligence as we do here in the New York State Assembly and in the New York State Senate. You've labeled this legislation as Responsible Data Center Development Act, the inference being that it would be irresponsible if we allowed local people and local governments and EDCs and IDAs to make up their mind.

Okay, that's the only questions I've got on the bill, Madam Speaker.

Why, thank you. Pure and simple, we have a data center that's proposed and is very close to completion through a lot of investigation and thought by the EDC and by local governments, both the towns and the county. And I'm a firm believer, as I just mentioned, that local control is best. And I think that this legislation is, frankly, irresponsible and an invasion of local control. We've done that with solar panels across the state of New York. We've taken prime farmland out of production, sacrificing green crops for green energy. And the state has told locals that they have no control over where the solar panels are going to go. Now the state is trying to jump in and indicate that we, they, not me, and not many of my colleagues here that the state knows best in terms of data centers I think that an incorrect and a fallacy and I going to urge my colleagues based upon local control to oppose this legislation

Thank you.

Madam Speaker, will the sponsor yield? Will the sponsor yield?

Sponsor yields.

Yeah, our focus has been on what they're doing, not where they're located. So, no, we haven't – that just wasn't a focus of the bill.

Yes. Yes.

We'll get that for you. Sorry.

Yeah, public research institutions, and I don't have my first notes, but anyway, we'll get the citation for you.

Research institutions.

If they are a public research institution.

And it's used for research purposes.

Okay.

No.

On the bill.

Thank you.

Mr. Slater?

Yes.

Thank you so much. Just a couple of clarifying questions, if I may. And forgive me if you said this earlier and I may have missed it. Do we know how many data centers currently exist in New York?

And where is that number?

Between 150 and?

How about like large-scale data centers? Do we know how many of those we have in this state right now?

There's now a little over 40.

And I just, again, I'm trying to understand if there's a true proliferation of data centers that are coming through New York, right? So we're saying that there are between 150 and 500, and then you talked about a queue, which I wanted to get to in a second. Under your law, under your proposal, we just don't know how many are operating right now that would fit the large data center definition?

Yeah, but he wants to know. I mean, we can get that information. I mean, this is about

Yeah, because you see, you know, I think obviously data centers are making national news. They are proliferating. There's no question. I mean, NISO has told us that. Right. And so I'm just trying to quantify what we are dealing with so I can be able to articulate that back to my constituents. Sure. And you talked about the queue. So do we know how many applications are currently pending for additional data centers? Not existing, but ones that are not currently operating.

48 large, and then do we know just cumulatively, including those that wouldn't make that definition, how many there are? So we don't know the ones that are connected to public power, and, you know, that we don't have that information at this point.

Does that change under this proposal at all?

I mean, I think that's part of our intent here is to have the state, you know, take a look in one year, you know, pause, take a year and look at the whole phenomenon.

And you've said before, I think to some of my colleagues, that there is some direction in what we want the state to explore and examine in this proposal, correct?

And I just want to go back to what we were talking about, but ensuring that we know the small-scale connection rate is not one of those things that we've given direction on.

Okay. You know, this is – you can read the bill.

We hit on this omnibus package of different aspects of it, but we didn't ask all the specific questions.

And, you know, when they make it public, if we haven't gotten those questions answered, you know, I think it's our opportunity to follow up on that. And let's explore that for a second if we can. So when they make that public, what's the timeline on when we expect to see a report for us to review?

I'm sorry?

Well, they'll finish in a year, the moratorium, and then they have 18 months to –

All right, 18 months.

I miss both. But the moratorium only lasts 12, so there's still going to be six months there potentially. where the moratorium will be lifted, and we wouldn't even have seen the report to evaluate what the next steps would be. Is that accurate?

Is that not problematic, that there's going to be a six-month window where the moratorium won't be in place, but we'll be awaiting the report?

Is a public hearing required in your proposal?

Does it dictate a number or locations of public hearings, where they're expected to be?

But potentially we could only be looking at one public hearing for the entire state when it comes to a statewide issue like data centers.

We've asked for five.

Yeah.

But we didn't ask for like regionalization or following the, you know,

We did ask for that. And, you know, just in my short time of working with PSC and NYSERDA as energy chair, they are very conscientious about trying to cover the state. Great I like to dig a little deeper into this for local governments So this bill provides a one moratorium hard stop correct What are the municipalities of New York required to do, if anything, during that one-year window?

So they don't have to...

I'm sorry, go ahead.

Okay, so they don't have to do any of their own examination of their own utilities, of their own local zoning, or anything like that.

Could they also pass, because we've just established essentially that there's going to be a minimum of a six-month window where the moratorium won't be in effect before the final report is provided. are they able to then, in that same timeline, are they able to pass an additional moratorium locally, or are they barred from doing that?

They can.

Yes, it could.

Yes.

I just want to make sure I understand. No prohibition, no. Okay. I was reading the text, and there's a couple of areas that I just wanted to focus on and make sure I just have clarity. Things like your classification of service talks about the commission requiring each electric corporation, gas corporation, and municipality to establish and file with the Commission for Approval or Modification

Can you explain to me what the role of a municipality would be?

That refers to the municipal utilities.

The munis.

Okay. I don't have any in my area.

Okay.

Can we please not talk over each other? Remember, the stenographer is keeping a record, so someone speaks, the other answers. Thank you. I'm sorry, Ms. Barrett. Now I'm envisioning the sonographer just like hitting the keys since she can't hear either of us.

Correct.

Is that correct?

I'm sorry, I don't have it. I can't find it right at my fingertips here.

There is no role. The water is in there because in other states that we seen that it had having data centers has had an adverse effect on water supply so it something we want to be looked at as part of this one moratorium So they could be determining what the water level is that they currently have and then depending on what the project is they can estimate what the usage would be

And that's certainly not my expectation. I think it has more to do with keeping the water clean, but we don't have any provisions for that in the bill.

They do not what?

They could pass an additional moratorium.

and that from the municipality's standpoint, there's really no additional burden that's being placed on them governmentally. Correct.

Thank you very much for answering my question, Ms. Barrett.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Will the sponsor yield for a question or two? Will the sponsor yield? Yes.

Thank you. One simple question. I think I heard this, but I want to make sure that this bill arises in its current format

This has nothing to do with that. That's not what this bill is. There is no fiscal impact. It's going to look at those issues, but there's nothing in the bill itself.

I don't really, I mean, that's not addressed here. I'm not sure what you're referring to, but if you want to speak on it, go ahead.

On the bill.

Mr. LaMondis, please relate to the bill at hand.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

On the bill.

On the bill.

They won't open their minds. They're tunnel-visioned. We cannot do it with only one source of power. And what are we going to do? We're going to have missed opportunities, as my other colleagues have stated. And why? Because if you have a developer and they want to build a data center, they're going to another state. They're not going to wait for a year and then 18 months for a study to be looked at and then decide it. And in the meantime, they're outpricing the consumer with the cost of electricity, trying to figure out what they can do. You cannot take power off if you can't replace it. And it's been shown they can't replace it with the focus that they have. Because of all the negatives, because of the fact that they're hurting union jobs. Listen to this one. There was an argument in one city council meeting in the last week. And the head of the electrical union came and explained how many jobs data centers have been providing to their union electricians. How much head of household money, how much tax money is going in. And you know what somebody jumped up and said? Yeah, but there are only temporary jobs. All labor jobs are temporary unless you're actually in a factory. The construction industry moves from one project to another to another. They don't sit on one project forever. But that is how this country was built. And this state is on a collision course with progress. This state is on a collision course with moving forward. And whose pockets are they going to pick next year? I don't think they can stay awake enough at night to figure out what other sources of income. Every new bill you see, there's a penalty going to the state. They're trying to figure out every way to fund their programs. This year's budget, unsustainable. We have ways to attract it if people would just sit down and discuss. It should be us. Just a reminder that you're on the bill, sir. I'm sorry. My time's up? No, that you're on this bill. Okay, well, because of all of that, I vote in a negative. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Will the sponsor yield? Will the sponsor yield? Certainly. The sponsor yields. Thank you. I want to focus on the requirements for renewable energy, you know, for data centers that are five megawatts or more. Would you say that that's going to produce more demand for solar development? For renewables, yes. Okay. Do you realize that each one megawatt requires approximately almost an acre of land? If it's on land, but there are a lot of other places that we should be, including brownfields and kinds of rooftops and we also could use geothermal. Geothermal wouldn require you know any acres at all Right And then I also interested in you know the dates A data center would progressively require more renewable energy to meet the future deadlines right Future dates. Like you start out at a third. More than 90 percent. Yes. Through 2034. Yes, it does increase. And it could be on site. Could be on site. So in planning these data centers that could require large purchases of property for future. Large what? I'm sure that the planning of these data centers, if they were going to rely on solar, it would require the developers to look at large tracts of property that they would need to secure to meet these future. It doesn't have to be. You know, geothermal, I mean, in other parts of the country, I mean, whole buildings and stuff are run on geothermal. We have to be really building out our renewables here in the state in more innovative ways. All right. Well, I think you've answered my questions. I want to go on the bill. Thank you. I go on the bill? On the bill. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I share a lot of the concerns that have been expressed here by my colleagues over the anti-business aspect of data centers that shows that we have not done the job to prepare for future energy needs for this state, and it's really hurting us. especially when we include green energy policy with future development of proposed projects, that in my district, because of the need for solar and the state's energy policy, we're seeing the Adirondacks, which is known for its open spaces, lack of commercial development, now open prime property for the state to invest in renewable energy. Because obviously, in the more economic urban areas, there are no open spaces to locate these. So my district, the number one issue that I'm hearing from my constituents, is over the erosion of the local control with renewable energy projects where they have been left out of the conversation that's being funded by ratepayers through our policy. We heard the sponsor agree that we would need more solar generation. It doesn't necessarily have to be here in New York, but it's going to be somewhere. I ultimately think that it's going to lead to more pressure on the communities that I represent and in conflict with what my constituents want. So for those reasons, I am strongly opposed to this bill. Mr. Chilczynski, just a reminder, we're eight minutes left within debate. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'm just going to go on the bill. On the bill? Well, I fully agree that we must be cautious and thoroughly study how these large data centers impact our communities, especially when it comes to safeguarding our environment, drinking water, the energy grid. I cannot support this bill because it is packed with other excessive regulations. And I'll point some of those out right here. The timelines are completely unrealistic in this piece of legislation. The bill calls for a one-year pause or moratorium on these facilities. However the sheer amount of data agency consultations and reports that the bill forces the DEC to take part in will take long over a year to complete I believe we even mentioned 18 months So this isn a temporary pause It's a bureaucratic roadblock that will freeze the development of these data centers far longer than the one year. The energy requirements don't make sense. Just like the unachievable mandates of the CLCPA, this bill demands that data centers rely almost entirely on renewable energy. The state hasn't proven our grid can handle these aggressive targets, and staggering amounts of land are required to build necessary renewable energy, solar panels, wind turbines to power such facilities. This also forces costly mandatory giveaways. The bill legally requires any data center using 20 megawatts of power or more to pay for and install green energy upgrades like solar panels, battery storage, cold climate heat pumps for the surrounding neighborhood. No major tech company is going to bring in billions of dollars of investment to New York if they are forced to take on the financial burden retrofitting local residential housing just to open their doors in the state of New York. It also drives away good union labor jobs. Data centers bring thousands of high-paying jobs of our local trades, construction workers, electricians, and engineers. While I strongly support the piece of this bill that guarantees the prevailing wage and apprenticeship programs, those protections mean absolutely nothing if the projects are never built here in New York. By packaging a sensible study with over-regulation and impossible energy dictates, this bill will simply drive multi-billion dollar investments into neighboring competitive states such as Ohio and Virginia. We should be able to protect our environment and our rate payers without passing laws that intentionally destroy local jobs here in the state of New York. For that reason, I'll be voting no. 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. If there are exceptions, members may vote differently at their desks now. Thank you. Mr. Fall. Thank you, Madam Speaker. the majority conference will be in the affirmative on this legislation. For those that would like to vote differently, they could do so here in the chamber. Thank you. The clerk will record the vote. Ms. Gallagher to explain her vote. Thank you, Speaker. I rise today in support of this important bill. The rapid rise of data centers has been driven by the onslaught of artificial intelligence. These data centers, like the AI technology they power, are being adopted so quickly that we are at the risk of being overrun by them before we have even had a chance to fully understand what it is we're giving away. But there are some pieces we know for sure. Data centers hog local energy and water, raising utility bills and depleting our precious resources. They create air, noise, light pollution and unceasing vibrations, making local communities sicker and less comfortable. In an existential moment when we must urgently reduce our energy consumption and transition to renewables as quickly as possible, they ensure that we are consuming exponentially more energy every year, fueling our addiction to fossil fuels. It should not come as a surprise that the tech and fossil fuel oligarchs are both benefiting from this same broken system. The oligarchs want us to believe that the unfettered adoption of AI and data centers that power it are natural and inevitable. That New Yorkers have to just accept water and energy shortages as the cost of progress. They want us to believe that job loss caused by AI will be painful, but it is just another natural cost of capitalism, which we must not question. I firmly reject these notions, and I am immensely proud that today, as a legislative body, we reject them too. I'm heartened today to vote for this omnibus bill, which will put some sensible restrictions in place so that our regulations can catch up with the adoption of technology, so that we have time to think about how we can protect people over the profits of a handful of billionaires. This bill won't do everything. I wish the moratorium were longer than a year. I wish renewable energy goals were stronger and sooner. But this bill grapples with what many of the threats presented by data centers, And because of that, I vote yes. Thank you. Mr. Burding. Thank you, Madam Speaker, for allowing me to explain my vote. I commend the sponsor for this thoughtful approach to data center development. As she said, this legislation calls for a one-year pause. The bill, which excludes data centers requiring less than 20 megawatts, provides a smart plan that uses the PAWS intelligently and collaboratively. The establishment of an independent service classification for large data centers is essential to ensure that ordinary ratepayers aren't subsidizing large data centers, and it makes great sense to set energy efficiency goals and to set labor standards. I wish to note that with all due respect to some in the minority, I find it puzzling to hear some waxing eloquent on the love for local control. It's curious that I wasn't hearing that love for local control when I offered legislation to provide local control to prohibit the application of pesticides in reservoir stems and watercourses connected to public water supplies. Seems that some certain local control is loved. Other local control isn't. This bill is leading wisely into the future by providing a framework which brings together all stakeholders for the orderly development of data centers in our state. This bill is good for the New York economy while protecting ratepayers. I am voting in favor of this bill. Thank you. Mr. Burdick, in the affirmative, Mr. Gray to explain his vote. Thank you, Madam Speaker. So first let me begin by recognizing the intent behind this bill. No one in this chamber wants reckless growth. The questions around energy, water, and all the other concerns are fair questions that deserve real answers. But the moratorium is not an answer. It is a sign that's hung on the front door of New York that says we're out to lunch for a year. It pauses every region of New York State that is working to attract investment and put people back to work Right now we have trade labor unions ready to build and ready to employ their members Moratorium tells them no wait It tells the companies looking at New York that they welcome. Matt has been pulled back from the front door. That is a chilling message and once it goes out the investment goes with it. It does not sit around and wait for us to figure this out. It goes somewhere else where somebody has already done just that. This bill also leans on renewable energy requirement at the very moment that these projects need firm, dispatchable baseload power. If we are serious about reliable power for new large loads, the conversation should be having is about supporting construction of baseload generation, and that includes nuclear. That is the honest path for both reliability and affordability. Pointing these projects towards requirements that the grid cannot even meet doesn't make us greener, it makes us slower. And the fact that we're not flying blind, the Public Service Commission is already studying the exact issue and its impacts. The expertise we are asking for already lives within the process that we operate in. We do not need a moratorium to learn what the agency is charged with that is already working on and in the middle of examining it. I also remind this body of the basic reality of what's on the ground. The work of the ISO and the utilities to study and connect a project of this size takes longer than the timeline that this bill dictates. The market already has its own pause built in. We do not need to legislate one over the top of the very agencies we charge for carrying this work out. Madam Speaker, data centers are something that we are not distinct or exotic. Every part of our everyday life in New Yorkers, we use data centers. Every one of us. Thank you, Mr. Gray. How do you vote? Vote in the negative. Mr. Gray in the negative. Mr. B. Penn to explain his vote. Thank you, Madam Speaker. As I say, all politics is local. So I respect and I understand the concerns of my colleagues. But this is a real issue that faces my community. I have heard from hundreds of residents through emails, rallies, town board hearings, and even from my town board members and each one of them were asking for New York State to act on a moratorium for data centers. So with that I am proud to vote in the affirmative on behalf of my residents. Thank you, madam. Mr. Beepin in the affirmative. Ms. Clark to explain her vote. Thank you madam speaker. I rise to explain my vote on this very important Bill, and I want to thank the sponsor and all who sort of contributed to this final product in what we're passing today. You know, we constantly hear from constituents who are concerned, communities who are concerned, but also municipalities. And the reality is what often stops progress is not having answers to questions. What we're trying to do is say, let's not, not a moratorium, not end or say never again, but say let's take a pause so that we can answer people's questions. We have the tools now. We understand what is needed in a community, what is needed, what happens not just at the electric rate that that company is charged, but what happens when their pull from the grid throws everyone in the community into higher prices. We need answers to those questions before anyone is going to be able to be successful in building these in our communities. It is not just the people demanding answers. It is our municipalities who are begging for help so that they have the toolkit to do what they need to do if this is truly the progress we want to make here in our state I commend the sponsor I proud to support this bill and vote in the affirmative And I hope everyone understands that the quicker we can get to how we do something, the quicker we can get to doing it. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Clark, in the affirmative. Ms. Tapia to explain her vote. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise in support of the Responsible Data Center Development Act, and I commend the sponsor of the bill. The growth of data centers across our state and the country are putting an enormous strength on our energy. And right now, when a massive data center moves into a community, neighbors do not have a say. According to the NYISO 2025 Power Trends report, data centers electricity demand could increase the load of our grid by up to 4,000 megawatts by 2030. To put that in perspective, that is a roughly equivalent of the total electricity consumption of every household in the state of New York. This bill is a responsible answer to that challenge. It enacts a temporary one-year moratorium while we study the real impacts of data center development on our communities. It ensures these facilities pay their fair share of utility costs instead of passing them on rate payers. and it protects the workers who bill them with prevailing wage standards. I am also so proud that my Bill 892-97 was included in this legislation. It ensured that any time a large data center is built or expanded, the community where it operates receives concrete benefits, including utility bill credits for local residents and investments in clean energy technology. We do this with other industries. Thank you, Ms. Tapia. How do you vote? How do you vote, Ms. Tapia? I'm going to go hiring yes. Ms. Tapia in the affirmative. Ms. Walsh to explain her vote. Thank you, Madam Speaker. So to me, I'm having a difficult time with this vote, and I just wanted to explain why and kind of where I'm coming out on this. I think when I toured the ISO last fall and I heard about the number of data centers that were already here and the number of data centers that were kind of in a queue to be approved, and then learning about what the ISO had said about our grid, you know, I was really concerned about that. But I think our grid is already messed up as it is. It is. I think that in a way, I feel like data centers are kind of getting vilified for a larger problem that needs to be examined in terms of the unreliability of our grid. I also am coming at this as somebody that has served on a town board of a larger small town and also has been a town attorney for a very small town. Thank goodness for the Association of Towns and the Association of Counties. Even a small town understands how to enact its own moratorium It made pretty simple in a way by the Department of State There are forms that are available We did that the small town that I represented we did that for solar when big solar arrays were starting to arrive. So I think that there's a way that the localities can handle it. But I do think that we need to take a holistic look at the things that are really overburdening our grid moving forward. I just don't think that this bill does it for me, and I think for right now anyway, despite letters asking for the moratorium from my constituents, I will be voting no in this instance. So thank you, Madam Speaker. Thank you, Ms. Walsh. The negative, Ms. Bailey, to explain her vote. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to explain my vote. And although this legislation is being characterized as a one-year moratorium on data centers, in my mind, it goes further than that. And really, the devil's in the detail. And when you look in the detail, and one of my biggest concerns is it's establishing renewable energy requirements and thresholds that could potentially shape how these facilities operate in the future. And my concern is that we already have seen what happens when the state sets aggressive energy goals and then fast tracks that implementation. We live it every day in the 133rd Assembly District with the creation of ORAS. And time and time again, local communities have found their voices diminished as we continue to advance its priorities on energy policies. So before we create mandates tied to data center development, we should be asking what those requirements ultimately mean for our local municipalities. The taxpayers, the land use decisions, the infrastructure. But what also troubles me is the timeline that's established in this bill. The moratorium would last for one year. However, the information from the reporting would not be available for up to 18 months. So if the purpose is to pause the development until we have the facts, the report should be available before the moratorium expires, not after. You know, I struggle with this vote personally myself. if it was, you know, when we're looking at a straight moratorium on the data centers, but the devil really is in the detail. In affixing those renewable energy, aggressive renewable energy thresholds, in the language of this bill, I cannot support that. Thank you, Ms. Bailey. How do you vote? No. Ms. Bailey in the negative. Mr. Blumenkranz to explain his vote. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise today with some concern. Well, I understand that the conversation surrounding data centers generally and nationally does create some pause and hesitation, especially in a state like New York. The data center conversation on Long Island in New York is very different. Where it exists in heavily populated areas with high energy costs, usually they exist there because they have to, because of latency issues. because of many different reasons that the centers would need to be localized with endpoint users. When it comes to the industry as a whole, I look back to what we've done with the crypto mining space, the jobs we left on the table, the jobs we simply moved across the border, the tax dollars we left on the table. And seeing another industry come and go, seeing another industry come and go, seeing another opportunity come and go in New York seems like business as usual for this house so I'll be voting in the negative and I do support some level of guard rails and continuing the conversation but I don't think that this bill is the solution I'll be voting in the negative thank you Mr. Blumenkranz in the negative Ms. Strathza to explain her vote Thank You Madam Speaker every technology has the potential to do good when it's used properly. But this aggressive push for generative AI is being led by corporations like Meta, Google, and Amazon, and it is designed to consolidate corporate power and displace workers. And to do this at the cost of immense energy consumption and disruptions caused by these large data centers needed to provide the computing power. One project in Utah, for example, is estimated to have the footprint of around 2,000 Walmart stores. So the regulations that we are voting on today are the first necessary steps toward reining in the intentions of these corporations and to make sure we protect ratepayers and also we give state the time that is needed to decide how we are going to tackle with the data centers that are coming in. I will be voting in the affirmative. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Tretha, in the affirmative. Mr. Keith Brown to explain his vote. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to explain my vote. I feel constrained about this bill, but ultimately I feel that this bill risks putting New York at a competitive disadvantage in one of the fastest growing industries in the world. Artificial intelligence and cloud computing depend on data centers, and a one-year moratorium sends a message the message that New York, that this state is closed for business, just as other states around the country are competing to attract these investments. Data centers bring billions of dollars in private investment, construction jobs, and long-term tax revenue. Instead of creating clear rules and allowing projects to proceed, this bill freezes development for a year. Businesses making site selection decisions often move quickly. If New York pauses projects, companies may choose states such as Texas, Virginia, Ohio, and Pennsylvania instead of New York. Once those investments leave, they may never return, leaving New York in the dust. I fear we're going to turn New York into another rust belt state. Rather than a blanket moratorium, we should require stronger reporting, environmental standards, and community protections while allowing projects to continue. A pause creates uncertainty for investors, utilities, local governments, and workers. AI and cloud infrastructure becoming as important as roads, railways, and power plants. And if New York limits data center growth, it could lose opportunities in advanced manufacturing research and technology development. The state should lead in a responsible development, not delay development altogether. We used to be the empire state at one point in time. A one-year moratorium is the wrong solution. New York should regulate, improve data center development, and leave it up to local municipalities who are better equipped to handle it and not stop its development. Thank you. I'll be voting in the negative. Mr. Keith Brown in the negative. Mr. Cashman to explain his vote. Madam Speaker, to explain my vote, and I'll start off by saying I'm going to vote in the affirmative, but I want to provide some perspective. For a number of years, I served as an officer for the New York State Association of Towns, working with colleagues from the 933 towns around the state. And one of the things that I learned very quickly was problems transcend municipal boundaries. And many of our small businesses and our farmers and our families are concerned about the electric rates With these data centers they going to put strain on the electrification of the state and the prices are going to go up for these individuals That's the first concern that people have. So that's why we're looking at it with a much wider aperture. The second thing is the impact on infrastructure. Many municipalities like mine, the town of Plattsburgh, has a shared regional water supply. We actually provide water to two other municipalities. So when you're looking at the new infrastructure that's needed for these facilities, you have to be looking at it through, again, a much wider aperture. If something is in a moratorium in one municipality but creates strain across the municipal boundaries, it creates a new pressure point. The final component to this, and I would agree with my colleagues from the environmental standpoint, we must be looking at how to protect the environment. I myself differ from some of my colleagues, I believe that we do need to have a mixed energy economy. Being in the North Country, I do support the need to emphasize tapping into natural gas where is appropriate. However, what we should also be doing is leveraging the best technology of tomorrow with the technologies that are emerging at the same moment. So having some of these goals and objectives with thermal energy is completely a responsible approach to move forward. With that, I yield my time, and I also vote in the affirmative. Thank you. Mr. Cashman in the affirmative. Mr. Jacobson to explain his vote. Thank you, Madam Speaker. The data center one-year moratorium gives us a chance to catch our breath so we can establish the proper guardrails to protect us against the excesses of data centers. I'm particularly excited about the provisions in the bill that will prohibit the increased utility infrastructure costs due to these data centers from being passed along to residential customers so that the additional costs will be paid by those that are building or benefiting from the data centers. I vote in the affirmative. Mr. Jacobson in the affirmative. Mr. Palmasano to explain his vote. Thank you, Madam Speaker. This conversation has reminded me of a hearing I attended with my colleague on energy, and I had asked a question to a former PSC commissioner when we see how people always complain about utility companies raising their rates, but when the PSC had approved the $43 billion in future ratepayer increases that pay for green energy mandates, I said it's like no one's paying attention. He said to me, some of the people are paying attention. Who's paying attention? The site selectors. The businesses are paying attention. The businesses are seeing what we're doing with this vote today about putting up a moratorium. This does not send the right message to the business community. We already have one of the worst business climates in the country. We already have one of the least competitiveness ratings in the country. Our taxes are some of the highest in the country. Our regulations are some of the most costly in the country. Our energy costs are 70% higher than the national average. All of this does not add up to an incentive to want to invest in New York State. and my colleague said this is going to help save ratepayers money. No, it's not. Nothing we've done in this chamber over the past several years has done anything to save ratepayers money. It only cost them more money because of this hostility towards natural gas Despite the fact that 60 of our generation 60 of the universe heat your homes with natural gas 40 of our generation comes from natural gas and we got this march to full electrification which does nothing to ensure reliability affordability feasibility. It's just not working. This jeopardizes this. I just think it says the wrong message across the board. It's all part of a plan to really dismantle the infrastructure system we have in place. We need to build out our infrastructure. We need dispatchable baseload generation. Natural gas, nuclear is a dispatchable baseload generation. This does nothing. They don't want either of them as part of this plan. That's problematic. We can do a better job. There's a lot more we have to do on this. But for that reason and others, I'm going to be voting in the negative on this bill. Thank you, Madam Secretary. Thank you, Mr. Palmisano, in the negative. Mr. Otis, to explain his vote. Thank you. On the bill, this legislation is really sourced by the experience in other states who have been taken over by data centers and the impact on residential utility rates in a way that is very damaging. New York State is a pro-technology state. A lot of our economic growth is in the technology sector. But we need more time to figure out where this kind of activity is going to fit in our utility rate system, our energy use system, how we're going to protect not just residential rate payers, but the impact of data centers is going to have a negative impact in some areas of the state on energy capacity for other kinds of businesses. We need time to figure it out. This is a wise time to take a pause, but people are going to come to New York. The technology companies are going to come to New York. We also have to say to the data center world and the brilliant people that figure out all this stuff, Can you find a less energy-intensive way to perform these functions, to store and reuse data? Can you do it in a way where you're not polluting our water, warming up our water? Lots of tests. Other states are regretting they didn't ask these questions. We'll ask these questions and then move forward in a united way. I vote aye.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. This bill before us today is one that proposes a one-year moratorium on utility rate increases. And this legislation is particularly crucial for families that I represent in the Bronx and across New York who are facing rising living costs. And by halting utility rates and increasing this for one year, we provide essential relief to households struggling to make ends meet. Many families are already forced to choose between keeping their homes warm or putting food on the table. And this moratorium alleviates that burden, allowing for constituents to become and breathe a little bit more easier. And this bill also provides and prioritizes vulnerable communities, recognizing that low-income households and communities of color have been disproportionately affected by these rising costs, and this bill is a step forward towards equity and energy access. The bill also emphasizes investments in renewable energy and energy efficiency programs, ensuring that our transition to clean energy benefits everyone particularly those who have historically faced environmental injustices And I want to thank the sponsor and all those who work together to get us to this moment because together we can continue to support our communities while paving the way for a sustainable energy future. And with that, Madam Speaker, I proudly vote in the affirmative.

Hi. Thank you, Madam Chair, or Madam Speaker. This legislation updates social service law to align the supervision requirements that are currently in child care centers to those in family and family-based child care providing settings.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Will the sponsor yield? Will the sponsor yield?

Great. Thank you. So we debated this bill last year.

And the governor vetoed it.

So I guess my first question is, what was your understanding of the governor's veto message? What were her concerns?

Okay. Okay. So based on the meetings that you had were, you know, like with the second floor after the veto, to just kind of say what happened there?

Yeah, so we know that certainly creating better and more affordable and more plentiful childcare has been a big issue for the governor. so I mean do you think that if the bill passes and arrives at her desk this year, do you expect a veto again? Or have you received any assurances that it won't be vetoed this time?

Death and taxes. That's the only thing we know about, right?

Right, yeah. The way I read it was that the governor said the bill raised serious concerns about the ability to safely evacuate from a home-based setting during a fire or other emergency. So in other words, so big picture, what we're doing here with this bill is we're saying that previously, well, under current law, the social services law says that you need a certain caregiver to child ratio, and that ratio changes under current law when the child hits two, two years old. It's two. In family-based providers. Center-based providers, it's 18 months. Right. That had already changed for a daycare center that's outside the home. Yep. That had already dropped from two years to 18 months. And what you're hoping to do with this bill, if I'm understanding it right, is to align the rules that we already have in place for the out-of-the-home child care and make it apply also across the board to the home itself, right?

I guess one of the questions, and it was sort of discussed really in terms of the governor's veto as well, is kind of what are the structural or operational differences between child care centers and home-based programs. And what I'm hearing you say is there really isn't any, because we've got regulations across the board that affect both kinds of care. The point is all settings have to have evacuation plans. And if you can't evacuate children safely, then you can't do this. We're not going to meet the other regs to be able to have a child care in your home or in a center-based provider. Whether it's STAIRS or whatever it may be, those are center-based as much as they are in home-based providers. Is there any concern regarding just enforcement and oversight when you change the ratios? could that potentially place additional pressure on regulatory agencies to monitor compliance and ensure that safety standards are being maintained?

So there you go. That happens sometimes. My lucky dad. Especially working like the hours we've been working the last few days. But thank you very much for answering my questions. Madam Speaker, very briefly on the bill. On the bill. So this is a bill that really last year we all supported it. It was unanimous. So not to belabor the point, but I thought it was worth at least a short conversation to discuss, you know, what the governor's rationale was for vetoing it last year. And I tend to agree with what the sponsor is saying, which is that across setting, we have sets of regulations that ensure for compliance monitoring, for evacuation plans, for various things that must be observed in order to protect and ensure children's safety, which is our primary concern. There is an argument to be made that when you're talking about an 18-month-old and a 24-month-old, This entire age group are very busy little people that are running around and can get bumps and can get into different scrapes and potentially dangerous situations. So there's an argument to be made that by reducing the caregiver-to-child ratio from the 18 months to the two years, there's a potential that there may be a little bit less supervision for the children. And I would never want us and our desire to create more child care slots in any way impact adversely. and I'm sure the sponsor would agree with this as well, would never want this to adversely impact a child's safety, because a child's safety is paramount. But I do think that by making this change, which we've already made with out-of-the-home child care centers, by bringing that in parity to the in-the-home, I think that we could have a beneficial impact of increasing the number of slots of children that could be served in at-home programs, while at the same time not meaningfully impacting a child's safety. So I will, again this year, be supporting this bill. And I thank the sponsor for answering my questions. And we'll see what the governor decides to do with it this year. Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. At this time, I would like to advance the A calendar and take that up immediately.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise today in strong support of the ceasing, repeated, and extremely egregious predatory behavior act or CREEP for short Too many New Yorkers are living in fear being stalked harassed and threatened often by people they are not related to and have never had an intimate relationship with Yet under our current laws, unless someone fits into a narrow category of relationship, the only real option for protection is to call the police or pursue a criminal process that is unacceptable. This bill offers something deeply important, a civil pathway to safety. It gives survivors control and access to an order of protection without forcing them into a criminal legal system that they may not trust, may not feel safe engaging with, or simply do not want to rely upon. And let us be clear, stalking today does not only happen in person. It happens online, through cyberstalking, deepfakes, location tracking, harassment across social media, and the spread of intimate images. Our laws must catch up to the realities of the digital age. The CREEP Act is thoughtful, balanced, and rooted in due process. It creates a civil remedy, not automatic criminalization, while ensuring protections remain in place for those who need it most. I want to thank my Senate sponsor, Andrew Ginnardes, for his steadfast partnership and leadership in advancing this critical legislation. I want to thank the countless advocates, survivors, and organizations, and a special thank you to C.A. Goldberg, whose partnership, expertise, and relentless advocacy on behalf of survivors have been instrumental in shaping this bill and pushing for protections that reflect the realities people face today. Every New Yorker deserves the right to live free from fear and harassment. I will be voting in the affirmative and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise today in favor of this piece of legislation, and I thank the sponsor for bringing it forward, because protecting victims and ensuring timely access to orders of protection must remain a priority. At the same time, I'm hopeful that a future chapter amendment can address a small but important technical issue within the bill. As currently written, certain enforcement responsibilities are assigned to the clerk of the court. In Supreme Court proceedings, that role is typically performed by the county clerk, who may not be the individual with the direct information necessary to ensure orders are promptly transmitted or provided to the appropriate parties. A simple change from clerk of the court to court would help eliminate potential confusion and reduce the risks of delaying and getting critical protections in place for victims. I also have a concern regarding the filing fees. Current statutory requirements generally require fees to be paid through the clerk's office. In 2023, the legislature recognized a similar concern and created an exemption for another type of order of protection petition. And I am hopeful that we could pursue a similar exemption here. While a fee waiver application process does exist, experience has shown that these processes can sometimes be cumbersome and create unintended barriers. And I would never want to see a victim delay or forego seeking measures necessary for their safety because of paperwork requirements or uncertainty surrounding the filing fees. For those reasons I support the legislation while also advocating for these practical improvements to ensure the law work is intended and provides a stronger possible protection for our victims Thank you Thank you Ms Bailey And the affirmative Mr Tanousas to explain his vote Thank you Madam Speaker I stand today strongly in favor of this piece of legislation. In my time as an attorney and prosecutor, I saw many instances where there were patterns of harassment and or stalking. For one reason or another, a criminal order of protection could not be received, perhaps because maybe there was an issue with a criminal case and also there was no actual relationship between the parties, which means they wouldn't be able to go to family court. So this is a very important piece of legislation. I think it will solve many issues for victims across the state, and I am proud to be here today voting in favor of this. Thank you very much.

In the affirmative, Ms. Walsh to explain her vote. Thank you, Madam Speaker. So just so that we have a full record to consider here, I wanted to just at least express, you know, we've opted not to debate this bill today, but I think in fairness we should talk about some concerns that have been raised by some individuals within the court system that are worried about some of the unintended consequences of the bill. And that would be primarily a very lengthy memo that was submitted in opposition. one of the things it points out is that the legislation could allow those already seeking orders of protection in criminal courts to initiate parallel proceedings in civil supreme court, which could create duplicate proceedings and unnecessarily burden the courts. I don't know if that's something that could be corrected through a chapter amendment of some kind, But I personally did not see it as enough of a reason to oppose or fully debate the bill. I'm happy to support it. I do think that when stalking behavior doesn't quite rise to the level yet of harassment, and it certainly hasn't reached the level of assault, but it's nonetheless something that needs to be addressed, I'm glad that this will be available to victims of this very creepy behavior. So I hope that any imperfections can be corrected in a chapter, but I will be supporting it today. Thank you.

In the affirmative, Mr. Keith Brown. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I just wanted to rise to speak briefly about it and thank the sponsor for this bill. You know, this is a public safety measure because we have a mental health crisis in our state, And there was a terrible case on Long Island that was just publicized in Newsday where a woman very simply posted something on Marketplace, and she had been stalked tremendously by an individual that needed help, and he needed to get psychiatric help. And then there's myself, who I inherited someone who had a mental illness problem from my predecessor in the Assembly, and I have had a very difficult time with the current system trying to get, even though we got an order of protection, it didn't stick. And I have spoken to our local police department ad nauseum and also the local court system about doing something to make sure that this person doesn't create a threat to myself, my family, my staff, or herself. and I wish her nothing but the best of luck to get the help that she needs. But this bill, quite frankly, is spot on because it will help this individual get the psychiatric treatment that that person needs. So thank you very much for the sponsor and thank you Senator for sponsoring this in the Senate Thank you Madam Speaker Thank you Mr Brown in the affirmative Are there any other votes Announce the results Ayes 140 nays 0

Ms. Walsh to explain her vote. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'll be supporting this bill. I think that it will help. What this bill does is it will offer up to a 60-day grace period rather than the current 30 for MWBE applicants, those seeking certification. to cure any defects that are in their certification application. So, I mean, I think that I've heard anecdotally of applicants who don't even really receive a notice that they've been denied or that they have problems with their application until that 30-day period is basically elapsed. So I think an additional time will be beneficial. I think that the MWBE system overall needs a lot of work. But because we have to vote on these things one bill at a time, I think that this is a helpful thing. So I thank this sponsor and I vote yes.

Mr. Jensen to explain his vote. Thank you, Madam Speaker. to explain my vote. I rise in support of this legislation. I believe it's a very important piece of legislation to streamline the way New York regulates vapor products and vaping purchases in stores by moving taxing authority from the Department of Health to the Department of Tax and Finance. We can ensure that New York State is effectively managing the excise tax on on these products, as well as ensuring that New York can better regulate how these products are being sold, and that products being sold on the illicit marketplace and those importing illegal vapes into our state can be more tightly prosecuted. Additionally, by having a system that mimics the method that's used in Connecticut, we can ensure that while New York's tax collection on vape products has decreased by 35%, we can keep the tax revenue steady to ensure that the revenue from these taxes can go to support measures that help to increase public health outcomes With that I be voting in the affirmative Thank you Madam Speaker Thank you Mr Jensen in the affirmative Thank you.

Ms. Chandler Waterman to explain her vote. Thank you, Madam Speaker. today as we kick off June as Gun Violence Awareness Month. I am happy that we are finally prioritizing survivors by expanding Office of Victim Services. No matter why someone's life has been lost or the victim of the crime, their family, their children, their loved ones should not have to suffer by being rejected for victim services because they have been seen to contribute to their death. This bill will remove contradictory language where the loved ones, the families are supported and not being re-traumatized by being rejected. And if they need to do crowdfunding, GoFundMe, they still will be able to get victim services. This is a step. This is historical. This is a big deal as our survivors came yesterday for a kicker for a press conference They told a story from Buffalo from the top shooting that didn get any services They talked about from downstate to upstate This is a way to really prioritize survivors and say, you matter, your voice matter. I'm sorry that this has happened to you. And a real way to celebrate the gun violence awareness month is to make sure we prioritize our survivors. And this bill right here will do that. So I appreciate our colleagues today to be able to be in support of this. Thank you so much.

Ms. Chandler Waterman in the affirmative.

the social services law. Read the last section. This act shall take effect on the 180th day Clerk will record the vote Ms. Walsh to explain her vote.

Ms. Walsh in the affirmative. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you Are there any other votes Announce the results Ayes 140, nos 0. The bill is passed. Assembly number 7833A, Rules Report 488, Ms. Lovenberg, an act to amend a social services law. Read the last section. This act shall take effect on the 365th day. The clerk will record the vote. Ms. Walsh to explain her vote.

Thank you, Ms. Walsh, in the affirmative. Ms. Levenberg, to explain her vote.

Ms. Levenberg in the affirmative. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. A, Rules Report 489, Mr. Friend, an act to amend Chapter 412 of the Laws of 1990. On a motion by Mr. Friend. The Senate bill is before the House. The Senate bill is advanced. Read the last section. This act shall take effect immediately. Clerk will record the vote. Thank you. Thank you. . Are there any other votes? Announce the results. Ayes 140, nos 0. The bill is passed. Assembly number 8216A, rules report 490, Mr. Wright. An act to amend the elder law. On a motion by Mr. Wright, 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. Thank you. Thank you. The bill is passed. Law. Animation by Ms. Septima. The Senate bill is before the House. The Senate bill is advanced. Read the last section. This act shall take effect on the 270th day. The Clerk will record the vote. Thank you. Thank you. The bill is passed. Assembly number 8322A, Rules Report 492, Ms. Pfeffer-Amato, an act to amend the retirement and social security law. On a motion by Ms. Pfeffer-Amato, the Senate bill is before the House. The Senate bill is advanced. Home rule message 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 140, nays 0. The bill is passed. Assembly number 8334B, Rules Report 493, Mr. DiStefano, an act in relation to authorizing the assessor of the town of Brookhaven, County of Suffolk to file an application for real property tax exemption On a motion by Mr DiStefano 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. Thank you. Thank you. an act to amend the mental hygiene law. On a motion by Ms. Kellis, the Senate bill is before the House. The Senate bill is advanced. Read the last section. This act shall take effect on the 60th day. The clerk will record the vote. Mr. Palmisano to explain his vote.

Thank you, Mr. Palmisano, in affirmative. Mr. Sempolinsky to explain his vote.

Mr. Semple and Scheme, the affirmative. Are there any other votes? Announce the results. Ayes 140, nays 0. The bill is passed. Assembly number 8484A, Rules Report 495, Mr. Stern, an act to amend the Veterans Services Law. Read the last section. This act shall take effect on the 90th day. The Clerk will record the vote. Thank you. Thank you. Division 6 of Section 51 of the Public Authorities Law. On a motion by Mr. Bronstein. The Senate bill is before the House. The Senate bill is advanced. Read the last section. This act shall take effect immediately. Clerk will record the vote. Thank you. Thank you. Assembly number 9007A, Rules Report 497, Mr. Morinello, an act in relation to authorizing the town of Niagara to alienate and discontinue the use of certain park lands. On a motion by Mr. Morinello, 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. Mr. Morinello to explain his vote.

To explain your vote, sir?

I think you'll have an opportunity to do that tomorrow, sir.

Thank you Mr. Morinello. Thank you Thank you Are there any other votes? Announce the results. Ayes 138, nays 2. The bill is passed. Assembly number 9537B, Rules Report 498, Mr. Simone, an act to amend the education law. On a motion by Mr. Simone, the Senate bill is before the House. The Senate bill is advanced. Read the last section. This act shall take effect December 1st. The clerk will record the vote. Mr. Gandolfo to explain his vote.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Mr. Gandolfo in the negative. Ms. Glick to explain her vote.

Ms. Glick in the affirmative. Mr. Derso to explain his vote.

Thank you. Mr. Durso in the negative. Are there any other votes? Announce the results. Ayes, 123, nays, 17. The bill is passed. Assembly number 10024, Rules Report 499, Ms. Romero, an act to amend the Criminal Procedure Law. On a motion by Ms. Romero, the Senate bill is before the House. The Senate bill is advanced. This bill is laid aside. Assembly number 10066A, Rules Report 500, Mr. Magnarelli, an act in relation to establishing a comprehensive study examining highway safety standards. standards. On motion by Mr. Magnarelli, the Senate bill is before the House, the Senate bill is advanced. Read the last section. This act shall take effect immediately. Clerk will record the vote. Thank you. Thank you. . Yeah, yeah. Ms. People-Stokes?

The clerk will withdraw the roll. And then read the last section. Read the last section. This act shall take effect immediately The clerk will record the vote Thank you. Are there any other votes? Announce the results. Ayes 140, noes 0. The bill is passed. Assembly number 10143, Rules Report 501, Ms. Davila, an act establishing a fiscal cliff task force to conduct a study. On a motion by Ms. Davila, 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. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any other votes? Announce the results. Ayes 140, nays 0. The bill is passed. Assembly number 10171A, Rules Report 502, Mr. Durso, an act to amend the highway law and Chapter 398 of the laws of 2025. On a motion by Mr. Durso, the Senate bill is before the House. The Senate bill is advanced. Read the last section. This act, she'll take it back immediately. The clerk will record the vote. Thanks. Thank you. . Thank you. Thank you. Are there any other votes? Announce the results. Ayes 140, nays 0. The bill has passed. Assembly number 10194A, Rules Report 503, Mrs. People Stokes, an act to amend the highway law. Read the last section. On a motion by Ms. Peoples-Stokes, 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. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Are there any other votes? Announce the results. Ayes 140, nays 0. The bill is passed. Assembly number 10299B, Rules Report 504, Ms. Tapia, an act to amend the tax law and the public health law. On a motion by Ms. Tapia, the Senate bill is before the House and the Senate bill is advanced. Read the last section. This act shall take effect on the 180th day. The clerk will record the vote. Mr. Palmisano to explain his vote.

Mr. Palmisano, how do you vote? Okay. In the affirmative, Mr. Palmisano. Mr. Smollin?

Thank you. Mr. Smullen in the affirmative. Ms. Tapia.

Ms. Tapia in the affirmative. Are there any other votes? Announce the results. Ayes 140, nays 0. The bill is passed. Assembly number 10303, Rules Report 505, Ms. Shrestha, an act in relation to authorizing Janay Gasparini to take the competitive civil service examination. On a motion by Ms. Shrestha, the Senate bill is before the House. The Senate bill is advanced. The 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 The bill is passed. Assembly number 10379C, Rules Report 506, Mr. Boras, an act to amend the general business law. On a motion by Mr. Boras, the Senate bill is before the House. The Senate bill is advanced. And the bill has been laid aside. Assembly number 10398, Rules Report 507, Ms. Kaye, an act to amend the retirement and social security law. On a motion by Ms. Kay, the Senate bill is before the House. The Senate bill is advanced. There's a home rule message at the desk. Read the last section. This act, she'll take it back immediately. The clerk will record the vote. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any other votes? Announce the results. Ayes 140, noes 0. The bill passed. Assembly number 10422, Rules Report 508, Mr. Bronstein, an act to amend the public service law. On a motion by Mr. Bronstein, the Senate bill is before the House. The Senate bill is advanced. Read the last section. This act shall take effect on the 120th day. The Clerk will record the vote. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any other votes? Announce the results. Ayes 140, nays 0. This bill has passed. Assembly number 10733A, Rules Report 509, Mr. Rivera, an act authorizing the Commissioner of General Services to transfer and convey certain state lands. On a motion by Mr. Rivera, 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. Thank you. Assembly number 10753A, Rules Report 510, Ms. Paulin, an act to amend the education law. On a motion by Ms. Paulin, the Senate bill is before the House and the Senate bill is advanced. Read the last section. This act shall take effect immediately. The clerk will record the vote. Thank you Thank you. Number 10823A, Rules Report 511, Ms. Solange, an act to amend the education law. On a motion by Ms. Solange, 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. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any other votes? Announce the results. Ayes 140, nays 0. This bill has passed. Assembly number 10867A, Rules Report 512, Ms. Levenberg, an act to amend the village law and the public officer's law. On a motion by Ms. Levenberg, the Senate bill is before the House and the Senate bill is advanced. 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 140, nays 0. This bill has passed. Assembly number 10921A, Rules Report 513, Mr. Stern, an act to amend the general municipal law. Read the last section. This act shall take effect December 1st. The clerk will record the vote. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any other votes? Announce the results. Ayes 140, nays 0. This bill is passed. Assembly number 10941, Rules Report 514, Mr. Marr, an act in relation to authorizing John Rafferty to take the competitive civil service examination. The home rule is at the desk. Read the last section. This act shall take effect immediately. The clerk will record the vote. Thank you. Are there any other votes? Announce the result. Ayes 140, noes 0. The bill is passed. Assembly number 11024, Rules Report 515, Ms. Simon, an act to amend the mental hygiene law. On a motion by Ms Simon the Senate bill is before the House and the Senate bill is advanced. Read the last section. This act shall take effect immediately. The Clerk will record the vote. Thank you. Are there any other votes? Announce the results. Ayes 140, nos 0. This bill has now passed. Assembly number 11056A, Rules Report 516, Mr. Angelino, an act in relation to authorizing the village of New Berlin to alienate and discontinue the use of certain parklands. On a motion by Mr. Angelino, the Senate bill is before the House, the Senate bill is advanced, and there's a Home Rule message 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 138, nays 2. This bill is now passed. Assembly number 11076A, Rules Report 517, Mr. O'Farrow. An act to amend the highway law. On a motion by Mr. O'Farrow, the Senate bill is before the House and the Senate bill is advanced. Read the last section. This act, she'll take effect immediately. The clerk will record the vote. Thank you. . Thank you. Are there any other votes? Announce the results. Ayes 140, nos 0. This bill is now passed. Assembly number 11077A, Rules Report 518, Mr. Burroughs, an act to amend the highway law. 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 140, nays 0. This bill is passed. Assembly number 11128, Rules Report 519, Mr. Ekas, an act to amend the vehicle and traffic law and the public officer's law. On a motion by Mr. Ekas, the Senate bill is before the House, and the Senate bill is advanced. The Home Rule message is at the desk. Read the last section. This act shall take effect on the 30th day. The clerk will record the vote. . Thank you. Any other votes out there? Announce the results. Ayes 125, nays 15. This bill is passed. Assembly number 11131, Rules Report 520, Mr. Ekas, an act to amend the vehicle-in-traffic law. On a motion by Mr. Ekas, the Senate bill is before the House. The Senate bill is advanced. There is a Home Rule message at the desk. Read the last section. This act shall take effect on the 30th day. The Clerk will record the vote. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any other votes? Announce the results. Ayes 126, nays 14. This bill has passed. Assembly number 11247A, Rules Report 521, Mr. Santa Barbara, an act to amend the vehicle and traffic law and the public officer's law. On a motion by Mr. Santa Barbara, the Senate bill is before the House and the Senate bill is advanced. There's also a home rule message at the desk. Read the last section. This act shall take effect immediately The clerk will record the vote Thank you. Thank you. Ayes 126, nays 14. This bill is passed. Assembly number 11284, Rules Report 522, Committee on Rules, Mr. Berger, an act to amend the general business law. On a motion by Mr. Berger, the Senate bill is before the House and the Senate bill is advanced. Read the last section. This act shall take effect on the 180th day. The clerk will record the vote. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Are there any other votes Announce the results. Ayes 140, nays 0. The bill is passed. Assembly number 11337, Rules Report 523, Committee on Rules, Ms. Callis. an act authorizing the County of Cortlandt to transfer ownership of Lanier Park to Lime Hollow Nature Center, Incorporated. On a motion by Ms. Kellis, the Senate bill is before the House, and the Senate bill is advanced. There's also a Home Rule message at the desk. Please 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 140, nays 0. The bill is passed. Assembly number 11357A, Rules Report 524, Committee on Rules, Ms. Romero, an act to authorize the South End Children's Cafe to file an application for a retroactive real property tax exemption. On a motion by Ms. Romero, the Senate bill is before the House and the Senate bill is advanced. Read the last section. This act shall take effect immediately. The clerk will record the vote. Thank you. Are there any other votes? Announce the results. Aye. Pulse 140, nays zero. The bill is passed.