Senate Floor Session — Regular Session

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

Thank you, Rabbi. Reading of the Journal.

Without objection, the Journal stands approved as read. Presentation of petitions. Messages from the Assembly. The Secretary will read.

So ordered. Messages from the Governor. Reports of standing committees. Reports of select committees. Communications and reports from state officers. Motions and resolutions. Senator Gianaris.

Senator Persaud for an introduction.

And they are here in Albany, and I want to say welcome. And I hope this is not the last time that you're coming to visit us here in Albany, and I hope that you enjoyed the interactions that you've had with not only my colleagues here in the Senate, but the colleagues in the Assembly. Madam President, if you can give them the cordialities of the house. Thank you.

Senator Gianaris.

Senator Addabbo for an introduction.

You know, it's a great day when students get to visit Albany, especially on a Tuesday, because they get to witness everything. They get to witness the lobbyists, they get to witness the crowded hallways, waiting for hours by an elevator, the protests, right. I think it's a great day when they get to see our government at work. And so today we welcome students from St. John's University -- right, Red Storm? Not bad, right? But these students look at us with such optimism in their eyes, like we're going to do work for them, we're going to pave the road for them academically and in their career. Not that we're going to pay their tuition, but that we're going to help them, because they look toward us for help. And we're going to answer that call. So, Madam President, I ask that you welcome these great, fine students from St. John's University, and led by Brian Browne, who's been here, coming here for many, many years. And thank you for making part of the panel today. But to the students: Welcome. And, Madam President, thank you.

Senator Gianaris.

All those in favor of adopting the Resolution Calendar, with the exception of Resolutions 1859 and 1872, please signify by saying aye. (Response of "Aye.")

The Resolution Calendar is adopted. Senator Gianaris.

The Secretary will read.

Senator Persaud on the resolution.

Thank you, Senator Persaud. Senator Webb on the resolution.

Thank you, Senator Webb. Senator Bailey on the resolution.

Thank you, Senator Bailey. The resolution was previously adopted on January 21st. Senator Gianaris.

Please read that resolution's title and call on Senator Sepúlveda.

Resolution 1603, by Senator Sepúlveda, memorializing Governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim April 2026 as Workplace Violence Prevention Month in the State of New York.

Thank you, Senator Sepúlveda. (Pause.)

Senator Gianaris.

The Secretary will read.

Senator Sepúlveda on the resolution. SENATOR SEPÚLVEDA: Thank you, Madam President, for allowing me to present this resolution. Today I rise with a heavy heart to honor the memory of 236 lives that were tragically lost on April 8, 2025, in the collapse of the Jet Set nightclub in the Dominican Republic. Two hundred and thirty-six lives. Not numbers, not statistics. They were families, they were dreams, they were futures that still should be here today. Even though this tragedy did not happen in New York, the pain was felt here immediately. Nearly 335,000 Dominicans live in the Bronx, many of them residents who lost loved ones and whom we continue to stand with and feel their grief. Today we reaffirm something fundamental, that New York stands with the Dominican community, that New York respects their grief, that New Yorkers honor their contributions to this state. Among the victims were Rubby Perez, a voice that brought merengue to the entire world and also who was part of the cultural history of our Dominican community here in New York. We also remember Octavio Dotel and Tony Blanco, athletes who represented the Dominican Republic in Major League Baseball and inspired generations of young people. Today we also remember our beloved Nelsy Cruz, the sister of former Major Leaguer Nelson Cruz. Nelsy was much more than a public servant. She was the governor of a province called Monte Cristi, from 2020. She showed that leadership also means compassion, humanity and service to others. But today we do not only honor public figures, we honor everyone -- every worker, every person, every mother, every young life, every valuable life. Madam Majority Leader, tragedies remind us of something important, that our communities are not separated by borders, they are united by humanity. And today the Senate says clearly: Your pain is our pain. Your community is our community. And your memory will always be respected in this state. Today we remember, honor, and stand in solidarity with those that lost lives in the Dominican Republic. I respectfully ask for the adoption of this resolution in memory of the victims of the Jet Set nightclub tragedy. {Repeating remarks in Spanish.} Thank you. I vote aye.

Opposed, nay. (No response.)

Thank you, Madam President. It's now time for the Senate to receive our annual continuing education credits. Please call up the resolution on New York's Constitution Day, by Senator Gounardes, read its title, and recognize Senator Gounardes. That's Resolution 1872.

Resolution 1872, by Senator Gounardes, memorializing Governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim April 20, 2026, as New York State Constitution Day in the State of New York.

Thank you, Madam President. Good afternoon, colleagues. I know you have been waiting for this moment as eagerly as I have, because yesterday New York celebrated its 249th birthday. That's right -- April 20, 1777, in the middle of a war, with British troops occupying New York City and the British fleet anchored in our harbor, the State of New York adopted our first constitution, after declaring independence in 1776. And as I do every year, I look forward to this day to talk about a chapter of our state's history that might shed some light on the issues of our time or offer wisdom for the debates that we have here in this chamber. Now, as we know, this year we're celebrating the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. But before we could even adopt a constitution, we had to decide to become, in the words of Thomas Jefferson, a free and independent state. Now, when most people think about our founding story, they think about the highlights: 56 founding fathers gathered in the Pennsylvania Statehouse, debating the idea of independence, and then ceremoniously agreeing to separate from Great Britain. But if you really know your American history, or if you've seen the John Adams miniseries on HBO, you know the truth was not that simple. It was, in fact, messier and far more complicated than that. And in no place more than New York was the push for independence more controversial and more fraught with dangerous repercussions should independence fail. The tension between colonial patriots and British loyalists created deep fissures amongst New Yorkers, so much so that New York, the state that we all come to believe is first in all things, was the last of the colonies to declare independence. There was a strong loyalist class in New York -- wealthy merchants, Anglican clergy members, large property owners, and a sizeable population of Dutch and German settlers who valued the stability of the colonial status quo above all else. By some estimates, nearly half of New York's population had loyalist sympathies. How about that. New York City, in fact, was so overtly pro-British that it was called, derisively, Torytown. Yet New York also had a strong patriot movement: The Sons of Liberty, the Mechanicks Committee, and young guns like Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and Gouverneur Morris were equally as vociferous in challenging colonial rule. In fact, the radical Sons of Liberty were organizing protests against the British in New York for more than a decade, spanning back to 1765 and the imposition of the Stamp Act. The conflict over independence in New York was a battle between these two forces that neutered the political leadership of the colony throughout the early years of the revolution. That political leadership was the Provincial Congress, an elected assembly that governed New York in lieu of the old colonial legislature. In May 1775, the first Provincial Congress was convened to appoint delegates to the Second Continental Congress meeting in Philadelphia, after the loyalist-leaning colonial legislature declined to participate with the other colonies to discuss grievances about British rule. Now, while the purpose of the First Provincial Congress was to better align with the other colonies in countering the heavy hand of British authority, it was very conservative in its approach. It simultaneously adopted a resolution to agree with whatever measures the Second Continental Congress adopted, but then also passed a "Plan of Accommodation between Great Britain and America," which were instructions to its delegates in Philadelphia to seek the restoration of harmony between Great Britain and the colonies. The Provincial Congress disbanded in November of 1775 and was succeeded immediately by the Second Provincial Congress, which convened in New York City and met until May 1776, when it was replaced by the Third Provincial Congress. Now, the Third Provincial Congress was convened specifically to respond to a resolution passed by the Congress in Philadelphia calling on "the respective assemblies and conventions of the United Colonies, where no government sufficient to the exigencies of their affairs have been hitherto established, to adopt such government as shall, in the opinion of the representatives of the people, best conduce to the happiness and safety of their constituents in particular, and America in general." So in other words, the delegates in Philadelphia were telling the colonies to start thinking about a future without the British. As the push for independence was growing in Philadelphia, it was also growing stronger in New York. On May 29, 1776, the General Committee of Mechanicks in union, a large assemblage of laborers and shopkeepers and other artisans, issued a public petition to the Provincial Congress urging them to support independence. They wrote: "When we cast a glance upon our beloved continent, where fair freedom, civil and religious, we have long enjoyed, whose fruitful field have made the world glad, and whose trade has filled with plenty of all things, sorrow fills our hearts to behold her now struggling under the heavy load of oppression, tyranny and death ... "Shall we any longer sit silent, and contentedly continue the subjects of such a Prince, who is deaf to our petitions for interposing his Royal authority in our behalf, and for redressing our grievances, but, on the contrary, seems to take pleasure in our own destruction? When we see that one whole year is not enough to satisfy the rage of a cruel Ministry, in burning our towns, seizing our vessels, and murdering our precious sons of liberty ... and for no other reason than this, that we will not become their slaves and be taxed by them without our consent -- therefore, as we would rather choose to be separate from, than to continue any longer a connection with such oppressors, we ... think proper to instruct our most honourable Delegates in Continental Congress to use their utmost endeavors in that august assembly to cause these United Colonies to become independent of Great Britain ... and we hereby sincerely promise to endeavour to support the same with our lives and fortunes." A few days later, on June 8, 1776, the same day that Virginia's Richard Henry Lee formally proposed independence to the Continental Congress in Philadelphia, New York's delegates wrote home to the Provincial Congress, saying: "Your delegates here expect that the question of independence will very shortly be agitated in the Congress. Some of us consider ourselves as bound by your instructions not to vote on that question, and all of us wish to have your sentiments thereon. The matter will admit of no delay." Now, if you listen to that carefully, you caught something: Some of New York's delegates in Philadelphia thought they could ignore the First Provincial Congress's instructions to seek reconciliation with Britain, and all of them wanted to know what they should do next. Five days later, the Provincial Congress replied that they were "not authorized to give the sense of this colony on the question of declaring it to be an independent state, nor does this Congress incline to instruct you on that point, it being a matter of doubt whether their constituents intended to vest them with the power to deliberate and determine on that question." So essentially the Third Provincial Congress told the delegates in Philadelphia: We cannot authorize you to vote for independence, we will not authorize you to vote for independence, and we are not even sure ourselves that we have the authority to decide whether we could even instruct you on that question otherwise. Now, on the one hand you might think this was a classic response of institutional paralysis, and in many ways it was. But on the other hand, I think it also represented an act of political humility. After all, how many times have any of us declined to express a political opinion because our constituents didn't authorize us to speak on a given topic? The Provincial Congress knew it did not have the power to take this final step towards separation, so instead it voted to disband itself and call for new elections to the Fourth Provincial Congress, which would be instructed by the electors on the great question of independence. The Third Provincial Congress then disbanded itself on June 30, 1776, just as the British began massing an invasion force in New York Harbor, with hundreds of ships and tens of thousands of troops. Two days later, on July 2, 1776, 12 colonies voted to declare themselves free and independent. New York's delegates sat silent. They abstained. And then two days later, on July 4, 1776, the Declaration of Independence was formally adopted by Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia. But not New York. So how did we end up joining the rest of the colonies in declaring ourselves independent? Following the instructions of the Third Provincial Congress, New York held what was functionally an election on the question of independence. The people were asked to choose. And the result was unambiguous: Supporters of independence won overwhelmingly, as most of the returning delegates supported separation from Great Britain. And critically, in New York City itself, seven delegates with loyalist affiliations who had been elected to the Fourth Congress refused to take their seats because they would not participate in a body convened specifically to authorize independence. So a new, call it a special election was held to replace them, and seven new delegates were all elected, all pro-independence, to take their place. The conservative reconciliation faction that had strenuously slowed New York's full participation in the colonial struggle had been replaced at the ballot box. The Fourth Provincial Congress convened on July 9, 1776, at the Old Courthouse in White Plains. And as that Congress gaveled into session, a letter from the delegates in Philadelphia was read aloud, with the full text of the Declaration enclosed. The letter and the declaration were immediately referred to a special committee chaired by John Jay. Jay and his colleagues deliberated through the morning, and that afternoon they returned with a resolution, handwritten by Jay and preserved in our State Archives to this day. It read: "Resolved, unanimously, That the reasons assigned by the Continental Congress for declaring the United Colonies free and independent States, are cogent and conclusive; and that while we lament the cruel necessity which has rendered that measure unavoidable, we approve the same, and will, at the risk of our lives and fortunes, join with the other Colonies in supporting it." Now, listen to those words again, because I think they're somewhat extraordinary. We did not declare independence with a cheer. We declared it with a lament -- "the cruel necessity which has rendered that measure unavoidable." We went into it clear-eyed about what we were giving up and what we stood to lose and what that cost might be. The Provincial Congress then voted unanimously to support independence. New York had more to lose from independence than almost any other colony -- more commercial ties to Britain, more loyalist residents, more vulnerability to the British military, who were at that very moment preparing to attack New York City. We knew exactly what we were signing up for, and then we did it anyway. When news of New York's vote reached Philadelphia on July 15th, the Continental Congress formally retitled the Declaration "The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen United States of America." Then, nine months later, on April 20, 1777, as you all know well by now, New York went on to adopt its first constitution as a free and independent state. Now, the reason I find this story worth telling is that, at its core, it's a story about what representative government actually looks like when the stakes are highest. It can be messy. It can be slow. It can be frustrating to those who want to achieve decisive action immediately. And no, this is not a commentary on the late budget. The Third Provincial Congress looked like it was failing, unable to act and issuing letters that essentially said, We can't decide. But something important was happening underneath the surface. The political momentum shifted. New Yorkers got to decide their future for themselves. They acted decisively, and then they fought for that future with great vigor. We talk a great deal in this building about the importance of public trust and a representative legitimacy, of making sure that people's voices are heard before we take consequential action. Two hundred and fifty years ago, on the most consequential question in our history, New York took that obligation seriously -- even when it was inconvenient, even when it looked like failure, and even when we had 12 other colonies waiting on us. And you know what? We got there. So, Madam President, with that, I want to say Happy 249th Birthday to the great State of New York, and a very happy Constitution Day to each and every one of you. Thank you.

Opposed, nay. (No response.)

Let's move on to previously adopted Resolution 1710, by Senator Scarcella-Spanton, read its title, and call on Senator Scarcella-Spanton, please.

Resolution 1710, by Senator Scarcella-Spanton, memorializing Governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim April 2026 as the Month of the Military Child in the State of New York.

Thank you, Madam President. And thank you to all my colleagues for joining me in memorializing April as the Month of the Military Child here in New York State. As a mother of two, I know firsthand how difficult military life is for families, especially for children. Our daughter, Emily, was born just 10 days before my husband did his second tour to Afghanistan. I know I have colleagues who also deployed with young children -- Senator Ashby, who's the ranking member, Senator Walczyk as well. Despite these challenges, military children demonstrate remarkable adaptability, courage, and maturity. They learn flexibility, cultural awareness, and leadership skills that shape them into strong leaders for tomorrow. Our military children embody service, pride, and commitment at a young age. This month is an opportunity to not only say thank you, but to renew our commitment to policies and programs that actually support our military families year round. Honoring military children means ensuring they have the tools, support, and opportunities to succeed. As we continue to honor the service of our military, we must never forget the children who stand beside them. And I want to thank my colleagues for their service, their children for their service, my husband as well, and especially my children, Emily and Jack. So thank you. I proudly vote aye.

At this time please recognize Senator Rhoads for an introduction.

Thank you, Madam President. We are all incredibly proud of the counties that we represent. I am honored, along with many of my colleagues here, to represent Nassau County, which has been deemed the safest county in America. And that is not by accident. That is through an investment, through a culture where we respect our law enforcement and our first responders. It's through an investment made by our county government in pursuing the best technology, the best training, and the best equipment to make sure that our trained professionals in the Nassau County Police Department have the ability to operate efficiently and effectively to keep the people of Nassau County safe. It's also because of the incredible volunteer program that we have that is provided by the Nassau County Police Department Explorers. These explorers are aged 14 to 21. They are from diverse backgrounds. They receive hands-on training in law enforcement, community service, and leadership. More important than that, though, they are dedicated to the principle of public service. One of the things that we try and instill in all of our kids is the fact that you should be using your gifts and talents to try and make our corner of the world a little bit better for having been here. And these amazing young people demonstrate that every day. The Nassau County Police Department Explorer Program instills the values of discipline, responsibility, and teamwork, as well as a commitment to serving others. And joining us in the gallery today are some representatives of that program. Joining us is Detective Sergeant Daniel Johannessen, whose leadership and mentorship have helped shape countless young lives. And we also have Mario Doyle, who is a member of the Nassau County Police Foundation's executive board, whose continued support ensures that this program thrives. But we also have some members of the Nassau County Police Explorers as well, including a remarkable alumnus. Joining us is Leslie Quintanilla-Lopez, who made history as the first former Nassau County Explorer to serve on the Explorer board, and who now continues her service as a United States Custom and Border Protection agent, an extraordinary testament to what this program can achieve. We're also joined by two exceptional leaders in the program: Kaitlin Paige Slattery, who is the highest-ranking Nassau County Explorer, serving as a two-star assistant chief; as well as Gianna Michelle Gomez, the second-highest-ranking Explorer, serving as a one-star deputy chief. It is their leadership, dedication, and commitment to excellence that sets the standard for what it means to serve. Also joining us are Explorers Joshua Williams, Yaqiao Zheng, Nicole Slattery, Manveer Sahansra, Blair Karpuz, Meylin Santos, Yoselin Polanco, Alejandro Gomez, Zohaib Ali, Angelica Gomez, and Robert Salerno. Madam President, I would ask that you recognize these exceptional individuals. At a time when law enforcement agencies across our state face recruitment challenges, programs like this become more important than ever. These young leaders are stepping up, they're answering the call, and they are preparing themselves to serve their communities with honor, integrity, and respect. I ask that you extend to them the cordialities of the house. Thank you, Madam President.

Senator Gianaris.

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

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

The Secretary will read.

Read the last section.

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

In relation to Calendar 169, voting in the negative are Senators Borrello, Canzoneri-Fitzpatrick, Griffo, Helming, Lanza, Martins, Mattera, O'Mara, Ortt, Rhoads, Stec, Tedisco, Walczyk, Weber and Weik. Ayes, 47. Nays, 15.

Calendar Number 260, Senate Print 4046, by Senator Harckham, an act to amend the Environmental Conservation Law.

The bill is laid aside.

Read the last section.

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

In relation to Calendar 393, voting in the negative are Senators Borrello, Chan, Oberacker, O'Mara, Stec, Walczyk and Weik. Ayes, 55. Nays, 7.

Thank you, Madam President. I rise today to explain my vote. Although lead in our service lines is critical to get rid of as it imposes terrible health conditions, I did speak with the sponsor of the bill hoping that he would change the only material used for these pipe replacements. The bill dictates that they can only use copper instead of using other materials from the NSF-approved noncorrosive materials list, which poses a very expensive problem for those areas that are in low-lying water that get floods, like my district. Saltwater corrodes copper very quickly, which means the replacement of these lines is going to be costly and repetitive. I'm disappointed to see that he did not amend the bill to include these other materials. And for that purpose only, I'm voting in the negative.

In relation to Calendar 393, voting in the negative are Senators Borrello, Chan, Oberacker, O'Mara, Stec, Walczyk and Weik. Ayes, 55. Nays, 7.

Calendar Number 411, Assembly Bill Number 3318, by Assemblymember Dinowitz, an act to amend the General Business Law.

The bill is laid aside.

Read the last section.

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

Ayes, 62.

Calendar Number 593, Assembly Bill Number 2657A, by Assemblymember Otis, an act to amend the Public Authorities Law.

The bill is laid aside.

Read the last section.

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

Ayes, 62.

Calendar Number 599, Senate Print 3835, by Senator Hinchey, an act to amend the Private Housing Finance Law.

The bill is laid aside.

Read the last section.

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

In relation to Calendar 603, voting in the negative are Senators Borrello, Chan, O'Mara, Ortt and Walczyk. Ayes, 57. Nays, 5.

Calendar Number 608, Senate Print 1055, by Senator Serrano, an act to amend the Executive Law.

Section 2. This act shall take effect immediately.

Announce the results.

The bill is passed.

Read the last section.

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

In relation to Calendar 630, voting in the negative are Senators Borrello, Lanza, Mattera, Ortt, Walczyk and Weik. Also Senator O'Mara. Ayes, 55. Nays, 7.

Calendar Number 631, Senate Print 5111A, by Senator Parker, an act enacting the Just Energy Transition Act.

The bill is laid aside.

Lay it aside.

Calendar Number 646, Senate Print 2057B, by Senator Webb, an act to amend the Environmental Conservation Law.

Section 6. This act shall take effect one year after it shall have become a law.

Announce the results.

The bill is passed.

Read the last section.

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

In relation to Calendar 648, voting in the negative are Senators Ashby, Borrello, Canzoneri-Fitzpatrick, Chan, Gallivan, Griffo, Lanza, O'Mara, Ortt, Rhoads, Stec, Walczyk, Weber and Weik. Ayes, 48. Nays, 14.

Calendar Number 650, Senate Print 9268A, by Senator Fahy, an act to amend the Environmental Conservation Law.

The bill is laid aside. There's a substitution at the desk. The Secretary will read.

The Secretary will read.

Lay it aside.

Calendar Number 697, Senate Print 6570A, by Senator Harckham, an act to amend the Environmental Conservation Law.

The bill is laid aside.

Lay it aside.

Thank you, Madam President. We have a lengthy controversial calendar today, so let's move on to that, please.

Calendar Number 260, Senate Print 4046, by Senator Harckham, an act to amend the Environmental Conservation Law.

Madam President, I was hoping that the sponsor would yield for a few questions.

I do, Madam President.

Thank you. And thank you, Senator. How many buildings in New York State currently use No. 4 heating oil?

Thank you. Madam President, if the sponsor would continue to yield.

I do, Madam President.

So it's my understanding that there are already prohibitions from certain local governments like the County of Westchester, the City of New York, with regard to No. 4 fuel oil. Are you aware of any other municipalities that have these prohibitions? And as to the prohibitions that exist, do you know when they are actually enforcing the prohibition as to those locations?

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

Yes, Madam President.

We know that fuel oil in general accounts for about 19 percent of heating in New York State. We don't know the exact proportion of No. 4. But we do know that it is used in other parts of the state. But to the degree whether it's one home or 5,000 buildings, it's still a very, very harmful fuel to public health. And there are clean alternatives that are in some cases more affordable. Why wouldn't we encourage folks to switch?

Do you continue to yield?

The sponsor yields.

Well, through you, Madam President, certain biofuels are less expensive than this. They burn cleaner, less harmful impacts to public health and to the environment. The -- they can switch to propane, which could be a costly transition. They could switch to natural gas. Or they could switch to No. 2 fuel oil, which would not necessitate a change of equipment. It is a little bit more expensive per gallon, but it burns much more efficiently and cleanly because it's lighter, and so the ultimate cost is about a wash.

Do you continue to yield?

The sponsor yields.

Through you, Madam President, that is correct. As well as biodiesel.

Do you continue to yield?

The sponsor yields.

I would say right now there is -- (pause). Thank you. Thank you for the clarification. Yes, things like the EmPower+ program allow homeowners, with support from New York State, to make upgrades for things like heat pumps, which are more efficient than home heating oil, for instance. Yes, so the EmPower+ program is designed to do just this. And then when we talk about our larger building stock, that is one of the things that is talked about when a cap-and-invest program is debated. But that is not something that's on the table right now. But certainly EmPower+ for residential buildings.

Do you continue to yield?

The sponsor yields.

Through you, Madam President. No, the focus was really on more why weren't they switching when we know that the other fuels are just as viable. So if you don't want to switch equipment, there are two other fuels, as we mentioned, No. 2 and biodiesel, that don't require retrofits. As we discussed, if you wanted to change to something like a heat pump, that would require a more expensive retrofit but there's EmPower+ and programs like that.

Senator Martins on the bill.

Are there any other Senators wishing to be heard? Seeing and hearing none, debate is closed. The Secretary will ring the bell. Senator Serrano.

The bill is restored to the noncontroversial calendar. Read the last section.

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

In relation to Calendar 260, voting in the negative are Senators Borrello, Chan, Gallivan, Griffo, Helming, Lanza, Mattera, Oberacker, O'Mara, Ortt, Ryan, Stec, Walczyk, Weber and Weik. Ayes, 47. Nays, 15.

Calendar Number 411, Assembly Bill Number 3318, by Assemblymember Dinowitz, an act to amend the General Business Law.

Thank you, Madam President. I was wondering if the sponsor would yield for a few questions.

Happily, Madam President.

Through you, Madam President. Thank you, Senator Kavanagh, for agreeing to discuss this bill. In the litigation world, arbitration is a very useful tool. It creates judicial economy, it takes cases out of our court system, and it allows for cases to be settled without going through the judicial process. Typically arbitration is confidential between parties and it is not subject to public disclosure to the extent that there's a settlement, there's agreement on certain terms, and typically there may be complex settlement terms. So if I understand your bill correctly, this bill would require that private arbitration organizations that handle 50 or more consumer cases must publicly report detailed information, including the parties' identities, the outcome, the arbitrator's fees, the number of arbitrations that that company has been involved in, and a lot of detailed information. So my question for you is, why is this bill necessary? Why have you proposed this bill?

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

Yes, Madam President.

So the Business Council has noted for us that the American Arbitration Association already publishes redacted awards, maintains public registries, and supervises what goes on with arbitration. So can I ask you, is the AAA not doing enough to monitor what's going on?

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

Yes, Madam President.

So has there been a question posed -- or who has requested this legislation to say that we're not seeing that the AAA is monitoring the arbitration world sufficiently?

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

Yes, Madam President.

So I'm not sure if the Senator is aware that FINRA, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, also wrote a memorandum regarding this legislation. And that FINRA is governed by the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, and that they are consistently working with the New York Investor Protection Bureau regarding arbitration. And that this bill could create a conflict between state and federal law concerning FINRA's arbitration forum. And I'll note that there are several states that have removed FINRA from their arbitration proposals, specifically Arizona, California, District of Columbia, Maryland, Nevada, and West Virginia. And I'm wondering if that was a consideration for you to remove FINRA and -- I'm sorry, to propose an exemption that any arbitration-related proposals that were governed by FINRA would be exempt from your statute.

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

Yes, Madam President.

So in a climate where we have financial institutions leaving New York because of overregulation and other financial considerations, we're now creating an additional burden on financial service companies by requiring them to now comply with this dual regulatory system that you're creating by this bill. And is there any consideration of the fact that we're going to lose companies when we need tax revenue in this state, we need these financial companies to stay here and not take their jobs. And if we put more burden on them, aren't they going to leave New York?

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

Yes, Madam President.

So a question I have is, how will this information now be shared with the public? I believe it's through a state-specific database that now these organizations have to upload the information. Could you explain to me how that process is going to work?

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

Yes, Madam President.

So you just brought me to another question that I have regarding the effective date. Because my understanding is that is -- this is effective for January 1st of 2027 for all arbitrations after that date. But one of the things I'm wondering about is the companies are required to post historical data for six months in the past, if my understanding is correct -- I'm sorry, five years of historical data. And is six months a realistic time frame to allow them, these companies, time to upload all this information and make it public in requirement to the statute? Because my understanding is if we don't, we're sort of setting them up for violations immediately upon the effective date of this legislation. And my understanding, again, is that the penalty could be $2,000 for every violation. And I'm concerned that we don't have enough time to set this up in compliance with the statute.

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

Yes, Madam President.

So I touched on this a little bit before, but I wanted to revisit it. The bill requires publication of a consumer's zip code, the type of dispute, the prevailing party. And it even requires the disclosure of annual wage range for employees in employment-related disputes. And that is troubling to me since we're talking about employment issues. I'm wondering, too, have you considered the fact that many settlements have a nondisclosure agreement as part of it? So with this required disclosure, are we eliminating the ability of parties to bargain for a nondisclosure agreement?

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

Yes, Madam President.

One of the other items that caught my attention was the fact that the bill applies to the financial threshold of having a 1 percent or a $1500 interest that you are -- you know, you're treated as having a financial interest in these arbitration companies for quite a small amount. And I'm wondering why that threshold is set so low.

Madam President, on the bill.

I want to thank Senator Kavanagh for the discussion regarding this bill. It's always a pleasure to discuss things with him. As you heard in the very beginning, arbitration is a useful tool to bring resolution to matters when it's more efficient to take it out of the court system, and it allows for judicial economy on a number of levels. This bill requires that everything be disclosed. It puts a burden on our financial service organizations. It puts a burden on our arbitration companies. And those are the people that we're employing in this state, that are paying taxes, that we're trying to keep here in New York. And I think this is just another level of regulation that is going to push companies out of New York State. I understand the concept of transparency. I'm all for it. But in litigation there are reasons why we don't always disclose the employment settlement -- because of wage concerns, we don't necessarily want all of the details disclosed all the time. Which is why we frequently bargain for nondisclosure agreements in our settlements. For these reasons, I'll be voting nay, and I encourage my colleagues to do the same. Thank you.

Madam President, upon consent, we've agreed to restore this bill to the noncontroversial calendar.

Before we restore it to the noncontroversial calendar, I was hoping the sponsor would yield. Actually, on the bill, Madam President.

So let's talk for a minute about arbitration. There are arbitration clauses in contracts, folks. People decide they want to arbitrate rather than litigate. There's a reason for this. They may not want it to be public. That's their right. They decide that it's going to be arbitrated either before an association, the American Arbitration Association, but there are several organizations that provide for arbitration services. They don't perform the arbitration. The arbitration is performed by individuals. Subject matter experts, that's what this is about. You want people who are arbitrating who understand the concepts that you're going to be presenting to them. They provide you with their C.V.s, they tell you who they are. And then when they find out about the case, they tell you whether or not there are any conflicts, because they don't want to be involved in a case that may involve a conflict of interest. So you pick and you rank a number of arbitrators on either side. When both sides agree on an arbitrator or, if it's a panel, three arbitrators, you move forward and you have the case decided. It makes sense. There's no public disclosure. We don't have a public right to know what two private entities will or will not do or how they want to resolve their particular dispute. We want them to resolve it amicably, and we want to make sure that they stay out of court because our judicial system is already overwhelmed. So I frankly don't understand, Madam President, why we would put this kind of a burden on the businesses and those individuals who actually have contracted to require for alternative dispute resolution rather than go to litigation. That's what this is all about. We're supposed to make it easy, get out of the way. But yet here we are, once again, inserting ourselves into a process that's not broken. It's not broken. Yet we're going to find a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. Once again, congratulations, here we are. And for what? What right does anyone have to know how two parties who contracted to go to arbitration decided to resolve their case? So we talked about FINRA, we'll talk about the American Arbitration Association. But you know what? I've tried cases and I've arbitrated cases in front of an individual, a single person that both sides decided, you know what, we believe this person is capable and we want that person to be the arbitrator for our case. And we had a right to do it. The parties agreed, and so be it. Why would we insert requirements into a process and make it even more complicated, costly? It just doesn't make sense, frankly. And I think what it's actually going to do, with respect to our colleague and to the sponsor, it's going to make it more difficult for people to arbitrate. Madam President, you look at any construction contract between an owner and a design professional, between an owner and a general contractor or project manager, between a general contractor and a subcontractor -- you look at contracts between suppliers and contractors, every one of them has an arbitration clause. Every one of them -- many of them have nondisclosure agreements as well. It's not done by the association. It's done by the parties. So this idea that somehow we're going to make this process easier by simply requiring public disclosure -- of what? So no, no, there isn't a problem that needs to be fixed. No, this isn't necessary. And frankly, we're adding layers that have no place in a system that wants it to be resolved quickly, efficiently. And the system is there. So Madam President, I'll be voting no. I encourage all of my colleagues to, although I know where this is going to end up. We all do. But the reality is we're making a mistake today, again. Because there is no reason why we would complicate ADR as a source of dispute resolution and put additional burdens on our communities, private consumers, or business entities. And to what end? I vote no.

Thank you, Madam President. As I mentioned before, upon consent, we've agreed to restore this bill to the noncontroversial calendar.

Section 3. This act shall take effect on the 180th day after it shall have become a law.

Senator Kavanagh to explain his vote.

Senator Kavanagh to be recorded in the affirmative. Senator Martins to explain his vote.

Senator Martins to be recorded in the negative. Announce the results.

The bill is passed.

Senator Walczyk, why do you rise?

Senator Liu will be responding to questions. Senator Liu, do you agree to questions?

The Senator yields.

Through you, Mr. President, NYSERDA already has similar programs in place funded in the same way. There is no anticipation that this particular bill would necessitate any increase in those fees.

Will the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Through you, Mr. President. NYSERDA is a substantially sized entity with a substantial amount of resources. NYSERDA will decide where they can aggregate the amount of funding necessary for this program. Which is not anticipated to be a very large amount.

Will the sponsor yield? Senator Liu, do you yield?

The Senator yields.

Through you, Mr. President. Certainly not.

Will the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Through you, Mr. President. There are some landscaping companies that are making the switch to electric and battery-powered equipment, but there are many that have not and have articulated some financial hardship in doing so. What this bill does is encourage the use and the switch-over to these battery-powered devices, again for the primary purposes of reducing air pollution and noise pollution.

Will the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Through you, Mr. President. The devices envisioned here are what most people in my community, and I'm guessing in your community as well, would understand to be landscape maintenance devices. And that -- and these landscape maintenance devices, particularly with if they're battery powered, will require power. Power management -- I cannot speak to the specific device here, but I would imagine that they include chargers.

Will the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Through you, Mr. President. That is not contemplated in this bill.

Will the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Through you, Mr. President, we leave that decision to NYSERDA's expertise.

Will the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Through you, Mr. President, we already have a rechargeable battery extended producer program.

Senator Walczyk on the bill.

Thank you, Senator Walczyk. Are there any other Senators wishing to be heard? Seeing and hearing none, debate is closed. Senator Serrano.

On consent, the bill is restored to the noncontroversial calendar. Read the last section.

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

In relation to Calendar 593, voting in the negative are Senators Gallivan, Mattera, Murray, O'Mara, Ortt, Stec, Walczyk and Weik. Ayes, 54. Nays, 8.

Calendar Number 599, Senate Print 3835, by Senator Hinchey, an act to amend the Private Housing Finance Law.

Mr. President, if the sponsor would yield for some questions.

I do.

Thank you. Senator, is -- this bill is restricted to not-for-profits or municipal entities purchasing a right to a manufactured home community or, in this case, manufactured home parks. Are these parks owned as co-ops by the people who live in those units? Or is the land owned and then rented to people who place their mobile parks or their manufactured homes on the land?

Mr. President, through you, if the sponsor would continue to yield.

I do.

So if they don't own the land, is it the owner of the manufactured home on the property that would have a right to finance and reach these agreements? Or is it the underlying property owner that would have the ability to sell or finance that property, under this bill?

Through you, Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue to yield.

I do.

So I see in the bill that they would be able to sell not only their development rights, but to -- excuse me, to finance and transfer the development rights but also to finance the property itself. And that we're going to provide them, through the bill, with the right to access funding and I guess advice from the commissioner of DHCR. Is there anything in the bill that would require as a condition that they continue to use the park as a manufactured home or mobile park?

Through you, Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue to yield.

I do.

And so just so we're clear, the not-for-profits that we're talking about, or the municipalities, how would -- they would access funding, and what would they get back for the community for purposes of, you know, repayment of that loan in order to purchase those development rights?

Through you, Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue to yield.

I do.

So a property owner that has a mobile park decides to transfer the development rights to a municipality or a not-for-profit, and they come to an agreement on a number. And as a result, they receive a set amount of money. And the person or the not-for-profit or the municipality has access to a loan, which they're going to be responsible for repaying, and the property owner receives this quantity of cash. Right? (Pause.)

Through you, Mr. President, if the sponsor will continue to yield.

I do.

Who would be taking out the loan and have access to funding in order to provide that funding to the property owner?

Thank you. Mr. President, through you, if the sponsor would continue to yield.

I do.

So they took out the loan, the municipalities, the not-for-profits; they transferred that money to the property owner in return for development rights. That property owner hopefully will invest that money into the property in order to maintain it as a manufactured home park. And I guess it wasn't clear, because I didn't see it in the bill, how does the not-for-profit or the municipality get repaid if the individual property owners, the manufactured home owners, are paying rent to the property owner who received the cash?

Thank you. Through you, Mr. President, if the sponsor will continue to yield.

I do.

Well, so let's say that they didn't sell the land because there's an alternative here where they sell their development rights. They still own the land, they just sold the right to develop the property in some way, and therefore they receive that bag of cash for selling their development rights. They're still collecting rent. They're still the owners of the property. So the person who gave them that money and took out the loan, how do they get repaid? Or is that then the responsibility of the not-for-profit or the municipality to make those payments? Because we know they certainly don't own the property, right? (Pause.)

Through you, Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue to yield.

I do.

But in this scenario, they don't own the land. They're not collecting rent. They are the not-for-profit, the land bank, the municipality that decided to purchase the development rights, but they didn't buy the property. And therefore they're not collecting rents. Those rents are going to continue to go to the property owner who received the cash from the municipality. So how does the not-for-profit or the municipality who purchased the development rights, but didn't purchase the property, get repaid? (Pause.)

Senator Martins, would you clarify the question, please?

Senator Martins on the bill.

Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Martins. Senator Murray, why do you rise?

Will the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Through you, soon-to-be-Madam President -- (Laughter.)

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

Yes.

Thank you. Through you, Madam President. So let's go through. From the previous questions, let's walk through a scenario where we have a particular mobile home park. It is owned by an individual. We've passed this legislation. Explain to me the process of where this fund will be used. Will they purchase the property from the owner? Will they get development rights to freeze them? How will that happen?

Thank you. Madam President, would the sponsor continue to yield?

I do.

Thank you. Through you, Madam President. So continuing that scenario, the situation that the owner, the previous owner has given up the right to the property, now it's being run -- the tenants continue to pay the rent. Most of those, if I'm not mistaken, sign leases for 99 years or so. So if they were to sell, this protects it so it continues and cannot then change. You had mentioned the property values, like, for example, Long Island, the Hudson Valley. The property values are very, very high. So right now what this bill says, if I'm reading it correctly, is that so that we're not concerned that the taxpayers will be overpaying, they're paying the value of the property in its current state, not how it could be developed in the future. Correct?

Okay. Madam President, on the bill.

And thank you, Senator. So I think -- personally, I think this is a great bill. The sponsor brought up a particular point of we have a problem right now with affordable housing, a big problem. You're looking at a Senator who grew up in a double-wide, in a mobile home park. And I will tell you that there's pride in owning, but it's all not completely there when you don't own the land underneath you. I own a home now. It's a different feeling. So giving that sense of home, if you will, that insurance, if you will, that you will be there, this will be your home, is invaluable. But it also allows our next generation to obtain affordable housing. Many times the mobile homes or manufactured homes are lower in cost. And if we can keep this land in its current use, at its current value, then it will make it affordable. So I think it's a great bill. I think it's something that we should be supporting. I'll be voting yes, and I hope my colleagues will join me. Thank you.

Madam President, I was wondering if the sponsor would yield for a question.

Sure.

Thank you, Senator.

Through you, Madam President. That's not specified in this bill, no.

Do you continue to yield?

The sponsor yields.

Through you, Madam President, yes, that is correct.

Now, are there any other Senators wishing to be heard? Seeing and hearing none, debate is closed. Senator Gianaris.

This bill has been restored to the noncontroversial calendar. Read the last section.

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

Thank you, Madam President. I think there's an unintended consequence with this bill that needs to have some attention drawn to it, which is presently the way it works -- and I've got quite a few of these communities in my district -- is that the property owner owns the land and pays taxes on that land while leasing out these individual homes to those individuals. And those exemptions that people qualify for are then applied to the taxes that that property owner has to pay. My concern, of course, is that if a municipality or a not-for-profit owns those properties, they are tax-exempt. Which is going to hurt the community, because the funds that are brought in through property taxes for things like school, town, county taxes are now going to be exempted because a municipality or a not-for-profit now owns that property. And for that reason, Madam President, I'll be voting in the negative.

In relation to Calendar 599, voting in the negative are Senators Borrello, Canzoneri-Fitzpatrick, Chan, Griffo, Martins, Rhoads, Walczyk and Weik. Also Senator Gallivan. Also Senator Weber. Also Senator Mattera. Ayes, 51. Nays, 11.

Calendar Number 631, Senate Print 5111A, by Senator Parker, an act enacting the Just Energy Transition Act.

Madam President, I hope the sponsor would yield for some questions.

I do.

Through you, Madam President. Forty to 50 percent of New York State's electricity is currently generated by fossil-fuel burning facilities. Pretty stark contrast between upstate and New York City, with electricity produced for New York City 90 percent -- and these are rough estimates, obviously. It changes day by day -- but roughly 90 percent fossil-fuel generation for electricity. And in upstate, roughly 90 percent generation is zero emissions, largely because of hydro nuclear power in upstate New York. How does this bill, called the Just Energy Transition Act, propose to change that?

Would the sponsor continue to yield.

Yes, Madam President.

Through you, Madam President. At peak demand -- and that would be in the summer heat for electricity -- New York City uses over 100K megawatts for power daily. Where's all that power going to come from if this transition act becomes law?

Would the sponsor continue to yield?

Yes, Madam President.

Through you, Madam President. And NYSERDA would be conducting that study and they'd have six months after this becomes law in order to fully conduct that study to decide where to make up 100K megawatts per hour daily for New York City?

Madam President, would the sponsor continue to yield?

Yes.

So just by my calculation, if you looked at solar capacity, which has a capacity factor of 15 percent, if you were making that 100K megawatts per hour daily for New York City, if you were making that capacity up, that would be about 277,000 acres of solar panels. Does that sound about right to you?

Madam President, would the sponsor continue to yield.

Yes, Madam President.

Through you, Madam President. So of those 4 gigawatts, this bill would decommission those 4 gigawatts of peaker plants in New York City in the next three and a half years. Since Indian Point was decommissioned, we've actually produced less power despite the $88.7 billion in ratepayer and tax money that has gone into investments in our grid and in green-energy power production. With that much power coming offline, how high should ratepayers expect their bills to be when this is fully implemented?

Madam President, will the sponsor continue to yield?

Yes, Madam President.

So if this is signed into law soon but fully implemented in three and a half years, would the cost savings of all of that investment and the decommissioning of plants, at least in your view that would reduce bills three and a half, four years from now?

Madam President, will the sponsor continue to yield.

Yes, Madam President.

So New York State has a nonprofit Independent Systems Operator that is in charge of the buying and selling of electricity on our grid and the overall management of our grid. They produce regular reports on the sustainability of our grid and have warned pretty consistently, especially in the last few years, about taking peaker plants in New York City offline too early. How does this square up with the warnings that we've heard from the independent and nonpartisan ISO that's warned against this?

Madam President, would the sponsor continue to yield?

Yes, Madam President.

I think we may be reading different reports from the NYISO. But I'm happy to get with you offline and find out what the facts are there. But I do want to focus on your bill here, because I think it's more than a hope that there will be implementation and certainly more than a study by my reading of your bill. So this requires that the study be completed in six months after the signing of this legislation. And then page 3, line 32, the Public Service Commission shall (reading) commence a proceeding to implement the strategies, programs, standards and requirements described in the study referred to in section 3 of this act within 90 days of delivery of the study to the Governor, the Senate and the Assembly, and then issue an order regarding implementation of the strategies, programs, standards and requirements described in the study referred to in that same section no later than July 30, 2027. Next summer, have it ready to go and issue an order to take those 5 gigawatts offline is -- or 4 gigawatts offline is what I'm reading in the bill that you're proposing today. Am I wrong?

-- we used to have a program they used to talk about on television all the time. John Liu might remember this. There was a program called RIF. You all familiar with that?

Right, reading is fundamental. There is no way that you read the contents of this bill that says that there will be a study and then, based on the study, there will then be an implementation of that -- nowhere in the language does it say taking anything offline. And in fact we may find, in the context of the study, that the 4 gigawatts of the dirtiest energy in the state may not come from peaker plants. Theoretically, it could come from a plant that is a regular running plant. Or several regular running plants. That's why there is a study. And in the context of that study, Madam President, they then will set a set of criteria and standards and a plan. And then the plan will be implemented. There's nowhere in that plan does it say to reduce the amount of energy before you replace it with clean, sustainable energy. I can't imagine that NYSERDA or the PSC would in fact take energy offline prior to replacing it with clean, sustainable energy. That is not how we have operated year to date. And so if there's an issue with that, then that's a different conversation. But that is not in fact what the bill before us calls for. The bill before us calls for a study of the 4 dirtiest gigawatts of energy being produced in the state, to provide a study -- standards, criteria -- and then to implement said study. Or sorry, implement said recommendations that are contained within that study. And so whether it's a peaker plant or other types of, you know, dirty energy that might be included, I'm not jumping to that conclusion. I'm saying let NYSERDA and the people who are experts at figuring this out figure it out and move us into a place in which, as soon as possible, we will in fact be receiving sustainable energy -- clean, sustainable energy in this state.

Do you continue to yield?

The Senator yields.

Madam President, through you. First, let me thank Senator Walczyk for his thorough reading of the bill, because there were, in our last committee meeting, some errors that needed to be updated and amended, which have been done. And now we bring this bill before you, understanding that we are in desperate times. And we should understand that this kind of bill would not be necessary if it wasn't for a Republican Trump administration in Washington that is doing everything it can to slow down the transition to a clean energy economy by being a climate-change denier and stopping things like our offshore wind project, to name one. Right? But we could kind of go on and on about what the federal administration has been doing in terms of trying to thwart our attempts to save the environment of future generations, not just here in the State of New York but across the country and across the globe. And we're not going to have a conversation, Madam President, about how the price of energy is up because of both Putin's war and Trump's illegal war in Iran and his inability to understand the Hormuz Strait and the implications of blockades and -- we're not going to have any of those conversations. But they are relevant to why, you know, prices are so high here in the State of New York and across the country. What this bill will in fact do, and how it in fact addresses the needs of New Yorkers, is that we have an increasing load here in terms of energy load. Every single day people are buying devices, they're plugging them in, and we need more energy. And so producing energy is going to be necessary regardless of whether the CLCPA existed or not. But we have the CLCPA in place. It's the law of the land. And so it is important that as we make decisions both around our environment and around energy, that we take that into consideration and do our work in the context of that. And so here we have a bill that I believe falls in tandem with the CLCPA and provides a path to go forward. Part of the dynamic that we have seen is delay, delay, delay, delay, delay. And things have not gone as fast or as smooth as they could have. So there is actually several things happening, the first of which is that there is a report that is supposed to come back to the Legislature. It says that here in the language. And then, simultaneously, the experts who run the energy operation are in fact going to do their work. By the vote here passing in this body, passing in the Assembly, and the Governor signing it, it not just tacitly but directly says we give you permission to do this. Right? And at the end of the day the people at NYSERDA and the PSC and other agencies that will in fact do the implementation of this work are far more expert at what needs to be done and the interpretation of both the data, the results of the study, and the recommendations than the State Legislature. So there's no need for it to come back to the State Legislature. We're here to do what our job is, which is to provide policy, a policy direction for agencies, in tandem with the Governor. And so this bill will in fact provide all of the oversight that needs to happen. We also continue, within the context of our legislative function, to have an oversight responsibility to agencies like the PSC and the Department of Energy as well as NYSERDA. And so that when we have questions, comments, concerns, it is easy enough to bring them before the committee or to see them when they come in to discuss their budgets during the finance period, to ask these questions and to have significant oversight. And so to slow the process down by doing a report, providing recommendations, and then NYSERDA and the report having to come back to the Legislature for another round of expedition {sic} by a set of people who frankly are not qualified to go into the deep dive on energy implementation not only doesn't make sense, but is anti-productive or counterproductive to the work that we're trying to get done here.

Senator Walczyk on the bill.

Thank you, Senator Walczyk. Senator Mattera -- you wanted to explain your vote, we're not there yet. Are there any other Senators wishing to be heard? Seeing and hearing none, debate is closed. Senator Gianaris.

The bill will be restored to the noncontroversial calendar. Read the last section.

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

Thank you, Madam President. New York State has experts already that are very vocal on our energy needs -- NYISO, PSC. Matter of fact, Senator Parker was on a call just before session started and you know, right now New Yorkers, we cannot afford to come off of fossil fuels, especially our natural gas. Which I explained also too, just recently, the honor of groundbreaking with the great NESE pipeline that is coming into our state. That is very, very important that we have to keep our natural gas at this time frame. This bill is just something that is going to hurt all New Yorkers in a lot, a lot of ways. It is always the cart before the horse that's happening with bills like this. Our electric grid is antiquated in New York State, and especially on Long Island. We need to invest in infrastructure first and then transition to all sources of renewable energy. Like retooling our existing power plants for carbon capture, thermal energy, green hydrogen, and nuclear. Matter of fact, in committee meetings even Senator Parker has stated that having Indian Point being closed down was a disaster for New York State. And this timeline of this bill is not feasible. And again, New York State has agencies -- NYISO, PSC -- that are the experts that already have come out and stated, stated this already, that we cannot come off of our fossil-fuel plants at this time. So instead of hurting all New Yorkers in their pocketbooks and wallets -- and that's what we have been doing with this energy situation -- we need to make sure that we move ahead with the right sources of renewable energy. And that's why, Madam President, I vote no.

Thank you, Madam President. I was fascinated to hear Senator Walczyk say, quote, our ratepayers are in desperate times. Even though yesterday he spent a lot of time arguing against making our grid more efficient and more affordable. Yesterday he convinced most of his colleagues on the Republican side to vote against the interests of their constituents and bring down energy rates. So this bill is one of many that is designed to reduce our dependence on peak oil and gas and to steer us into a 21st-century energy future where we will be both more affordable and more gentle on our climate. And I vote aye.

Madam President, to explain my vote. We could again have different opinions about things, but the facts are the facts. And the reality and the fact of the matter is that energy rates are affected more by the global price of natural gas than any other factor, period. That's not a debate. That's literally the fact. And so anything, you know, beyond that, you're just making up things and just trying to have something to say. But if we had a, you know, presidential administration that was competent, that, you know, understood science, that didn't tell people to drink bleach, that didn't tell people that, you know, they're not seeing what they're actually seeing -- you know, they're telling people that, you know, it's okay to have high gas prices. I mean, the reality is we all have watched gas prices -- you know, now I'm not talking about natural gas, I'm now talking about gasoline -- the price of gasoline shoot up $2 in the last month since this war went on. We all experienced that. I had to come to Albany -- I need a bank loan just to come up to Albany. More than I get paid. Tell me how you do it when times is hard. Anyway, that being said, is that, you know, we can make up all kinds of facts, but the reality is that what's happening with the federal administration is a travesty, and that's what's having the hard effect on the pocketbooks of the people of this great state. And what we've done, as the Democratic Conference of the state Senate, is stand in that breach, stand in the midst and say we are going to take this on despite what the federal government has tried to do. And there is nothing that -- in the context of this bill that says that we should get rid of any energy. In fact, what it says is we should have a plan to get rid of the dirtiest plants while we simultaneously look for opportunities to build sustainable energy. It is what we've done and what we've continued to talk about. And even when we get clarification on it, you know, folks just want to say what they want to say. If we're going to have a debate, let's have an honest debate, let's have a clear debate, let's listen to each other and let's move with some integrity to make sure we're protecting the people of this great state. Thank you, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President. I'll be voting no. I thought I heard my good friend Senator Parker a few moments ago talk about the fact that he was not going to talk about President Trump and the war and all those things. And I thought to myself, well, if he's not going to do that, I'm not going to talk about the fact that it was the four-year period during which President Biden was the president that we saw the largest period of inflation in the history of the country, when we saw gas prices for four years go up and never come down. And we saw a whole lot of other things that really wrecked the country. But I want to say this. I'm tired of hearing my colleagues across the aisle propose bills that are going to lower the energy costs and the utility bills for people across New York. Every time I hear one of my colleagues say they have a bill that's going to reduce utility bills, they go up. So please, stop saying it.

Madam President, I just want to take the opportunity. I know it's the custom of this house to restrict comments when we refer to another Senator. I believe that one of my colleagues was referred to with regard to statements that were made and votes that were taken, and I would wish that that would be corrected in the moment rather than allow it to go unchecked. Thank you.

Thank you.

Yeah. I will be voting in the negative as well, not that Senator Lanza's comments need to be supplemented at all. But I would remind my colleagues across the aisle who continuously talk about facts and then ignore the fact that New York, in comparison to every other state that lives under the same federal administration, that lives under the same federal administrative decisions and policies -- that New York, by every measurable aspect, is failing on energy policy. Utility rates in the New York State, residential, 51 percent higher than the national average. Commercial utility rates, 60 percent higher than the national average. So please, I know that the other side is fascinated with talking about the presidential administration and how it's impacting New York State. What's impacting New York State are the policies that we're talking about right here, policies like the one we're voting on now, which will make utility rates even more expensive. And years from now we'll be sitting here complaining about the same exact thing. I'll be voting no. Thank you, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President. I too will be voting no. And I wasn't going to speak, but I want to associate my remarks with Senator Rhoads' and Senator Lanza's remarks. I've talked about this before. I will not let this chamber in Albany try to pass off the exorbitant energy prices that New Yorkers are paying on the world economy or the federal government, when no one has offered an explanation how New York's energy rates are 50 percent above the national average. And no one is objecting to NYSERDA's own reports that say the CLCPA is going to cost every New Yorker $4,000 more in energy costs. That is New York's doing. That is not a federal administration, that is not a war, that is not the global energy market. That is mistakes that have been made and continue to be made, ignored, and glossed over in this building.

I led with that.

In relation to Calendar 631, voting in the negative are Senators Ashby, Borrello, Canzoneri-Fitzpatrick, Chan, Gallivan, Griffo, Helming, Lanza, Martins, Mattera, Murray, Oberacker, O'Mara, Ortt, Rhoads, Stec, Tedisco, Walczyk, Weber and Weik. Ayes, 42. Nays, 20.

Calendar Number 644, Senate Print 1463A, by Senator Kavanagh, an act to amend the Environmental Conservation Law.

Madam President, just when you thought this day couldn't get more exciting, I'm wondering if he would -- if the sponsor would yield for some questions about used mattresses.

Madam President, I am honored to debate this bill on this floor again. And if reading is fundamental, mattresses are foundational -- (Laughter.)

And so I'm very proud to be able to have this conversation once again.

The Senator yields.

Through you, Madam President, I think my colleague is referring to a conversation we've had before, which is the question of whether this program should be funded by charging every consumer a fixed fee or whether the industry that is responsible for complying with this program ought to internalize those costs, find the most efficient way both to minimize the costs and distribute them among producers. Otherwise, the program in Connecticut and other states -- Connecticut is the earliest -- would be quite similar to this one. And basically our choice is to follow the way other states have done mattress EPR or follow the way our state has done EPR programs for most products. And we're choosing the latter. In our electronic recycling, in our waste recycling law, in our carpet EPR law, in the e-mobility scooter and bike battery bill that we did last year, our preference for various reasons is to, again, have the industry internalize the costs rather than charging our consumers an artificial fee. And I think it's unfortunate the other states have done that. But nonetheless their programs are otherwise quite successful, and I don't think the fee is the primary thing that drives whether these programs are successful. It is an element of making sure that the program is minimally costly to consumers.

Do you continue to yield?

The Senator yields.

Through you, Madam President. The way these programs are typically operated and the way this bill would permit them to be operated is that the industry would create usually a single organization that is statewide, called the producer responsibility organization. That is the way the industry has chosen to implement this in four other states. Theoretically an individual producer would be able to do something different. But it is quite likely, for efficiency's sake, that there would be a single producer organization. And there is no distinction at all in this bill, and no disadvantage to New York producers of mattresses, as opposed to producers anywhere else. The burden of complying with this law falls on the producers of mattresses that are sold in New York State. About a million mattresses are discarded each year in New York State. And regardless of where they're made, we want the mattress industry to take responsibility for that. Because of course the alternative to the industry taking responsibility for that is for our local governments to assume the cost of that in the disposal of these mattresses through increasingly scarce landfills. So again, there's no disadvantage in this bill for New York producers. If they are producing mattresses in New York and shipping them to other states, they wouldn't be affected by this. If producers in other places are shipping them to New York, they would be affected by this. The question is, who is responsible for mattresses that are used and discarded in the State of New York?

Do you continue to yield?

The sponsor yields.

Through you, Madam President, most of the products that we consume each day are not produced within the State of New York. And the enforcement challenge is probably about the same if it comes from Pennsylvania as it is if it comes from China. But we live in a global economy, and enforcing rules in that economy involves basically identifying the people participating in the economy and making sure they're complying with the law. In this case there are mattresses now sold through direct to consumer mail. There's been a lot of innovation in the mattress industry. Some of the things that are -- purport to be mattresses would not qualify as mattresses in this bill. But if you're purchasing a mattress, then you're purchasing it from typically a large-scale producer, and we would ensure that that producer complies with the law and that DEC would have that responsibility. It would be illegal to sell mattresses into the state if you're not complying with this law and you don't have -- you're not participating in the effort of the industry to collect them. I would note that the industry itself would be very likely -- like industry participants would be very likely to take note if there's some overseas producer that is selling mattresses and not participating in the collective effort of the mattress industry itself to comply with this law, because they would have free riders. So I don't believe that has been a problem with EPR in other states. I don't think it's been a problem with EPR for products in this state. Certainly our electronics are not mostly manufactured within the State of New York, and certainly one buys electronics from Dell, which is a Texas-based company but is probably shipping a lot of their products from overseas. And yet we've managed to do that for two decades now with electronic products. I don't believe that would be a particularly difficult challenge for the DEC and for the mattress industry to meet.

Will you continue to yield?

The Senator yields.

Through you, Madam President. First of all, just -- EPR is, by definition, a program that one applies to products that otherwise would not be collected because of the intrinsic value of the product. When we imposed EPR on electronics, we were recognizing partly that some of those large items, although they have valuable components, they are unlikely to get recycled through the normal course because the cost of implementing a particular recycling program by a particular producer is going to be greater than the value of the extracted products. And we do EPR because the companies are otherwise free-riding on our governmental entities, our taxpayer-funded entities, by forcing those entities to dispose of the products. So we're saving money at the end of life. We're also reducing the environmental burden by diminishing the amount of raw materials that need to go into the products. That is true of electronics, it's true of tires, it's true of mattresses. EPR works for a wide range of products because it is a very versatile tool. In terms of the question of why we don't -- back to the question of why we don't want to impose a fee, basically because government-mandated fixed fees for services are not typically efficient from the perspective of consumers. What would be efficient here is if we require the industry to provide a service at a certain level, which this bill does, and then we tell the industry, which private industry is very good at minimizing cost. They are very good at distributing cost among their different participating entities, the different companies in the business. And that is the most efficient way to minimize the cost of this program. And again, that is the premise of most of our EPR programs in New York. Although I would acknowledge my colleague mentioned one where we did a different -- we went a different direction, and that was paint. And that program was held up for many years by a dispute over the paint collection fee. I was in the Assembly at the time that that was being debated. I do believe that there was divided control of government at the time, and it was decided there would be a fee for paint. But again, the EPR programs we have in New York, especially the modern EPR programs that have been passed since 2010 or so, basically operate on the same principle as this program. And again, that is to maximize the efficiency from the perspective of consumers.

Do you continue to yield?

The sponsor yields.

Through you, Madam President. I do have legislation I would offer to my colleague for consideration, which is EPR for various household appliances. They actually are a pretty good target for EPR. But that is not the law in New York or any other state in America that I'm aware of. Although it is -- many other economies that are more advanced in this matter have considered it. I think some stoves and other appliances would be subject to EPR requirements in other states. But again, mattresses have valuable components. They have steel, often; they have wood; they have cotton. They have reusable components. It is the case that it is unlikely in our current system, if I have a mattress and I want to dispose of it, but I want to do it responsibly, I don't really have a mechanism for the valuable components of that to be extracted, and the industry has not provided such a mechanism. And an individual producer of mattresses would have trouble setting that up in an economically effective way. Charging me $20 to dispose of that mattress, as the four states -- that's roughly the fee in the four other states; it varies by a dollar or two. But roughly speaking, charging each consumer $20 every time they either want to purchase a mattress or dispose of a mattress, is not a way to minimize impacts on consumers. It is something that the industry has requested, because it would be to their benefit because they would not then need to run the program with maximum efficiency. I would note also that there is a difference of opinion among mattress producers. We do have mattress producers that our selling in our state that have insisted that they would prefer that the bill provide for a fee, but they would like the state to specify how the industry should choose the fee. And in particular, they think the fee should be lower for a cheaper mattress and higher for a more expensive mattress. And there are other sellers of mattresses that disagree with that principle and agree there should be a single fee, as there has been in four states. So even within the industry there are people lobbying the government to set a fixed price for this service, which is something that, generally speaking, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle see as not the role of government. And with respect to this particular service, it is not likely to make it -- to lower the net cost to consumers by the government mandating a $20 or so fee.

Do you continue to yield?

The Senator yields.

Through you, Madam President. My colleague is pointing out one of the deficiencies of the approach that the mattress industry is trying to -- some of the main purveyors of the mattress industry are trying to tell us to adopt. If I am someone who chooses to buy a mattress for $100, and the government is saying you've got to pay $20 on your purchase of that mattress, and someone else is choosing to buy a $1000 mattress and the government is telling that person they also pay $20, regardless of the cost of actually making the mattress or of recycling it, that is an odd thing, in my view, for the government to do, to impose a single fixed fee regardless of other circumstances. It's not efficient and it is probably not fair to the person who's economizing and purchasing a $100 mattress. And in any case, what this bill says is that the same entities that make up the Sleep Products Association that are lobbying us on this bill would have the opportunity to create a rational set of factors to determine how the cost of that program should be paid. And again, this is not, in my view, a primary element of this program. We haven't talked about other elements. But this program -- I've conceded that the other four states have programs that work well. Connecticut is collecting 90 percent of all mattresses about 10 years after implementation of the program. But I don't think the success of the program in collecting is a result of the fee. And I don't think a different cost structure of this program is going to have a material effect on whether the industry complies. They will comply, as they do, because they're, you know, law-abiding companies, and we'll have high rates of collection. And again, consumers will benefit because they'll have a convenient way of disposing of the product. Large-scale consumers like housing authorities and hospitals and people who be disposing of a hundred mattresses at a time will have the industry come collect those mattresses and do something efficient for them. So again, there's a variety of efficiencies here. We have differed -- we've had this conversation about this fee before. I doubt I will convince my colleague that this is the optimal way to do this. I think it's an optimal way to do it, and that's why it's in the bill. But in any case, what we're doing here is moving forward with a program that will save localities a lot of money, that will reduce resource use. And that these programs are popular with consumers, because most consumers don't think putting their mattress out on the curb or bringing it to a landfill and watching it be buried somewhere is a particularly good thing to do. I will note that in the two years the industry has been opposing this bill, about 2 million mattresses have gone to landfills all over our state, and that is a waste.

Senator Borrello on the bill.

Thank you, Senator Borrello. Are there any other Senators wishing to be heard? Seeing and hearing none, debate is closed. Senator Gianaris.

The bill has been restored to the noncontroversial calendar. Read the last section.

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

Thank you. I'll be brief. I appreciate the -- another opportunity to discuss this, perhaps the last time in this chamber because maybe the Assembly will join us in passing it. I do want to say that EPR is a very important tool to deal with a wide range of our environmental problems, our waste system. It creates a lot of our climate-changing emissions. Our continued effort to produce new raw materials to make products that we use and then dispose of is very detrimental to the environment across the world. I want to thank the Environmental Conservation chair, Pete Harckham, for bringing this forth once again through the committee, and the leader for including it in today's Earth Day package. And I proudly vote aye, perhaps for the last time on this bill in this chamber. Thank you very much.

In relation to Calendar 644, voting in the negative are Senators Ashby, Borrello, Canzoneri-Fitzpatrick, Chan, Cooney, Gallivan, Griffo, Helming, Lanza, Martinez, Mattera, Murray, Oberacker, O'Mara, Ortt, Palumbo, Rhoads, Scarcella-Spanton, Stec, Tedisco, Walczyk, Weber and Weik. Ayes, 39. Nays, 23.

Calendar Number 650, Senate Print 9268A, by Senator Fahy, an act to amend the Environmental Conservation Law.

Madam President, I believe there's an amendment at the desk. I waive the reading of that amendment and ask that you recognize Senator Helming.

Accordingly, Madam President, I appeal the ruling of the chair and ask that Senator Helming be heard on that appeal.

Thank you, Madam President. This amendment is clearly germane. The bill before us bans PFAS in consumer products like anti-fogging sprays and wipes. The amendment that I brought forward -- it's Senate Bill 8933 -- addresses banning the exact same chemicals, PFAS, where the potential for impact is far greater. This chamber has already taken action to restrict PFOS in products like food packaging and apparel because of the risks that they pose. So, Madam President, I'm standing up to ask the question, why would we allow them in solar panels that cover thousands of acres of our land, solar panels that potentially contain PFAS? These forever chemicals can leach into soil and move into our food supply, water bodies, and drinking water.

I'm on the Fahy --

Yeah, Madam President, can we have the desk just see if they have the bill that Senator Helming was referring to as the hostile or what was presented to us? (Pause.)

Madam President, it's my understanding that the desk has the same version I have, which is the actual underlying bill presented as the hostile amendment.

Hold on. Senator Lanza, yes.

And so I ask that you recognize Senator Helming on the bill.

Okay, we're all good? All right. On the bill. Thank you, Madam President. So the bill before us bans PFAS in consumer products like anti-fogging sprays and wipes, something that I totally support. These are very dangerous chemicals. I have a Senate bill that I'm hoping the Majority will consider, Senate Bill 8933, that addresses banning the same chemicals, PFAS, where the potential impact is far greater. This chamber, in addition to the bill that's before us right now, has already taken action to restrict PFAS in products like food packaging and apparel because of the risks that they pose. So we need to follow through and ban the same in solar panels that cover thousands of acres of land, solar panels that may contain PFAS. These forever chemicals can leach into soil and move into our food supply, water bodies, and drinking water. The DEC has focused extensively on PFAS in drinking water, determining this to be a major pathway for human exposure. And that's exactly why we must take further action, we must take the necessary steps to protect public health. We must do more in addition to the bill that's before us. The bill that I have would prohibit the use of intentionally added PFAS in solar panels. In my district, the Avon community recognized this very real risk and adopted a law in 2021 prohibiting PFAS-containing solar panels. But currently New York State law -- some in this body created ORES. And under ORES, ORES has the ability to override local laws it deems unreasonably burdensome that puts local protections like the one that Avon has put in place, at risk. That's why it's so important to pass not only the bill that's before us, but a bill like mine to ban unnecessary PFAS in solar panels. And I just want to comment, I heard earlier the same thing I heard last week, that facts are facts. So here are a few of my facts. First, all 50 states have the same president. Second fact: New York rates are well above the national average despite having the same president as the other states. There's a third fact, that our residential electric rates are rising faster than the national trend. Another fact. I heard conversations today around bills that -- this body has proposed a number of bills and passed them and touted them as ways to lower our energy costs. And that just hasn't been the case at all. We need to continue to work to reduce energy costs, and we also need to work by passing bills like my banning PFAS in solar panels, to address a public health issue. So, Madam President, I appreciate the opportunity to kind of stretch my hostile amendment into an explanation of the bill. Thank you.

Madam President, let's restore this bill to the noncontroversial calendar, please.

Section 3. This act shall take effect on the 180th day after it shall have become a law.

Announce the results.

The bill is passed.

Senator Rhoads, why do you rise?

Senator Stavisky, are you willing to yield?

Senator Stavisky would be delighted to yield.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Okay, sorry about that.

It's still part of the Governor's program bill.

Thank you. Madam President, will the sponsor continue to yield.

Yes.

Through you, Madam President. It's my understanding that the bill actually amends two sections of the Public Health Law: Section 2164, that actually deals with immunizations for all children initially, and then for 6th-grade immunizations, 7th-through-12th-grade immunizations, and then adult immunizations; and Section 2803, which deals specifically with immunization scheduling for newborns. I'm going to stick with 2164 to start. Under this bill, does it remove the requirement that immunizations be administered under federal guidelines?

And will the sponsor continue to yield.

Do you continue to yield?

The Senator yields.

The term "United States Public Health Service" is an antiquated term. It's no longer in use. And instead we do, though, authorize the federal government and look to them for advice.

Do you continue to yield?

The Senator yields.

It also authorizes the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, known as ACIP. The changes in this legislation, it's more -- it gives them more flexibility and helps define who can do what. With the -- with the advice of the New York State Department of Health.

Yes.

Immunization practices currently -- if this were not to become law, our immunization schedule -- our immunizations would be bound by guidelines passed by Health and Human Services and ACIP, the Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices. Is that not correct?

Will the sponsor continue to yield.

Yes.

Well, I certainly appreciate the commentary, Senator. But the question was the federal standards that currently New York State must abide by in order for immunizations are removed by this bill, is that not correct?

Will the sponsor continue to yield.

Yes.

So the standards that are approved by the Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices, ACIP; Centers for Disease Control; and the Department of Health and Human Services are now vested solely in the Commissioner of Health under this legislation, correct?

Will the sponsor continue to yield.

Yes.

Through you, Madam President. And which other organizations would that be?

And will the sponsor continue to yield?

Yes.

Through you, Madam President. Senator Stavisky, are you not concerned that the commissioner, the Health Commissioner would no longer be bound by any federal standard and that the guardrails of transparency and disclosure and requirements that organizations on those federal committees who make decisions on vaccines must disclose conflicts of interest of any direct financial or institutional conflicts?

Will the sponsor continue to yield?

Yes, the Senator yields.

Madam President, it's my understanding the rules do not permit individual names from being mentioned.

I'm sorry. Proceed.

Yes, certainly I don't intend any disrespect. As the sponsor of the legislation, I'm simply referring to you by name as opposed to saying "the sponsor."

The language in the legislation says (reading) in accordance with regulations issued by the commissioner utilizing generally accepted medical standards, and taking into consideration recommendations of the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American College of Physicians, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices and/or other similarly nationally or internationally recognized scientific organizations. Where is the requirement in here that the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices' guidelines must be followed by the commissioner?

Will the sponsor continue to yield.

Yes.

So back to my earlier question -- through you, Madam President. Back to my earlier question, the federal government has guidelines, guardrails for transparency such as disclosure, requirements that organizations and those on federal committees who make decisions on vaccines have to disclose any conflicts of interest or any direct financial or institutional conflicts. Where is there similar protection within this legislation for the bodies that are recommended by this legislation that our Health Commissioner now look at it?

Thank you. Will the sponsor continue to yield?

Oh, I'm sorry.

Will the sponsor continue to yield.

The Senator yields.

It would be extremely onerous on the part of government to try to investigate that whole litany of organizations that are part of the equation, so to speak.

Yes.

Through you, Madam President. Well, the federal government does that. And we're now replacing the federal government with this new state standard which you're now saying is too onerous to be able to avoid potential conflicts of interest and financial considerations. Why would that be too onerous? And why are we replacing the federal regulation if it's too onerous for the state to be able to do it and the federal government already does it?

Will the sponsor continue to yield.

Yes, the Senator yields.

Well, first of all, the membership of these organizations are constantly in transition. Membership changes probably several times a year. People either join or leave these organizations. So it's very difficult to respond to that question.

Yes.

My concern specifically is with respect to this legislation now authorizing the Commissioner of Health to consult with international organizations, which have no allegiance to or no standards recognized by state or federal government. Is there any concern -- do you have any concern about using those organizations -- for example, such as the World Health Organization -- as a source for how New York State is now basing its vaccination policy?

Under --

Yes, I'm sorry, will the sponsor continue to yield?

Yes, the Senator yields.

You know, there's no requirement that a parent bring a child for the vaccination. That's I think the major point. This is optional on the part of the parent or guardian, because this pertains to COVID. (Pause.)

The first section -- I don't know if that was the section you were citing -- are obviously required for children attending school. Others are optional.

Yes.

With respect to the amendments to Section 2803 of the Public Health Law, which deals specifically with respect to the vaccine schedule for newborns, it appears as though there are no standards that are set forth as to how those decisions are to be made. It's simply vested in the Governor's Commissioner of Health.

Right. It's -- will the sponsor continue to yield.

Yes.

So I do understand that it would be solely up to the Commissioner of Health to make a decision as to when those vaccines are supposed to be administered, when those doses are -- if there's supposed to be multiple doses of those vaccine, and in what order those vaccines are supposed to be administered. One question that I do have with respect to that is that it does contain language in Section 8A of the bill that says the immunization schedule shall chart out recommended immunizations against certain diseases and illnesses and age-appropriate times for the administration of each immunization. My question is, the language that says "shall chart out recommended immunizations," does that vest the Health Commissioner with additional authority to add immunizations not listed by law in earlier sections to the immunization schedule?

Will the sponsor continue to yield.

Do you continue to yield? Yes, the Senator yields.

No, that is not the case. There are two different sections. One deals with children starting school, requiring certain immun -- immuniz -- certain vaccines. And the other is totally different.

Senator Rhoads on the bill.

Thank you.

Are there any other Senators wishing to be heard? Seeing and hearing none, debate is closed. Senator Gianaris.

The bill is restored to the noncontroversial calendar. Read the last section.

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

Thank you, Madam President. This is a very concerning bill. This bill -- just one of the things this bill does is to amend the definition of immunization in the state statute, changing the law to provide that it is not necessary to be based on the federal recommendations, which should concern all of us. Once again, New York State, so heavy-handed in mandating one-size-fits-all medicine. Which we know, if I asked everybody in this room to take an aspirin, many of you could not, due to health concerns or other medication you're taking, because there's no such thing as one-size-fits-all medicine. This eliminates individual medical choice, which I know my colleagues on the other side are very supportive of individual medical choice. It eliminates individual medical decisions. And it totally eliminates parental consent, which is so important. And for those reasons I'll be voting in the negative.

Yes, thank you, Senator, for the questions. I too am concerned. I'm concerned about the widespread issue of communicable diseases such as measles coming from Texas, et cetera. I'm concerned about the fake science coming out of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.'s department. There are many issues that concern me. And the issue -- one of the issues, and I'm delighted to hear my friends on the other side of the aisle talk about choice. But I also want to emphasize that nobody -- aside from the school part, nobody is saying to anybody that you must immunize your child with the COVID vaccine. Madam President, I vote aye.

Thank you, Madam President. I just want to thank the bill's sponsor. I do think this is a well-thought-out bill. I'll be voting in the affirmative because I believe in science and keeping children safe. So thank you.

In relation to Calendar 658, voting in the negative are Senators Ashby, Borrello, Canzoneri-Fitzpatrick, Chan, Gallivan, Griffo, Helming, Lanza, Martinez, Martins, Mattera, Murray, Oberacker, O'Mara, Ortt, Palumbo, Rhoads, Rolison, Stec, Tedisco, Walczyk, Weber and Weik. Ayes, 39. Nays, 23.

Calendar Number 697, Senate Print 6570A, by Senator Harckham, an act to amend the Environmental Conservation Law.

Madam President, I hope the sponsor would yield.

I do.

Through you, Madam President. This bill increases the distributed solar requirement of the CLCPA from 6 gigawatts to 20 gigawatts, tripling even more the requirement. Why?

Through you, Mr. President, would the sponsor continue to yield?

Through you, Mr. President.

Through you, Mr. President. Now, we're talking about solar capacity, the nameplate, we're not talking about capacity factor of solar when we say that 20 gigawatts, is that correct? (Pause.)

Would the sponsor continue to yield?

Yes.

Yeah, but just specifically, we're talking about nameplate 20 gigawatts, we're not talking about capacity factor?

And would the sponsor continue to yield.

Yes.

The capacity factor for solar in New York is anywhere between 10 and 20 percent. That's the efficiency obviously, you know, at nighttime, you're getting close to zero solar. And we live in a climate that's a little bit darker and a little bit more cloudy than others, so we don't get as much efficiency out of solar panels in New York. How much energy do you anticipate will actually be produced and put into the grid from this 20 gigawatts of nameplate solar capacity?

Through you, Mr. President, sorry for the delay. It's really tough to quantify that number because it does depend on a number of factors, some of which you elicited. However, solar has been such a success in New York at driving down individual residential rates, folks who have solar. We look at the State of Texas. And as colleagues know, I'm not one to often quote us as saying we need to emulate Texas. But when we talk about the difference in utility rates, it's because of the high blend of renewables in their portfolio. After they had the great blizzard of a decade ago, all of their new generation -- all of their new generation -- has been in renewables. And according to the Texas state comptroller, they've saved their ratepayers $30 billion. So we know the smart use of distributed solar and other renewable technologies can lower costs, and that's what this bill aims to do with this additional deployment.

Will the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Through you, Mr. President, that's a good question. This is the smaller-size solar. These are not the big projects that go before ORES. These are not the big projects that, you know, take up an entire valley of farmland. A lot of this can be done on individual rooftops. It can be done on warehouse rooftops, on solar canopy over carports. This is a much smaller footprint. This also would allow farmers to use a portion of their farmland and retain lease income as a way to supplement their income and still have the majority of their land for farming. So this is -- this is really only up to 5 megawatts. It's 1 megawatt to 5 megawatts. That's about enough power for a little less than a thousand homes. So this is really the smaller, low-impact. A lot of -- perfectly suitable for urban and semi-urban communities as well.

Will the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Through you, Mr. President. You know, with respect, I just don't know where you got that calculation, so I'm not going to comment on the calculation. But through you, Mr. President. As we discussed before, this is the smaller-scale solar. This can be on individual rooftops, this can be on warehouse rooftops, this can be on shopping mall carports. This can be on municipal parking lots. In my district, the Village of Croton, their Metro-North parking lot built a massive solar canopy, which is a great use. And so with the technology as evolved as it has, panels are much, much more efficient. They don't need the concentration of sun that they used to. They can work quite well in partial sun, partial shade. I think -- I think one of the biggest differences -- you know, we were talking about Texas before. I think one of the biggest differences, Mr. President, is that they don't have local zoning. They -- you know, you can have a Home Depot next to a residence, you know, and that's just Texas's state policy. All of these would be subject to local planning zoning or special-use permit, depending on the local municipality's laws and zoning surrounding these things. So there will be local control. I know we like to talk a lot about local control and mandates. With this size project, all of them will be under local control.

Will the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Through you, Mr. President. To answer your question, those details are in the NY-Sun program, which is part of this bill. NY-Sun was part of the stimulus program that helped us get to -- we're now at about 8 gigawatts. We've surpassed the 6. And so one of the elements of this bill, one of the three major components, calls for the PSC and NYSERDA to restart NY-Sun. That's where those criteria are laid out, between 1 and 5 megawatts. And just by their nature, those projects are not the massive -- they can't be greater than 5 megawatts, and so those are not the massive ones. For instance, I saw a proposed site with Senator Hinchey in Columbia County where this company literally wanted to take an entire valley that was, by my guess, what, a mile, two miles long? You know, it would have been massive. These are nothing, nothing like that.

Will the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Through you, Mr. President. They will be able to put solar on land.

Will the sponsor yield?

The sponsor will yield momentarily. (Pause.)

Mr. President, would the sponsor continue to yield.

Yes.

That's a great figure -- through you, Mr. President, that's a great figure, 40,000 acres in New York City. So I calculated between 200,000 and 300,000 acres would be required to meet that 20 gigawatts that you're adding here in this bill. Where would that acreage come from, or what is your number on what that acreage requirement would be for the amount of distributed solar in New York?

Would the sponsor continue to yield.

Yes.

But use of farmland is not prohibited in this legislation, as long as it's 5 megawatts or less. The projects could be next to each other, is that correct?

Would the sponsor continue to yield?

Yes.

Utility companies would have to build interconnection by order of the PSC under this legislation. How much will that cost ratepayers?

Would the sponsor continue to yield?

Yes.

Through you, Mr. President. And I know you've included some cost transparency requirements for the utility companies on that. I would ask for some cost transparency requirements for the ratepayers. I know you say ultimately they're going to enjoy cost savings. Many of my constituents see this buildout and don't believe that they're ever going to see cost savings. Could you be honest and let the body know how much this is going to cost ratepayers up-front to build the interconnection for distributed solar? (Pause.)

Would the sponsor continue to yield?

Yes.

My question was specifically how much is it going to cost the utility ratepayers up-front.

Would the sponsor continue to yield.

Yes.

There's a perfect illustration. So currently solar developers are also in charge of that interconnection at the cost of ratepayer subsidies, in some cases for PILOTs, taxpayer money, tax credits, all of the things that the developers put together to pay for that interconnection. My question, again, is how much is it going to cost the ratepayers when you shift that interconnection onto the utility companies so now people are paying for the interconnection on their utility bills? (Pause.)

Mr. President, would the sponsor continue to yield.

Yes.

I see that it's going to be difficult for me to find out how much the ratepayers are going to be paying for probably various portions of this bill, so I'm going to skip some of those. But I do have a question. On page 3, under 6A, you're talking about distributed energy resource capacity expansion. And the -- so line 10, create distributed energy resource hosting capacity. Are you talking about batteries in that section?

Okay, thanks. Mr. President, on the bill.

This bill would require that the state see more than, by my calculation, one out of every 200 acres in the State of New York, whether it be rooftop -- well, we don't have that many rooftops -- be covered in solar panels. It requires ratepayers to pay directly for the cost of connecting solar to the grid, and indirectly for this whole experiment. Solar panels are getting better. They're still only 10 to 20 percent efficient in our state. And covering New York State with solar panels to have less reliable, more fluctuating power is not fiscally prudent, in my opinion not smart, and not very forward thinking. ORES has ignored the will of the people and their local governments. Last week a package of bills pretended that we were going to do something about energy costs in the State of New York. This bill does not pretend. This bill will lower property values, it will reduce natural beauty and, ultimately, New York's population. The only thing that will continue to go up is our electric rates in the State of New York. I'll be voting no and encourage my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. President, we've agreed to restore this bill to the noncontroversial calendar.

Section 8. This act shall take effect immediately.

Senator May to explain her vote.

Senator May to be recorded in the affirmative. Senator Harckham to explain his vote.

Senator Harckham to be recorded in the affirmative. Senator Walczyk to explain his vote.

Senator Walczyk to be recorded in the negative. Announce the results.

The bill is passed.

Senator Walczyk, why do you rise?

Yes, I believe that Senator Parker is going to handle this bill on behalf of Senator Krueger. Do you agree to questions?

Yes, the Senator agrees.

Madam President, through you. As you know, the CLCPA, which, you know, we lovingly call the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act, is the ruling guide for environmental energy policy in our state. The whole idea is to reduce methane and -- and carbon footprint across the State of New York. And part one of the big drivers for both methane and CO2 is natural gas and other fossil fuels that are burnt in the production of energy. The more sustainable clean energy we can produce, the less reliant both our constituents and the state is on fossil fuels. What this bill does is allow for plug-in solar. It actually puts the power literally in the hands of our constituents. It allows them to generate their own electricity and simultaneously both reduce their carbon footprint and their energy bills, immediately. These systems are used widely across the world, particularly in Germany, where there's over 4 million units being used as we speak. In fact, 4 million and one, because they just apparently just added one just recently as I was talking. So there is a, you know, widely used energy technology that's being used by residential energy customers in Germany. We believe that this is going to be important for here in New York. And we believe that it's going to help our customers reduce the carbon footprint of New York, both their own and the collective carbon footprint. It will produce energy for folks and simultaneously reduce their energy bills.

Do you continue to yield?

The sponsor yields.

Madam President, again, the CLCPA is the ruling guide for the state. It directs us to reduce our carbon footprint and our methane footprint by producing less energy than using fossil fuels. This bill encourages residential solar. The more residential solar we are producing, the less carbon-producing fossil fuels we have to burn to produce energy. So this fits within the context of the CLCPA by giving residents an opportunity to produce their own electricity, thus reducing their CO2 and methane footprint and the collective footprint of us in the state, as well as simultaneously producing energy and lowering their energy costs.

Do you continue to yield?

The sponsor yields.

Okay. Through you, Madam President. The expert analysis that I've been provided is indicating a couple of things. It's really primarily bifurcated. Overall, offset usage is going to be somewhere between 12 and 18 percent. Everything under 390 kilowatts is going to be credited to residential customers. Above that, 391 and above -- and I think it's to 1200, will then be net-metered. And so that's how the crediting will happen by the utility and the customer.

Do you continue to yield?

The sponsor yields.

Madam President, through you. It can't be more than 1200 -- what's the unit? Madam President, through you, it cannot be collectively more than 1200 kilowatts per resident.

Do you continue to yield?

The sponsor yields.

Madam President, through you. The requirements around allowing these systems to be safely operated by residents is actually regulated through the Department of State through the Fire Code Council of -- in the State -- the Secretary of State's office. Right? And so it is a code that is used generally statewide, right, and is congruous with local fire rules and regulations.

Do you continue to yield?

The sponsor yields.

Madam President, yes, that is correct.

Yes.

Through you, Madam President. So how do -- how, if you're net-metering, does the utility have -- does the utility have some kind of mechanism within these panels to control its power if they're net-metering?

Would the sponsor continue to yield?

Yes, Madam President.

Through you, Madam President. The National Electric Code -- and I know you mentioned Germany. It took Germany a few years to get their national electric code ready for this. Our National Electric Code hasn't addressed this at all, but I know a number of states across the country, because of consumer demand, and understandably so, a number of states are passing it. Is there anything in New York State's code that specify addresses this?

Would the sponsor continue to yield?

Yes.

Sorry about the awkward pause. I thought you were going to give something else, but you were just reading.

Through you, Madam President. And I see that there's a requirement like there is in Germany for users to tell their utility when they purchase one of these balcony solar devices. Is there an incentive in this bill for users to tell -- because you mentioned 4 million and 10, but I think there are in the hundreds of thousands of registered devices. So obviously there's millions more than have registered in Germany. Is there an incentive for New Yorkers to tell their utility -- I know there are requirements there, but anything that would encourage them to do so?

Thank you. Madam President, on the bill.

I appreciate your answers. I think especially as New Yorkers are facing high utility costs, consumers are looking for options, and I think this is one smart way that they can control some of those things. I do think we have more work to do. So as I will support this bill and encourage my colleagues also to consider the things that we discussed in the debate, I don't think we're done yet. I think there's some things that we need to address on safety and how this syncs up with our entire grid as these start to pour into New York if this bill becomes law. And with that, thank you, Madam President.

Madam President, for the final time today, we've agreed to restore this bill to the noncontroversial calendar.

Section 5. This act shall take effect immediately.

Senator May to explain her vote.

Thank you, Senator May, for reading Senator Krueger's comments on today's bill. Announce the results.

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

There is no further business at the desk.

On motion, the Senate stands adjourned until Wednesday, April 22nd, at 11:00 a.m. (Whereupon, at 8:28 p.m., the Senate adjourned.)